(Formatting may be a bit screwed up here but it looks fine in MS-Word. Except...what the hell's the format for getting those friggin' line numbers on each page? I've been lookin' for an example all over the net, haven't come up with squat. Are they even necessary?)
JAMES MARCH
(personal data deleted from this version
Richmond, California xxxxx
Telephone: xxx
Pager: xxx
Electronic Mail: jmarch@ricochet.net
Attorney pro per
JAMES MARCH
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, RICHMOND BRANCH
JAMES MARCH, )
Plaintiff, )
vs. )
)
SHERIFF WARREN E. RUPF, )
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY SHERIFF’S )
DEPARTMENT, CONTRA COSTA )
COUNTY GOVERNMENT, RICHMOND ) CASE NO.
POLICE DEPARTMENT, DOES 1 )
through 1000, inclusive, )
Defendants ) COMPLAINT:
_________________________________)
1) VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS IN REFUSAL TO ALLOW PLAINTIFF TO APPLY FOR A CONCEALED CARRY WEAPONS (CCW) PERMIT
2) DECLARATORY RELIEF
3) PERPETUATING A CONTINUING THREAT ON THE LIFE OF THE PLAINTIFF
James March, referred to as "Plaintiff" (hereinafter), and for causes of action, alleges as follows:
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(By Defendants for violations of civil rights)
1. At all material times, James March was a resident of Richmond, California.
2. At all material times, the Defendants had the ability to issue a concealed weapons permit to the Plaintiff in accord with Penal Code 12050-12054.
3. On or about January, 1998 the Plaintiff examined the CCW permit policies of the Defendants, and learned of the general state of them as outlined below. Plaintiff gave up gaining a CCW permit until February 15th, 1999.
4. On February 15th, 1999 Plaintiff read the California Constitution and realized that the Defendant's policies are illegal not only by implication, but very directly. Plaintiff particularly enjoyed Article 1 Section 7B: "A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens."
5. On March 9th 1999 Sheriff's Department Lieutenant Wayne Willett identified himself to the Plaintiff as the Sheriff's agent in charge of initial permit applications and enforcing the Sheriff's CCW policies.
6. On that date the Plaintiff identified himself to Willett as a Richmond resident with specific threats against his life.
7. On that date Willett informed the Plaintiff that issuance of CCW permits to Richmond residents does not occur without the specific consent of the Richmond PD Chief on a case by case basis. Willett confirmed Plaintiff's prior knowledge that this is also the case in Pittsburgh.
8. On March 10th 1999 Plaintiff called the secretary of the Richmond Chief of Police. The secretary confirmed the policy, explained that such special dispensation to apply for CCW with the Sheriff "just plain doesn't happen" and neither does issuance straight from the Chief. The secretary would not schedule an appointment with the Richmond PD Chief despite his well-publicized "open door policy".
9. At all material times Defendants Sheriff Rupf, Sheriff’s department and Richmond PD had an agreement whereby the Sheriff would issue no policies to residents of the incorporated town of Richmond without the permission of the Richmond PD Chief of Police. This permission must be sought by the permitholder on an individual basis.
10. At all material times Defendants Sheriff and Sheriff’s department had a similar agreement with Pittsburgh PD. These "cross-jurisdictional agreements" were NOT common throughout the county in that form, they were (and remain) specific to these towns.
11. At all material times the Defendants were aware of the racial makeup of the county in general and these two towns in particular, and were aware that a distinctive racial result of "limited legal gun carry for minorities" would be the logical and practical result of such "self defense redlining" in gross violation of basic principles of civil rights and equal protection laws.
12. For a period of time beginning with the 1990 election of Sheriff Warren E. Rupf, the Sheriff and the Sheriff’s Department issued permits to people with political and personal connections to the Sheriff and the Department and seldom to members of the general population of the county, in flagrant violation of California’s Constitution, Article 1, Section 7B. The few permits handed out by Richmond PD were handled in similar fashion.
13. For a period of time beginning with the 1990 election of Sheriff Warren E. Rupf, the Sheriff and the Sheriff’s Department issued permits to people of wealth, privilege and general high social standing. One common mechanism for this was to list large cash amounts carried by applicants as a reason for issuance, ignoring actual risk of lethal threat in deciding "who gets to defend themselves". This was done with full knowledge that all citizens are due equal treatment before the law. The few permits handed out by Richmond PD were handled in similar fashion.
14. For a period of time beginning with the 1990 election of Sheriff Warren E. Rupf, permits were issued to citizens who had contributed large campaign contributions to the Sheriff’s re-election fund or that of other County politicians. This is flat-out corruption.
15. For a period of time beginning with the 1990 election of Sheriff Warren E. Rupf the Defendants made a mockery of justice in the county, they deliberately antagonized citizens interested in their own self defense and flaunted an "armed aristocracy". Defendants severely reduced the general trust in the administration of justice within the county and of law enforcement and contributed to the lack of cooperation between law enforcement and the citizenry. This contributed to the rise of crime, violence and general societal chaos. The Defendant’s actions have harmed every single individual in the county and can only be viewed as massive arrogance, incredible stupidity or absolute unmitigated evil.
16. The Defendants systematically violated civil rights knowing that the ability to commit such violations were crafted right into the legislature’s crafting of "Discretionary CCW" in 1923. The Defendants were aware of the historical origin of discretionary permits, they were aware it was an integral part of "Jim Crow", they were aware that it was a product of the former Confederate and other Southern states designed to allow bigoted Police Chiefs and Sheriffs to abuse civil rights without crafting an obvious statewide restriction on minorities that would alert the Federal Government to problems. The Defendants have knowingly perpetuated a key element of Jim Crow almost into the 21st century, relying on a generally low knowledge of history and low interest in personal defense to perpetuate illegal activity.
17. Defendant has been directly damaged by remaining in fear of his life or great bodily injury by specific threats to his life.
18. Defendant has been damaged by "having his nose rubbed in" an area of "justice" which clearly isn't, and being forced to realize that if lawlessness on this scale exists in law enforcement in this area of law, there is literally no way of knowing how much further the "rot has spread".
19. Plaintiff specifies Does 1 through 1,000 inclusive in case this turns into a class action suit because the Plaintiff is to date unaware of a single California law enforcement agency fully in compliance with legal and Constitutional issues relating to CCW issuance.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants as follows:
1. On the all Causes of Action, for damages according to proof and a judicial order to cease and desist from all illegal and unconstitutional actions relating to CCW. The Plaintiff prays for the following findings from the Court:
A. A finding from the Court that the existing CCW system within the county is designed to violate civil rights, ever since it’s origin in 1923.
B. A finding from the Court that the Sheriff, the Chief and their officers/agents/deputies/employees cannot be trusted to judge the eligibility of CCW applicants to acquire the permit.
2. The Plaintiff asks the Court to impose on pain of contempt a set of OBJECTIVE standards for permit issuance to replace the illegal and unconstitutional SUBJECTIVE standards that have been used as a method of citizen abuse since 1923.
3. The Plaintiff encourages the court to look up the racial identity of the approved permitholders. The Plaintiff feels close to certain that the court will find an extremely low and possibly non-existent rate of minority permit holding regardless of geographic residency, and the Plaintiff has hopes the court will take an extremely dim view of this. As a Caucasian the Plaintiff cannot directly sue for this cause of action, however the Plaintiff is attempting to recruit his roommate Mr. Henry Hill in as a co-Plaintiff who is black as the proverbial Ace of Spades if that's what it takes to get to the bottom of all this insanity.
3. For costs of suit and for general relief.
JAMES MARCH
By: James March
Plaintiff and Attorney Pro Per
EXHIBIT A:
Statement in 1941 by Florida Supreme Court Justice Buford in the case of Warren vs. Stone, involving a Caucasian Florida resident caught packing a gun sans permit and referring to Florida's old Discretionary system thrown out in 1986: "I know something of the history of this legislation. The original Act of 1893 was passed when there was a great influx of negro laborers in this State drawn here for the purpose of working in turpentine and lumber camps. The same condition existed when the Act was amended in 1901 and the Act was passed for the purpose of disarming the negro laborers and to thereby reduce the unlawful homicides that were prevalent in turpentine and saw-mill camps and to give the white citizens in sparsely settled areas a better feeling of security. The statute was never intended to be applied to the white population and in practice has never been so applied." - Watson v. Stone, 4 So.2d 700, 703 (Fla. 1941)
EXHIBIT B:
(Attached) - March 4th 1999 Newspaper article, Detroit News titled "History gives verdict on Self-defense" by Tim O'Brien. Proof that the Michigan Discretionary CCW system was literally written at the request of the KKK due to a justifiable homicide by an African-American against a member of a white lynch mob.
EXHIBIT C:
(Attached) - Essay by Clayton Cramer, "The Racist Roots of Gun Control" from the Kansas Journal of Law & Public Policy, 4:2 [Winter, 1995] and widely reprinted, plus linked all over the Internet. www.hotbot.com came up with 40 references to the exact phrase of the title.
JAMES MARCH
(personal data deleted from this version
Richmond, California xxxxx
Telephone: xxx
Pager: xxx
Electronic Mail: jmarch@ricochet.net
Attorney pro per
JAMES MARCH
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, RICHMOND BRANCH
JAMES MARCH, )
Plaintiff, )
vs. )
)
SHERIFF WARREN E. RUPF, )
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY SHERIFF’S )
DEPARTMENT, CONTRA COSTA )
COUNTY GOVERNMENT, RICHMOND ) CASE NO.
POLICE DEPARTMENT, DOES 1 )
through 1000, inclusive, )
Defendants ) COMPLAINT:
_________________________________)
1) VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS IN REFUSAL TO ALLOW PLAINTIFF TO APPLY FOR A CONCEALED CARRY WEAPONS (CCW) PERMIT
2) DECLARATORY RELIEF
3) PERPETUATING A CONTINUING THREAT ON THE LIFE OF THE PLAINTIFF
James March, referred to as "Plaintiff" (hereinafter), and for causes of action, alleges as follows:
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(By Defendants for violations of civil rights)
1. At all material times, James March was a resident of Richmond, California.
2. At all material times, the Defendants had the ability to issue a concealed weapons permit to the Plaintiff in accord with Penal Code 12050-12054.
3. On or about January, 1998 the Plaintiff examined the CCW permit policies of the Defendants, and learned of the general state of them as outlined below. Plaintiff gave up gaining a CCW permit until February 15th, 1999.
4. On February 15th, 1999 Plaintiff read the California Constitution and realized that the Defendant's policies are illegal not only by implication, but very directly. Plaintiff particularly enjoyed Article 1 Section 7B: "A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens."
5. On March 9th 1999 Sheriff's Department Lieutenant Wayne Willett identified himself to the Plaintiff as the Sheriff's agent in charge of initial permit applications and enforcing the Sheriff's CCW policies.
6. On that date the Plaintiff identified himself to Willett as a Richmond resident with specific threats against his life.
7. On that date Willett informed the Plaintiff that issuance of CCW permits to Richmond residents does not occur without the specific consent of the Richmond PD Chief on a case by case basis. Willett confirmed Plaintiff's prior knowledge that this is also the case in Pittsburgh.
8. On March 10th 1999 Plaintiff called the secretary of the Richmond Chief of Police. The secretary confirmed the policy, explained that such special dispensation to apply for CCW with the Sheriff "just plain doesn't happen" and neither does issuance straight from the Chief. The secretary would not schedule an appointment with the Richmond PD Chief despite his well-publicized "open door policy".
9. At all material times Defendants Sheriff Rupf, Sheriff’s department and Richmond PD had an agreement whereby the Sheriff would issue no policies to residents of the incorporated town of Richmond without the permission of the Richmond PD Chief of Police. This permission must be sought by the permitholder on an individual basis.
10. At all material times Defendants Sheriff and Sheriff’s department had a similar agreement with Pittsburgh PD. These "cross-jurisdictional agreements" were NOT common throughout the county in that form, they were (and remain) specific to these towns.
11. At all material times the Defendants were aware of the racial makeup of the county in general and these two towns in particular, and were aware that a distinctive racial result of "limited legal gun carry for minorities" would be the logical and practical result of such "self defense redlining" in gross violation of basic principles of civil rights and equal protection laws.
12. For a period of time beginning with the 1990 election of Sheriff Warren E. Rupf, the Sheriff and the Sheriff’s Department issued permits to people with political and personal connections to the Sheriff and the Department and seldom to members of the general population of the county, in flagrant violation of California’s Constitution, Article 1, Section 7B. The few permits handed out by Richmond PD were handled in similar fashion.
13. For a period of time beginning with the 1990 election of Sheriff Warren E. Rupf, the Sheriff and the Sheriff’s Department issued permits to people of wealth, privilege and general high social standing. One common mechanism for this was to list large cash amounts carried by applicants as a reason for issuance, ignoring actual risk of lethal threat in deciding "who gets to defend themselves". This was done with full knowledge that all citizens are due equal treatment before the law. The few permits handed out by Richmond PD were handled in similar fashion.
14. For a period of time beginning with the 1990 election of Sheriff Warren E. Rupf, permits were issued to citizens who had contributed large campaign contributions to the Sheriff’s re-election fund or that of other County politicians. This is flat-out corruption.
15. For a period of time beginning with the 1990 election of Sheriff Warren E. Rupf the Defendants made a mockery of justice in the county, they deliberately antagonized citizens interested in their own self defense and flaunted an "armed aristocracy". Defendants severely reduced the general trust in the administration of justice within the county and of law enforcement and contributed to the lack of cooperation between law enforcement and the citizenry. This contributed to the rise of crime, violence and general societal chaos. The Defendant’s actions have harmed every single individual in the county and can only be viewed as massive arrogance, incredible stupidity or absolute unmitigated evil.
16. The Defendants systematically violated civil rights knowing that the ability to commit such violations were crafted right into the legislature’s crafting of "Discretionary CCW" in 1923. The Defendants were aware of the historical origin of discretionary permits, they were aware it was an integral part of "Jim Crow", they were aware that it was a product of the former Confederate and other Southern states designed to allow bigoted Police Chiefs and Sheriffs to abuse civil rights without crafting an obvious statewide restriction on minorities that would alert the Federal Government to problems. The Defendants have knowingly perpetuated a key element of Jim Crow almost into the 21st century, relying on a generally low knowledge of history and low interest in personal defense to perpetuate illegal activity.
17. Defendant has been directly damaged by remaining in fear of his life or great bodily injury by specific threats to his life.
18. Defendant has been damaged by "having his nose rubbed in" an area of "justice" which clearly isn't, and being forced to realize that if lawlessness on this scale exists in law enforcement in this area of law, there is literally no way of knowing how much further the "rot has spread".
19. Plaintiff specifies Does 1 through 1,000 inclusive in case this turns into a class action suit because the Plaintiff is to date unaware of a single California law enforcement agency fully in compliance with legal and Constitutional issues relating to CCW issuance.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants as follows:
1. On the all Causes of Action, for damages according to proof and a judicial order to cease and desist from all illegal and unconstitutional actions relating to CCW. The Plaintiff prays for the following findings from the Court:
A. A finding from the Court that the existing CCW system within the county is designed to violate civil rights, ever since it’s origin in 1923.
B. A finding from the Court that the Sheriff, the Chief and their officers/agents/deputies/employees cannot be trusted to judge the eligibility of CCW applicants to acquire the permit.
2. The Plaintiff asks the Court to impose on pain of contempt a set of OBJECTIVE standards for permit issuance to replace the illegal and unconstitutional SUBJECTIVE standards that have been used as a method of citizen abuse since 1923.
3. The Plaintiff encourages the court to look up the racial identity of the approved permitholders. The Plaintiff feels close to certain that the court will find an extremely low and possibly non-existent rate of minority permit holding regardless of geographic residency, and the Plaintiff has hopes the court will take an extremely dim view of this. As a Caucasian the Plaintiff cannot directly sue for this cause of action, however the Plaintiff is attempting to recruit his roommate Mr. Henry Hill in as a co-Plaintiff who is black as the proverbial Ace of Spades if that's what it takes to get to the bottom of all this insanity.
3. For costs of suit and for general relief.
JAMES MARCH
By: James March
Plaintiff and Attorney Pro Per
EXHIBIT A:
Statement in 1941 by Florida Supreme Court Justice Buford in the case of Warren vs. Stone, involving a Caucasian Florida resident caught packing a gun sans permit and referring to Florida's old Discretionary system thrown out in 1986: "I know something of the history of this legislation. The original Act of 1893 was passed when there was a great influx of negro laborers in this State drawn here for the purpose of working in turpentine and lumber camps. The same condition existed when the Act was amended in 1901 and the Act was passed for the purpose of disarming the negro laborers and to thereby reduce the unlawful homicides that were prevalent in turpentine and saw-mill camps and to give the white citizens in sparsely settled areas a better feeling of security. The statute was never intended to be applied to the white population and in practice has never been so applied." - Watson v. Stone, 4 So.2d 700, 703 (Fla. 1941)
EXHIBIT B:
(Attached) - March 4th 1999 Newspaper article, Detroit News titled "History gives verdict on Self-defense" by Tim O'Brien. Proof that the Michigan Discretionary CCW system was literally written at the request of the KKK due to a justifiable homicide by an African-American against a member of a white lynch mob.
EXHIBIT C:
(Attached) - Essay by Clayton Cramer, "The Racist Roots of Gun Control" from the Kansas Journal of Law & Public Policy, 4:2 [Winter, 1995] and widely reprinted, plus linked all over the Internet. www.hotbot.com came up with 40 references to the exact phrase of the title.
) and San Mateo. 