California Gov. Brown's Two New Laws

[Redrose]

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/08/10/jerry-brown-bans-illegal-alien/


The word alien is banned from labor laws.


http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-
alert/article30736917 (http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article30736917.html)/

Grand Juries not to be used in fatal police shootings.



I disagree with both.

[Green Arrow]

...yes?

[Redrose]

...yes?


Sorry, the links didn't work, I think they are good now.

[Green Arrow]

Meh. That's not my fight anymore. I left that cesspool five years ago and haven't looked back.

[Redrose]

Meh. That's not my fight anymore. I left that cesspool five years ago and haven't looked back.

I knew he was a kook, but this is insanity.

[Green Arrow]

I knew he was a kook, but this is insanity.

Hardly seems like anything to get worked up over.

[Redrose]

Hardly seems like anything to get worked up over.

Well, as to the word alien, if it flies in Calif. it may gain ground in other states. I think it's idiotic.

The GJ issue is "anti-cop" IMHO.

[Green Arrow]

Well, as to the word alien, if it flies in Calif. it may gain ground in other states. I think it's idiotic.

I agree, I think it's a silly issue that certainly doesn't merit the waste of taxpayer dollars. That said, it's not really a big deal. So the state won't call illegal immigrants "aliens." Okay. Big deal.

That's just my opinion.


The GJ issue is "anti-cop" IMHO.

I disagree.

[PolWatch]

I don't think the GJ law is anti-cop...but an attempt to insure that everything is handled openly and fairly. The problems we are seeing now are because some people don't feel they get a fair investigation. The GJ system is part of the system that created that idea. The local DA (with political ties to the local police) gets to choose what evidence to present. In theory they present all the evidence but if that were true, we wouldn't hear the oft repeated phrase that a DA could get an indictment for a ham sandwich. All of the proceedings are done in secret. This does not make people feel that everything is kosher. The only way to answer questions is allow the public to follow every step of the procedure in these high profile cases. If there is nothing to hide, there is no problem.

[Redrose]

I don't think the GJ law is anti-cop...but an attempt to insure that everything is handled openly and fairly. The problems we are seeing now are because some people don't feel they get a fair investigation. The GJ system is part of the system that created that idea. The local DA (with political ties to the local police) gets to choose what evidence to present. In theory they present all the evidence but if that were true, we wouldn't hear the oft repeated phrase that a DA could get an indictment for a ham sandwich. All of the proceedings are done in secret. This does not make people feel that everything is kosher. The only way to answer questions is allow the public to follow every step of the procedure in these high profile cases. If there is nothing to hide, there is no problem.


Not for a GJ, they must be secret, to protect the panel. They are empaneled for several months usually and are called up to hear several cases before being released, remaining unknown. Even in the courthouse, the window in the courtroom door is covered up to protect their identify. They must be protected, if not you'd never get anyone to be on a GJ. Some cases are so serious, people could be killed.
The public has no right to the details of the proceedings, the court personnel isn't privy to it either. As a clerk, I would be called in at the end, publish the finding if it is to be made public at that time, and take their notes and seal them immediately.

The GJ procedure is very necessary, not just to allow the DA to avoid any question of impropriety, but to determine if a crime was committed and if an indictment and trial is necessary. It's not a trial, only a finding of fact to warrant a prosecution.

By bypassing the GJ, those cases would all be filed on and prosecuted, and costing the defendant and the county money even if the verdict turns out to be a not guilty.

Also, the GJ proceeding should be an option the state can use for all people, why should the police be singled out and not have the same rights as all others.

[AeonPax]

`
The former is over the top. Removing "aliens" is so repugnantly PC, it reeks of flatulence.

The latter I can agree with - Grand Jury System, With Exceptions, Favors the Police in Fatalities

(http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/08/nyregion/grand-juries-seldom-charge-police-officers-in-fatal-actions.html)

[PolWatch]

The police have authority over citizens....they are not average citizens because they can kill someone and walk away with no criminal charges. Because of this, anything questionable should have extraordinarily open proceedings. Continue with keeping part of the procedure hidden and that will ensure that the problems & questions continue. Put everything in the open and questions are answered. There is no greater authority than being authorized to kill someone. It deserves special treatment.

[donttread]

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/08/10/jerry-brown-bans-illegal-alien/


The word alien is banned from labor laws.


http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-
alert/article30736917 (http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article30736917.html)/

Grand Juries not to be used in fatal police shootings.



I disagree with both.

I am all for allowing citizens to record the police. The other two changes not so much. Who is really pulling the strings in California's open door immigration policy? Their factory farm industry?

[Ivan88]

Instead of ending Grand Jury indictment of killer cops, we should prevent the cops, prosecutors, lawyers, politicians and super-rich from rigging the Grand Jury and the regular juries as well.
At present, all juries are largely rigged by prosecutors, lawyers etc.
And on top of that, most people have no interest in truth, nor do they know that a juror has the right to judge the law, the judge, and prosecutor.
Most jurors think they have to think and vote however the lawyer judge says.
I was on a Federal Grand Jury, and the jurors made absolutely no effort to ferret out the truth, but instead falsely believed their job was to believe the prosecutor and grant an indictment as quick as possible.
I hate to admit it, and am very sorry to see that America has become a nation of deluded, deceived collectively insane puppets and Pavlovian controlled dogs.

[Ivan88]

Removing the word 'alien' from California laws indicates that California is essentially granting California citizenship to as many Mexicans who apply.

Once one has state citizenship, all the rest of the states are obligated to honor such citizenship, which basically equates to US citizenship, but without a US citizenship document.

[Bo-4]

Prosecutors are too tight with cops to be fair. One need only look at Bob McCulloch in St Louis (Brown Case) to know this is true.

[Redrose]

The police have authority over citizens....they are not average citizens because they can kill someone and walk away with no criminal charges. Because of this, anything questionable should have extraordinarily open proceedings. Continue with keeping part of the procedure hidden and that will ensure that the problems & questions continue. Put everything in the open and questions are answered. There is no greater authority than being authorized to kill someone. It deserves special treatment.


That's not accurate. Police do not have the authority to kill people and walk away with no criminal charges.

They have the authority to use deadly force to defend themselves or for the protection of others as the situation escalates. The police do not initiate the escalation of force, they respond to what the perpetrator is doing in order to maintain control.

The facts of high profile cases, all cases, must be addressed by those who are trained in the legal profession, not by the masses of people with biases and prejudices and little to no knowledge of the law and our legal system. There are people who do not have the aptitude to understand our legal system, no matter how well and how often it is explained to them. It's outside their capacity to comprehend.

We've seen how false statements can 'become facts' with the 'hands up, don't shoot' issue. That never happened, but the emotional crowds created that statement, and expected an outcome based on a falsehood. They are still protesting based on that false statement in Ferguson. You can't fix stupid.

Too many people ignore facts and the reality of a situation. If it doesn't suit their view, they make up their own facts. We cannot allow that in our justice system. We could all be mistreated by that lynch mob mentality. The court of public opinion is very dangerous.

[Redrose]

Instead of ending Grand Jury indictment of killer cops, we should prevent the cops, prosecutors, lawyers, politicians and super-rich from rigging the Grand Jury and the regular juries as well.
At present, all juries are largely rigged by prosecutors, lawyers etc.
And on top of that, most people have no interest in truth, nor do they know that a juror has the right to judge the law, the judge, and prosecutor.
Most jurors think they have to think and vote however the lawyer judge says.
I was on a Federal Grand Jury, and the jurors made absolutely no effort to ferret out the truth, but instead falsely believed their job was to believe the prosecutor and grant an indictment as quick as possible.
I hate to admit it, and am very sorry to see that America has become a nation of deluded, deceived collectively insane puppets and Pavlovian controlled dogs.


I've clerked hundreds of jury trials and over two dozen GJ's. Jury selection is difficult, people lie. The system is not the problem, it's human nature. I've sworn in juries for a death case that swear up and down they can vote for the death penalty if warranted, then at the end of the penalty phase stand firm they cannot vote for the death penalty IN ANY SITUATION. That means they lied up front. They were specifically asked that in the beginning.

A GJ is only the State's case, to determine if there is enough to indict and go forward. They chose a GJ to basically take the heat off of the State Atty. to charge or not to charge in a case. They leave that decision to a panel of 15+ of local citizens.

The voir dire is a lengthy process with many questions to try to select the best jurors for a particular case. Usually a pool of 800-900 are called in to select 6 and 1 alternate. A pool of 1500+ is called to selecct a 12 person jury and 2 alternates. It's difficult. If people are not honest with their answers, the entire system is tainted. Professional jurors are not the answer either, too much room for corruption and bribery.

I've heard jurors say, "he must be guilty because they arrested him". People are stupid. Those types are not chosen.

The attorneys tell them upfront that their opening statement is not fact, they must listen to the testimony to determine their verdict. Same for their closing argument. Both sides present their case, the jury hears both sides, it's not one sided. The jury also gets instructions to help them with their verdict.

It's not a perfect system, but it's the best in the world.

[Ivan88]

I've clerked hundreds of jury trials and over two dozen GJ's. Jury selection is difficult, people lie. The system is not the problem, it's human nature. It's not a perfect system, but it's the best in the world.

If you were on hundreds of Jury trials you must have noted how the Prosecutor eliminates people with independent thinking skills, and prefers the ones with establishment mentality.
If it were a jury of peers, they would not be allowed to pick a bunch of brain dead tv addicts to be the jury of anyone who is not like them.
The prosecutor has a list of people who are not brain dead, and he works hard to eliminate them.
I've seen judges prejudice the jury with his instructions.

However, Redrose is correct, a large part of the problem is that most Americans do not know their rights as Jurors, nor do they seem to understand the difference between official propaganda and emotionalism vs Truth and real law.

However, when jurors tell the judge they can vote the death penalty, it is not a lie if they cannot. If cops, lawyers, judges and politicians can lie every day, how is it a lie for a peon to protect his own views?
I can give a recent example of a rigged court in Riverside County, California, Moreno Valley branch.
The first thing they do is force everyone wanting to see the clerk to stand in line for 3-4 hours. Then they tell you to just pay the fine, and you won't have to stand in line. And before you go to court and before any guilt is proven, they try to force everyone to pay the fine in advance!
When you get to court, they have a fake judge who tells everyone that he only imposes the maximum fine.
If you want to file papers, they make you stand in line for 3-4 hours.
So, they make it very difficult for people to overcome their legal robbery system.

The whole thing is a money making racket designed to milk the American People.
Such sham courts shame the whole idea of American Justice.

But, since Congress and the Senate and President abolished all our rights, how can one complain, especially since most of us are perfectly happy with our lawyer controlled legal system, AMA medical system, corporate greed system, and our perpetual war system, why should anyone complain about some rip-off court?

[Redrose]

If you were on hundreds of Jury trials you must have noted how the Prosecutor eliminates people with independent thinking skills, and prefers the ones with establishment mentality.
If it were a jury of peers, they would not be allowed to pick a bunch of brain dead tv addicts to be the jury of anyone who is not like them.
The prosecutor has a list of people who are not brain dead, and he works hard to eliminate them.
I've seen judges prejudice the jury with his instructions.

However, Redrose is correct, a large part of the problem is that most Americans do not know their rights as Jurors, nor do they seem to understand the difference between official propaganda and emotionalism vs Truth and real law.

However, when jurors tell the judge they can vote the death penalty, it is not a lie if they cannot. If cops, lawyers, judges and politicians can lie every day, how is it a lie for a peon to protect his own views?
I can give a recent example of a rigged court in Riverside County, California, Moreno Valley branch.
The first thing they do is force everyone wanting to see the clerk to stand in line for 3-4 hours. Then they tell you to just pay the fine, and you won't have to stand in line. And before you go to court and before any guilt is proven, they try to force everyone to pay the fine in advance!
When you get to court, they have a fake judge who tells everyone that he only imposes the maximum fine.
If you want to file papers, they make you stand in line for 3-4 hours.
So, they make it very difficult for people to overcome their legal robbery system.

The whole thing is a money making racket designed to milk the American People.
Such sham courts shame the whole idea of American Justice.


You are correct that the voir dire looks for people who are not too dumb and not too forceful. I have been turnd away as soon as they hear I workd in the court system. They don't want people who could sway the vote. The don't usually pick judges, lawyers, court personnel, cops, etc.

They try to find people who do not have anything in their family or their own past that is related to the charge in the trial. Too much perceived bias.

The people chosen are our 'peers'. Just because the defendant is a 20 something, white male, high school drop out with an IQ of 100, doesn't mean the jury has to be comprised of people like that.

You need fairly intelligent people but not high brow philosophical types.

That system you describe in Calif. sounds very frustrating. Calif. is weird in many respects.

Our traffic court was excellent, our judge almost always gave a withhold and the minimum fine, with tons of time to pay. He made it so easy and pleasant, the community loved him. He didn't even prosecute the guy who stole his collectible Camaro. The guy didn't know it was judge's car and when he found out he returned it because he liked the judge because judge was always fair with him. Judge appreciated the man's belated honesty and let it go.

Some jurisdictions are worse than others, and that's why it's important to elect good people with integrity in these powerful positions.

[Peter1469]

They should not ask jurors about whether they could vote for death. The entire point of the jury system is for civilians to bring community standards into the criminal justice system. If society is moving away from the death penalty then juries should act accordingly.

[Mac-7]

What will California do if not use the grand jury system?

[Bob]

Meh. That's not my fight anymore. I left that cesspool five years ago and haven't looked back.

I am sure Mt. Shasta and Yosemite are cesspools. LOL

Judging CA by Bakersfield is the same as judging TN by it's troubled cities.

[Bob]

I knew he was a kook, but this is insanity.

Brown got the name moonbeam for a good reason.

[Bob]

Hardly seems like anything to get worked up over.

Brown got worked up over it. So the the rest of the Democrats in the congress of CA.

[Bob]

I don't think the GJ law is anti-cop...but an attempt to insure that everything is handled openly and fairly. The problems we are seeing now are because some people don't feel they get a fair investigation. The GJ system is part of the system that created that idea. The local DA (with political ties to the local police) gets to choose what evidence to present. In theory they present all the evidence but if that were true, we wouldn't hear the oft repeated phrase that a DA could get an indictment for a ham sandwich. All of the proceedings are done in secret. This does not make people feel that everything is kosher. The only way to answer questions is allow the public to follow every step of the procedure in these high profile cases. If there is nothing to hide, there is no problem.

juries are amateurs. Grand Juries are a step closer to being professionals. Grand Juries can also ask questions. This is a smoke screen for those who think Cops belong in prison.

California is very screwed up. I keep informing the forum from time to time how bad it is here.

[Bob]

I am all for allowing citizens to record the police. The other two changes not so much. Who is really pulling the strings in California's open door immigration policy? Their factory farm industry?

Democrats in CA let illegal aliens vote. I figured it out when I studied the ballot application.

Like if I asked you if you are a legal citizen and you go hell yes, that is all they need to claim to be lawful citizens. Then Democrats claim there are not vote fraud problems. CA is corrupt in this part of law.

[Peter1469]

What will California do if not use the grand jury system?

The prosecutor use the indictment system.

[The Xl]

That's not accurate. Police do not have the authority to kill people and walk away with no criminal charges.

They have the authority to use deadly force to defend themselves or for the protection of others as the situation escalates. The police do not initiate the escalation of force, they respond to what the perpetrator is doing in order to maintain control.

The facts of high profile cases, all cases, must be addressed by those who are trained in the legal profession, not by the masses of people with biases and prejudices and little to no knowledge of the law and our legal system. There are people who do not have the aptitude to understand our legal system, no matter how well and how often it is explained to them. It's outside their capacity to comprehend.

We've seen how false statements can 'become facts' with the 'hands up, don't shoot' issue. That never happened, but the emotional crowds created that statement, and expected an outcome based on a falsehood. They are still protesting based on that false statement in Ferguson. You can't fix stupid.

Too many people ignore facts and the reality of a situation. If it doesn't suit their view, they make up their own facts. We cannot allow that in our justice system. We could all be mistreated by that lynch mob mentality. The court of public opinion is very dangerous.

There have been many instances that demonstrate that cops do indeed have the authority to kill civilians among other nefarious things. It's not legal, it's not constitutional, but they have a monopoly on force and the support of our government and the justice system

[Bob]

Instead of ending Grand Jury indictment of killer cops, we should prevent the cops, prosecutors, lawyers, politicians and super-rich from rigging the Grand Jury and the regular juries as well.
At present, all juries are largely rigged by prosecutors, lawyers etc.
And on top of that, most people have no interest in truth, nor do they know that a juror has the right to judge the law, the judge, and prosecutor.
Most jurors think they have to think and vote however the lawyer judge says.
I was on a Federal Grand Jury, and the jurors made absolutely no effort to ferret out the truth, but instead falsely believed their job was to believe the prosecutor and grant an indictment as quick as possible.
I hate to admit it, and am very sorry to see that America has become a nation of deluded, deceived collectively insane puppets and Pavlovian controlled dogs.

That tends to mean a Cop would be put on trial easier. Trials are costly. Citizens can be put on trial, be found innocent and be deeply in debt to lawyers.

[Bob]

There have been many instances that demonstrate that cops do indeed have the authority to kill civilians among other nefarious things. It's not legal, it's not constitutional, but they have a monopoly on force and the support of our government and the justice system

I wonder how I have got to this age and not been shot by a Cop? Any of you wonder why you say things you say?

Somebody ought to ask you guys for your proof.

[Redrose]

They should not ask jurors about whether they could vote for death. The entire point of the jury system is for civilians to bring community standards into the criminal justice system. If society is moving away from the death penalty then juries should act accordingly.


Peter you know what they do in a death penalty trial. If the crime rises to the level that the death penalty is on the table, they have to ask jurors if the have any personal or moral issues with recommending that punishment if the facts support it. You know the jury only recommends the death penalty, the judge still has to order it.

You need a unamimous vote for death as you know, so if someone has a problem with the death penalty they have numerous opportunities to let the court know that well before the trial starts and well before the penalty phase. The death penalty is leagl in many states, and is a punishment that is justified in some murder cases. Community standards have nothinbg to do with the death penalty at that point. Community standards can change the laws, but until that happens the court system operates with the laws as they are.

[Redrose]

What will California do if not use the grand jury system?

Probably Facebook or twitter. They're loopy in Calif. (not all)

[Peter1469]

Peter you know what they do in a death penalty trial. If the crime rises to the level that the death penalty is on the table, they have to ask jurors if the have any personal or moral issues with recommending that punishment if the facts support it. You know the jury only recommends the death penalty, the judge still has to order it.

You need a unamimous vote for death as you know, so if someone has a problem with the death penalty they have numerous opportunities to let the court know that well before the trial starts and well before the penalty phase. The death penalty is leagl in many states, and is a punishment that is justified in some murder cases. Community standards have nothinbg to do with the death penalty at that point. Community standards can change the laws, but until that happens the court system operates with the laws as they are.

Of course I know. The only reason our citizen jury exists is to apply social standards to the judicial process.

If you won't let them act independently then eliminate juries. We don't need them.

[Redrose]

There have been many instances that demonstrate that cops do indeed have the authority to kill civilians among other nefarious things. It's not legal, it's not constitutional, but they have a monopoly on force and the support of our government and the justice system


What's not legal or not Constitutional? It is legal and it is constitutional. In the vast majority of cases nationwide, the facts support it. Nafarious things??? The actions of a few bad apples do not reflect on the entire law enforcement community. Just like not all blacks are thugs, and not all whites are racists as so many on these forums would like us to believe. Can't use that wide brush to paint all.

We wouldn't be safe leaving our homes or in our homes for that matter with a neutered police department.

Our law enforcement agencies are our first line of defense and are given that authority by our government. That is fact.

[Redrose]

Of course I know. The only reason our citizen jury exists is to apply social standards to the judicial process.

If you won't let them act independently then eliminate juries. We don't need them.


I unsderstand what you are saying and they can act independently to a degree but within the parameters of the law.