PINAC - Photgraphy Is Not A Crime

Years ago there was a website called Photography Is Not A CrimePhotography Is Not A Crime, started by Carlos Miller after getting arrested for filming the police in his town. Sadly, Miller's original PINAC website is no longer online (due to hosting costs), but he now a a Facebook pageFacebook page. Since Blogspot is free, I want to keep Miller's story - and his work -alive.

    While Carlos Miller started PINAC to tell his own story, many other people around the country had the same story to tell: their local police violated their rights while filming in public. For some, their camera or videotape was seized illegally, often forcibly. For others, their footage got deleted. And while public photography is not illegal, Destruction of Evidence is.

    (Don't just take my word for it; see what the American Civil Liberties Union says about your rights: https://www.acludc.org/en/know-your-rights/if-stopped-photographing-public)

    PINAC did more than just complain, they offered a useful solution - which often achieved results. First, people would ask the police to return their footage, or complain to the police department their footage had been destroyed, and they would get laughed at: "Well, what are you going to do about it?" Next, they'd find a local journalist to cover their story and PINAC's website republished it. Then people around the country would call that police department, reminding them their actions were illegal and letting them know the eyes of the world were watching them. 

    While police do nothing when one person complains, when their Chief of Police is getting dozens - or hundreds - of calls a day, the public humiliation shames them into "doing the right thing." Sometimes this even resulted in a financial settlement for the citizen harmed by their police department's illegal behavior. PINAC had a pretty good track record, and almost every week they posted another success story.

    My own personal story, involving the Santa Rosa Police Department, never got shared on PINAC because I never found a local journalist willing to retell my story. And, at the time, I did not have a blog to post my story on, but mostly I was trying to get a local reporter to cover it. And I still am; but that's another story: https://erikmiddlenamejorgensen.blogspot.com/2024/06/vehicular-assault-legalized-in-santa.html  

    My own story is actually two different stories, a year apart. In one the police illegally seized, duplicated, and distributed my footage (without paying me); in the other, the police illegally suppressed my footage of a Vehicular Assault, protecting the wrong-way driver from prosecution.

    While my own stories (posted at https://www.youtube.com/ApeOfThoth) were never on PINAC, I like what Carlos Miller achieved and I would like to duplicate his efforts here, on my own blog.

    Here is my video footage illegally seized, turned into a "Training film", then given without permission or payment to History Channel for their Gangland series: 

Here is my footage of a Vehicular Assault during a peaceful protest in front of Santa Rosa High School, where an angry girl, late for work. drove through a crowd of people on the wrong side of the street, hitting at least two people, then speeding off with one person stuck on the hood of her car. When police officers finally pulled her over, an SRPD officer grabbed the camera from my hand and shut it off. 

    When I filed a complaint, the officer said the driver had stopped "several times" but her "passenger" refused to get off. When I reminded the "investigator" about my videotape, and that it showed his officer was lying, he told me, "As far as I'm concerned, this investigation is over."

    I hope that bothers you as much as it bothers me. I hope you let the Santa Rosa City Council know:

• the City Council as a whole at citycouncil@srcity.org
• Mayor Natalie Rogers at nrogers@srcity.org (707)494-8378
• Vice Mayor Mark Stapp at MStapp@srcity.org (707)328-7024
• Eddie Alvarez (District 1) at ealvarez@srcity.org (707)791-5282
• Dianna MacDonald (District 3) at dmacdonald@srcity.org (707)495-7599
• Victoria Fleming (District 4) at vfleming@srcity.org
• Chris Rogers (District 5) at crogers@srcity.org (707)543-3017
• Jeff Okrepkie (District 6) at JOkrepkie@srcity.org (707)531-0056
• City Attorney Teresa Sticker at caoffice@srcity.org (707)543-3040

Also let Santa Rosa Police Department know: https://www.srcity.org/2443/File-a-Complaint - 

(From City of Santa Rosa website):

The following options are available (for Police Complaints):

• Mail or drop off a letter to the Police Department at 965 Sonoma Avenue, Santa Rosa, CA  95404.
• Call (707) 543-3559, Fax (707) 543-3557.
• Send an email to srpdinfo@srcity.org
• Pickup a commendation/complaint form, in English or Spanish, from the Police Department lobbies.
• Download a commendation/complaint form. Forms are available in either English or Spanish.
• If you prefer to communicate with someone outside of the police department, you may contact OIR Group LLC, at (310) 906-0259, or directly at this link

Vehicular Assault - “legalized” in Santa Rosa, California

     A few years ago, during a peaceful protest in front of my TV station, I filmed a car driving on the wrong side of the street. The angry wrong-way driver hit at least two people (one hit in the crosswalk inthen speeding off with somebody stuck on the hood. Two SRPD motorcycle cops repeatedly ordered her to pull over, which she finally did - about 420 feet down the road. Several eyewitnesses attempting to give their statements were, instead, ordered to leave, and there is no Police Report of the incident.

    The driver told SRPD officer Brian Kohlman she was “late for work”, and that she had stopped her car, but her “passenger” on the hood had refused to get off. (Watch the video for yourself, and count how many times she stopped…)

    While a Press Democrat reporter noted, among the day’s activities, a tan station wagon speeding down Mendocino Avenue with somebody on the hood of the car, that reporter wasn’t curious enough to follow up on what happened next. In fact, I have emailed her for years without any response.

    As the 20th Anniversary of this “unsolved hit-and-run” approached, I contacted Editorial Director Jim Sweeney [(707)521-5201 - Jim.Sweeney@PressDemocrat.com]. While Editor Sweeney invited me to write an Op-Ed, he never printed it; not in time for the 20th Anniversary, not ever.

    When I asked Anne Belden (on the Board of The Press Democrat Journalism Trust) if she could find a reporter to cover this “unsolved hit-and-run”, she refused and told me, “We don’t want people thinking the newspaper is Anti-Cop.” 

    The problem isn't just that a hit-and-run got covered up, but that a Santa Rosa Police officer grabbed my camera out of my hand, and shut it off, after I identified myself as a Journalist. The Press Democrat should be covering this story for that fact alone, to protect the rights of journalists everywhere - including their own employees.

    Over the years, as I showed this video to Santa Rosa residents, many people told me, “Well, if somebody got in my way, I’d run them over, too!” Others point at the victim on my viewscreen and tell me, “He looks like somebody who deserved it!”

    Coincidentally, SPRD officer Brian Kohlman is married to Dava Kolhman, who at that time was a Legal Assistant to Jill Ravitch, the former District Attorney for Sonoma County. I detailed this is in an earlier blog, as it explains why no charges were ever pressed against this cop turning a Willfully Blind eye to Vehicular Assaults in a crosswalk.

    During the 2020 Black Lives Matter protests, two more Vehicular Assaults occurred, on May 30 and June 20, according to a City of Santa Rosa report. Unlike the hit-and-run I filmed in front of Santa Rosa High School (which barely got mentioned), both the May 30 and June 20 vehicular assaults got their own Press Democrat article:

https://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/news/santa-rosa-teen-arrested-on-suspicion-of-driving-pickup-into-crowd-at-georg/

https://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/news/santa-rosa-protesters-accuse-motorist-of-trying-to-hit-them-during-saturday/

    Furthermore, the multiple Human Rights Violations by Santa Rosa Police during these protests cost the city at least $2.3 million in settlements. In contrast, everybody tries to sweep my own videotape down the memory hole.

https://bohemian.com/report-santa-rosa-police-violated-human-rights-during-protests-1/

    Nationwide over a hundred Vehicular Assaults on protesters occurred between May and September 2020, with two of those listed occurring in Santa Rosa - what are the odds? In some states, legislature was introduced to legalize driving a vehicle through crowds of protesters, but Santa Rosa “legalized” it first.

    On March 23, 2021 a driver deliberately targeted a homeless encampment,  hitting at least two people leaving one injured and killing Kellie Jones, a 43-year old mother of two. 

https://www.ktvu.com/news/friends-grieve-mother-who-police-say-was-mowed-down-intentionally-at-santa-rosa-homeless-camp

    For years I have emailed Santa Rosa City Council members, and the Mayor, asking for comments about this “unsolved hit-and-run” in front of Santa Rosa High School, but not one person has responded. So, I decided to make a blog entry keeping track of all their non-responses: http://erikmiddlenamejorgensen.blogspot.com/2024/04/journalists-resources-more-emails.html

    If you, as a reader, approve of vehicles driving through crowds of protesters, you are in luck! Santa Rosa is the perfect place for you, and you can be among the trend-setters for the entire country!

    On the other hand, if you are a normal human being with a conscience, then I suggest that you contact Santa Rosa’s City Council and ask them what’s wrong with them:

• the City Council as a whole at citycouncil@srcity.org
• Mayor Natalie Rogers at nrogers@srcity.org (707)494-8378
• Vice Mayor Mark Stapp at MStapp@srcity.org (707)328-7024
• Eddie Alvarez (District 1) at ealvarez@srcity.org (707)791-5282
• Dianna MacDonald (District 3) at dmacdonald@srcity.org (707)495-7599
• Victoria Fleming (District 4) at vfleming@srcity.org
• Chris Rogers (District 5) at crogers@srcity.org (707)543-3017
• Jeff Okrepkie (District 6) at JOkrepkie@srcity.org (707)531-0056
• City Attorney Teresa Sticker at caoffice@srcity.org (707)543-3040

    Either the City Council doesn't care whether its citizens get run over in crosswalks, or they actually approve of Vehicular Assault against certain types of people. From firsthand experience, many Sonoma County residents have told me they not only support that violence but look forward to the opportunity: "If anybody got in my way I'd run them over, too!" They sound jealous they missed out on the "fun".

    And that is how Santa Rosa "legalized" Vehicular Assaults against protesters: not merely the apathy of City Council members, and Willful Blindness by police officers witnessing hit-and-runs, but the rabid eagerness of Santa Rosa residents to run over people themselves

    

"Wire Fraud isn't illegal," police investigator tells me (with a straight face).

Today I was preparing to file a Citizen's Arrest at Walmart, but dropped by the police station first. 

Outside the station I ran into an officer, and asked if an investigator was on duty. John Hecimovich said he was the Investigator, then told me he already read my email. I was a little surprised, not just because he recognized me from my writing, but because nobody has actually responded to any of my many emails. He surprised me by telling me he had actually read my email. 

After complimenting my eloquent writing skills, Investigator Hecimovich told me that he saw nothing illegal, then stated as a true fact that "Wire Fraud" is not a crime, but a civil matter. He cited his 30 years of law enforcement to bolster his Best Judgement that Fraud is not illegal.

It is difficult to hold an intelligent conversation with somebody "gaslighting" you. When that person has a firearm they can use with impunity, it becomes very intimidating when they refuse to do the job they get paid for. 

When I followed up by defining Wire Fraud, outlining the false pretenses and explaining the online claims contradicted, Hecimovich stubbornly insisted none of that was illegal. He called my smoking-gun proof "hypothetical" and "speculative", and merely my "opinion". When I reminded him that Wire Fraud was a serious Federal felony, he kept repeating that Wire Fraud was merely a civil matter, and not illegal. And since Hemovich had already decided no crime had been committed, he apparently saw no need to Investigate. Which is sort of his job title...

Investigator Hecimovich was very polite, almost friendly, while insisting that Wire Fraud isn't illegal. He looked me in the eye and said it with a smile!

Now, I realize that local cops enforce state laws, and not federal, but ignorance of the law is no excuse - not even for a police officer.

Just like Walmart manager Tonio, Investigator Hecimovich could not admit I was correct. Whenever I offered definitive proof, both simply said, "Nuh-uh!" And while I can understand Tonio's motivation to lie, I'm baffled why a police officer would decline following up on allegations of a high-tech crime ring. Baffled why he kept arguing with me about the definition of Wire Fraud, why he kept insisting Fraud is not illegal.

When I told Investigator Hecimovich that I was planning a Citizen's Arrest, he didn't "refuse" to (in so many words), but kept stating as a true fact that no crime had happened. That is not the police officer's job, telling a citizen no crime had happened, but to obey the law. The law that is written, not laws the officer imagines. 

Now, it would be different if he had pointed out that federal felonies are beyond his jurisdiction, and thus beyond his power of arrest, but Hecimovich simply wasn't going to follow the rule of law. While he never explicitly stated his refusal, he simply kept deflecting each time I mentioned it, insisting that nothing illegal had occurred. Again, that is not a police officer's job to prevent a citizen from effecting their arrest. 

Nevada Revised Statute clearly states the provisions of a Citizen's Arrest, which I met:

      NRS 171.126  Arrest by private person.  A private person may arrest another:

      1. For a public offense committed or attempted in the person’s presence.
      2. When the person arrested has committed a felony, although not in the person’s presence.
      3. When a felony has been in fact committed, and the private person has reasonable cause for believing the person arrested to have committed it.

Nothing in that statute allows a police officer to refuse that arrest request. In fact, doing so seems a lot like Obstruction of Justice. 

But I have a feeling that Investigator Hecimovich will simply claim that Obstruction or Racketeering are not illegal, as well. In fact, part 3 makes that arrest mandatory - "reasonable cause for believing" a felony occurred. "Gross Misdemeanors" are also subject to Citizens Arrest, under part 1, but only if the police officer feels like doing his job.  

Hecimovich simply refused to provide the "honest services" my taxes pay for, having law enforcement obey NRS 171.126. In fact, another statute in that same subsection explicitly gave me the right to summon his assistance:

NRS 171.132  Person making arrest may summon assistance.  Any person making an arrest may orally summon as many persons as the person making the arrest deems necessary to aid him or her therein.

While making a false Citizen's Arrest would expose me to a civil lawsuit or even criminal charges, that's placed entirely upon the head of the citizen calling for arrest. Any police officers would be completely immune from liability, while the arresting citizen would be completely liable. 

Now, why on earth would an officer refuse to administer a Citizen's arrest? What possible explanation could there be? Gosh, that's a tough one to figure out. Right?

Inquisitive readers should ask Investigator Hecimovich (jhecimovich@rsic.org - (775)785-8776. 

The answer might astound you!

Journalists Resource - organizations contacted about Wire Fraud Racketeering at WaMart

This summary will get updated as new organizations get contacted. I will also include any auto-responses generated by emailing them. While my overall complaint remains the same, each organization I contact will focus on different subsections. For example, FBI and DOJ for federal crimes, State Attorney General for state crimes, the FTC and FCC for advertising fraud utilizing telecommunications or a computer system... Why, the list just goes on and on.

Groups contacted by noon May 3, 2024:

• WalMart's Ethics Complaints website
• [April 30, 2024 - 2:46pm - Reference#WMT240413618] Thank you for contacting Walmart Ethics. We are reviewing the concern you reported. After our initial review, we will update you on how we will handle your concern. We may need to request more information from you, refer you to other associates who are better able to answer your concern, or review your concern further for potential misconduct. If you need to add information, please reference WMT240413618 when you contact us.
  
  
• [May 2, 2024 - 9:01am - Reference# 240501-006839] My name is John, and I'll be glad to assist you. Thank you for sharing your most recent experience, in which you went to report to the store that you were a victim of wire fraud, and the manager, Tonio, defended the fraudulent behavior, but they refused to activate or follow up with you about this case. I understand this is not the service you expected, and I appreciate you giving us the heads-up as we strive to provide you with the best customer service in the market. I've sent your comments to management. They'll review and reach out to address your concern.
• [May 9, 2024 - 2:01pm] Thank you for contacting Walmart Global Ethics. We have forwarded this information to the Market Asset Protection Manager for review and handling.
  Regards,
  Nathan
  Walmart Global Ethics ethc_replies@walmart.com
• [May 10, 2024 - 12:49pm] Thank you for contacting Walmart Global Ethics. We take our customers' concerns seriously and are glad to hear from you.
  
  As described, your concerns would be best reviewed and handled by the Market People Partner, Tiffany Houghton, who can be contacted at 775-829-8088. A copy of your concern has been forwarded to the attention of Tiffany, but please do not hesitate to contact their office directly.
  
  You may also contact our Customer Service team by calling 1-800-WALMART.
  Thank you,
  Brittany
  Walmart Global Ethics
• Premium (third-party phone vendor hired by WalMart)
• [May 1, 2024 - 5:09pm] Thanks for contacting us, Erik. A member of our team will be in touch with you as soon as possible. Thanks again!
• Nevada State Attorney General's Office
• [May 2, 2024 - 5:50pm] The Office of the Nevada Attorney General, Constituent Services Unit acknowledges receipt of your complaint. You will be notified upon completion of the review process between 14 to 45 business days. We do not provide emergency services. If additional information is required, you will be contacted by a member of our staff. Please note that pursuant to NRS 241.039(7), Open Meeting Law complaints are public records.
• Reno/Sparks Indian Colony Police Department
• [May 5, 2024 - 5:37pm] (Auto-response generated, only with copy of online form submitted)
• Nevada Care Connection
• [May 4, 2024 - 6:37pm] Thank you for reaching out to Nevada Care Connection. I am so sorry you were treated so poorly. There is not a lot we can do about this at the resource center, but I have provided the Better Business Bureau’s information below. Please reach out to them with your concern and ask them to address this.
• Reno/Sparks Indian Colony Police Department
• [May 7, 2024 - around 3pm]  [In an in-person conversation with Investigator John Hecimovich, he kept telling me "Wire Fraud is not illegal, it's just a Civil matter." https://erikmiddlenamejorgensen.blogspot.com/2024/05/wire-fraud-isnt-illegal-police.html
• Washoe County District Attorney

• [May 8, 2024 - 10:21am] Thank you for reaching out to my office and I am sorry you are experiencing troubles.  From your message, it appears that you are already in contact with the Reno Police Department and have filed a crime report.  This would have been the direction I would have given you to follow up on.  My office is the lead prosecuting agency in Washoe County, and as such we receive cases submitted by local law enforcement for prosecution.  We do not conduct initial investigations and direct citizens who contact us about possible crimes to contact local law enforcement. My office would not become involved until an arrest was made or a case was submitted for a warrant.

  Thank you again for reaching out.  You are welcome to contact me at the numbers below if you would like to discuss further.

  Chief Michelle M. Bays

• Federal Bureau of Investigations 
• Nevada Bureau of Consumer Protection 
• [May 14, 2024 - 2:48pm] Our office is in receipt of your complaint and information.  Complaints are an important and effective way this office can collect information and promote consumer education on issues of concern, including fraudulent or deceptive scams and schemes, as well as conduct initial reviews or investigations into allegations of fraudulent or deceptive prohibited practices or violations of the Nevada Deceptive Trade Practices Act. 

   

  Your complaint and information will be reviewed by our staff.  We may contact the company in an attempt to assist you in resolving your complaint.  The company may also contact you directly to find a resolution to your complaint.  It is important to note that the Nevada Attorney General’s Office is prohibited by law from representing or providing legal advice to persons or companies.  As such, we retain the sole prosecutorial discretion to conduct further investigation, legal action, or seek remedies in accordance with the law.  While we may be able to assist in the resolution of your complaint, there are no guaranties.  We also remind you that you retain the ability to seek the advice of legal counsel or consider other legal options that may be available to you regarding your complaint.

   

  Thank you for your complaint and information. 

   

  State of Nevada

  Office of the Attorney General

  Bureau of Consumer Protection

• More to follow

Journalists Resource: Wire Fraud Racketeering while purchasing phone at Walmart

Here's my summary of replacing my lost phone at WalMart, resulting in Wire Fraud Racketeering. I'm organizing it into two sections: A brief overview of legal definitions in layman terms; and a detailed timeline of events. 

Brief Overview

There are four main components of what happened:

• vendor selling new phone under one condition, which was not honored (Wire Fraud - obtaining money by false or fraudulent pretenses)
• vendor later refusing to help activate new phone with old number, depriving me of "intangible right of honest services" I paid for, my sole reason for buying that phone there, and a service which the vendor advertises online. (Wire Fraud - denial of honest services)
• host company advertises that specific "honest service" online:  Our friendly and knowledgeable associates can help you with all your tech needs, including getting your new cellphone up and running for you. (Wire Fraud - utilizing telecommunications to defraud)
• host company's manager defends vendor's right to deny "honest services", manager told me to go elsewhere to fix problem, didn't calling law enforcement for my police report. (Obstruction of Justice, Accessory to Wire Fraud)

A brief overview, in layman terms, of elements of Wire Fraud and Racketeering

• "Racketeering" is two or more violation of "racketeering crimes", 35 federal and state crimes including fraud, embezzlement, extortion, arson, kidnapping, murder - as well as Obstructing Justice for those crimes
• "Wire Fraud" is...
• editing still in progress - stay tuned for more details about WalMart's business practices

Timeline of Events 

[This part is still getting edited, as I needed to reorganize the beginning overview as I finish editing the timeline. Thanks for pointing out how unclear I was brachiopod]

A bunch of stuff happened, and then:

where I was told it would be "easy". Under False Pretenses, I bought a phone which cannot access my old number - and they refuse to fix it. "Denial of Goods and Services" is Wire Fraud, especially under False Pretenses.

Making matters worse for them, when I returned the fourth time to get my old number working, a WalMart manager named Tonio (who I understand is Asset Protection) repeatedly Denied Goods and Services, and kept defending her right to refuse to fix my phone, even after he reviewed videotape to prove she was lying about events as her excuse to Deny Service I was promised and I paid for.

Tonio had an armed security guard accompany him, who also did nothing when I explained the Wire Fraud and Identity Theft, all done utilizing a computer network. Tonio said that he "couldn't even talk to her" because the is a third-party vendor. However, he also said, "She said her network is down, but she's working on getting it back up," which indicates he actually did talk to her, but lied and said he "can't". Tonio, also kept telling me that it is not her job to help people get their phones working, merely to sell phones profiting WalMart

However, Premium's website tells another story:

"Premium’s trained and certified experts guide shoppers to an informed purchase decision. We engage store traffic to help sell products and accessories, ring the transaction, process activations and provide follow-up." 

https://premiumretail.com/what-we-do/grow-sales/sales-training/  

Those are two separate service I've been repeatedly denied - two separate Wire Frauds. While it was an employee from their third-party vendor Premium who initially denied service, WalMart management repeatedly upheld that decision, and for a number of incredibly stupid reasons - like "You were moving your hands while you were talking." When I asked, "Was I moving them in an aggressive manner? Or like I kept asking for help?" Tonio said, "Well, it's hard to explain..." I kept asking, "So, NOT aggressive then, right?" But Tonio was simply unable admit the truth - was the "hand movement" aggressive or not? And is that a valid reason for Tonio to prevent me from getting my old phone number activated, like I was promised and as I already paid WalMart for?

United States Code, Title 18 Subsection 1343 defines Wire Fraud as:

Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, transmits or causes to be transmitted by means of wire, radio, or television communication in interstate or foreign commerce, any writings, signs, signals, pictures, or sounds for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

For the purposes of this chapter, the term “scheme or artifice to defraud” includes a scheme or artifice to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services.

Moreover, "Willful Blindness" and "Deliberate Indifference" is Obstruction of Justice, which is comprised of both mal-feasance and non-feasance. And each Denial and Obstruction is comprised of at least two separate Wire Fraud charges - a federal offense.

Racketeering is defined, in layman's terms, as a group of people engaged in multiple crimes of specific nature, "racketeering crimes" which include Fraud, Embezzlement, Extortion, and several others - including Obstructing Justice to protect other racketeers. And while it was their Premium vendors committing the Wire Fraud, it was WalMart's Asset manager Obstructing Justice to allow her to keep defrauding me (which unjustly enriches WalMart at my expense) while protecting her from prosecution - or even a scolding.

Under the legal doctrine of respondeat superior, it makes no difference their third-party vendor defrauded me, only that WalMart profited from that transaction. It happened at a WalMart, in their electronic department, utilizing WalMart's computer network, by a third-party vendor WalMart requested, approved, and hired:

"When Walmart needed an expert salesforce in their wireless section, they called Premium."

https://premiumretail.com/case-study/winning-wireless-in-walmart/

Furthermore the website for the electronics department for Superstore #2016 promotes the very same honest service which the manager kept saying their vendor didn't need to provide me:

Our friendly and knowledgeable associates can help you with all your tech needs, including getting your new cellphone up and running for you. 

https://www.walmart.com/store/2106-reno-nv/connection-center

With that in mind, the background I am creating a timeline of events, (which I will update later tonight)

I have also filed my complaint with the Nevada State Attorney General. We'll see what they decide to do. I hope it is something really, really big! 

This summary is currently getting updated. 

Please check back soon.

Journalists Resources - more emails ignored by elected officials

Today I'm emailing several people, expecting them not to respond. 

However, since their elected job requires them to respond - or at least read all the mail voters send them - their repeated nonresponses will come back to them some day. In fact, that is the whole point of sending them all those emails - creating a "paper trail" of their complicity in corruption.

This "paper trail" I have created over the years involves Embezzlement of Evidence, and an unsolved hit-and-run in a school zone crosswalk. While I have video evidence of both events, a veritable "smoking gun", former DA Jill Ravitch repeatedly turned a blind eye to the problem. Coincidentally, Ravitch's legal assistant Dava Kohlman is married to the police officer covering up the hit-and-run he eye-witnessed, suggesting a possible reason for not prosecuting the driver or the officers covering up.

Now, a reasonable person would assume that Santa Rosa's City Council would want to speak out against vehicular violence aimed against their citizens. However, Santa Rosa's City Council has seemingly approved of legalizing Vehicular Assault against peaceful protestors.

A year ago, just before the 20th Anniversary of the unsolved hit-and-run, I emailed everybody on the City Council, individually and collectively at citycouncil@srcity.org, asking for a quote for my article. Predictably there was no reply, not even one, not even from Mayor Natalie Rogers [(707)494-8378 and nrogers@srcity.org]. One would assume that the Mayor, at least, would want to be seen speaking out against Vehicular Assault - no matter the class of person who got run over.

I am encouraging Journalists to follow up with FOIA Requests (Freedom of Information Act) to obtain record of my emails to these elected officials, which is public record.

Today I sent emails with the header: "Santa Rosa journalist seeking quote on unsolved hit-and-run" to:

• the City Council as a whole at citycouncil@srcity.org
• Mayor Natalie Rogers at nrogers@srcity.org (707)494-8378
• Vice Mayor Mark Stapp at MStapp@srcity.org (707)328-7024
• Eddie Alvarez (District 1) at ealvarez@srcity.org (707)791-5282
• Dianna MacDonald (District 3) at dmacdonald@srcity.org (707)495-7599
• Victoria Fleming (District 4) at vfleming@srcity.org
• Chris Rogers (District 5) at crogers@srcity.org (707)543-3017
• Jeff Okrepkie (District 6) at JOkrepkie@srcity.org (707)531-0056
• City Attorney Teresa Sticker at caoffice@srcity.org (707)543-3040

To [name],

I'm a Santa Rosa journalist writing about an unsolved hit-and-run in front of Santa Rosa High School:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2OzOtoBxrw

My questions:

1) After viewing this hit-and-run video, do you believe SRPD responded properly to a car driving on the wrong side of the road through a crowd of people?

2) Santa Rosa City Council appears to have legalized Vehicular Assault against protesters, by repeatedly refusing to speak out against this hit-and-run in a school zone crosswalk. Can you think of any other way to describe the situation? OR, do you admit that's an accurate way for me to describe this Willful Blindness?

I will continue asking until I get a response for my article.

Thank you for your time,

Erik Jorgensen

Award-Winning Crime Reporter

In short: polite, professional, to the point, and no reason to brush off.

Furthermore, by continuing to ignore my requests for comment, they appear to engage in Willful Blindness - which is not a valid defense against Obstruction of Justice.

Maybe some day, somebody besides me will be bothered by cars running over citizens, and will follow up on my paper trail. And I only established this paper trail because I knew it would get ignored, would end up highlighting a pattern of corruption - with Embezzlement at the core. One would assume elected official would be motivated to expose corruption, not help cover it up or profit from it. Right?

Journalist's Resource - summary of Dava Kohlman

Dava Kohlman was not on my radar until her boss, former DA Jill Ravitch, sent me an odd email. The strange part wasn't what was said, but what wasn't said; nothing more than "Thank you for the nice letter". So when DA Ravitch  took the time to write me a "go screw yourself" letter, it made me dig deeper.

Within five minutes I learned that fly-fishing guide Brian Kohlman (central to my corruption investigation) was married to DA Ravitch's legal assistant, Dava Kohlman. This seemed to explain why no criminal charges were filed - since the DA's assistant was married to one of the people I was trying to press charges against. Maybe there's some other explanation, but when I emailed Dava Kohlman at her new job she refused to comment and request I make no further contact. 

That's how somebody acts when they have something to hide.

Now, my investigation this criminal Racketeering enterprise involves intellectual property Embezzled from me, and I have have reason to believe that both Brian and Dave Kohlman were benefitted as recipient-Embezzlees of my converted property. 

Since Dava Kohlman's new job is as Purchasing Agent for Tehama County, somebody with a hazy perception of the line between public and private property is absolutely unsuited for the job. And the taxpayers of Tehama County should be aware of this.

Last month, after I notified Tehama Sheriff's Department of her Obstruction, I also emailed several of the County Commission asking for there comment on her criminal charges. So far, none have responded. However, I will keep emailing them and I will post here each time I do, while expecting no response. Eventually, when I finish writing this book, I will name all the public officials I contacted and their lack of response.

Dava Kohlman was only the second to respond to me in almost ten years, and her semi-threatening letter Obstructed Justice.

I sent her a YouTube link of an unsolved hit-and-run, and asked her if she could identify anybody in it. Instead, she said she couldn't possibly remember details from twenty years ago; that she was requesting no further contact from me; and that she would be "contacting" my newspaper.

Why would she need to "contact" my newspaper? To tell them I did a great job catching a corrupt public official?

Or was that a threat?

I'll keep this blog updated with details about Dava Kohlman, the first crack in this Nexus of Corruption.