Saturday, September 17, 2011



Friday I had what should be my last procedure on my back.  The doctor thinks he finally got all of the adhesions.  The doctor is fairly certain, and so too am I, that the repair of the torn tissue in March worked and is holding.  This means no more fluid leaking out and no more adhesions.  But for this final clean out he injected me with a lot of numbing medicine to do the procedure and a lot the chemicals used to break up the adhesions.  This was my 4th caudal racz - when I got off the table had the doctor and nurse not been standing there to help me I would have hit the floor.  this never happened before.  I had zero use of my legs.  But an hour late I had amazing relief.  Last night I slept medicine free - the down side is the gabapentin makes you drowsy so I only slept 4 hours without the aid of gabapentin.  In a few days my body will adjust and all will be well.  For now I do have some lumbar pain from the procedure  - but that too will pass.


On the alleged bogus claims the officer who wrote the arrest report is going to sue Jessica Tetreau, if the story is true, but given the source it may be false - the office needs to consult with someone who is not a complete moron and gunning to get her fired.

When a police officer threatens to sue a citizen after the citizen has announce an intent to see an investigation against the police officer any threats by that police office become an automatic basis for discharge.  A smart office waits for the investigation to be completed and then reacts.  Further there is the triviality of the US Constitution, the police officer allegedly swore an oath to uphold.

"Writing for an unanimous court, Justice John E. Wallace held that the officer, as a public official, failed to prove a local resident acted with actual malice when he wrote and distributed a newsletter about their dispute. Actual malice is defined as knowing or reckless disregard for the truth of a statement.

"Actual malice has nothing to do with hostility or ill will," Wallace wrote. "Rather, it concerns a publisher's state of knowledge of the falsity of what he published, not at all upon his motivation for publishing it."

While the above is from the New Jersey Supreme Court, it basically states US Supreme Court Authority.  Juan Montoya is all too familiar with New York Times vs. Sullivan - only the most incompetent or unethical attorney would sue Jessica Tetreau over her statements - further as a matter of law the missing information from the report which is clearly in the 911 call will be all it takes for Jessica to prove there was no reckless  disregard  for the truth.  Remember her claims can be false - but just not reckless under the facts.

From the US  Supreme Court - New York Times vs. Sullivan:  "9-0; The Court ruled that the First and Fourteenth Amendments require a public official suing for defamation to prove that the allegedly defamatory comments were made with 'actual malice — that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.

So why the alleged public threat by this officer against Jessica Tetreau? - to make her feel bad and shake.  While  reviewing an administrative complaint against the office Chief Garcia must certainly review this threat as an attempt to influence the process.  I have no idea if Jessica ever knew this police office - the facts will come out - but I will say whoever is allegedly advising this police office - he doing her no favors.


So the BV does a story about how Chief Garcia's office compromised the safety of a 23 month old baby, a 16 year of boy and the 21 year old mother of the 23 month old baby by possibly exposing them to cartel violence. Tony Martinez and Chief Garcia they need to respond with a press release that they got the original story wrong. The claim now is, this 17 year old boy was allegedly killed over a cell phone. I think they got the story right this time. I check with sources who know the three involved youths and apparently people in the complex were well aware of the conflict over the alleged stolen cell phone.

So what we have everyone in the complex but the police knew the true story. This family and others were needlessly made to suffer emotionally over the police officers inability to get to the truth.


Here my hands are tied. I cannot disclose all of the facts but Tony Martinez and Chief Garcia have the verifiable facts that the police with a reckless disregard for this 23 month baby compromised her safety. While my focus is on the baby, there is also the issue of the 16 year old and 21 year old safety of the mother of the baby. The parents of these children and grandchild are infuriated with the lack of minimal training the police officers exhibited.


Let's not forget how the police shot first and then asked questions later in the alleged wrongful death of Ricardo Moreno.

It is clear Chief Garcia and Tony Martinez care more about running cover for bad decision making by a limited number of police officers than in putting the safety and welfare of the citizenry first. We all know if it were a family with money and influence Tony Martinez would take these claims more seriously - but this is a poor family with no voice louder than a blogger.

I can say with 100% certainty these police officers acted with a reckless disregard for the safety and welfare of a 23 month old baby. This is not acceptable, unless you are Tony Martinez and Chief Garcia.   When will a decision be made to provide our police officers the training they need.


Anonymous said...

Would defamation per se trump up your discussion on malice?

BobbyWC said...

defamation per se has no impact on the maile standard - malice can be overcome by simply showing a lack of reckless disregard - the variance between the 911 tape and the police report is enough to show a lack of reckeless disregard

Also in this case substantial truth also overcomes any claim of defamation per se

Bobby WC