Challenges Continue With the Gang Injunction

Judge Overrules Challenge to Injunction

One day after Judge Kathleen White overruled a demurrer as premature and not correctly targeted at the complaint, opponents of the gang injunction announced a bold new plan aimed at stripping away the core of the District Attorney and West Sacramento Police’s claims about the need for a gang injunction in West Sacramento.

The Woodland Daily Democrat yesterday reported that the challenge to the gang injunction was thrown out by Judge White.

The Democrat reports:

“Defense attorney Mark Merin took issue with the injunction’s prohibition on gang members associating with each other. He argued that just because a group or association might at times commit illegal acts does not give the state authority to prohibit them from associating at all and/or for legal purposes.

He drew attention to groups like Operation Rescue, an anti-abortion group. Although it routinely engages in illegal acts of blockading abortion clinics, the group cannot be forbidden from associating for legal purposes such as protests and administrative meetings.

“If it were mere membership in an organization, then we would see an injunction against Operation Rescue,” Merin said. “We would see an injunction against the Klu Klux Klan. But we see them meeting in public because its protected under the First Amendment.”

Defense attorney David Dratman agreed and complained the injunction essentially punished the defendants before having their day in court.

“It’s almost like a trial in Alice in Wonderland – ‘no, no, no, sentence first, trial afterward,'” Dratman said. “It’s overly broad and vague and is not supported by facts.”

Merin retorted by saying the case cannot commence on flawed premises.

“You can’t start off on the wrong foot and at some point hope you get it right – perhaps at the end,” Merin said.

Judge White, however, disagreed and overruled the demurrer, keeping in place the complaint and the prosecution’s proposed injunction.

“One has to remember this a civil court, not a criminal court,” White said. “You said we can’t start off on the wrong foot. Well, in civil case, actually, you can.” “

Community Fighting Back

Opposition to the Gang Injunction will now go ahead with a bold new plan aimed at stripping away community support–or at the very least the law enforcement community’s contention that there is a strong community support.

Organizers plan to “poll” neighbors about the need for the gang injunction. And citizens vow to fight back against police harassment.

According to a press release sent out yesterday afternoon, community members, claiming they are under “attack” by police who pushing the gang injunction, will go door-to-door, starting this weekend in an effort to gain signatures declaring opposition to the gang injunction or as this group calls it a “Proposed POLICE Injunction.”

These declarations will ask people if they’ve really had problems with gangs, as the police claim. And then ask why they believe police and the Yolo County District Attorney are seeking the gang injunction.

These declarations come on the heals of a slew of complaints that they have been harassed by the police including charges that families are photographed at picnics in the park and children have been harassed while riding their bicycles home from school.

Community members will meet at 1 p.m. SATURDAY, at 1100 Carrie St. in West Sacramento. Assistance to them will be provided by other community groups, and members of the ACLU.

Commentary

While the vigilance is to be applauded on the behalf of community groups, it might be more beneficial if an independent investigator could examine some of the charges laid forth by the community against the efforts of the police and the district attorney’s office. I have heard from a variety of residents of West Sacramento on this issue over the last two years and frankly it is a very polarized and mixed bag.

The polarization often occurs down racial lines, with many Hispanics claiming that this is sheer harassment, while many whites claim that the Broderick Street Boys are basically street terrorists.

I suspect that the truth is somewhere down the middle, where the police have likely been overzealous in their prosecutions of the effort and the gangs have been a large problem as well.

I do not oppose an injunction per se. I oppose several aspects of the injunction. First it should be a criminal proceeding not a civil one. If you are going to deprive people of liberty, you should have to give them due process of law. That is what the constitution calls for. And if that is the case, then it has to be a criminal proceeding.

This is the fifth amendment:

“nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”

Due process of law requires the right to an attorney. And if one cannot afford an attorney, they are to have an attorney appointed by the court. But this right was not held up by the court in a previous ruling around the beginning of this year. The defense attorney vowed however to defend the accused at no cost to them.

I have a big problem with that ruling.

Second, the gang injunction should be based on actual crimes committed rather than association. To the use the example provided in the court case, just because an individual is associated with Operation Rescue, does not mean they have bombed abortion clinics. You have to prove that they personally bombed abortion clinics in order to punish them. If you want to make one of the penalties associated with committing crimes as a gang member, deprivation of liberties, that seems reasonable. If you want to deprive people’s liberties who have committed no crimes, I have a problem with that.

Finally, they need to prove the case against individual gang members. This goes back to the originally injunction that was tossed out. They tried to ban association based on a limited number of alleged gang members being notified. They have increased that number, but each person associated with the injunction should have the right to challenge that injunction if it is to effect them. If the judge upholds the gang injunction here, is it merely the defendants it will impact or will impact all alleged gang members?

I understand people’s fear of violent crime and gangs, but we have a constitution and due process in this country for a reason and from what I’ve seen, a threat of gang violence is not a reason to change that system of government.

—Doug Paul Davis reporting

Author

  • David Greenwald

    Greenwald is the founder, editor, and executive director of the Davis Vanguard. He founded the Vanguard in 2006. David Greenwald moved to Davis in 1996 to attend Graduate School at UC Davis in Political Science. He lives in South Davis with his wife Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald and three children.

Categories:

Court Watch

56 comments

  1. Quote: To the use the example provided in the court case, just because an individual is associated with Operation Rescue, does not mean they have bombed abortion clinics. You have to prove that they personally bombed abortion clinics in order to punish them.
    ——-

    What if they are members of an organization which advocates the bombing of abortion clinics?

  2. Quote: To the use the example provided in the court case, just because an individual is associated with Operation Rescue, does not mean they have bombed abortion clinics. You have to prove that they personally bombed abortion clinics in order to punish them.
    ——-

    What if they are members of an organization which advocates the bombing of abortion clinics?

  3. Quote: To the use the example provided in the court case, just because an individual is associated with Operation Rescue, does not mean they have bombed abortion clinics. You have to prove that they personally bombed abortion clinics in order to punish them.
    ——-

    What if they are members of an organization which advocates the bombing of abortion clinics?

  4. Quote: To the use the example provided in the court case, just because an individual is associated with Operation Rescue, does not mean they have bombed abortion clinics. You have to prove that they personally bombed abortion clinics in order to punish them.
    ——-

    What if they are members of an organization which advocates the bombing of abortion clinics?

  5. For folks to knock on doors to encourage the neighborhood to disfavor the injunction smells like gang intimidation to me.

    Let’s let the legal process continue, with appropriate legal challenges going forth until someone in authority sorts out what is right. The courts will determine what type of injunction will pass constitutional muster, and what won’t.

    Let’s face it – we wouldn’t be having this discussion if the Broderick Boys had been law abiding citizens. They could probably end the problem right now by putting forth positive efforts to improve their surrounding neighborhood – much as was done in New York City some years back.

    Can’t think of the name of the group (Guardian Angels I think) – but they were former gang members who “found God” so to speak, and started policing the subways themselves to stop gang violence.

    How about the Broderick Boys turning their energies to creating some after school programs for kids in place of gang initiations – gang initiations like the incident in Davis, where two train engineers were dragged off a train and beaten within an inch of their life?

    I would have a lot more sympathy for the plight of the Broderick Boys if they were making some attempts at cleaning up their act. Giving away free trees just doesn’t cut it (pardon the pun).

  6. For folks to knock on doors to encourage the neighborhood to disfavor the injunction smells like gang intimidation to me.

    Let’s let the legal process continue, with appropriate legal challenges going forth until someone in authority sorts out what is right. The courts will determine what type of injunction will pass constitutional muster, and what won’t.

    Let’s face it – we wouldn’t be having this discussion if the Broderick Boys had been law abiding citizens. They could probably end the problem right now by putting forth positive efforts to improve their surrounding neighborhood – much as was done in New York City some years back.

    Can’t think of the name of the group (Guardian Angels I think) – but they were former gang members who “found God” so to speak, and started policing the subways themselves to stop gang violence.

    How about the Broderick Boys turning their energies to creating some after school programs for kids in place of gang initiations – gang initiations like the incident in Davis, where two train engineers were dragged off a train and beaten within an inch of their life?

    I would have a lot more sympathy for the plight of the Broderick Boys if they were making some attempts at cleaning up their act. Giving away free trees just doesn’t cut it (pardon the pun).

  7. For folks to knock on doors to encourage the neighborhood to disfavor the injunction smells like gang intimidation to me.

    Let’s let the legal process continue, with appropriate legal challenges going forth until someone in authority sorts out what is right. The courts will determine what type of injunction will pass constitutional muster, and what won’t.

    Let’s face it – we wouldn’t be having this discussion if the Broderick Boys had been law abiding citizens. They could probably end the problem right now by putting forth positive efforts to improve their surrounding neighborhood – much as was done in New York City some years back.

    Can’t think of the name of the group (Guardian Angels I think) – but they were former gang members who “found God” so to speak, and started policing the subways themselves to stop gang violence.

    How about the Broderick Boys turning their energies to creating some after school programs for kids in place of gang initiations – gang initiations like the incident in Davis, where two train engineers were dragged off a train and beaten within an inch of their life?

    I would have a lot more sympathy for the plight of the Broderick Boys if they were making some attempts at cleaning up their act. Giving away free trees just doesn’t cut it (pardon the pun).

  8. For folks to knock on doors to encourage the neighborhood to disfavor the injunction smells like gang intimidation to me.

    Let’s let the legal process continue, with appropriate legal challenges going forth until someone in authority sorts out what is right. The courts will determine what type of injunction will pass constitutional muster, and what won’t.

    Let’s face it – we wouldn’t be having this discussion if the Broderick Boys had been law abiding citizens. They could probably end the problem right now by putting forth positive efforts to improve their surrounding neighborhood – much as was done in New York City some years back.

    Can’t think of the name of the group (Guardian Angels I think) – but they were former gang members who “found God” so to speak, and started policing the subways themselves to stop gang violence.

    How about the Broderick Boys turning their energies to creating some after school programs for kids in place of gang initiations – gang initiations like the incident in Davis, where two train engineers were dragged off a train and beaten within an inch of their life?

    I would have a lot more sympathy for the plight of the Broderick Boys if they were making some attempts at cleaning up their act. Giving away free trees just doesn’t cut it (pardon the pun).

  9. “For folks to knock on doors to encourage the neighborhood to disfavor the injunction smells like gang intimidation to me.”

    I took it to me they going to get community input, I think you are attributing malice where there is none. What if the majority of the people really do not support this policy? We keep hearing that the neighbors support this from the police and the DA, what if they are wrong?

  10. “For folks to knock on doors to encourage the neighborhood to disfavor the injunction smells like gang intimidation to me.”

    I took it to me they going to get community input, I think you are attributing malice where there is none. What if the majority of the people really do not support this policy? We keep hearing that the neighbors support this from the police and the DA, what if they are wrong?

  11. “For folks to knock on doors to encourage the neighborhood to disfavor the injunction smells like gang intimidation to me.”

    I took it to me they going to get community input, I think you are attributing malice where there is none. What if the majority of the people really do not support this policy? We keep hearing that the neighbors support this from the police and the DA, what if they are wrong?

  12. “For folks to knock on doors to encourage the neighborhood to disfavor the injunction smells like gang intimidation to me.”

    I took it to me they going to get community input, I think you are attributing malice where there is none. What if the majority of the people really do not support this policy? We keep hearing that the neighbors support this from the police and the DA, what if they are wrong?

  13. dpd,

    Do you have some evidence or examples of over zealousness by the cops? Let’s see it in print. Yes,you are correct the criminal gangs are entitled to due process. They should get the same due process they gave their victims.
    Are the gang member losers, broderick boys, norteno’s and sureno’s the son’s and daughter’s of ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS? Does the problem have so many facets that it is beyond your commentary?
    How about a word on the gangs, good works for the community? Have you had the experience of living in a neighborhood dominated by gangs or are your comments based on what someone from one side or the other is telling you?
    Your turn.

  14. dpd,

    Do you have some evidence or examples of over zealousness by the cops? Let’s see it in print. Yes,you are correct the criminal gangs are entitled to due process. They should get the same due process they gave their victims.
    Are the gang member losers, broderick boys, norteno’s and sureno’s the son’s and daughter’s of ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS? Does the problem have so many facets that it is beyond your commentary?
    How about a word on the gangs, good works for the community? Have you had the experience of living in a neighborhood dominated by gangs or are your comments based on what someone from one side or the other is telling you?
    Your turn.

  15. dpd,

    Do you have some evidence or examples of over zealousness by the cops? Let’s see it in print. Yes,you are correct the criminal gangs are entitled to due process. They should get the same due process they gave their victims.
    Are the gang member losers, broderick boys, norteno’s and sureno’s the son’s and daughter’s of ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS? Does the problem have so many facets that it is beyond your commentary?
    How about a word on the gangs, good works for the community? Have you had the experience of living in a neighborhood dominated by gangs or are your comments based on what someone from one side or the other is telling you?
    Your turn.

  16. dpd,

    Do you have some evidence or examples of over zealousness by the cops? Let’s see it in print. Yes,you are correct the criminal gangs are entitled to due process. They should get the same due process they gave their victims.
    Are the gang member losers, broderick boys, norteno’s and sureno’s the son’s and daughter’s of ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS? Does the problem have so many facets that it is beyond your commentary?
    How about a word on the gangs, good works for the community? Have you had the experience of living in a neighborhood dominated by gangs or are your comments based on what someone from one side or the other is telling you?
    Your turn.

  17. Anonymous:

    There are the media accounts from a few years ago in the news and review I’d refer you to for some first hand accounts.

    I’ll be interested to see what this group comes up with from today.

    My main concern at this point is the constitutionality of this endeavor. But if it turns out that there isn’t the community support we’ve been told by the authorities, that may change my view. However, I do not know that to be the case and have not asserted it.

    “Are the gang member losers, broderick boys, norteno’s and sureno’s the son’s and daughter’s of ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS?”

    That immaterial.

    “Does the problem have so many facets that it is beyond your commentary?”

    My commentary has mainly been limited to the constitution. So I’d have to say yes. As I’ve stated here many times, I’m not necessarily oppose to a gang injunction that incorporates into it a evidentiary process, a fair hearing, the possibility of appointed council, and the full due process of law. I do not see how you can escape the Fifth Amendment protections of denying liberty without due process.

    “How about a word on the gangs, good works for the community?”

    I have no idea what you are asking with this question.

    ” Have you had the experience of living in a neighborhood dominated by gangs or are your comments based on what someone from one side or the other is telling you?”

    Again, I think this is largely immaterial to the question of constitutionality. But I am again interested in hearing the perspective of the community and think that should be taken into consideration.

  18. Anonymous:

    There are the media accounts from a few years ago in the news and review I’d refer you to for some first hand accounts.

    I’ll be interested to see what this group comes up with from today.

    My main concern at this point is the constitutionality of this endeavor. But if it turns out that there isn’t the community support we’ve been told by the authorities, that may change my view. However, I do not know that to be the case and have not asserted it.

    “Are the gang member losers, broderick boys, norteno’s and sureno’s the son’s and daughter’s of ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS?”

    That immaterial.

    “Does the problem have so many facets that it is beyond your commentary?”

    My commentary has mainly been limited to the constitution. So I’d have to say yes. As I’ve stated here many times, I’m not necessarily oppose to a gang injunction that incorporates into it a evidentiary process, a fair hearing, the possibility of appointed council, and the full due process of law. I do not see how you can escape the Fifth Amendment protections of denying liberty without due process.

    “How about a word on the gangs, good works for the community?”

    I have no idea what you are asking with this question.

    ” Have you had the experience of living in a neighborhood dominated by gangs or are your comments based on what someone from one side or the other is telling you?”

    Again, I think this is largely immaterial to the question of constitutionality. But I am again interested in hearing the perspective of the community and think that should be taken into consideration.

  19. Anonymous:

    There are the media accounts from a few years ago in the news and review I’d refer you to for some first hand accounts.

    I’ll be interested to see what this group comes up with from today.

    My main concern at this point is the constitutionality of this endeavor. But if it turns out that there isn’t the community support we’ve been told by the authorities, that may change my view. However, I do not know that to be the case and have not asserted it.

    “Are the gang member losers, broderick boys, norteno’s and sureno’s the son’s and daughter’s of ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS?”

    That immaterial.

    “Does the problem have so many facets that it is beyond your commentary?”

    My commentary has mainly been limited to the constitution. So I’d have to say yes. As I’ve stated here many times, I’m not necessarily oppose to a gang injunction that incorporates into it a evidentiary process, a fair hearing, the possibility of appointed council, and the full due process of law. I do not see how you can escape the Fifth Amendment protections of denying liberty without due process.

    “How about a word on the gangs, good works for the community?”

    I have no idea what you are asking with this question.

    ” Have you had the experience of living in a neighborhood dominated by gangs or are your comments based on what someone from one side or the other is telling you?”

    Again, I think this is largely immaterial to the question of constitutionality. But I am again interested in hearing the perspective of the community and think that should be taken into consideration.

  20. Anonymous:

    There are the media accounts from a few years ago in the news and review I’d refer you to for some first hand accounts.

    I’ll be interested to see what this group comes up with from today.

    My main concern at this point is the constitutionality of this endeavor. But if it turns out that there isn’t the community support we’ve been told by the authorities, that may change my view. However, I do not know that to be the case and have not asserted it.

    “Are the gang member losers, broderick boys, norteno’s and sureno’s the son’s and daughter’s of ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS?”

    That immaterial.

    “Does the problem have so many facets that it is beyond your commentary?”

    My commentary has mainly been limited to the constitution. So I’d have to say yes. As I’ve stated here many times, I’m not necessarily oppose to a gang injunction that incorporates into it a evidentiary process, a fair hearing, the possibility of appointed council, and the full due process of law. I do not see how you can escape the Fifth Amendment protections of denying liberty without due process.

    “How about a word on the gangs, good works for the community?”

    I have no idea what you are asking with this question.

    ” Have you had the experience of living in a neighborhood dominated by gangs or are your comments based on what someone from one side or the other is telling you?”

    Again, I think this is largely immaterial to the question of constitutionality. But I am again interested in hearing the perspective of the community and think that should be taken into consideration.

  21. Sorry, but I happen to agree with the comment related to intimidation. It is extremely unwise to go door to door asking about the impact of gangs and how it has affected you. You ask “what if the majority of people really do not support this policy?” So what? This is a matter of law not an election. Furthermore, just like petition gatherers you can elicit almost any answer you want from an individual simply by the way you pose the question. If someone came to my door asking if gangs were a problem in my neighborhood I would be inclined to offer a “no comment” rather than provide my real opinion. You should be more sensitive to the fact that it is the people who have to live in neighborhoods with gangs who are the most directly impacted and whom often live in fear. Thanks.

  22. Sorry, but I happen to agree with the comment related to intimidation. It is extremely unwise to go door to door asking about the impact of gangs and how it has affected you. You ask “what if the majority of people really do not support this policy?” So what? This is a matter of law not an election. Furthermore, just like petition gatherers you can elicit almost any answer you want from an individual simply by the way you pose the question. If someone came to my door asking if gangs were a problem in my neighborhood I would be inclined to offer a “no comment” rather than provide my real opinion. You should be more sensitive to the fact that it is the people who have to live in neighborhoods with gangs who are the most directly impacted and whom often live in fear. Thanks.

  23. Sorry, but I happen to agree with the comment related to intimidation. It is extremely unwise to go door to door asking about the impact of gangs and how it has affected you. You ask “what if the majority of people really do not support this policy?” So what? This is a matter of law not an election. Furthermore, just like petition gatherers you can elicit almost any answer you want from an individual simply by the way you pose the question. If someone came to my door asking if gangs were a problem in my neighborhood I would be inclined to offer a “no comment” rather than provide my real opinion. You should be more sensitive to the fact that it is the people who have to live in neighborhoods with gangs who are the most directly impacted and whom often live in fear. Thanks.

  24. Sorry, but I happen to agree with the comment related to intimidation. It is extremely unwise to go door to door asking about the impact of gangs and how it has affected you. You ask “what if the majority of people really do not support this policy?” So what? This is a matter of law not an election. Furthermore, just like petition gatherers you can elicit almost any answer you want from an individual simply by the way you pose the question. If someone came to my door asking if gangs were a problem in my neighborhood I would be inclined to offer a “no comment” rather than provide my real opinion. You should be more sensitive to the fact that it is the people who have to live in neighborhoods with gangs who are the most directly impacted and whom often live in fear. Thanks.

  25. An Injunction is a legal mechanism. Opponents to the injunction appropriately used the legal process to oppose the injunction and have it set aside or modified.

    That legal process failed as evidenced by this latest ruling by Judge White. Now opponents want to poll the residents on the presumption that there is little community support for the injunction.

    From a legal perspective, the community polling effort is doomed to failure. Anytime you have advocates do the polling on an issue, the results are invariably discounted by courts and others simply because of the obvious bias of the poll taker. If the polling were to show overwhelming community support for the injunction, would the opponents share this finding?

    The title of this post also reveals a strong bias. The impact of the legal failures thus far are minimized by the adjective, “challenges.” The alternative community polling strategies mentioned here can be more accurately titled, “desperate measures.”

  26. An Injunction is a legal mechanism. Opponents to the injunction appropriately used the legal process to oppose the injunction and have it set aside or modified.

    That legal process failed as evidenced by this latest ruling by Judge White. Now opponents want to poll the residents on the presumption that there is little community support for the injunction.

    From a legal perspective, the community polling effort is doomed to failure. Anytime you have advocates do the polling on an issue, the results are invariably discounted by courts and others simply because of the obvious bias of the poll taker. If the polling were to show overwhelming community support for the injunction, would the opponents share this finding?

    The title of this post also reveals a strong bias. The impact of the legal failures thus far are minimized by the adjective, “challenges.” The alternative community polling strategies mentioned here can be more accurately titled, “desperate measures.”

  27. An Injunction is a legal mechanism. Opponents to the injunction appropriately used the legal process to oppose the injunction and have it set aside or modified.

    That legal process failed as evidenced by this latest ruling by Judge White. Now opponents want to poll the residents on the presumption that there is little community support for the injunction.

    From a legal perspective, the community polling effort is doomed to failure. Anytime you have advocates do the polling on an issue, the results are invariably discounted by courts and others simply because of the obvious bias of the poll taker. If the polling were to show overwhelming community support for the injunction, would the opponents share this finding?

    The title of this post also reveals a strong bias. The impact of the legal failures thus far are minimized by the adjective, “challenges.” The alternative community polling strategies mentioned here can be more accurately titled, “desperate measures.”

  28. An Injunction is a legal mechanism. Opponents to the injunction appropriately used the legal process to oppose the injunction and have it set aside or modified.

    That legal process failed as evidenced by this latest ruling by Judge White. Now opponents want to poll the residents on the presumption that there is little community support for the injunction.

    From a legal perspective, the community polling effort is doomed to failure. Anytime you have advocates do the polling on an issue, the results are invariably discounted by courts and others simply because of the obvious bias of the poll taker. If the polling were to show overwhelming community support for the injunction, would the opponents share this finding?

    The title of this post also reveals a strong bias. The impact of the legal failures thus far are minimized by the adjective, “challenges.” The alternative community polling strategies mentioned here can be more accurately titled, “desperate measures.”

  29. “From a legal perspective, the community polling effort is doomed to failure. Anytime you have advocates do the polling on an issue, the results are invariably discounted by courts and others simply because of the obvious bias of the poll taker. If the polling were to show overwhelming community support for the injunction, would the opponents share this finding?”

    You’ve made an interesting analysis, but you’ve forgotten one very important factor. There is still a political component to this–you can lobby the government–i.e. the Sacramento City Government and even the DA’s office to remove the injunction, thus bypassing the legal system. So while you are correct that from a strictly legal standpoint this tactic will not work, you have forgotten that there is still a political standpoint where it might.

  30. “From a legal perspective, the community polling effort is doomed to failure. Anytime you have advocates do the polling on an issue, the results are invariably discounted by courts and others simply because of the obvious bias of the poll taker. If the polling were to show overwhelming community support for the injunction, would the opponents share this finding?”

    You’ve made an interesting analysis, but you’ve forgotten one very important factor. There is still a political component to this–you can lobby the government–i.e. the Sacramento City Government and even the DA’s office to remove the injunction, thus bypassing the legal system. So while you are correct that from a strictly legal standpoint this tactic will not work, you have forgotten that there is still a political standpoint where it might.

  31. “From a legal perspective, the community polling effort is doomed to failure. Anytime you have advocates do the polling on an issue, the results are invariably discounted by courts and others simply because of the obvious bias of the poll taker. If the polling were to show overwhelming community support for the injunction, would the opponents share this finding?”

    You’ve made an interesting analysis, but you’ve forgotten one very important factor. There is still a political component to this–you can lobby the government–i.e. the Sacramento City Government and even the DA’s office to remove the injunction, thus bypassing the legal system. So while you are correct that from a strictly legal standpoint this tactic will not work, you have forgotten that there is still a political standpoint where it might.

  32. “From a legal perspective, the community polling effort is doomed to failure. Anytime you have advocates do the polling on an issue, the results are invariably discounted by courts and others simply because of the obvious bias of the poll taker. If the polling were to show overwhelming community support for the injunction, would the opponents share this finding?”

    You’ve made an interesting analysis, but you’ve forgotten one very important factor. There is still a political component to this–you can lobby the government–i.e. the Sacramento City Government and even the DA’s office to remove the injunction, thus bypassing the legal system. So while you are correct that from a strictly legal standpoint this tactic will not work, you have forgotten that there is still a political standpoint where it might.

  33. Yes, even though a D.A. is an elected official, the entire court system is fairly insulated from “lobbying.” Remember, this is a legal issue at this point. I also have to say that I know a number of West Sac natives who can describe in some vivid detail the machinations of the Broderick Boys. I have no idea if the injunction is legally viable or not but let’s be real, this is not a youth choir we’re discussing here.

  34. Yes, even though a D.A. is an elected official, the entire court system is fairly insulated from “lobbying.” Remember, this is a legal issue at this point. I also have to say that I know a number of West Sac natives who can describe in some vivid detail the machinations of the Broderick Boys. I have no idea if the injunction is legally viable or not but let’s be real, this is not a youth choir we’re discussing here.

  35. Yes, even though a D.A. is an elected official, the entire court system is fairly insulated from “lobbying.” Remember, this is a legal issue at this point. I also have to say that I know a number of West Sac natives who can describe in some vivid detail the machinations of the Broderick Boys. I have no idea if the injunction is legally viable or not but let’s be real, this is not a youth choir we’re discussing here.

  36. Yes, even though a D.A. is an elected official, the entire court system is fairly insulated from “lobbying.” Remember, this is a legal issue at this point. I also have to say that I know a number of West Sac natives who can describe in some vivid detail the machinations of the Broderick Boys. I have no idea if the injunction is legally viable or not but let’s be real, this is not a youth choir we’re discussing here.

  37. DPD,
    In reply to your questions. The relationship to illegal immigration is this; Having worked for many years, on a voluntary basis, with this group in question, I can tell you it is very material to the problem.
    I have dealt with many gang bangers who have a couple of things in common. Mom and dad came here illegally and after a period of time dad left the family and went back to mexico. Leaving mom with anywhere from 1 to 6 children. Mom has NO education and in most cases even after 20 years in the U.S. cannot or WILL not speak English. The taxpayers must now support the person with children who came here illegally, a violation of the constitutional rights of the legal resident.
    The mom, uneducated because of the mexican government,is not able to help with homework and after a point is unable to control the child. The child has little or no guidance because mom cannot help and or is out working for cash to pay the bills because the worthless father went back to mexico.
    The children do poorly in school because there is no help or guidance at home and they hook up with others in the same boat and you have a gang. The second thing in common is that with few exceptions they all smoke marijuana. Indulging in this drug multiple times per week or daily gives them what I refer to as,marijuana brain, ie they don’t care about anything or anybody.
    What I asked about good works gangs have done in their neighborhood sounded pretty straight forward. Let me state it again; Can you state what good deeds the gangs in West Sac have done in the neighborhoods?
    How is all this related and material? If the mexicans took care of their people properly and educated them and created jobs for them they would not be here ILLEGALLY.
    We would have a far smaller problem and the gang bangers referred to as ,norteno and sureno cockroaches, would not be terrorizing neighborhoods and drive by shooting each other and innocents.
    Is the gang injunction constitutional? Yes it is. Why? Because the government is required to protect ALL of us, and US are the vast majority in this case.
    If you don’t think this is correct contact the Sac PD and ask them what percentage of the felonies committed in Sac county are done by the 6 to 8 thousand gang members in the county and city. They will tell you more than 80% are done by these groups.
    That means 6 to 8 thousand scumbags keep approximately 1 million people hostage in just one county. I grew up in this kind of neighborhood and know first hand about these kinds of predators. I understand due process for all and protection under the constitution, do you?
    You referrred to some news media articles “Over the years” with regard to “Over zealousness by the Cops” but no real references. Could you include those in a reply? Thanks for your time

  38. DPD,
    In reply to your questions. The relationship to illegal immigration is this; Having worked for many years, on a voluntary basis, with this group in question, I can tell you it is very material to the problem.
    I have dealt with many gang bangers who have a couple of things in common. Mom and dad came here illegally and after a period of time dad left the family and went back to mexico. Leaving mom with anywhere from 1 to 6 children. Mom has NO education and in most cases even after 20 years in the U.S. cannot or WILL not speak English. The taxpayers must now support the person with children who came here illegally, a violation of the constitutional rights of the legal resident.
    The mom, uneducated because of the mexican government,is not able to help with homework and after a point is unable to control the child. The child has little or no guidance because mom cannot help and or is out working for cash to pay the bills because the worthless father went back to mexico.
    The children do poorly in school because there is no help or guidance at home and they hook up with others in the same boat and you have a gang. The second thing in common is that with few exceptions they all smoke marijuana. Indulging in this drug multiple times per week or daily gives them what I refer to as,marijuana brain, ie they don’t care about anything or anybody.
    What I asked about good works gangs have done in their neighborhood sounded pretty straight forward. Let me state it again; Can you state what good deeds the gangs in West Sac have done in the neighborhoods?
    How is all this related and material? If the mexicans took care of their people properly and educated them and created jobs for them they would not be here ILLEGALLY.
    We would have a far smaller problem and the gang bangers referred to as ,norteno and sureno cockroaches, would not be terrorizing neighborhoods and drive by shooting each other and innocents.
    Is the gang injunction constitutional? Yes it is. Why? Because the government is required to protect ALL of us, and US are the vast majority in this case.
    If you don’t think this is correct contact the Sac PD and ask them what percentage of the felonies committed in Sac county are done by the 6 to 8 thousand gang members in the county and city. They will tell you more than 80% are done by these groups.
    That means 6 to 8 thousand scumbags keep approximately 1 million people hostage in just one county. I grew up in this kind of neighborhood and know first hand about these kinds of predators. I understand due process for all and protection under the constitution, do you?
    You referrred to some news media articles “Over the years” with regard to “Over zealousness by the Cops” but no real references. Could you include those in a reply? Thanks for your time

  39. DPD,
    In reply to your questions. The relationship to illegal immigration is this; Having worked for many years, on a voluntary basis, with this group in question, I can tell you it is very material to the problem.
    I have dealt with many gang bangers who have a couple of things in common. Mom and dad came here illegally and after a period of time dad left the family and went back to mexico. Leaving mom with anywhere from 1 to 6 children. Mom has NO education and in most cases even after 20 years in the U.S. cannot or WILL not speak English. The taxpayers must now support the person with children who came here illegally, a violation of the constitutional rights of the legal resident.
    The mom, uneducated because of the mexican government,is not able to help with homework and after a point is unable to control the child. The child has little or no guidance because mom cannot help and or is out working for cash to pay the bills because the worthless father went back to mexico.
    The children do poorly in school because there is no help or guidance at home and they hook up with others in the same boat and you have a gang. The second thing in common is that with few exceptions they all smoke marijuana. Indulging in this drug multiple times per week or daily gives them what I refer to as,marijuana brain, ie they don’t care about anything or anybody.
    What I asked about good works gangs have done in their neighborhood sounded pretty straight forward. Let me state it again; Can you state what good deeds the gangs in West Sac have done in the neighborhoods?
    How is all this related and material? If the mexicans took care of their people properly and educated them and created jobs for them they would not be here ILLEGALLY.
    We would have a far smaller problem and the gang bangers referred to as ,norteno and sureno cockroaches, would not be terrorizing neighborhoods and drive by shooting each other and innocents.
    Is the gang injunction constitutional? Yes it is. Why? Because the government is required to protect ALL of us, and US are the vast majority in this case.
    If you don’t think this is correct contact the Sac PD and ask them what percentage of the felonies committed in Sac county are done by the 6 to 8 thousand gang members in the county and city. They will tell you more than 80% are done by these groups.
    That means 6 to 8 thousand scumbags keep approximately 1 million people hostage in just one county. I grew up in this kind of neighborhood and know first hand about these kinds of predators. I understand due process for all and protection under the constitution, do you?
    You referrred to some news media articles “Over the years” with regard to “Over zealousness by the Cops” but no real references. Could you include those in a reply? Thanks for your time

  40. DPD,
    In reply to your questions. The relationship to illegal immigration is this; Having worked for many years, on a voluntary basis, with this group in question, I can tell you it is very material to the problem.
    I have dealt with many gang bangers who have a couple of things in common. Mom and dad came here illegally and after a period of time dad left the family and went back to mexico. Leaving mom with anywhere from 1 to 6 children. Mom has NO education and in most cases even after 20 years in the U.S. cannot or WILL not speak English. The taxpayers must now support the person with children who came here illegally, a violation of the constitutional rights of the legal resident.
    The mom, uneducated because of the mexican government,is not able to help with homework and after a point is unable to control the child. The child has little or no guidance because mom cannot help and or is out working for cash to pay the bills because the worthless father went back to mexico.
    The children do poorly in school because there is no help or guidance at home and they hook up with others in the same boat and you have a gang. The second thing in common is that with few exceptions they all smoke marijuana. Indulging in this drug multiple times per week or daily gives them what I refer to as,marijuana brain, ie they don’t care about anything or anybody.
    What I asked about good works gangs have done in their neighborhood sounded pretty straight forward. Let me state it again; Can you state what good deeds the gangs in West Sac have done in the neighborhoods?
    How is all this related and material? If the mexicans took care of their people properly and educated them and created jobs for them they would not be here ILLEGALLY.
    We would have a far smaller problem and the gang bangers referred to as ,norteno and sureno cockroaches, would not be terrorizing neighborhoods and drive by shooting each other and innocents.
    Is the gang injunction constitutional? Yes it is. Why? Because the government is required to protect ALL of us, and US are the vast majority in this case.
    If you don’t think this is correct contact the Sac PD and ask them what percentage of the felonies committed in Sac county are done by the 6 to 8 thousand gang members in the county and city. They will tell you more than 80% are done by these groups.
    That means 6 to 8 thousand scumbags keep approximately 1 million people hostage in just one county. I grew up in this kind of neighborhood and know first hand about these kinds of predators. I understand due process for all and protection under the constitution, do you?
    You referrred to some news media articles “Over the years” with regard to “Over zealousness by the Cops” but no real references. Could you include those in a reply? Thanks for your time