Rick Gore completes Testimony on Gang Injunction

It was likely not the kind of testimony that those seeking to avoid a temporary gang injunction were looking for. Under very strict guidance from Judge Kathy White, Rick Gore completed his testimony yesterday about an affidavit he signed in support of the gang injunction.

The gist of what we learned from this is that in late 2004 Rick Gore was working in conjunction with West Sacramento Detective Villanueva. While he was not working specifically on the anti-gang unit, as there was no such unit until Jeff Reisig became District Attorney in 2007, he nevertheless was familiar with the situation in West Sacramento and worked on a number of gang cases.

In late 2004 until sometime prior to 2007 he worked on this and sent forth an affidavit in 2004 attesting to his support for the gang injunction. Last year the gang injunction was thrown out. In May of 2007, he was asked to sign the same gang affidavit that he signed in 2004, but he refused citing the fact that he did not believe in it. He told them that he would not sign it again until ordered. He was given the order by District Attorney Jeff Reisig through Deputy District Attorney Linden to sign it.

He had language removed from the affidavit that he did not agree with before signing the document under the penalty of perjury. By the time he signed the document it was simply a statement of some facts from prior to 2004, there was no opinion expressed on support for the gang injunction.

Throughout the entire hearing, there was a question as to whether or not this was relevant to their proceedings. Rick Gore testified that everything that he signed in the original affidavit was accurate as was everything he eventually signed in 2007.

In his letter from March 5, 2008 which was discussed but not entered into evidence during the course of this hearing, Gore stated:

“I think this injunction is being used for your political benefit and not for what it was intended. It is no longer a tool for law enforcement and public safety.”

When asked about whether he believed this as of May 2007 when he signed the affidavit, Rick Gore said repeatedly he was unsure of what he thought at that time. His reason for not wanting to sign it was that he was not involved in the process and did not therefore have direct knowledge of the situation.

He had two reasons for not wanting to sign it, the first was that he was no longer involved in the process. The second was based on his experience with the first gang injunction, he felt that Jeff Reisig had turned it into a political benchmark. And his dealings with DA Jeff Reisig over the past year led him to be skeptical about the process. He therefore did not want to be involved in signing anything unless ordered to do so by DA Jeff Reisig.

He also described this as an unusual request. Deputy District Attorney Ann Hurd went to great lengths to show that signing documents under the penalty of perjury was part of his job descriptions, but under cross examination, Rick Gore suggested that this was really not part of his job descriptions. The process of being asked to sign an affidavit in support of a policy was neither usual nor part of his job description.

At the end of the day, it is not clear that any of this matters for the gang injunction. As the Deputy DA Hurd demonstrated, the actual affidavit is devoid of personal opinion, it is not clear that Gore had opposition to the Gang Injunction back in May of 2007 and even if he did, it was based largely on his opinion rather than his expertise.

From a political standpoint, the testimony is a bit more interesting, however, because of the narrow parameters laid out by Judge White–intentionally to avoid the political aspect that transcends the courtroom–very little of this came out.

Rick Gore wrote in his letter:

“As for the current and past Gang Injunction, when gathering intelligence, contacting active members and working with Detective Villanueva, I fully supported these efforts. However, after seeing this become your political benchmark, I have watched this injunction grow into something I did not want to be associated with or a part of, since I felt it had lost its original intent and purpose. As a Peace Officer and a public servant, I feel I should be doing the right thing and standing up against dishonest behavior. You make this very difficult.”

What became clear yesterday is that this is an opinion that has evolved over time and was not necessary one that was held in 2007. Moreover, as Gore suggested in his own testimony, he had not intended the letter to be a legal document.

In the end, the county investigators will have to tease apart what did and did not happen. From the standpoint of the political system outside of the courtroom, it was interesting because Gore did put under oath some of what was written in the letter.

The most interesting facet of the letter remains the intent to conceal discoverable evidence about a material witness in the Halloween Homicide case.

As an aside, there was an interesting piece of information that came out of the proceedings is that there was no gang unit prior to Jeff Reisig becoming District Attorney. At which time, Reisig got a grant for gang money which carries with it enough money to hire individual investigators who are specifically assigned to prosecuting gangs. How much money is it? Enough to hire additional people and also for law enforcement in local jurisdictions as well. There are few avenues for additional money going to a prosecutor’s office and gangs are one of them. It would seem in their best interest to have a concerted effort to crack down on gangs and to make it look like there is a bigger gang problem perhaps than actually exists.

The Vanguard will continue to follow this matter and report on any updates.

—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.

    View all posts

Categories:

Court Watch

76 comments

  1. Grant money like this should be eliminated. The money would be better spent on schools and the grants tend to distort (in a bad way) decisions being made in the “Justice” complex

  2. Grant money like this should be eliminated. The money would be better spent on schools and the grants tend to distort (in a bad way) decisions being made in the “Justice” complex

  3. Grant money like this should be eliminated. The money would be better spent on schools and the grants tend to distort (in a bad way) decisions being made in the “Justice” complex

  4. Grant money like this should be eliminated. The money would be better spent on schools and the grants tend to distort (in a bad way) decisions being made in the “Justice” complex

  5. Funding for effective programs aimed at youthful offenders (18-20) would be better spent. There is funding and programs for kids up to 18 years, but once they turn 18 all money and available programs seem to turn off within the Justice System and these kids are thrown into the mix with older adults. Juvenile Court may still retain jurisdiction but there seems to be no funding for programs for this age group.

  6. Funding for effective programs aimed at youthful offenders (18-20) would be better spent. There is funding and programs for kids up to 18 years, but once they turn 18 all money and available programs seem to turn off within the Justice System and these kids are thrown into the mix with older adults. Juvenile Court may still retain jurisdiction but there seems to be no funding for programs for this age group.

  7. Funding for effective programs aimed at youthful offenders (18-20) would be better spent. There is funding and programs for kids up to 18 years, but once they turn 18 all money and available programs seem to turn off within the Justice System and these kids are thrown into the mix with older adults. Juvenile Court may still retain jurisdiction but there seems to be no funding for programs for this age group.

  8. Funding for effective programs aimed at youthful offenders (18-20) would be better spent. There is funding and programs for kids up to 18 years, but once they turn 18 all money and available programs seem to turn off within the Justice System and these kids are thrown into the mix with older adults. Juvenile Court may still retain jurisdiction but there seems to be no funding for programs for this age group.

  9. “In May of 2007, he was asked to sign the same gang affidavit that he signed in 2004, but he refused citing the fact that he did not believe in it. He told them that he would not sign it again until ordered. He was given the order by District Attorney Jeff Reisig through Deputy District Attorney Linden to sign it.

    He had language removed from the affidavit that he did not agree with before signing the document under the penalty of perjury.”

    No one can make anyone sign something under penalty of perjury that they do not consider the truth. To do so would constitute perjury – lying under oath. No one put a gun to Rick Gore’s head – unless you consider a threat of job security as tantamount to that. So I am a bit puzzled by the above language and the entire context of these statements.

    Secondly, I find the information that Reisig received grant money for a anti-gang unit very interesting. Now I would assume (and this may be a brash assumption) that Reisig would have to have justified the need for such money in some way, i.e. data that gangs in West Sacramento did indeed exist and were a problem that needed addressing. Is it possible to obtain copies of the application for the grant money? It might give the public insight into the gang problem as the DA perceived it.

    I also find Rick Gore’s testimony somewhat curious – that he hedged on his testimony about what he believed in May 2007; that he did not figure his letter would become a legal document. I am going to make an educated guess here, but I would assume Rick Gore is having a problem with the fact that he signed the gang injunction UNDER OATH, while now saying he did not believe in it’s content. In other words, the spector of lying under oath rears its ugly head.

    Rick Gore is now finding his position untenable or at the very least, uncomfortable. On the one hand, he is saying he signed a document under oath, on the other he is saying what he signed really wasn’t true. Ergo, how are we to believe him? Is he telling the truth when he says he signed the gang injunction under oath, attesting to its veracity; or is he telling the truth when he now says he “does not believe in the gang injunction”, which is what he signed under oath. Unfortunately he has been caught up in the inconsistency of his own words…

    A good prosecutor will eat this guy alive, even if Mr. Gore was trying to do the right thing in the end of it all… the life of a whistleblower (or disgruntled employee) is not an easy one…I think I have more questions here than answers…

  10. “In May of 2007, he was asked to sign the same gang affidavit that he signed in 2004, but he refused citing the fact that he did not believe in it. He told them that he would not sign it again until ordered. He was given the order by District Attorney Jeff Reisig through Deputy District Attorney Linden to sign it.

    He had language removed from the affidavit that he did not agree with before signing the document under the penalty of perjury.”

    No one can make anyone sign something under penalty of perjury that they do not consider the truth. To do so would constitute perjury – lying under oath. No one put a gun to Rick Gore’s head – unless you consider a threat of job security as tantamount to that. So I am a bit puzzled by the above language and the entire context of these statements.

    Secondly, I find the information that Reisig received grant money for a anti-gang unit very interesting. Now I would assume (and this may be a brash assumption) that Reisig would have to have justified the need for such money in some way, i.e. data that gangs in West Sacramento did indeed exist and were a problem that needed addressing. Is it possible to obtain copies of the application for the grant money? It might give the public insight into the gang problem as the DA perceived it.

    I also find Rick Gore’s testimony somewhat curious – that he hedged on his testimony about what he believed in May 2007; that he did not figure his letter would become a legal document. I am going to make an educated guess here, but I would assume Rick Gore is having a problem with the fact that he signed the gang injunction UNDER OATH, while now saying he did not believe in it’s content. In other words, the spector of lying under oath rears its ugly head.

    Rick Gore is now finding his position untenable or at the very least, uncomfortable. On the one hand, he is saying he signed a document under oath, on the other he is saying what he signed really wasn’t true. Ergo, how are we to believe him? Is he telling the truth when he says he signed the gang injunction under oath, attesting to its veracity; or is he telling the truth when he now says he “does not believe in the gang injunction”, which is what he signed under oath. Unfortunately he has been caught up in the inconsistency of his own words…

    A good prosecutor will eat this guy alive, even if Mr. Gore was trying to do the right thing in the end of it all… the life of a whistleblower (or disgruntled employee) is not an easy one…I think I have more questions here than answers…

  11. “In May of 2007, he was asked to sign the same gang affidavit that he signed in 2004, but he refused citing the fact that he did not believe in it. He told them that he would not sign it again until ordered. He was given the order by District Attorney Jeff Reisig through Deputy District Attorney Linden to sign it.

    He had language removed from the affidavit that he did not agree with before signing the document under the penalty of perjury.”

    No one can make anyone sign something under penalty of perjury that they do not consider the truth. To do so would constitute perjury – lying under oath. No one put a gun to Rick Gore’s head – unless you consider a threat of job security as tantamount to that. So I am a bit puzzled by the above language and the entire context of these statements.

    Secondly, I find the information that Reisig received grant money for a anti-gang unit very interesting. Now I would assume (and this may be a brash assumption) that Reisig would have to have justified the need for such money in some way, i.e. data that gangs in West Sacramento did indeed exist and were a problem that needed addressing. Is it possible to obtain copies of the application for the grant money? It might give the public insight into the gang problem as the DA perceived it.

    I also find Rick Gore’s testimony somewhat curious – that he hedged on his testimony about what he believed in May 2007; that he did not figure his letter would become a legal document. I am going to make an educated guess here, but I would assume Rick Gore is having a problem with the fact that he signed the gang injunction UNDER OATH, while now saying he did not believe in it’s content. In other words, the spector of lying under oath rears its ugly head.

    Rick Gore is now finding his position untenable or at the very least, uncomfortable. On the one hand, he is saying he signed a document under oath, on the other he is saying what he signed really wasn’t true. Ergo, how are we to believe him? Is he telling the truth when he says he signed the gang injunction under oath, attesting to its veracity; or is he telling the truth when he now says he “does not believe in the gang injunction”, which is what he signed under oath. Unfortunately he has been caught up in the inconsistency of his own words…

    A good prosecutor will eat this guy alive, even if Mr. Gore was trying to do the right thing in the end of it all… the life of a whistleblower (or disgruntled employee) is not an easy one…I think I have more questions here than answers…

  12. “In May of 2007, he was asked to sign the same gang affidavit that he signed in 2004, but he refused citing the fact that he did not believe in it. He told them that he would not sign it again until ordered. He was given the order by District Attorney Jeff Reisig through Deputy District Attorney Linden to sign it.

    He had language removed from the affidavit that he did not agree with before signing the document under the penalty of perjury.”

    No one can make anyone sign something under penalty of perjury that they do not consider the truth. To do so would constitute perjury – lying under oath. No one put a gun to Rick Gore’s head – unless you consider a threat of job security as tantamount to that. So I am a bit puzzled by the above language and the entire context of these statements.

    Secondly, I find the information that Reisig received grant money for a anti-gang unit very interesting. Now I would assume (and this may be a brash assumption) that Reisig would have to have justified the need for such money in some way, i.e. data that gangs in West Sacramento did indeed exist and were a problem that needed addressing. Is it possible to obtain copies of the application for the grant money? It might give the public insight into the gang problem as the DA perceived it.

    I also find Rick Gore’s testimony somewhat curious – that he hedged on his testimony about what he believed in May 2007; that he did not figure his letter would become a legal document. I am going to make an educated guess here, but I would assume Rick Gore is having a problem with the fact that he signed the gang injunction UNDER OATH, while now saying he did not believe in it’s content. In other words, the spector of lying under oath rears its ugly head.

    Rick Gore is now finding his position untenable or at the very least, uncomfortable. On the one hand, he is saying he signed a document under oath, on the other he is saying what he signed really wasn’t true. Ergo, how are we to believe him? Is he telling the truth when he says he signed the gang injunction under oath, attesting to its veracity; or is he telling the truth when he now says he “does not believe in the gang injunction”, which is what he signed under oath. Unfortunately he has been caught up in the inconsistency of his own words…

    A good prosecutor will eat this guy alive, even if Mr. Gore was trying to do the right thing in the end of it all… the life of a whistleblower (or disgruntled employee) is not an easy one…I think I have more questions here than answers…

  13. The SF DA applied for and got $5.4 million to “fight border crime”. They submitted 152 cases which were intended to support grant money. One problem – none of the cases had anything to do with fighting crime on the Southwest Border and now the Feds want the money back.

    What is the point? DA’s go overboard to get this grant money. They distort the truth and even lie to get the money. Then they search for people to prosecute so they can justify the money.

  14. The SF DA applied for and got $5.4 million to “fight border crime”. They submitted 152 cases which were intended to support grant money. One problem – none of the cases had anything to do with fighting crime on the Southwest Border and now the Feds want the money back.

    What is the point? DA’s go overboard to get this grant money. They distort the truth and even lie to get the money. Then they search for people to prosecute so they can justify the money.

  15. The SF DA applied for and got $5.4 million to “fight border crime”. They submitted 152 cases which were intended to support grant money. One problem – none of the cases had anything to do with fighting crime on the Southwest Border and now the Feds want the money back.

    What is the point? DA’s go overboard to get this grant money. They distort the truth and even lie to get the money. Then they search for people to prosecute so they can justify the money.

  16. The SF DA applied for and got $5.4 million to “fight border crime”. They submitted 152 cases which were intended to support grant money. One problem – none of the cases had anything to do with fighting crime on the Southwest Border and now the Feds want the money back.

    What is the point? DA’s go overboard to get this grant money. They distort the truth and even lie to get the money. Then they search for people to prosecute so they can justify the money.

  17. You have nailed it. There are people out there as we write who are being wrongfully prosecuted. That is the reason why the Yolo County DA’s Office has cast such a broad net to enable it to broadly identify who is a gang member and what crimes are gang related, whether they are or aren’t. Whether you live in West Sacramento or other towns in Yolo County, there has been much sensationalism to justify this abuse of power. Here a gang, there a gang, everywhere a gang gang.

    Unfortunately, there are gangs and problems related to gangs. However, the officials need to be more constructive in addressing the issue and focus on intervention, rather than incarceration. Maybe that grant money will be better spent on hiring experienced staff who can accurately identify gang members and not categorize every hispanic male between the ages of 12-65 as a member, work with the community, and liaison with others to make changes.

  18. You have nailed it. There are people out there as we write who are being wrongfully prosecuted. That is the reason why the Yolo County DA’s Office has cast such a broad net to enable it to broadly identify who is a gang member and what crimes are gang related, whether they are or aren’t. Whether you live in West Sacramento or other towns in Yolo County, there has been much sensationalism to justify this abuse of power. Here a gang, there a gang, everywhere a gang gang.

    Unfortunately, there are gangs and problems related to gangs. However, the officials need to be more constructive in addressing the issue and focus on intervention, rather than incarceration. Maybe that grant money will be better spent on hiring experienced staff who can accurately identify gang members and not categorize every hispanic male between the ages of 12-65 as a member, work with the community, and liaison with others to make changes.

  19. You have nailed it. There are people out there as we write who are being wrongfully prosecuted. That is the reason why the Yolo County DA’s Office has cast such a broad net to enable it to broadly identify who is a gang member and what crimes are gang related, whether they are or aren’t. Whether you live in West Sacramento or other towns in Yolo County, there has been much sensationalism to justify this abuse of power. Here a gang, there a gang, everywhere a gang gang.

    Unfortunately, there are gangs and problems related to gangs. However, the officials need to be more constructive in addressing the issue and focus on intervention, rather than incarceration. Maybe that grant money will be better spent on hiring experienced staff who can accurately identify gang members and not categorize every hispanic male between the ages of 12-65 as a member, work with the community, and liaison with others to make changes.

  20. You have nailed it. There are people out there as we write who are being wrongfully prosecuted. That is the reason why the Yolo County DA’s Office has cast such a broad net to enable it to broadly identify who is a gang member and what crimes are gang related, whether they are or aren’t. Whether you live in West Sacramento or other towns in Yolo County, there has been much sensationalism to justify this abuse of power. Here a gang, there a gang, everywhere a gang gang.

    Unfortunately, there are gangs and problems related to gangs. However, the officials need to be more constructive in addressing the issue and focus on intervention, rather than incarceration. Maybe that grant money will be better spent on hiring experienced staff who can accurately identify gang members and not categorize every hispanic male between the ages of 12-65 as a member, work with the community, and liaison with others to make changes.

  21. Whatever you want to say about the injunction Yolo County has a gang problem as does the entire Sacramento region. Having worked with the Gang Task Force as a witness I am glad they exist. If you want to slam Reisig and the West Sac injunction go ahead but don’t delude yourselves about the need to deal with gangs in this area.

  22. Whatever you want to say about the injunction Yolo County has a gang problem as does the entire Sacramento region. Having worked with the Gang Task Force as a witness I am glad they exist. If you want to slam Reisig and the West Sac injunction go ahead but don’t delude yourselves about the need to deal with gangs in this area.

  23. Whatever you want to say about the injunction Yolo County has a gang problem as does the entire Sacramento region. Having worked with the Gang Task Force as a witness I am glad they exist. If you want to slam Reisig and the West Sac injunction go ahead but don’t delude yourselves about the need to deal with gangs in this area.

  24. Whatever you want to say about the injunction Yolo County has a gang problem as does the entire Sacramento region. Having worked with the Gang Task Force as a witness I am glad they exist. If you want to slam Reisig and the West Sac injunction go ahead but don’t delude yourselves about the need to deal with gangs in this area.

  25. I agree there is a ” gang issue.” However, do not delude yourself into thinking that Reisig and /or the ” Gang Task Force” is dealing with the real or exaggerated gang problem effectively. More importantly, do not think for a moment that the wrong people are not being classified as gang members or harassed because of their ” appearance.”
    It sounds as if you have the great fortune of being safe in that regard.

  26. I agree there is a ” gang issue.” However, do not delude yourself into thinking that Reisig and /or the ” Gang Task Force” is dealing with the real or exaggerated gang problem effectively. More importantly, do not think for a moment that the wrong people are not being classified as gang members or harassed because of their ” appearance.”
    It sounds as if you have the great fortune of being safe in that regard.

  27. I agree there is a ” gang issue.” However, do not delude yourself into thinking that Reisig and /or the ” Gang Task Force” is dealing with the real or exaggerated gang problem effectively. More importantly, do not think for a moment that the wrong people are not being classified as gang members or harassed because of their ” appearance.”
    It sounds as if you have the great fortune of being safe in that regard.

  28. I agree there is a ” gang issue.” However, do not delude yourself into thinking that Reisig and /or the ” Gang Task Force” is dealing with the real or exaggerated gang problem effectively. More importantly, do not think for a moment that the wrong people are not being classified as gang members or harassed because of their ” appearance.”
    It sounds as if you have the great fortune of being safe in that regard.

  29. As another blogger wrote, to paraphrase, “the most interesting legal inquiry will focus on Brady violations (witholding evidence favorable to the defendant) in the “Halloween homicide” case”. I agree with that, but it’s even more interesting. The letter points directly at a publicly elected official who’s taken an oath “of office” to uphold the law. Plus there appear to be allegations of violating state employment law (retaliation). All these are serious charges when any elected official is involved.

    To address another blogger’s observation on the fate of most whistleblowers. One reason whistleblowers typically get “burned” is because the investigative efforts/agencies which are typically employed have an “interest” in the outcome despite apparent conficts of interest. That may not occur in this case if Mr. Gore is corroborated by unimpeachable witnesses and either the State Bar and/or the AG’s office investigate. At least, the breadth of the broadcast has attempted to ensure that Yolo County couldn’t sweep the whole thing under the rug, at least easily.

    We can be interested in how this plays out, but it’s important to remember that it’s in nobody’s interest to make assumptions about the truth or untruth of the charges against Mr. Reisig at this stage.

  30. As another blogger wrote, to paraphrase, “the most interesting legal inquiry will focus on Brady violations (witholding evidence favorable to the defendant) in the “Halloween homicide” case”. I agree with that, but it’s even more interesting. The letter points directly at a publicly elected official who’s taken an oath “of office” to uphold the law. Plus there appear to be allegations of violating state employment law (retaliation). All these are serious charges when any elected official is involved.

    To address another blogger’s observation on the fate of most whistleblowers. One reason whistleblowers typically get “burned” is because the investigative efforts/agencies which are typically employed have an “interest” in the outcome despite apparent conficts of interest. That may not occur in this case if Mr. Gore is corroborated by unimpeachable witnesses and either the State Bar and/or the AG’s office investigate. At least, the breadth of the broadcast has attempted to ensure that Yolo County couldn’t sweep the whole thing under the rug, at least easily.

    We can be interested in how this plays out, but it’s important to remember that it’s in nobody’s interest to make assumptions about the truth or untruth of the charges against Mr. Reisig at this stage.

  31. As another blogger wrote, to paraphrase, “the most interesting legal inquiry will focus on Brady violations (witholding evidence favorable to the defendant) in the “Halloween homicide” case”. I agree with that, but it’s even more interesting. The letter points directly at a publicly elected official who’s taken an oath “of office” to uphold the law. Plus there appear to be allegations of violating state employment law (retaliation). All these are serious charges when any elected official is involved.

    To address another blogger’s observation on the fate of most whistleblowers. One reason whistleblowers typically get “burned” is because the investigative efforts/agencies which are typically employed have an “interest” in the outcome despite apparent conficts of interest. That may not occur in this case if Mr. Gore is corroborated by unimpeachable witnesses and either the State Bar and/or the AG’s office investigate. At least, the breadth of the broadcast has attempted to ensure that Yolo County couldn’t sweep the whole thing under the rug, at least easily.

    We can be interested in how this plays out, but it’s important to remember that it’s in nobody’s interest to make assumptions about the truth or untruth of the charges against Mr. Reisig at this stage.

  32. As another blogger wrote, to paraphrase, “the most interesting legal inquiry will focus on Brady violations (witholding evidence favorable to the defendant) in the “Halloween homicide” case”. I agree with that, but it’s even more interesting. The letter points directly at a publicly elected official who’s taken an oath “of office” to uphold the law. Plus there appear to be allegations of violating state employment law (retaliation). All these are serious charges when any elected official is involved.

    To address another blogger’s observation on the fate of most whistleblowers. One reason whistleblowers typically get “burned” is because the investigative efforts/agencies which are typically employed have an “interest” in the outcome despite apparent conficts of interest. That may not occur in this case if Mr. Gore is corroborated by unimpeachable witnesses and either the State Bar and/or the AG’s office investigate. At least, the breadth of the broadcast has attempted to ensure that Yolo County couldn’t sweep the whole thing under the rug, at least easily.

    We can be interested in how this plays out, but it’s important to remember that it’s in nobody’s interest to make assumptions about the truth or untruth of the charges against Mr. Reisig at this stage.

  33. As I have said before, there are gang members,estimated at 400 to 600 in Woodland. These are mostly nortenos and surenos.
    Sacramento has between 6000 and 8000 gang members which are mostly nortenos and surenos. The numbers also include multiple vietnamese gangs,the black gangs,crips and bloods and of course the russian gangs who steal your cars and identity.

    80 plus percent of the felonies committed in Sac county and the city of sacramento are done by the gang members, aka cockroaches. If you doubt this check with the Sac PD or the Sac S.O. and/or the Sac DA’s ofc.

    Solutions to this massive problem is multi faceted. A start would be to shut the U.S. Southern border down for about 10 years, this would prevent a lot of future norteno and sureno dirtbags from illegally migrating this direction.

    Those of you who don’t think there is a gang problem in Yolo County are invited to Broderick and Bryte any NIGHT of the week to walk the streets here. I’m sure after doing that you will hear a loud pop. That will be the sound of you pulling your head out of your ass and seeing firsthand what is really going on.

  34. As I have said before, there are gang members,estimated at 400 to 600 in Woodland. These are mostly nortenos and surenos.
    Sacramento has between 6000 and 8000 gang members which are mostly nortenos and surenos. The numbers also include multiple vietnamese gangs,the black gangs,crips and bloods and of course the russian gangs who steal your cars and identity.

    80 plus percent of the felonies committed in Sac county and the city of sacramento are done by the gang members, aka cockroaches. If you doubt this check with the Sac PD or the Sac S.O. and/or the Sac DA’s ofc.

    Solutions to thi