San Diego Police Brutality, Harassment, and Living with PTSD

The City of San Diego and the San Diego Police Department have a well-documented history of discrimination against me. I have been physically assaulted by SDPD twice without impunity, had two unlawful attempts made at having my gun rights stripped from me, harrass me by writing inactionable patking citations, and stalk me around my own neighborhood. The first assault occurred over Memorial Day weekend of 2018 when I was dragged out of my car for changing my mind about making a left turn into a tacoshop parking lot that was closing in less than 10 minutes after leaving the law library from a night of studying. The police officer wrongfully accused me of DWI, ripped me out of my vehicle, held me down by the neck, falsely imprisioned me, wrongfully impounded my vehcile, and caused a plethora of health issues ranging from PTSD, physical injuries, loss of companionship, job less, and more. The latest attack occurred on November 30, 2023 after studing at a local cafe–I came out to an illegal parking ticket for parking in a prominently marked, designated city parking spot in a residential neighborhood. I have been written over 40 tickets over the course of seven years, the most tickets I have ever received in my life, and only 4 of them have been actionable. The time consumed fighting city corruption has a SEVERE negative impacts on my work, ability to take care of myself, my family, friends, mental, and physical health.

The Right Questions to Ask BEFORE Hiring an Attorney

"It's called the American Dream because you have to be asleep to believe it."— George Carlin Unfortunately, bad lawyers are just a few of the bad actors who might materialize in your dreams, and manifest into your reality as waking nightmares if you are not prudent. This is why the selection of a good lawyer is important from the onset of your legal matter. I have learned through personal experience how critical the right attorney is to the proper advocation, settlement, and resolution of a claim. Below, I am going to share my knowledge and experience as both, a lawyer and client, as well as some of the strategies I have used in my own selection of representation: ***WARNING*** The following is NOT legal advice and is to be construed only as LEGAL INFORMATION. You will hear this from almost EVERY attorney in which you contact for possible representation. Trust me, they will make it abundatnly clear for liability purposes, that beyond listening to your story to determine whether or not you have a viable case, there is to be ZERO confusion about there being the existence of, or even a small inkling of an attonry/client relationship until an agreement for legal representation has been signed. And for good reason because by the sheer virtue of thier position as legal professionals, anything construed as legal advice could land a lawyer in hotwater! This article is intended to promote critical thinking about the strengths and weaknesses of each reader's own unique, individual legal claims. Ultimately, it is the reader or person seeking information about how to proceed with his or her legal claims decision: Self-representation or the more costly route (but oftentimes necessary one) of hiring an attorney. In fact, it would be rather absurd for a stranger over the internet to construe a legal article intended for informational purposes as a contract for legal services.
1. REPRESENTATION MATTERS: In Pro Per is short for, "In Propria Persona" which is a fancy legal way of referring to a person acting as his or her own attorney. It is THE person choosing self representation and by default initiating and defending legal claims without the aid of a licensed legal professional. In my opinion, it is always a good idea to hire a lawyer. As much as we all despise legal fees, there is oftentimes a reason other than greed, that lawyers get paid so well. Aside from the fact that law school is a six figure career choice situation (*gasp*), legal work is extremely tedious and time consuming. Not to mention that the legal field is an ever evolving, constantly changing industry (yes, it is an industry and you would be misinformed to think otherwise)that demands a lawyer's knowledge of the law to be current as the changes occur which requires heavy amounts of research to ensure the most current laws, codes, practices, procedures, regulations, etcetera are being used. This is critical for the reason that if a lawyer or in pro per litigant is not using the most current, up to date law(s) and practices for each court jursidiction's own unique rules, your legal complaint will never see the light of day!
With that being said, of course there are many reasons why people may choose to represent themselves: a. Represention NOT Allowed: Unless you're an actual lawyer, litigants are not allowed to have a lawyer in SMALL CLAIMS court. Thus, albeit it be good or bad, everyone in small claims court is representing themselves (except lawyers who wind up in the small claims court). b. Affordability: Many choose to forfeit hiring a lawyer due to the high costs associated with retaining legal representation. If you're unable to afford a lawyer, I reccomend to start first by looking into free avaialble resources. Each state has its own state bar association which is supposed to assist the public with access to the legal system. Access includes, but is not limited to matching clients with attorneys who will take cases on a contingent fee agreement (i.e., a type of legal fee agreeement in which the lawyer/law firm agrees to foot the bill for all upfront costs associated with litigation, and the lawyer/law firm only receives compensation (i.e., a percentage of the recovery, judgment, settlement, etcetera) IF the outcome is in favor of the client). State bar associations license, regulate, and sanction (i.e., penalize) attorneys for misconduct as well in the event the outcome is unfavorable as a result of attorney MISCONDUCT. Heavy emphasis on misconduct for the reason of simply being butthurt over the outcome of a case (i.e., judgment/verdict, settlement amount, court order(s), etcetera) does not always arise to the level of actual attorney misconduct. I provide this extraneous information in order to encourage everyone to please report attorney misconduct because apparently there are not enough people doing this or we wouldn't have so many bad and/or incompetent actors in the profession! Contrary to popular belieft, lawyers are not above the law (or GOD). I will be honest though, not all state bar associations are created equal-some are OBJECTIVELY better than others. It has been my own personal experience that the one time I have utilized the San Diego County Bar Association (i.e., the ONLY and last time most likely I'll ever reach out to them for assistance), the SDCBA was neither insightful nor helpful: I received three attorney referrals to which I never received an answer or return phone call. One of the references didn't even have a voicemail setup! All I'm saying is don't hold your breath for the calvary to arrive...It's a free service and it (unfortunately) oftentimes shows. c. Confidence: As previously mentioned, there is a ton of work that goes on both, up front and behind the scenes in regards to initiating a lawsuit. It requires requisite legal knowledge of current law, legal research, procedures of the court overseeing your case, FILING DEADLINES, FILING DEADLINES, and FILING DEADLINES. If you feel confident in your capabilities to research, initiate, maintain, meet various deadlines, and timely respond to opposing counsel, then self representation (and a lucrative career in the legal profession might as well be for you). In this case, confidence is acieved by placing All this to say, some people actually choose to self-representation even if they are able to afford a lawyer for the reason they have confidence they can handle the case by themselves. d. Best Option Available: When representation is either disallowed or unaccessible,the right resources are unobtainable or unavailable, free community resources or self-representation is for sure better than no representation at all. A body is well, better than no body at all. So YES, REPRESENTATION MATTERS (Even if it's just you). I will end by stating that an often overlooked, but very important resource that people fail to take into consideration is the extremely valuable, finite resource known as TIME. Time is money, and vice versa. Take into consideration that the money benefit you are saving in litigation costs are being exchanged (i.e., consumed) for your time. If you live an active lifestyle, are a town socialite, or just another regular Joe with too much on your plate, think about all of the extra, non-existent hours you're going to have to yield doing legal research and being a jr. mint attorney! 2. TYPE OF CASES AND CLAIMS MATTER: It is important you know exactly what kind of case and claims you have for the reason that knowing exactly what type of claims and/or case you have is essential to not only selecting the right attorney but ensuring that your retained counsel is capable of representing you throughout the entirety of your case once it is filed. Let me explain: a. Right Attorney: It is CRUCIAL that you find a lawyer who has the relevant legal experience within the practice area(s) you need. TAKE YOUR TIME SEARCHING FOR THE RIGHT LAWYER. If you are unsure, conduct a "Google Search" for types of attorneys and crossreference attorney directories to ensure that you are only receiving search results for lawyers specific to your legal claims. Check with your state bar associations but don't hold your breath for them to provide any meaningful insight to your situation.You can also review a lawyer's legal background and disciplinary record on your state bar website. It may sound like common sense, but common sense is not very common in today's world. Furthermore, people get blinded by the prestige, glitz and glamour of the profession and titles...DO NOT BE ONE OF THESE PEOPLE!!! b. State or Federal Court Case: As the Plaintiff, it is important to have a lawyer prepared to defend your case not only in state court, but in the event that a Defendant meets the requirements for removing a case from state to federal court, the attorney needs to be prepared to defend you regardless of which court has jurisdiction (i.e., state or federal) over your claims. OR, the lawyer should candid about his or her capabilites and have you already prepared menatlly to seek out other attorneys or have a few referrals on hand. The same concept applies in the event that your case begins in federal court and gets remanded back to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction, improper venue, etcetera. c. Civil, Criminal, or BOTH: This is huge for the reason that the type of case (i.e., civil or criminal) will determine the rules, procedures, outcomes, and CONSEQUENCES resulting from the claim(s). Competence is ALWAYS important in respect to the law, but it is more important (in my humble opinion) in criminal court proceedings for the reason that a Defendant's life (i.e., liberty, and property) may literally hang in the balance. More oftentimes than not, criminal liability also leads to civil liability. Therefore, selecting a lawyer based on area of legal need and strategy could potentially take precedence over other considerations. Of course, if money is no object, if one can afford to retain, the lawyer will not complain. 3. Reputation: Unless you have reproductive organs of steel, this is not necessarily a question to ask directly to your attorney, but perhaps one you should put to yourself (and an internet search engine instead): "What is the professional reputation of ABC law firm?". Moreover, what have real people said about them in reviews? If you have access to any of the major legal search engines (i.e., Bloomberg Law, Lexis Nexis, WestLaw, Klein Online, etc.), you can easily look up statistics for attorneys and judges almost as if looking at sports draft picks! It is important that legal professionals take the practice's professional ethics seriously, because while people's general beliefs and opinions don't really matter for the reason that people in today's world are HORRIBLE judges of character for the fact that our soceity is in rapid moral decay, opinions matter moreso in terms of "branding". In a world where even the most greasist of greaseballs tend to be judgment proof, we all hopefull strive to select the least greasiest of greaseballs possible. Final Takeaway: In pro per or no, that is the question. The decision is up to each individual litigant and always results in a binding decision that each litigant may have to abide by indefinitely.Each choice has its own unique sets of pros and cons.

Dear Police and White People: My Black Existence is NOT a 10-31

It is no societal secret to anyone with a beating heart, that America's criminal justice and other legal systems are in need of a serious overhaul. In a world where cellular phones receive more updates than a living, breathing document (i.e., the American Constitution) which houses the source of all governmental powers and freedoms is absolutely appalling. Unfortunately, like this antiquated document, not a lot has changed since the signing of what James Madison affectionately dubbed, a "bundle of compromises". Needless to say, not a lot of compromises were made either. Once the ink dried inside Independence Hall on September 17, 1787, slaves and women were still not considered to be actual people and the right to vote was a power vested only in rich, white male landowners. 

This should come as no surprise considering the Constitution came into effect as a means for the country's elite to put down future uprisings by strengthening the powers of the federal government. A not so novel idea presented by none other than founding father and man who wears dentures derived from the teeth of slaves, George Washington. In August 1786, Revolutionary War veteran and farmer Daniel Shays, led a rebellion in Massachusetts against the high taxes being levied by an unsympathetic government. Farmers returning home from the war received none to very little compensation for their services, and had to purchase goods on credit upon their return from action. As a result of the economic crisis, sheriffs seized farms from veterans who could not pay taxes, or in many instances, imprisoned them. Sounds familiar right? This is the exact issue that caused the American Revolution, high taxation! Shay's Rebellion revived American Revolutionary debates, and matters concerning proper scope of the federal government.

After attending several townhall meetings and debt-relief talks with rich, merchant elites failed, armed rebels took action. Rebels began seizing and returning confiscated lands to their rightful owners, physically preventing debtors courts from convening, and stopping tax collectors from collecting debts by force. Debtors' discontent was widespread and extended well beyond Massachusetts. Unrest spread throughout the states in places including Connecticut, Maine, New York, and Pennsylvania. The significance being that the Articles of Confederation were no longer an effective means of governing the states and the rebellion served as the perfect catalyst for the Constitutional Convention. Ergo, the formation of the new government following the conclusion of the Revolutionary War. Even in the 1700s, people saw a significant need for change which did not equate to being anti-patriotic. In fact, the opposite held to be true: These military veterans loved America so much, that they were willing to bear arms in order to fight against socioeconomic and civil injustices. 

All this to say, it is not an act of terrorism to fight vigilantly for what you believe in and against injustices. There is a serious need today for people to begin separating America from its government, and elected officials. Contemporary policing practices have fared no better despite contemporary unrest in addition to violence by the state against citizens for having an opinion contrary to that of local governments. Another advent of the 1700s, is the formation of slave patrols. In 1704, the colony of Carolina became the first to establish patrols designed to wrongfully maintain economic domination by returning victims of slavery back to wealthy landowners, and punishing victims because these human-beings were literally considered property. Similar to the militias organized by James Bowdoin (i.e., governor of Massachusetts) and the wealthy merchant class during Shays Rebellion, slave patrols were designed to control slave populations and protect the interests of the rich. Reverting back to the rebellion briefly, it is worth mentioning that Shays Rebellion was quelled by well-organized militias funded once again by the wealthy. Truly, there is nothing new under the sun because the taxation issues and socioeconomic class wars of the past rage on to this very day. The similarities between slave patrols and modern American policing are uncanny. 

Both were created to control the behaviors of minorities and other disadvantaged groups (i.e., modern day slave populations). The more than 150 slave statutes enacted by Virginia between 1689 and 1865, are proof of legally sanctioned law enforcement organizations dating back before the civil for the express purpose of protecting the interests of slave owners via state sanctioned control of peoples being held captive against their own wills. Modern policies are a mirror image of the past and still rest firmly on the erroneous, racist rationalization that we as Black people are subhuman. Racist have gone as far as to murder, disenfranchise, and defame Black people on a global scale using cheap, multi-colored mass printing innovations achieved during the Gilded Age. Despite the Reconstruction Era giving way to the Gilded Age, not everything was covered in gold. In 1865, two years after the beginning of Reconstruction, the Ku Klux Klan was founded. By 1870, the organization had spread across majority of the southern states and utilized as a mechanism for RACIST white southerners to terrorize Blacks and resist Republican Party Reconstruction policies aimed toward establishing economic and political equality for Black Americans. Notably, The Republican Party is the original party that championed economic, political, and social equality for Black people. 

In fact, it was the Whig Party that was formed in 1834 primarily to oppose Andrew Jackson's slavery and banking policies. After the Kansas-Nebraska Bill dissolved the terms laid out by the Missouri Compromise and allowed for slave or free status to be chosen by states, the Whig Party dissolved. They later emerged as the Republican Party in 1854. The issues and elites have not changed, the nature of the political landscape has merely evolved over the centuries. Today, the rule of law is not set into place for the safety of the American people, the objective is still all about control. There are so many laws in place to regulate the behavior and activity of people that as an American on American soil, there have been times where I have feared going outside unless I had a specific purpose or place to be for the reason that I am being constantly followed in my own neighborhood. I have lived in the same area for over three years, and each time I show up to exercise in broad daylight in my own neighborhood, a patrol car will materialize out of nowhere and watch me. The police will argue that this is for the safety of the residents, but I will make a strong argument that this is an overreach of power and blatant intimidation. 

There are over [insert number of laws] on the books that are specifically aimed at controlling the behavior of people. In a world where reasonable suspicion, probable cause, and consensual encounters have been thrown out the window, being Black is reason alone to effect an investigatory stop. The media campaigns depicting Blacks as uneducated degenerates has emboldened Whites to treat us with complete and utter disregard. People will purposely move to the other side of the sidewalk when they see me, refuse to treat me with the most common of human decency, and of course systematic racism stemming from legally sanctioned discrimination all serve as types of oppression that negatively impact the advancement of Black people. I am essentially a second class citizen in my own country. As James Baldwin so eloquently stated, "To be African American is to be African without memory and American without privilege". This statement is a loud echo of how exactly how I feel. 

 The modern prison industry has reinstated the ownership of chattel by allowing the elite to purchase prison stock.  In other words, local governments agencies are funding de jure racism, cutting costs associated with racial oppression, and creating a modern day slave trade trade by allowing wealthy individuals who are disproportionately White undue to any kind of personal merit, to own stock shares in human livestock.

SPOILER ALERT: A LOT OF PEOPLE DIE!!! I would describe Squid Game as Hunger Games in reverse with adults acting in stead of children killing other man children while playing children's games (Such a nostalgic American introduction to Korean traditions). The show is depressing, a chilly personification of present societal decay and a potential insight into what the future may hold if the current political situation does not change. The similarities are uncanny: (1) Everyone's desperate and resultantly, more easily influenced. (2) Financial duress is fueling fear and addiction (e.g., the protagonist's addiction to gambling). (3) Massive debt due to severe money mismanagement by everyone (including the government), (4) An ineffective political system, (5) Onset childhood nostalgia brought on by the hellscape created here on Earth by adults. (6) A numb, defeated, demoralized, and desensitized general populous  (7) An excessive amount of violence. I'm not religious in the conventional sense of the word, but as the Bible has so eloquently stated, "There is no new thing under the sun". Sure, even in the midst of a societal collapse, we've all a few glimmering moments.  

Before I stick a final dinner fork into this show (It'll make sense after watching it), I'm going to make an attempt to praise select aspects of the show. Squid Game places a huge emphasis on community–The good, bad, and everything in between. Aside from the obvious message that desperate people do desperate things (An unfathomable concept in reality, but for some reason far more palatable when represented in extremes), Seong Gi-hun (Lee Jung) enters the contest in search of a better life for his family a friends in addition to repaying two large debts he owes. Gi-hun is an alcoholic, low-wage earning chauffeur growing more estranged by the day from his ex-wife and child...The epitome of down and out. He makes for an interesting, yet safe choice for a protagonist because he's relatable to the down and our adults watching the show. He allies himself with the other debtors who also seem to have hearts of gold. Cho Sang-Woo, a junior classmate and childhood friend of Gi-hun's before attending Seoul National University's prestigious business school. He's wanted by the police for stealing money from his clients. Kang Sang-byeok, a North Korean defector who desires to bring her mother to South Korea and rescue her younger brother from an orphanage. Oh Il-nam (O Yeong-su), an old man with a brain tumor who would literally rather get rich or die trying.

A Black Person's Guide to Surviving a Police Stop

 According to The Guardian, police have killed nearly 600 people during traffic stops since 2017. Roughly 10% of these stops involve minor traffic infractions which equates to 110  murders annually for traffic violations. Unfortunately, deadly encounters with law enforcement during traffic stops, including minor infractions, disproportionately affect people of color. While there has been a call to reduce low level traffic stops, 25 people have been killed so far this year as of April 2022 during routine traffic stops. As most of us already know, police traffic stops have very little (if anything at all) to do with public safety. It has been shown to us time and time again that the benefits do not outweigh the deadly outcomes of these police encounters. With these statistics in mind, I am going to use my expertise as a law school graduate, police academy graduate, and minority who has been the subject of a violent police stop to explain how to survive one. The Black community ignores me; and White America constantly oppresses. No one came when my grandmother was murdered by a white EMT worker, so my perseverance is for her.

Evolution of Policing and The Reasonable Suspicion Standard:

Since the 1920s, police have been used for traffic enforcement. However, the role has evolved primarily to stop, detain, and search people they believe to be involved in criminal activity. The traffic stop is now merely the catalyst setting into motion the chain of custody, providing the officer with the required reasonable suspicion standard necessary to affect an investigative detention later on leading to an arrest if lucky-an undignified death at worst. Merriam-Webster defines reasonable suspicion as an objectively justifiable suspicion that is based on specific facts or circumstances and justifies stopping and sometimes searching (as by frisking) a person thought to be involved in criminal activity at the time. The supporting argument for this definition hinges on the false notion that this standard is in fact objective and based on specific information known to the officer at the time. While it sounds good on paper, objectively justifiable on its face is merely a compound adjective meaning action and/or behavior (in this case, suspicion) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in the representation of facts that is also defensible. 

I. Fourth Amendment

Or to put it not so gently into the words of our legal system, as long as a collective group of bigots (i.e., a jury of the bigot's peers) can allege that their bigoted actions are not influenced by personal feelings or emotions in considering and representing facts, it's okay so long as their bigoted position is defensible-moreover, it will be defended snd upheld as the supreme law of the land. The standard is aimed at confirming or dismissing the officer's suspicions which are hardly free of objectivity and defensible irrespective of the officer's erroneous morale.  This is not justice, and I'm pretty sure I state the obvious when I say this is not right. The Fourth Amendment, one of the pillars of criminal law, is supposed to be designed to protect people from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. In Terry v. Ohio, the U.S. Supreme Court declared open season on minorities by giving police officers not the power to stop an alleged suspect on the street (innocent until proven guilty right?) under the 4th Amendment, but also the power to frisk them without probable cause to arrest IF they have reasonable suspicion that the person has committed (reasonable), is committing (less reasonable), or is about to commit a crime (completely unreasonable) and has a reasonable belief that the person "may be armed and presently dangerous". What is considered reasonable varies from person to person and while it is reasonable to stop and frisk someone who has committed a crime (probable cause), no police officer is reasonable in violating someone's rights prior to the commission of a crime. In this 1963 landmark case, the officer was said to have reasonable suspicion based on three men pacing in front of a jewelry store and refusing to give the officer their names.

1. If You Are Stopped:

i(a). The Street: If you are stopped on the street outside of a vehicle, always remain calm. On paper, the law appears fair and just in terms of its parameters for allowing police to collect evidence and conduct investigations. Generally, there are three levels/types of police encounters: (i) voluntary/consensual encounters, (ii) investigatory stop, and (iii) an arrest. I preface this information by saying that most            police encounters are not consensual and this should be placated by the fact that this article concerns          surviving a police stop (i.e., encounter). However, we will start with consensual encounters. I repeat,        remain calm. A consensual encounter involves someone being approached by the police and the police        officer initiating a conversation with the individual being approached. Typically, and this is where it gets dicey, the officer will ask to see a form of identification, the same as they would during a "routine" traffic stop. The encounter SHOULD involve the person approached being able to walk away, having the right to decline identifying themselves to the police, and being able to voluntarily communicate to law enforcement that they do not wish to speak to them. It SHOULD NOT involve police barking out commands, any kind of physical commands, the police turning on lights or sirens, restricting a person's  ability to move freely, or the use of physical force. More often than not, this is not the case. The next type of encounter is an investigatory detention, or Terry Stop: The police are allowed to briefly stop someone when officers have reasonable suspicion that a person may be involved in criminal activity. The problem with investigatory detentions is that they give law enforcement the right to preemptively stop someone if they believe a crime has been committed (reasonable), in process (less reasonable), or is about to be committed (completely unreasonable). And lastly, there are arrests. An officer needs probable cause (i.e., a police officer's good faith belief that a crime has been committed and the person being arrested committed the crime) in order to affect an arrest. Good faith, or blind ignorance?

i(b). Violation of Rights on The Street: During a so-called consensual encounter, Remain calm, and since critical thinking has been removed from the American curriculum, scan your surroundings. Scanning gives a person the advantage of fully accessing the totality of their circumstances and actively checking the surrounding area for indications as to whether or not his or her rights are being actively violated. Furthermore, if you are a savvy individual who knows your rights and armed with the proper information to articulate them, while not a safeguard against violation of those rights, it is an excellent tool for prevention. If your life is not in immediate threat of danger and there is 100% certainty of your innocence and the laws applicable to your situation, DO NOT COMPLY. If it is matter of life and death, live to fight another day. However, simply complying with illegitimate acts of violence against members    of the American public legitimizes illegitimate, corrupt power. To quote the honorable Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., "injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere". The key things to remember during a consensual encounter is to ask yourself, "Would an average person feel as though they were free to leave the situation"? This is the legal standard by which the law will judge your circumstances. 

Next, are investigatory detentions. As previously stated, you are not free to walk away during an investigatory detention so long as the officer has reasonable suspicion that the person may be involved in a crime. The detention however, must be brief. NOTE THE TIME OF THE STOP, record whenever possible, and have a trusted friend or witness present either by phone or preferably, in-person. Remember, officers only have the right to Terry Frisk for weapons without probable cause and this is a limited search for weapons ONLY. A Terry Frisk is a limited search for weapons. Generally, of the outer clothing, but may also consist of areas within the person's control and which pose a danger to the officer. Here, biases will be challenged, does a person pose a danger because of their location, skin color, clothing, education, or demeanor based on their own unique human experiences?

ii(a) Inside A Vehicle: If you are stopped by the police while inside a vehicle, remain calm. Stop the car in a safe place, preferably one with adjacenet cameras and lots of pedestrian activity. Next, shut off the ignitition, turn on the internal cabin light,row down the window part way, and place your hands on the steering wheel. It is sad that civilians have to come up with a solid gameplan to survive a traffice stop and work hard to ensure that our protectors feel comfortable in order not to take our lives. However, this is the sci-fi around us and I suppose we all have to adjust accordingly if we wish to live. Vehicular stops are unique in that the same oppressive tactics are used, the case law simply changes. In Carroll v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that is legal to search a vehcile without a search warrant if the officer has probable cause to believe that evidence is inside a car or exigent circumstances exist where officer believes vehicle may be removed from the area along with its contents prior to being able to obtain a search warrant.

II. Fifth Amendment:

The Fifth Amendment protects people against double jeopardy, being compelled to bear witness against themselves, or depriving a person against deprivation of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation. It protects against other things as well, but for purposes of this article, I'm only exploring its most applicable functions. In 2004, nineteen years after Terry v. Ohio, the Supreme Court ruled in Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, that laws require citizens to disclose their identities to police officers and that the person must comply when the police officer has reasonable suspicion of a crime that is about to be committed or has been committed or the citizen will be charged with obstruction of justice. Once again, given the amount of people being wrongfully profiled and murdered by police, it is past time that America revisits what is considered as reasonable. Chambers v. Florida made a feeble attempt to resurrect the self-incrimination clause of the 5th Amendment essentially by outlawing torture as a means of extracting confessions out of alleged suspects. Furthermore, not only is physical torture of American citizens not an ethical way of getting information, but physical pain has the tendency to make confessions unreliable. Moreover, even after an arrest, a person is to be read their Miranda Rights which includes the right to remain silent. The things we say, even when we are innocent with good intentions, has the potential to affect our lives in either a positive or negative aspect. 

III. Sixth Amendment:

The Sixth Amendment guarantees the rights of the criminally accused to a public trial without unecessary delay, an impartial jury, the right to seek counsel, the nature of the charges, and confront all accusers. The most important of these guarantees in criminal law are, the right to a public trial without undue delay and the right to an impartial jury. Sadly, due to a lack of funding in public education and resources, it has been commonly accepted that no more than about 5% of all crminal cases ever go to trial. The other 95% are either dismissed or a plea bargain is arranged between defendant, the defendant's attorney, and the prosecutor for a "compromised" disposition. The bigger picture being, only 5% of the American people are actually making thier accusers and prosecutors work to prove that they are in fact guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In a crminal case, the prosecution must prove the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt which means that the arguments and evidence presented by the prosecution establishes the defendant's guilt so clearly that they must accept be accepted as fact by any rational person. This is a very difficult stanadard to meet. It only seems rational that Defendants would actually may the government work in order to satisfy it. However, the numbers show this is far from the case. The most important takeway from this article is to never surrender your rights without being informed of your rights and the process in which to take them.

IV. Conclusion

I tried not to bombard the reader with my own story and the injustices therein, but experience is an excellent teacher. I learned that sometimes knowing the law, the process, and what my rights are within these parameters will still not be enought to prevent inequities from occurring. However, knowledge will prevent them from prevailing. Police were unable to file charges after harrassing and physically assaulting, and towing my vehicle. I did not receive any financial compensation for the harms committed against, but I did gain a lot of dignnitiy and a victory knowing that I changed the situation through knowledge instead of allowing the situation to change me or my criminal record.

“Reasonable suspicion.” Merriam-Webster.com Legal Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/legal/reasonable%20suspicion. Accessed 22 Nov. 2022.

Surviving Trauma

 For the past two years, I've been mentally suspended by an intractable dilemma. A choice between telling the truth and continuing to suffer in silence knowing that each decision will come with its own separate array of problems. Two years after seeking psychiatric help, joining multiple activity clubs, and struggling each day to reclaim my life, I am still haunted by the trauma Jamie Beck inflicted upon my life. Elvin Semrad once said, "The greatest source of our suffering are the lies we tell ourselves". I am exhausted lying to myself that I'm okay and confused because I keep searching down the halls of my mind for the happy, charismatic woman who existed long before the damage. I often wonder if I will ever be the same, or if this is just my burden to forever shoulder now. I am not okay and what this person did to me is not okay. Long after the events have passed, the body has kept count. I still feel shame for allowing someone to mentally and physically take advantage of me. I still get angry when I am reminded of the fact she defamed me in ways that not only could've taken away my ability to practice law, but my freedom as well. Please let this sink in for a moment: This person, who also happens to be an attorney fully capable of appreciating the consequences of her actions, was willing to have me wrongfully jailed in order to evade the ramifications of her own actions. 

There are times when I'll have flashbacks and remain immobilized for what feels like hours, staring back at a paralyzed–frantic–and afraid version of myself in the mirror. I feel helpless and my chest tightens all while trying to reach into my mental anxiety relief toolbox for a technique to calm my breathing. Jamie Beck wielded her white privilege, occupational status, and socioeconomic class over me. She would go on to weaponize my best attributes against me and exploit my weaknesses to gain power. I met Ms. Beck at my best. It was the summer following the completion of my 1L year and the first time I've ever experienced the season in San Diego. In this short time, I had persevered through homelessness and a messy breakup with my partner of 5 years. My homelessness being a direct result of my former partner without warning, taking a massive sum of money out of our joint bank account (and running off with someone new while we were still together). 9 months later, I was back on top. That is, until I met Jamie. I will never forget the first time our eyes met–there was a strange air of familiarity, like we might've met before. We talked for hours and because I have good self-control when it comes to drinking (it's not really my vice of choice), I was able to dance the night away while ignoring the first red flag. She attempted to lower my inhibitions with alcohol instead of trusting the natural chemistry that we had together–and I would've gone by my own volition.

I admired her drive, charismatic personality, ambition, intellect. I was proud and rooting for her from a distance: I hardly knew her beyond one long bar conversation, but I was in awe to see (from the outside at least) a successful woman in the legal field. By the time I made it to the taxi, I had missed the sidebar she was having with her ex-husband. She would later tell me they both said, "not the law student". However they both chose to proceed anyway. Today, I've learned to place this introduction into context and I no longer feel guilt associated with loving some of my abuser's positive attributes. Undoubtedly Jamie and the relationship had some positive aspects that I enjoyed—and on some days, truly miss. Otherwise, I would've never been drawn to her or the relationship in the first place. This chance encounter is the premise to what would become the most turbulent 9 months of my life. Despite knowing she was married, our intimacy came at a price. After months of spending time with Jamie, what was once a welcomed distraction from the rigors of law school and work, turned into love. I knew my limits, and knew I couldn't continue this arrangement. So one day after exercising and conversing about the week in the park, I decided to tell her my truth. I  spoke of my feelings and how I couldn't continue seeing her because the love I had for her exceeded the bounds of what was appropriate. She feigned understanding, but would later go on to say that the rules of her marriage were the equivalent of arbitrary lines drawn in the sand. For me, this wasn't enough and since I did not wish to cause the dissolution of said marriage, I departed reluctantly. 

They say love is neither selfish nor unkind, so I did the right thing even though it hurt me so bad. However, I was at peace and I knew with enough time, we could be friends. I welcomed this thought and began picking my life up where I left off. Law school, networking, and work became my top priorities again–until she reached back out 3 weeks later only for me to run back willingly into the fire again. Jamie knew I wanted to go into cannabis law, and sent me a not–so–harmless email about an event while I was trying to heal. She explained that she thought I'd be interested and how she wouldn't be there if I wanted to attend. Not enough time had passed and I was absolutely devastated–all the emotions rebuilding up inside of me. I furiously typed back I could not go on this way and admittedly called her names I wish never to repeat. It's not an excuse, but my boundaries were continuously being crossed which is evident by the fact she replied that she would leave me alone–but she didn't. Less than two weeks later, we were both carrying on per usual, lying to ourselves that this could work all the while ignoring our true feelings. This house of cards fell quickly...In celebration of founding Free to Thrive, Jamie left the country for three weeks. However, not before admitting her true feelings for me and then later texting me from the plane in contradiction that she might come back from Europe pregnant. Her roller-coaster of perplex emotions followed by ardent denials rejection only to come back around again as loving admissions and acceptance lasted for 7 months. 

When I tried to walk away a second time, she used her power and influence. Jamie explained how she had connections and access to networks I could not reach without her help. I came back because she lied about where she was in the separation process from her husband and said she genuinely wanted to get to know me for a change. Somehow I successfully completed my summer classes, an internship, and survived moot court tryouts. I was gas-lighted, told things such as, "I was happy until you came along". I was sent text messages with false claims of violent threats I never made. Despite us mutually exchanging songs, she said I sent her bay rapper G-Eazy's song, "I Mean It" as a means of intimidation.When I told her the stresses of law school, the untimely death of a friend, and this situation with her was causing me to feel suicidal, she laughed. She laughed and told me she wasn't worth it. Having been through law school herself, she also made the selfish decision to continue toying with my emotions during one of the most pivotal times in my life. Months later, I told her husband how I felt about her. I also asked after three months of us going back and forth over our emotions for one another, for her to come with me so that we could start an honest life together. Her response to both of us was silence. Jamie Beck told people that I was a violent person and that I made her feel unsafe in order to emerge from wreckage as a victim instead of a villain. It's true, after having my character dragged through the mud and wondering why she showed up to a place I told her to avoid if she wished not to see me, I showed up at her house unannounced. When asked to leave, despite my compliance, she attempted to call 9-1-1 and have me thrown in jail in order to give justification to the lies she told about me being dangerous and unsafe. 

 In a world where unarmed Black people are being killed by the police for crimes they did not commit, she chose to place my life, freedom, and clean record with law enforcement on the line. Should I have shown up unannounced, absolutely not. It's not an excuse; I showed up because I was upset, confused, hurt, and desperate to fix whatever she thought was wrong despite every injustice she had inflicted upon me. My own childhood trauma coaxed me into believing that I was the problem and part of me wanted to be the problem because that meant that the power to change things for the better was in my hands. I would like to believe I made some positive changes in her life as well. I presented someone who knew how to take life lightly at times, I inspired her to come out, live her truth, I loved making her smile, and her laugh was the soundtrack of my summer. I gave her courage and confidence and she (at her best) did the same for me. The final straw came when she ghosted me after writing a false email alleging that I left bruises on her arms and physically assaulted her. I would never lay my hands on another human being out of anger or emotion. This situation left me mentally afraid because I wasn't sure if I was coming back to San Diego from Christmas Break to be greeted by police. I do not have family, so I contacted my dean and a mentor whom I trusted about the situation. Jamie called this blackmail despite my motive never being to exact payment or anything else out of her. It was for my own sake and safety, however, she valued her reputation in the legal community more than my life. 

A person could simply chalk her actions up to stress or emotional upheaval, but that would be oversimplifying things. They say one's true character is shown in times of crisis and if her response to crisis was to have someone else's life taken away from them, gaslight them, use them, and blame all of her life's problems on them, then I say that is proof enough of Jamie Beck's character. For anyone reading this, separate the person's worth from their work, the media publicity, the articles praising their achievements, and workplace standing. You can still be a bad person, but do good things. I say these things because as a victim, I've seen me and other people's pain dismissed because of these things. Believe victims, support victims, hear victims, and don't silence them. I have been left to pick up the pieces up my life, while she has gone on with hers—discarding me like nothing more than trash. It baffles me how a woman who rallies around the Black Lives Matter banner and fights for women who've survived trafficking, and women's rights could ever do the things she did to another woman. I tell this story because I wasn't able to heal in silence, I needed the support of a community to get through this. I also tell it because silence wasn't changing the fact that I loved and trusted someone in my community who abused their position of trust. Jamie Beck is only capable of looking at other people as opportunities and agendas because she isn't doing the work to heal her own trauma. While hurt people tend to hurt other people, and hurt people are more susceptible to these predatory practices, it doesn't diminish the fact that trauma was inflicted. Integrity is not an attribute that is gained overnight, and I've never wished ill-will upon her. It would be too easy to remain angry and do so, but it would make me no better than her. Friedrich Nietzsche once said when fighting with monsters take care that you don't become one yourself. 

In the spirit of this quote, I shall continue to love. I will not let her mistreatment of me turn into my mistreatment of her. I have always believed that while you don't have to love me, but you don't have to hurt me either. Others reading this might even think, well this is just a case of someone who didn't love me. If that were the issue, why didn't think person just leave instead of making up stories of me threatening them and wanting to do them physical harm to the extent that they were willing to take the time to type out to me that I had done things I've never imagined? This goes deeper and I hope that is evident because I've never done that to anyone before. When we were together, Jamie told me that I was unlike anyone she had ever met in San Diego, when I had surpassed my usefulness to her I immediately became the bad minority. I am going to continue down my path of healing, forgive her even though she is not sorry, and take solace in the fact that I'm still standing. I struggle to remember that I am worthy of love, that I'm still passionate, kind, giving, intelligent, and not the person I was made to believe I was in order to make her lies make sense. Whether she actually ever loved me, or I was just an easy way out of a marriage she no longer wished to participate in, I cannot say. I just have to realize that what is done is done and continue to love my way out of the pain. I am confident that I will heal and be able to trust people again.

 

Things to Ask Employer's When You've Been Laid-Off or Terminated

Whether you believe it's either a pandemic or a "scam-demic", the truth remains that reservoirs of employees are being hired to work for industries deemed essential during these extremely uncertain times. Of course, the most controversial of these crucial commercial enterprises being the cannabis industry considering the fact there are too numerous an amount of Black, Brown, and poor Whites still incarcerated from the "war on drugs" era dating all the way back to the early 1970s. That's right, people are still serving prison sentences nearly five decades later doing what local governments (and soon-to-be the federal government) deem to be mandatory services. However, I digress. On one hand, there are jobs and typically (under much different circumstances), this would be considered a good thing. On the other hand, employees are being hired under false pretenses (i.e., unfulfilled promises of permanent job placement, full-time employment, advancement, etc.).

These COVID-19 related mass hires and fires are egregious and since unemployment insurance is generally funded with taxes paid by employers, it is a strong indication that there are profits to be gained via lay-offs. Expendable, pandemic employees only serve to fuel the billows of corporate smoke coming from the profit chimneys. In other words, temporary employees are being hired for predetermined periods of time to meet the needs of the pandemic and for additional manpower only without these companies having any true intentions of investing in these workers. All of this without the knowledge or consent of the new hires...A classic story of profits over people. I recently had the despairing privilege of joining the ranks of these workers who've been used, abused, and discarded to meet the needs of the pandemic. Ralphs Grocery Store laid me off on the day of the historic Juneteenth Holiday without cause. Days leading up to the lay-off, supervisors began to look for classic performance related reasons to justify their wrongful actions such as falsely accusing me of taking long breaks, trying to deem me incompetent for the job, etc. Lucky for me, I graduated from law school and have taken significant strides toward investing in my future. Ralphs was never a long-term plan and considering that I've worked in the grocery retail business since I was in high school without a single performance issue,  it's safe to say that laying me off days before completing my probationary period was unwarranted.

My education and background also left me with a plethora of knowledge at my disposal. Unlike, most laborers, I knew the correct questions to ask in order to ensure that I was not taken further advantage of during the layoff process. I would also like to add at this time that these questions are important to ask regardless of whether the termination or layoff was justified or not. The questions and information are designed to ensure that you are treated fairly, fortify your financial security during a time of great transition, and that you leave your job with all the necessary paperwork needed for the next step.

1. How Many Days Do You Have to File a Grievance or Dispute?

Oftentimes, there is a finite period of time for employees to file a grievance or dispute. If you've been wrongfully discarded by your employer, it is highly unlikely that they are going to divulge this information to you willingly. If your workplace is unionized and you fail to ask this question at the time of the layoff or termination, call your union representative as soon as possible. In most cases, you may still be able to file a grievance beyond the deadline, but be aware that you may lose certain rights and protections by missing the given date.

2. What is the Exact Reason for the Lay-Off or Termination?

Please keep in mind that if you work in a "right-to-work" state, employers may hire, fire, or lay you off essentially as they please (with very few restrictions).  Even if you live outside of an anti-employee labor law state, employers who lay-off or terminate an employee during the probationary period are within their full rights to leave you without an answer. Employers will generally state a broad reason for their decision (i.e., redundant position, cost cutting, changing demands, poor job performance, violation of a company policy, etc.). At any rate, it is important to distinguish between being laid and fired because the difference affects your rights, the means of recourse, finances, and your future job search. The most important distinction is that a lay-off occurs generally through no fault of the employee while a termination is typically specific to the person and their performance.

3. How About a "Pink-Slip"?

A pink-slip, formally known as a separation notice is generally a piece of paper (pink in case you were wondering) that employers give employees who've been separated from the company receive at the time of separation. The purpose of the separation notice is to advise employees of their rights under state employees laws and provides employees with the necessary paperwork to present to unemployment officials in determining their unemployment benefits. State regulations will oftentimes require employers to issue these notices.

4. Names and Data.

If you intend to file a grievance against your employer or enter into any kind of dispute resolution, it is imperative to get the names and written statements of anyone who may be helpful to your cause. Furthermore, while retaliatory terminations are prohibited, it's important to get this information as discreetly as possible because employees may not be willing to speak up when their livelihood is at risk. Anyone who may be helpful in the resolution of your dispute should be contacted.

5. Don't be Afraid to Speak with an Attorney.

Do not be afraid to speak with an attorney or other legal services in the event that you feel or know that a company has done you some kind of legal harm or you feel like you've been laid-off or terminated based on some kind of internal illegalities within the company.

6. Can I be Relocated or Transferred?

If you truly cared about the job, see a future with a company, or are in a desperate situation where you absolutely need to work for this company, ask about being relocated or transferred to another position within the company or one of its subsidiaries.

7. When Will I Receive My Last Check, Payments for Sick-Time and Vacation?

It is important to ask when will you receive your last paycheck AND how will you get it. Typically, this needs to be done immediately or within the next pay cycle. More importantly, regardless of whether you were laid-off or terminated, chances are you've accumulated sick-pay and vacation time. Ask upfront if you will be receiving these benefits, how, and when? At any rate, your employee handbook will outline whether or not you are eligible to receive these monies, you should be because you earned it.

8. Insurance and Other Benefits?

Unfortunately, healthcare is going to be a huge issue, especially for those living in the U.S. Be sure to ask your employer about how long your healthcare benefits will last and how long you have before you need to file for a Continuation of Health Coverage (not sure how this equates to the acronym "COBRA", but it does). Personally, I've never used COBRA, but I've heard that the premiums are typically more expensive. Your employer should provide you some contact information regarding COBRA.

9. Am I Eligible for Rehire?

This question is paramount because it will give you an idea of how the employer is categorizing your separation if they are being vague about the terms. If you are eligible for rehire, then it's a layoff, if they're saying you are not eligible for rehire, then it means they're listing you as fired which will impact your unemployment benefits.

10. Who Else is Being Let Go?

This question is important because it will allow you to determine what the cause of your separation, legal rights associated with mass layoffs because they differ in some ways from isolated layoffs, terminations, etc.

11. Is it Me?

Remember, unless you were truly an awful employee who failed to place even the most minimal effort into complying with company policies, treating clients and co-workers with respect, and contributing something to the company, this lay-off or termination has nothing to do with you so don't take it personal. That time moping, complaining, and feeling sorry for yourself might cause you to miss the next opportunity which is probably sure to be better than anything you feel that you've lost at this time.