L.A. PORT POLICE & L.A. COUNTY SHERIFF CONSPIRE IN KIDNAPPING OF CARPENTER

L.A. HARBOR - It was the sixth game of The World Series, 2011 and Joe just made it back to his sailboat in the L.A. Harbor around 9:30pm. As he walked through the marina, two men jumped out and attempted to abduct him at gunpoint. Joe paused and then rushed the men. There was a scuffle on the docks and they went into the harbor. Another resident witnessed the incident and immediately called 911. Within minutes, the L.A. Port Police arrived and detained all three men.

After several hours, it was discovered that the two assailants were bail bondsmen from Idaho where Joe had an unresolved disturbing the peace charge, along with a civil contempt charge stemming from divorce proceedings. These charges were not extraditable and were no more than a traffic ticket in their severity. The L.A. Port Police confirmed that they had no authority to hold Joe, confiscated the unregistered automatic pistol used in the assault and released everybody.

Joe went back to his boat. 15 minutes later, officers went down to Joe’s boat and said that he had an unpaid traffic ticket in Orange County which went to a warrant and were arresting him. Joe was transported to the L.A. County Sheriff station in Carson where the sheriff refused to take him. First, Joe was injured in the attack and required a medical release for Carson to accept him, so the L.A. Port Police took Joe to Little Company of Mary for treatment and obtained a release. Second, Orange County was contacted and refused to pick up Joe for a traffic ticket. Third, Joe continued to be vocal about his rights and the law and accused every officer involved of aiding and abetting an abduction and kidnapping. After six hours of being detained at the Carson facility, the sheriff refusing to book Joe, and Orange County’s refusal to pick him up, L.A. Port Police officers did not release Joe and decided after numerous telephone calls with their superiors to transport him to the Twin Towers in Downtown L.A.

Joe entered into the holding facility and was never fingerprinted or photographed. He was rushed through the maze and released within a few hours. During this time, Joe was again vocal about his rights and the aiding and abetting of an abduction and requested help from several L.A. County Sheriffs who laughed at him and said they were understaffed. Upon exiting the facility, Joe was faced with a wall of 11 L.A. County Sheriffs standing behind the two out of state bail bondsmen who were then, with the support of L.A. County deputies, allowed to handcuff, abduct and transport Joe against his will.

Joe was then driven across state lines through three states to Idaho, but not before the kidnappers met with the Port Police at a Burger King off of the Harbor Freeway where their unregistered automatic pistol was returned to them. Joe waited 27 days to see a judge who immediately released him on 11/23/11.

There were several violations of law and procedure in this matter that both the L.A. Port Police and L.A. County Sheriff committed. During the drive to Idaho, Joe learned from his kidnappers that they were in constant contact with the Port Police during the entire ordeal, who informed them of Joe’s status and which jail they [the kidnappers] could best abduct him. They were also in contact with the L.A. County Sheriff warrant officer at the Twin Towers who coordinated and conspired to allow them to abduct Joe, with the assistance of L.A. County Deputies.

Joe was abducted and kidnapped outside a L.A. County Sheriff facility with the assistance of 11 deputies. His civil rights were violated and only through conspiring with the L.A. Port Police and L.A. County Sheriff were his kidnappers afforded the opportunity to do so. Law enforcement should protect citizens and be held to a higher standard than the general public. Ignorance of the law is no excuse and if we can’t rely on our police to know the law, then who can we rely on? Let’s hope it is the Judicial System.

The L.A. Port Police and L.A. County Sheriff knew their actions were illegal and conspired in the kidnapping of Joe. None of the charges were extraditable, which explains why the prescriptions in Penal Code 847.5 were avoided and not verified by The L.A. Port Police or L.A. County Sheriff:

•   If a person has been admitted to bail in another state, escapes bail, and is present in this State, the bail bondsman or other person who is bail for such fugitive, may file with a magistrate in the county where the fugitive is present an affidavit stating the name and whereabouts of the fugitive, the offense with which the alleged fugitive was charged or of which he was convicted, the time and place of same, and the particulars in which the fugitive has violated the terms of his bail, and may request the issuance of a warrant for arrest of the fugitive, and the issuance, after hearing, of an order authorizing the affiant to return the fugitive to the jurisdiction from which he escaped bail.  The magistrate may require such additional evidence under oath as he deems necessary to decide the issue.  If he concludes that there is probable cause for believing that the person alleged to be a fugitive is such, he may issue a warrant for his arrest.  The magistrate shall notify the district attorney of such action and shall direct him to investigate the case and determine the facts of the matter.  When the fugitive is brought before him pursuant to the warrant, the magistrate shall set a time and place for hearing, and shall advise the fugitive of his right to counsel and to produce evidence at the hearing.  He may admit the fugitive to bail pending the hearing.  The district attorney shall appear at the hearing.  If, after hearing, the magistrate is satisfied from the evidence that the person is a fugitive he may issue an order authorizing affiant to return the fugitive to the jurisdiction from which he escaped bail.
  
          A bondsman or other person who is bail for a fugitive admitted to bail in another state who takes the fugitive into custody, except pursuant to an order issued under this section, is guilty of a misdemeanor.

The L.A. Port Police was fully aware of the kidnapping of Joe and the unregistered firearm used in the commission of the crime. Not only were those who committed the crime not arrested, they were assisted by the Port Police in the commission of the crime, who drove several miles outside of the L.A. Port to a Burger King parking lot to return an unregistered automatic pistol to the kidnappers while their victim, Joe, was in their vehicle. This is beyond comprehension in a free society and the applicable Penal Codes are:

• 207(a) Every person who forcibly, or by any other means of instilling fear, steals or takes, or holds, detains, or arrests any person in this state, and carries the person into another country, state, or county, or into another part of the same county, is guilty of kidnapping.
  
  
• 208(a) Kidnapping is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for three, five, or eight years.
  
  
• 417 (2)(B) Every person who, except in self-defense, in the presence of any other person, draws or exhibits any firearm, whether loaded or unloaded, in a rude, angry, or threatening manner, or who in any manner, unlawfully uses a firearm in any fight or quarrel is punishable as follows: In all cases other than that set forth in subparagraph (A), a misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for not less than three months.
  
  
• 12031(a)(1) A person is guilty of carrying a loaded firearm when he or she carries a loaded firearm on his or her person or in a vehicle while in any public place or on any public street in an incorporated city or in any public place or on any public street in a prohibited area of unincorporated territory.
  
  
• 12031(a)(2)(F) Carrying a loaded firearm in violation of this section is punishable, as follows: Where the person is not listed with the Department of Justice pursuant to Section 11106, as the registered owner of the handgun, by imprisonment in the state prison, or by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year, or by a fine not to exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000), or both that fine and imprisonment.
  
  
• 12021.3(a) Any person who claims title to any firearm that is in the custody or control of a court or law enforcement agency and who wishes to have the firearm returned to him or her shall make application for a determination by the Department of Justice as to whether he or she is eligible to possess a firearm. The application shall include the following: (The Port’s problem)
  
  
• 12022. (a)(1) Except as provided in subdivisions (c) and (d), any person who is armed with a firearm in the commission of a felony or attempted felony shall be punished by an additional and consecutive term of imprisonment in the state prison for one year, unless the arming is an element of that offense. This additional term shall apply to any person who is a principal in the commission of a felony or attempted felony if one or more of the principals is armed with a firearm, whether or not the person is personally armed with a firearm.
  
  
• 12025(a)(2) A person is guilty of carrying a concealed firearm when he or she does any of the following: Carries concealed upon his or her person any pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person.
  
  
• 12025 Any person who commits the crime of carrying a concealed handgun and ammunition for that handgun on his/her person or in his/her vehicle may be subject to a felony enhancement if the handgun is not on file (registered) in the Department of Justice’s Automated Firearms System.

What is more disturbing than the bail bondsmen committing numerous felonies and misdemeanors in this matter is the fact that the agencies citizens depend upon to ensure that their rights are protected; conspired with the criminals, aided and abetted in their crimes and became criminal themselves by violating the very laws they are sworn to uphold. This situation is intolerable and must be resolved with appropriate disciplinary actions against those responsible and the implementation of training measures and policies to ensure this ignorance and blatant defiance of law by the L.A. Port Police and L.A. County Sheriff are minimized or ceased altogether.

Joe has been severely injured and traumatized by the L.A. Port Police and L.A. County Sheriff through their deliberate acts, policies and procedures that violate the laws they should know and uphold, including Joe’s civil rights. He is adamant in seeking justice in this matter.

Joe is a carpenter by trade and lives between Southern California and Baja.

He may be contacted at:

joe@raisethefist.com

Okay - this is wrong, some people will will walk, some may not and Joe will get like $35,000 for the days and humiliation. Cha-ching to Joe, invest it in Apple buddy. The disturbing part of this piece is the final sentence. "...to ensure this ignorance and blatant defiance of law by the L.A. Port Police and L.A. County Sheriff are minimized or ceased altogether." My reaction is - Why is the word minimized used at all? This is 2012? Isn't using the word minimized an example of 90% concession before the start of negotiation? If there is blatant, obvious corruption somewhere, (ex. a building's wall) and you know that it (the wall) needs to be removed and replaced, why call a contractor and tell him to patch it as best he can? Sooner or later you're back to where you started - only now, the patchwork acts as a facade to conceal the true inner corruption. Why offer limited controls by using the word minimized? To me, that's like saying, "Stop Apartheid, or not!."