Letter to Public Defender Andrew Dinh

Dear Andrew Dinh, I am wondering if you have prepared a defense regarding the fact of an unlawful citizen's arrests on which the prosecution would be prohibited from basing their case for a violation of CPC 602.1 (a). Fruit of the poisoned tree. They can't prosecute me if my due process rights were violated during the arrests of April 23, and 30, 2017, and detention, of May 21, 2017 (to say nothing of the fact that there is no evidence of the charge) the citizen bringing the charge may be a victim of Korsakoff syndrome, alcoholic wet brain, he had not even heard of the code until the unlawful detention was made by the police on May 21, 2017, and had not looked it up until a week after the arrest. He said that it had too many big words so he watches u-tubes on how to do a security guard job instead of attempting to understand the charges. He insists that there is evidence that he compiled, (it's of pedestrian in roadway, someone else not me). I'm wondering why you were not provided with all of the prosecution's pictures, recordings, and videos for the pre-trial, the Landhousing gurad constantly blusters at me about his copious quantities of 'evidence,' he likes to intimidate me with all of that, maybe the prosecution failed to disclose because it would have made you laugh out loud. You probably should have sent and investigator or a subpoena to get the 'evidence' fifteen days ago, instead of waiting until we ran out of time.

(R.S. §1979;   Pub. L. 96–170, §1, Dec. 29, 1979,   93 Stat. 1284; Pub. L. 104–317, title III, §309(c),   Oct. 19, 1996, 110 Stat. 3853.) An arrest is classed as a citizens arrest when, an arrest is made by a person who does not normally have powers of arrest it is a citizens arrest when before the police arrive that person states, "I arrest you."

STATEMENT OF NANCY WOOD: Mr. Corona, the author of the Citizen's Arrests, asks me a lot of questions; I'm trying to meditate, I get to the Market after 4:PM, I need to meditate before dinner, he won't let me! For example, he demands a yes or no answer. He asked me whether or not the Market fries shrimp. I told him all of the options. He insisted, “give me a yes or no answer,” I said, 'No, no markets fry shrimp, only whole fish,' he kept asking me to answer 'yes or no.' (see Evidence Exhibit, tape recordings)

Poling did the same thing, he demanded “Answer me yes or no, during the detention of April 23, 2017, “is this a business yes or no? Did Mr. Corona ask you to leave yes or no!” Poling got mad when I quoted exactly what Corona had said, “I'm going to have you arrested.” I'm guessing that they piece my answers together, out of context, into their phone video; claiming its me answering however they would have wished for me to have answered, in a way that gives them a confession perhaps. Orange PD did the same thing, I sued them for Defamation and I won.

The security guard never actually said 'I'm arresting you,' he never asked me to 'leave the property;' all he said was, “I can't have you here, I am going to have you arrested.” The criteria to charge 602.1. (a), was never met. The Market has no surveillance camera in the parking lot, the police make too much kick-back money racketeering there to ever allow that, even after the murders and burglaries.

They want to construct a video that makes it seem as if Corona asked me to leave and I said 'no.' He videoed me demonstrating the difference between Obstructing traffic, and Pedestrian in Roadway. I turned on my voice activated recorder witness; I suspected that Corona wanted something he could splice in as my voice; into a 'created' surveillance video; I explained, “'Obstructing' is when someone holds up traffic by standing in the roadway blocking cars from proceeding to their destination, like this: 'None May Pass Here,' but, Stepping off of the curb so that a car has to skirt around you is 'Pedestrian in Roadway.'” I got the creepiest feeling while I was telling him the difference between the two codes that he would dub my voice, 'none may pass here' into his 'evidence' of a crime that never happened. Corona is the kind of creep who claims that he can get the criteria that he lacks for a 602.1 (a) Interference with a Business, and he does not care how he gets it, “I've got you...” (see tapes). Why else is he always bothering me with questions and ridiculous statements if he isn't conniving 'documentation' of crime? When I present the tape recordings of what really happened before he created his video version of crimes that never took place, he will be arrested for 'making perjured statements to gain a conviction in the absence of a crime.' and for witness tampering, and for harassment.

In the arrests and detention at issue neither Corona nor the Market manager arrested Wood, the arrests and detention were instigated and performed by patrol officers, who obtained signatures after the fact, to my knowledge the police contact was not initiated by citizens. Anyone can make a citizen's arrest when he or she sees a felony being committed, and acts to arrest the perpetrator before the police arrive. The police eventually show up, and process the arrest according to procedure. The citizen is subject to liability laws and prosecution for false arrest, if the arrestee is obviously not committing a felony: Citizens arrest are for extreme and obvious cases. A proper police arrest.. is when a police officer notices someone violating the law or has discovered through other means that there is reason to believe someone has violated the law.. and he signs the affidavits and paperwork etc.. testifying to that. A Citizen Arrest in the absence of a felony is an Unlawful Arrest, the police do not make a sworn statement that they believe a crime has been committed, the private citizen who made the arrest does. In the arrests at issue the police made the arrest, the citizen was enlisted to sign the Arrest form after the fact. It was the police not the citizen who stated that an arrest was being made. The police being part of the government have governmental immunity from lawsuits except in extreme cases, such as conspiring to make an Unlawful Arrest, and requiring an after the fact Citizen Arrest; both perpetrated at the arrests and detentions at issue. A private citizen does not have immunity from prosecution and law suits.

Making a citizen's arrest. CA Penal 245 (a) (1) Any person who commits an assault upon the person of another with a deadly weapon or instrument other than a firearm or by any means of force likely to produce great bodily injury shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for two, three, or four years, or in a county jail for not exceeding one year, or by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or by both the fine and imprisonment.

Making a citizen's arrest maliciously or with insufficient evidence of wrongdoing by the arrested individual can lead to civil or criminal penalties. Additionally, it is in violation of a suspects rights for a citizen making an arrest to use unnecessary force, to intentionally harm the suspect, to hold the suspect in unsafe conditions, or to delay in turning the suspect over to authorities. A citizen making an arrest is acting in the place of an officer of the law, and as such, is required to uphold the same rights and civil liberties as an officer of the law must uphold.

A citizen who violates a suspects rights, or who violates the applicable state law in detaining the suspect, (for example, arresting a suspect for a misdemeanor is a crime when the state statute requires a felony for a citizens arrest). Additionally, if it is found that the arresting party did not meet the pertinent state requirements for a citizens arrest, charges may be dropped entirely.

A person who has been unfairly arrested by a citizen, or illegally detained as a suspect during an illegitimate citizens arrest, can prosecute:Peace officers in the state of California are NOT obligated to accept a private person(s) arrest. At no time did the responding officers explain the civil ramifications to the citizens wishing to make an arrest. They were not given the opportunity to change their mind. The officers did not conduct an investigation necessary to make a prudent decision and can not demonstrate that they conducted a proper investigations prior to accepting a private person(s) arrest. They are an embarrassment to the law enforcement community. It is incumbent on the citizen to make the arrest, an authorization instigated by the police is not a Citizen Arrest, for which the police are liable. The police witnessed no crime, there was no felony. Wood was handcuffed, arrested, booked, and charged two times with misdemeanors in the absence of an investigation, or criteria for a violation. And detained on a third occasion, similarly.

CPC 847. (a) A private person who has arrested another for the commission of a public offense must, without unnecessary delay, take the person arrested before a magistrate, or deliver him or her to a peace officer. (b) There shall be no civil liability on the part of, and no cause of action shall arise against, any peace officer or federal criminal investigator or law enforcement officer described in subdivision (a) or (d) of Section 830.8, acting within the scope of his or her authority, for false arrest or false imprisonment arising out of any arrest under any of the following circumstances: (1) The arrest was lawful, or the peace officer, at the time of the arrest, had reasonable cause to believe the arrest was lawful. (2) The arrest was made pursuant to a charge made, upon reasonable cause, of the commission of a felony by the person to be arrested. (3) The arrest was made pursuant to the requirements of Section 142, 837, 838, or 839.

837. A private person may arrest another: 1. For a public offense committed or attempted in his presence. 2. When the person arrested has committed a felony, although not in his presence. 3. When a felony has been in fact committed, and he has reasonable cause for believing the person arrested to have committed it.

839. Any person making an arrest may orally summon as many persons as he deems necessary to aid him therein.

On each occasion of the Unlawful Arrests and Unlawful Detention at issue Wood requested that the person(s) making the citizen arrests be arrested for harassment and for making a false 911 call, the officers stated that there was no 911 call, but did not state to what they were responding, saying, 'there are many reasons why we could come here, there was no 911 call.

142. (a) Any peace officer who has the authority to receive or arrest a person charged with a criminal offense and willfully refuses to receive or arrest that person shall be punished by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or by imprisonment in the state prison, or in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment. (b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), the sheriff may determine whether any jail, institution, or facility under his or her direction shall be designated as a reception, holding, or confinement facility, or shall be used for several of those purposes, and may designate the class of prisoners for which any facility shall be used. (c) This section shall not apply to arrests made pursuant to Section 837.

The District Attorney used the CA statue 601.2(a) x post facto in an unlawful attempt to create the criteria for the Citizen Arrest charge (602 (t). The preemptive charge 602.1 (a) sets precedence that the arrest scene, that Mom Supermarket is indeed a business, not residential property The exclusions therein exempts anyone exercising constitutional rights ie. Freedom of religion, speech, assembly, transit, and freedom to pursue the enjoyments of life: “to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience ... those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men ." Meyer v Nebraska (1923) -Justice McReynolds. The citizen(s) made a citizen's arrest on (disputable) misdemeanor offenses in front of the police. They (PD) complied despite it being unlawful, in the absence of a felony offense. At all three incarcerations the officers declared that they HAVE to arrest, in fact they are not required to. Officers are required to conduct an investigation to determine reasonable cause to believe that the arrest is lawful, no investigation was undertaken. (see Exhibits, transcripts of arrests)

If the officers are there and Do Not see a crime, or see that a crime didn't occur, then they can't possibly have reasonable cause to believe the arrest is lawful.

Police officers can't disbelieve their own eyes: By refusing to arrest the citizen when it is clear that the citizen is making an unlawful arrest the officers commit a "willful refusal to arrest" which would subject the officer to punishment. The law “requires” the officer to think.

HARASSMENT IS DEFINED AS FOLLOWS:

1. Code of Civil Procedure, PART 2. OF CIVIL ACTIONS [307 - 1062.20] (1) “Course of conduct” is a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose, including following or stalking an individual... (2) “Credible threat of violence” is a knowing and willful statement or course of conduct that would place a reasonable person in fear for his or her safety ... and that serves no legitimate purpose. (3) “Harassment” is unlawful violence, a credible threat of violence, or a knowing and willful course of conduct directed at a specific person that seriously alarms, annoys, or harasses the person, and that serves no legitimate purpose. The course of conduct must be that which would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress, and must actually cause substantial emotional distress to the petitioner. Civil code section 646.91 (a) (such as)...willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly followed or harassed by another person who has made a credible threat with the intent of placing the person who is the target of the threat in reasonable fear for his or her safety... within the meaning of CPC section 646.9.

Nancy Wood is continually Harassed in a manner defamatory to her character, at the strip mall, in the absence of a crime or law enforcement purpose, by patrol officers acting in accordance with the personal edicts and unwritten policies of Landhousing security guard Mr. Corona (see Exhibits herein).

Obviously the spirit of the law; the intent of the law, is aimed at public safety for travelers advancing to a given destination, who are forced to make contact with a security guards by the spectacle of harassment and threats. Nancy Wood was not interfering with or obstructing commerce, but rather had remained, on the median in the parking lot while, waiting, while a fish she had purchased at Mom Supermarket , to be fried in the Market: (Photo exhibit attached)

Did you have Fountain Valley Hospital send you my medical records from the 2010 car accident; did you contact Arther Hausman (Irvine), about expert witness testimony; he was the PI lawyer who handled the case.

In Re Marquez, case note 8, at pages 605-606 states counsel is obligated to investigate and pursue mitigating evidence, even if a preliminary investigation might disclose harmful evidence derived from the same leads. Counsel must learn the nature and strength of the evidence, good or bad, to know whether to present the evidence at trial.

Be sure not to overlook mitigating evidence relating to failing health, severe impairment due to injuries sustained in a car accident, and related history of homelessness, have you started an investigation into mitigation.

A very significant factor in the case of In Re Cordero (1988) 46 Cal.3d 161 was defense counsel’s failure to detect impairment, investigate it, and raise impairment as a defense at trial. The California Supreme Court reversed Cordero’s conviction because of this type of ineffective assistance of counsel.

I am incapacitated and my injury is a significant consideration in my daily existence. Counsel should attempt to have the exact degree of my condition clinically evaluated, to advance an impairment defense or to offer impairment as a mitigating factor relating to sentencing. I am immobile for extended periods of time during which I draw, at strip malls. This defense is pivotal to the case.

Blanton v. Womancare (1985) 38 Cal.3d 396 at page 404 states that no attorney has the right to impair the client’s substantial rights or the cause of action itself. Nor may an attorney stipulate to a matter which would eliminate a substantial defense.

Apparently the prosecution does not feel that they need to prepare a case, so they aren't going to give you anything, they just show up for trial and win: The 'win' is on the house, 'thrown,' by virtue of a total abrogation of a defense.

Also did you find out why the Pitches motion return only contained one arrest when there were actually six arrest incidents, three of which resulted in custody, the return should have contained several 911 calls from me.

Could you please download the files from the thumb drive and give the drives back to me, I'll pick them up at the front desk: The Orange PD is expecting me to give them a recording on a thumb drive, of my next door neighbor in 'Camp Mom From Hell,' hanging one of many pets that have disappeared lately, along the River Bike Trail, as a means of coercing her three year old into sitting still while mom is on a drug run. I just found out recently that her daughter's is named, Jasmine, not 'Shut Up You Funking Bitch or I'll Hang You Just Like Her.' The police sent a helicopter to search for Jasmine, when Mom From Hell passed out drunk and lost track of her, and yet, child protective services won't check up on Hell Mom's tent, and the police won't arrest Jasmine's parents for child endangerment, “Mind your own business Nancy, she was with her dad, where she was supposed to be.” Actually she wasn't, she was asleep about half a mile down the road where she nodded out from exhaustion looking for her mom, if her dad had not been walking down the road and discovered her I would not be asking you for my thumb drives back because the River Bike Trail where we live is a child abductor's nirvana. The police get at least ten complaints about child abuse and neglect regarding Jasmine's parents, every week, the self appointed sheriff of the Camp, a homeless 'tuff guy,' has a file on Hell Mom, but the police always say, “we have no proof,” I have a tape that I call, “Jasmine killed the Lindbergh baby and is the root of all evil, according to her mom,” in which her mom screams at her for six hours non stop at full volume, as she does every day, all day, and also I have the tape of the hanging of the neighborhood pets tape. The police know about the missing animals because two of them were not willing to go quietly and were rescued from Hell Mom's tent. But knowing is not proof. Just between you and I, proof is not proof if the perp is putting out for police. But it's worth a try.

POSSIBLE MOTIONS AND DEFENSES:

I, Defendant Nancy Wood, demand (1) that a request for verbatim transcript be filed before trial,

sufficient time to fully prepare for trial, having been given (2) that the prosecution be excluded from

Hearing, and has no role to play in the hearing, (3) the Hearing to be verbatim reported by the

stenographic method, and the hearing transcript sealed for use in any subsequent appeal, and as a

record of defense counsel’s actions before trial, to avoid an inaccurate and unreliable trial verdict,

unnecessary appeals and reversals, and to do so at the earliest practicable point of awareness: Motion

is appropriate before or during trial, presented verbally or written: normal formalities, advance

written notice, and third party service are matters of courtesy and convenience not jurisdiction.

The motion is based upon these moving papers, upon these Points and Authorities, upon the entire

court file and full record in this action, and upon such evidence and argument as the court shall

receive when the motion is heard.

LAW

A misdemeanor defendant may have a verbatim transcript upon demand. In Re Armstrong (1981)

126 Cal.App.3d 565 at page 574 , 178 Cal.Rptr. 902 states, "We have, by our instant decision, held

that, upon request therefore, there is a constitutional right that a verbatim record be provided at

public expense for all defendants in misdemeanor matters." Defendant Nancy Carolyn Wood

demands a verbatim transcript at the hearing, at any other court hearings, and at trial.

Defendant invokes her constitutional right to have counsel competently and fully assist in the

defense of the accused, both before and during trial.

The Calif. Supreme Court in People v. Barnett (1998) 17 Cal.4th 1044 , 74 Cal.Rptr.2d 121; 954 P.2d

384 at page 1085 at case note #2.

Effective assistance of counsel is shown both by specific acts, and by general practices.

The standards of both effective and ineffective assistance may be determined by the laws, by the

decisional case law, by the Rules of Professional Conduct, and by reference to leading legal treatises.

ZEALOUS AND DILIGENT, CCP 128.7 standard. In addition to all other standards, Code of Civil

Procedure section 128.7 requires counsel to: know his facts before pleading or arguing a position CCP

128.7 (b) (2) and CCP 128.7 (b) (3); know the laws that apply to those facts CCP 128.7 (b) (2); only sign a pleading or make an argument based on "an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances" CCP 128.7 (b); only argue facts and contentions that have evidentiary support or that will likely be supported after reasonable investigation and discovery CCP 128.7 (b) (3); only make those arguments that are supported by the facts and by existing law OR BY A GOOD FAITH ARGUMENT FOR A CHANGE, MODIFICATION, OR REVERSAL OF EXISTING LAW. CCP 128.7 (b) (2).

Counsel must also know how to reasonably ask for a change, exception, or distinguishment of

existing law in the trial court. Most landmark decisions in criminal cases, the sorts of cases that are

even known to lay people, were in fact CHANGES OF EXISTING LAW. Examples of landmark changes in existing law are: Mapp v. Ohio -- search & seizure exclusionary rule; Miranda v. Arizona -- Miranda warning, right to remain silent; Gideon v. Wainwright -- right to appointed counsel in misdemeanor cases.

EXAMPLES OF EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL: In Re Steven Vargas (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 1125, case note 4, at page 1133 states that defense counsel

have the obligation to investigate ALL defenses, explore the factual bases for defenses and the

applicable law. Counsel must make an independent evaluation of the charges, applicable law and

evidence, and of the risks and probable outcome of trial.

Defense counsel will receive a file containing hundreds of pages of admissible evidence including legal

arguments from Wood, as of the day of the pre-trial.

In Re Vargas, case note 7, at page 1136 states Defendant is entitled to reasonably competent

assistance of counsel acting as a diligent and conscientious advocate. Before counsel acts or decides

Declaration in Support of Defendant Wood's Motion to Dismiss

not to act, counsel must make a rational and informed decision based on adequate investigation and

preparation.

The entire preparation to date consists of the arraignment, at which the Prosecution offered to

dismiss the case in exchange for DNA. And one return on the Pitches motion, where a dozen returns were anticipated. Wood, refused to take any prosecution offers, or to wave time.

In Re Vargas, at page 1138 states the reasonableness of counsel’s tactical choices requires scrutiny of

whether the choices were informed choices, preceded by adequate investigation and preparation.

Defense counsel stated, “You should take the offer to dismiss, we can talk about it later. ” Counsel

added that there is time to get a Pitches motion on the table, he added, “I have Pitches to file on other

cases, so that works out well. Counsel told Defendant that she misunderstands the requirement that

states a Citizen Arrest can only be made regarding a felony. And stated that Defendant had confused

the rules and was probably thinking of the rule that requires police officers to witness the crime for

which they are making an arrest. Wood objected to being characterized as dyslexic. Counselor Dinh

continued to characterize Wood as confused and dyslexic when she said she wanted to stipulate to a

judge not a commissioner. Counselor admonished that Jury trials are always heard by judges,

Defendant asserted that demanding a jury trial at this point is not a preclusion to any changes in the

future, and quoted the judge, “If you remain silent on the subject of a Judge you are agreeing to

accept a Commissioner.” Wood asked for Counsel's email in order “to send you the law, that states...

(Citizen Arrests in the absence of a felony are unlawful) Counsel shut Wood up by talking over her. But

did provide his email.

In Re Vargas, at page 1140 states Defense Counsel is supposed to discuss the strengths and

weaknesses of the case with his client.

Counsel will receive Woods written submissions and documents, containing possible defenses

and exonerating evidence, before the pre-trail of June 30, 2017, In anticipation of Counsel's

investigation, pretrial research, and preparation, and synopsis of the arraignment, which was an

attempt to force a DNA test; a contingent offer to dismiss.

In Re Marquez (1992) 1 Cal.4th 584, case note 6, at pages 603-604 states defense counsel should

diligently seek out, interview, and subpoena relevant witnesses. All witnesses in the case, are in

Orange County, and most are expected to be in Santa Ana. Counsel should subpoenaed any witness

in relation to any of Defendant Woods defenses, available for phone appointment or to

communicate by email, witnesses are available and in communication with Defendant daily, their

contact information has been supplied to Counsel.

In Re Marquez, case note 8, at pages 605-606 states counsel is obligated to investigate and pursue

mitigating evidence, even if a preliminary investigation might disclose harmful evidence derived from

the same leads. Counsel must learn the nature and strength of the evidence, good or bad, to know

whether to present the evidence at trial; mitigating evidence relating to Defendant Wood's failing

health, severe impairment due to injuries sustained in a car accident, and related history of

homelessness, heart disease aggravated by the three consecutive unlawful incarcerations:

Counsel should start an investigation into mitigation.

Supreme Court reversed Cordero’s conviction because of this type of ineffective assistance of counsel.

Defense counsel Dinh has been informed that Defendant Wood is incapacitated and that her injury

is a significant consideration in her daily existence. Counsel should attempt to have the exact

degree of Defendant Wood's condition clinically evaluated, and attempt to advance an

impairment defense or to offer impairment as a mitigating factor relating to sentencing. Wood

is immobile for extended periods of time during which she draws. This defense is pivotal to the case.

Blanton v. Womancare (1985) 38 Cal.3d 396 at page 404 states that no attorney has the right to

impair the client’s substantial rights or the cause of action itself. Nor may an attorney stipulate to a

matter which would eliminate a substantial defense.

RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT STANDARD

The State Bar Rules of Professional Conduct govern the conduct of attorneys. The Rules of

Professional Conduct apply to all California attorneys. The Rules of Professional Conduct define

good attorney practices even despite expert witness testimony to the contrary. The Rules of

Professional Conduct require all attorneys to:

1. Investigate the facts;

2. Know the law that applies to the facts, or learn the law before trial, or get additional associate

counsel who know the law;

3. Regularly communicate with the client about the significant events of the case;

4. Don't have conflicts of interest, or, declare such conflicts of interest openly.

Obligations arising from the State Bar Rules of Professional Conduct, and the cases supporting and

applying the Rules of Professional Conduct, are readily available.

The use of legal treatises, case digests, annotated code sets, and case reporting services is an efficient

and productive means of doing legal research into criminal defenses. Code of Civil Procedure section

1899 states:

"Unwritten law is the law not promulgated and recorded, as mentioned in Section 1896, but which

is, nevertheless, observed and administered in the Courts of the country. It has no certain

repository, but is collected from the reports of the decisions of the Courts, and the treatises of

learned men."

A lawyer who is properly motivated and has modest diligence can evaluate and prepare a variety of

defenses for almost any accusation. Such a motivated, diligent lawyer can also inform himself of his

duty of effective representation and zealous, diligent advocacy.

With a DNA contingent offer to dismiss, the only alternative being conviction in the absence of a

crime: Researching and preparing is essential. Prior to that counsel Comfort endorsed an unlawful

reduction to an infraction and a fine, advising Defendant to take a plea deal to an infraction; an

unlawful attempt to deprive defendant of a jury trial: The prosecution offered to dismiss the case,

pending obtaining DNA, yet counsel created a prosecution plea, stating with certainty of loss, “They

will probably just give probation (if you loose), what’s wrong with that!” Wood does not intend to

lose, and does not accept any plea, particularly not probation. Counsel's comment shows an

unwillingness to adequately represent Defendant, if at all: Proof that the Public Defender intends to

make only negligible or incompetent use of the wealth of readily available defense resources. When

questioned about the public defenders office research sources, at the arraignment, counsel did not

respond, indicating that Wood should take whatever deal is offered by the Prosecution: Trade DNA

for a dismissal on a factually baseless charge: Or go to court with a Public Defender's assurance of

loss that will result in probation. Wood refused, stating that subjugating a defendant to the court

procedure, in a baseless charge, in order to extort DNA, is unlawful, as is reducing a misdemeanor to

an infraction for the purpose of depriving a defendant of a jury trial: per the Prosecutions offer.

Defendant Wood asserts that she was not charged with an infraction and that the code, at issue,

does not carry an infraction. There are no other applicable alternatives charges. Counsel Dinh commented, “the prosecution probably did not dismiss because they think they have enough evidence to win, they bring cases on shopping carts!” Clearly this case is understood to be an effort to nail a bag lady.

POTENTIAL DEFENSES AVAILABLE

As a lay person, using resources available at OCPLL, or, on the Internet, Defendant Wood has been

able to identify potential defenses, and case authority to support those defenses. RESEARCH

RESOURCES AVAILABLE The Orange County Public Law Library, located in the Santa Ana Civic

Center, has numerous legal treatises on criminal defense, including treatises by the Witkin Institute,

Matthew Bender, West Publishing Group, Laurie Levenson, and CEB (Continuing Education of the

Bar). There are also five sets of relevant case digests - the California Official Digest ("McKinney

Digest"), West's California Digest 2nd edition, West's Federal Practice Digest 4th edition (for federal

constitutional issues), CalJur, and ALR (American Law Reports). There are two versions of

annotated California codes - West's and Deering's

All of these criminal defense resources are on the open shelves of the Orange County Public Law

Library. Additionally, OCPLL has both CD-ROM and Internet access to various case reporting

services. For her purposes, a potential defense is (1) a legal argument that could reasonably be

made pre-trial, (2) facts, authorities, and arguments that could reasonably appeal to a jury at trial

and thereby prevent conviction, (3) a combination of factors that might mitigate sentencing.

A trained and motivated defense counsel would be able to make a well supported list of defenses.

Wood is factually not guilty, she met none of the criteria for an arrest, and she has a history of being

harassed by the Santa Ana Officers that motivated the reprisal arrests, and unlawful detention at

issue. Competent counsel could research and develop these facts for a bullet-proof defense

argument.

Another potential defense is, credibility of the arresting and investigating officers under Evidence

Code section 780, further supported by favorable returns from a Pitchess motion to get police

personnel files (described in Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531.) Evidence Code

section 780 allows one to test a witness for credibility on the basis of character, bias, motive, or

prejudice, among other things. Since the officers have an alleged history of engaging in

harassment against, those who they define as undesirable, with the potential of a misdemeanor

arrest as leverage, and since they did at previous contacts violate Defendant’s Civil Rights, this

defense would be particularly appropriate.

Another potential defense is Selective Prosecution, as in the Murgia-Baluyut defense based on

discriminatory prosecution or selective enforcement. Murgia v. Municipal Court (Bakersfield ) (1975)

15 Cal.3d 286 prevents prosecutions based on "invidious discrimination". The California Supreme

Court fully re-affirmed Murgia, and simplified the proof of Murgia discrimination, in Baluyut v.

Superior Court (Santa Clara) (1996) 12 Cal.4th 826 , 50 Cal.Rptr.2d 101; 911 P.2d 1.

Murgia-Baluyut adds to any "as applied" challenge to an ordinance. Tobe v. City of Santa Ana (1995) 9

Cal.4th 1069 , 40 Cal.Rptr.2d 402; 892 P.2d 1145, a leading Calif. case on homelessness, states that "as

applied" challenges are permitted even against ordinances which have survived "facial" constitutional

challenges.

Procedural details on Murgia-Baluyut motions, thresholds, and permissible ranges of discovery are all

covered in the treatises.

Material for a Murgia-Baluyut defense may come from Brady-Brown discovery returns of "exculpatory

evidence" (BRADY v. MARYLAND (1963) 373 U.S. 83 and In Re John George Brown (1998) 17 Cal.4th

873 , 72 Cal.Rptr.2d 698; 952 P.2d 715), from Pitchess discovery returns of police personnel files

(Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531), from Fowler discovery returns of police radio

messages, patrol car computer messages, and 911 emergency line audiotapes (Fowler v. Superior

Court (1984) 162 Cal.App.3d 215). Additional ways to support Murgia-Baluyut defenses are to

thoroughly scrutinize the legislative history of the Codes at issue, including transcripts of all official

meetings at which the Codes were discussed; check newspaper archives and databases for

discriminatory statements of the Mayor, City and County Council members, the City Attorney, District

Attorney, and high ranking police official; demand discovery of every document that the police

department has that discusses or mentions the Code in any way; demand copies of police reports for

every recent enforcement of the Code to identify names of homeless people or addresses frequently

used by homeless people. Counsel should assume that there has been discrimination and aggressively

look to prove that discrimination.

Defendant Wood proposed this defense to arraignment Defense counsel, stating that the officers

have been using the Codes to convert arrestees into prostitutes, and have recruited addicts, purse snatchers, panhandlers, and other types of strip mall racketeers 'working' the Market in order to extract kick backs, on threat of jail (see photo exhibits), while enlisting perjured ‘witness’ statements from security guards to gain convictions, with no basis in fact, so often that the practice has become pervasive.

Wood observed that for the past four years the Codes have been applied to eliminate observers to the

lucrative, cop-un rackets. The extent can be determined by investigation and discovery motions and

by analyzing the verbatim transcript of the arrests and unlawful detention in their entirety. The

evidence also contains declarations from witnesses at the scene and from witnesses to the

perpetration of identical civil rights violations by Santa Ana Officers. The research or arguments and

affidavits, provided by Wood, photographs taken at the arrest scene, will challenge the prosecution.

Another defense could be based on Wheeler-Harris attack on composition of jury pool because there

may be too few women, too few poor people, too few homeless people, too few Buddhist nuns and

too few disabled people, to comprise an adequate “peer” jury for Defendant Wood. People v. James

Michael Wheeler (1978) 22 Cal.3d 258 and People v. Lee Edward Harris (1984) 36 Cal.3d 36 , 201

Cal.Rptr. 782; 679 P.2d 433. Wheeler-Harris attacks are explained by the Calif. Supreme Court in

People v. Anderson (2001) 25 Cal.4th 543 , 106 Cal.Rptr.2d 575; 22 P.3d 347 at page 566 at case

notes No. 1a and No. 2

[1a] Defendant argues the trial court erred under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments by denying

the motion to quash. [2] "Under the federal and state Constitutions, an accused is entitled to a jury

drawn from a representative cross-section of the community. (U.S. Const., 6th Amend.; Cal. Const.,

art. I, § 16; Duren v. Missouri (1979) 439 U.S. 357, 358-367 [58 L.Ed.2d 579, 583-588, 99 S.Ct. 664];

People v. Howard (1992) 1 Cal.4th 1132, 1159 [5 Cal.Rptr.2d 268, 824 P.2d 1315].) That guarantee

mandates that the pools from which juries are drawn must not systematically exclude distinctive

groups in the community. (People v. Mattson (1990) 50 Cal.3d 826, 842 [268 Cal.Rptr. 802, 789 P.2d

983].) 'In order to establish a prima facie violation of the fair-cross-section requirement, the

defendant must show (1) that the group alleged to be excluded is a "distinctive" group in the

community; (2) that the representation of this group in venires from which juries are selected is not

fair and reasonable in relation to the number of such persons in the community; and (3) that this

under-representation is due to systematic exclusion of the group in the jury-selection process.'

(Duren v. Missouri, supra, 439 U.S. at p. 364 [58 L.Ed.2d at pp. 586-587]; People v. Howard, supra, 1

Cal.4th at p. 1159.) ... If a defendant establishes a prima facie case of systematic under

representation, the burden shifts to the prosecution to provide either a more precise statistical

showing that no constitutionally significant disparity exists or a compelling justification for the

procedure that has resulted in the disparity in the jury venire. (People v. Sanders[, supra,] 51 Cal.3d

471, 491....)" (People v. Horton (1995) 11 Cal.4th 1068, 1087-1088 [47 Cal.Rptr.2d 516, 906 P.2d 478]

(Horton).)

Edward Harris, a capital defendant, is alive today because of Harris challenges. Defense counsel Dinh

should acknowledged the potential "Wheeler-Harris" approach.

Another possible defense is, Diminished Capacity or impairment or handicap defense, regarding

Defendant Wood's injury. This will require examination of the Defendant by qualified experts, and

expert reports. The degree to which a particular condition causes impairment is a complicated legal

issue requiring diligent research.

Also appropriate for Defendant Wood, is a 'Necessity Defense' because of a long history

incapacitate due to an easily aggravated back, leg, and jaw injury, and homelessness. Presented as a

variant of the "Eichorn defense" (used by James Eichorn, defending against a Santa Ana camping

ordinance violation) this defense requires expert examinations and expert opinions. Defense counsel

must make sure the Defendant meets all the necessity criteria.

In re James Eichorn (1998) 69 Cal.App.4th 382 at page 389 at case note #4, 81 Cal.Rptr.2d 535

states:

[4] An instruction on the defense of necessity is required where there is evidence "sufficient to

establish that defendant violated the law (1) to prevent a significant evil, (2) with no adequate

alternative, (3) without creating a greater danger than the one avoided, (4) with a good faith belief

in the necessity, (5) with such belief being objectively reasonable, and (6) under circumstances in

which he did not substantially contribute to the emergency. [Citations.]" (People v. Pepper (1996)

41 Cal.App.4th 1029, 1035 [48 Cal.Rptr.2d 877]; People v. Pena (1983) 149 Cal.App.3d Supp. 14 [197

Cal.Rptr. 264].) Wood's unobtrusive presence at the Market is necessitated by her unique status in

and valuable contribution to the community as a disabled Tibetan Buddhist strip mall portrait artist.

JURY TRIAL WAIVER

Defense counsel has agreed not to wave time. Counsel Comfort however told Wood at the

arraignment that she would be at the mercy of the jury, who would interpret the evidence

however they chose, “A judge can't help you there.” This odd means of discouraging Wood

from exercising her right to a trial is perplexing; abdicating a successful outcome for Wood. By

his admonition on the matter Counsel Comfort has attempted to unlawfully pressure

Defendant Wood into waiving her right to a speedy jury trial. Counsel has not bothered to

determine who the judge is. Wood has called his office twice a day consistently from the June 6,

2017, to June 13, 2017; but has been told that he is not available. Wood has had to send her

submissions to the general delivery address of the Public Defenders office.

Treating the court process like a card game by dealing Defendant's due process rights out of her

hand is constitutionally violative: Since the US Supreme Court decided UNITED STATES v.

JACKSON (1968) 390 U.S. 570 there has been no reason to convene a bench trial instead of a jury

trial. In Jackson, a defendant under the Federal Kidnap Act faced a possible death sentence if he lost

a jury trial, whereas he got life if he lost a bench trial. "The inevitable effect of any such provision is,

of course, to discourage assertion of the Fifth Amendment right not to plead guilty and to deter

exercise of the Sixth Amendment right to demand a jury trial. If the provision had no other purpose

or effect than to chill the assertion of constitutional rights by penalizing those who choose to

exercise them, then it would be patently unconstitutional." United States v. Jackson, 390 US 570 at

page 581.

The Jackson decision outlawed any sentencing scheme where different penalties for bench trials vs.

jury trials are offered. Subsequently if the penalty range is the same, a Defendant absolutely wants

the primary benefit of a jury: one vote to avoid conviction.

Should Defense counsel Dinh decide that there is no need for fact finding by a jury and insists on a

jury waiver, he will have to immediately file a motion to vacate the jury trial waiver, and restore

Defendant's constitutional right to a jury.

ADEQUATE DEFENSE

Counsel Comfort refused to look at Defendant's submissions at the arraignment, “I'm not your

lawyer.” Counsel Dinh agreed to look at Defendant's submissions at the pre-trial, (June 30, 2017),

Wood stated, “I taped the arrest. The police report is a perjured statement to gain a conviction. It's

not about trespassing or obstructing, I wasn't obstructing or trespassing, it's about what I saw and

what I know about Landhousing Security Service and the police using the property and guards to

run rackets, I taped the arrests and detention.” Counsel replied, “I don't want you to have to wait

around all day while I have to be somewhere else, one of the girls at the table will help you.” The

case will be dismissed at the pre-trail.” The case was not dismissed at the pre-trial, Defendant Wood was told Counsel Dinh that there was nothing to discuss and he would e-mail if ther was, he had not had time to open the 100 pages of exhibits and arguments that she had delivered to his office. Although she was allowed to offer her facts, arguments, and evidence to the prosecution,in order to force a dismissal. They are still sitting, unopened, on Defense Counsel's desk.

Defense preparation requires effort. Counsel has to be willing to make the effort to defend Wood.

A defense counsel has to be alert and courteous when dealing with the client; willing to meet or

confer regularly and frequently; willing to accommodate client's wishes when it is legal and

reasonable to do so; willing to be alert to potential defenses that are typical of people in client's

situation even if client doesn't know enough law to raise a particular defense issue; willing to cover

the cost of the defense, including aggressive investigation of facts, leads, witnesses, documents,

and thorough research into various legal alternatives and defenses; willing to file frequent detailed

reports to get reimbursement for expended funds, or file motions to obtain advance court ordered

funds for investigation, research, and expert witnesses. Or declare to the court that defense counsel

cannot afford to conduct a proper defense and must withdraw. Defense counsel must ask probing

questions, dig hard for the facts, file discovery motions, and research the corners off of law

books, with a good computerized case reporting service and heavy reliance on treatises and

case digests, consult a good research paralegal, a good field investigator, and get results

through document returns from timely and well argued discovery motions.

Defense counsel can not be reluctant to meet or confer with his client; must agree to proposed

meetings, before the trial, without reluctance examine his client's written documentation, that will

accomplished a dismissal.

Defense counsel seems to hope “Maybe they will dismiss.” Relying on hope creates a strong

conflict of interest with his zealous defense of client Wood, who also wants the case over with,

as quickly, as possible, while putting a committed effort into winning the case.

Declaration in Support of Defendant Wood's Motion to Dismiss

So far the “investigative ,” effort by the Public Defenders office, by Counsel Comfort consists

simply of interrogating Wood about homelessness, “You are not a criminal why are you homeless,”

concluding with, “I'm not your lawyer, you will find out who he is at the

pre-trial,” allowing a critical deadline to expire: the 100 day deadline in Fowler v. Superior Court

(1984) 162 Cal.App.3d 215 at page 218, thus losing access to vital police radio and computer

messages. As of June 30, 2017, Counsel has filed no discovery requests, filed no discovery motions

under Brady-Brown, made one insignificant Pitchess motions, made no Murgia-Baluyut motions, made no preparations for a jury trial, made no preparations for a Wheeler-Harris challenge to the jury pool,

(anticipating a jury trial waiver): he should act now before time runs out.

Time remains to investigate the health or disabilities or life history of his client, toward a

necessity defense and any possible factors in mitigation of sentence, to advance or facilitate or

implement a defense. There is time to use an investigator; file motions to get an investigator. As of

this motion the public defender stated, “We just have questions that we have to ask about

homelessness.”

The Calif. Supreme court in Mills v. Municipal Court (1973) 10 Cal.3d 288 extended the full

constitutional protections used in felony cases to misdemeanor cases. That means ALL the

constitutional and procedural defenses are fully available to Defendant Wood. Except for

preliminary hearings and grand juries, a misdemeanor case runs the same way as a felony, but with

lower liberty risk to the defendant. Any competent attorney should be familiar with Mills v.

Municipal Court. Mills is the third part of the Boykin-Tahl-Mills sequence.

-Nancy