Background: this is a letter I attached to my application with the same Sheriff I sued last year. Per the Judge, they have to let me apply. Check this out...
---------------------------------------
Lt. Wayne Willett,
Contra Costa County Sheriff's Office,
Professional Standards and Resources Unit
823 Marina Vista
Martinez, CA 94553
Lt. Willett,
This note is an attachment to my application and I assume will be part of the permanent file.
I'm writing to you personally versus Sheriff Rupf because frankly, I'm in possession of information that seems to indicate you're trying to be more professional than I previously suspected. In particular, I have copies of your department's Freedom Of Information Act response to the law offices of Trutanich - Michel, LLP, who in case you were wondering are on permanent retainer to the NRA. I do NOT intend to publish anyone's name out of there, ever. The principle of "do unto others as you'd have them do unto you" applies in spades because my end goal is to somehow, eventually, get a permit and I wouldn't want my name all over the Internet as a permitholder.
In looking over the "good cause" statements and cross-correlating them with campaign contributions and Posse membership, it's very clear to me that things are as inequitable as I suspected back in your office on 3/9/99. What's also clear is that you're not a direct party to it in most cases.
The best single example seems to be Txxxx xxx Vxxxxx. On 3/12/98 he wrote a letter to Sheriff Rupf after you turned him down. His "good cause" consists primarily of an entire paragraph listing the various politicians he's good buddies with and most of the rest is verbiage best described as "groveling". Politely unstated was his previous attendance at a $100-a-head fundraiser for Sheriff Rupf four years earlier. I can't be certain, but he's probably a Posse member or he at least knows one or more members.
Another was Jxxxx Bxxxxxx. I'm sure you recall his highly memorable 4-page rant of 2/4/99 upon being denied (probably by you, although I can't be as sure about that). Other than the minor detail that not ALL street gangs are members of the various minorities he listed, I guess you realize I agree with his sentiments. Now, Mr. Bxxxxx was someone a friend of mine ran into last year at a local Republican party meeting, so while he's not directly connected to Sheriff Rupf by cash or other means such as the Posse, he's "wealthy and politically connected" in general. From the tone of his letter and his frequent use of boldface and CAPS plus his wealth, it seemed fairly obvious that issuance to him probably prevented a lawsuit, and unlike myself he has the cash for lawyers.
Sxxxxx Gxxxxx is another good one. Let's see: good cause here seems to be…well…there ain't any. Other than "I'm an elderly rich lawyer"? Unstated: "I can sue the heck out of you"?
And let's not forget Rxxxx Dxxx Wxxxx. His sole "good cause" is that he travels through the sort of areas I live in. He wasn't the only applicant with a "good cause" of "travel through high crime areas", either. How do think I'm supposed to feel about that, when I'm wiping gang tags off the side of my apartment building?
These are just examples. You've got a golf pro who's had a permit for ages, no "good cause" listed. Let me guess: he's got a big-bux target pistol and he's supposed to plink falling stray balls before they nail somebody in the noggin?
Contrary to the current policy manual, "good cause" doesn't seem to factor into renewals either. See also Jxxx Pxxxx, Wxxxxx Axxxx Rxx, Pxxxx Exxxxx Bxxxx (original permit '62 while employed, renewal as late as 7/7/99 while occupation lists "retired"). Those are just a few of the most obvious. Permits seem to accrue "tenured status"?
That leaves us with one major issue left, doesn't it, since "good cause" is clearly just lip-service? Sheriff Rupf's policy of blocking CCW access to towns with their own PD Chief.
At that "trial" of 12/22, Mr. Watrous's (the opposing counsel) trial brief made it clear that you agreed I'd been blocked due to Richmond residency. You could hardly deny it, after that letter of 3/17/99 already put into evidence in your side's first answer to complaint. If such a barrier to permit access was legal, Judge Patsey could have thrown me out on that basis with prejudice and ended any further potential legal struggle.
He didn't do that, did he? Instead, Sheriff Rupf gets to decide whether or not we go back to court for "round two" by denying me.
I can now prove that my application with Richmond (and denial) took a total of nine months - see also Penal Code 12052.5 which this violated. I can also prove they're attempting to impose illegal requirements (a $1million liability policy and more) and that they've had a long-standing policy of non-issuance in violation of Salute vs. Pitchess's "individual determination and investigation into every applicant" requirement. In other words, in order for your department to voluntarily back the policies of a department such as Richmond PD, you'd have to confirm they're in compliance with the law. You can't 'cuz they ain't and it's rather obvious that they're making mistakes...mistakes for which I assume you want no possible liability for. In order to shed any such liability you have no control over, you're going to have to make decisions completely independently of the various Chiefs.
There's evidence of other illegality on the various city's parts right in your paperwork. Example: Jxxxx Cxxxx of Clayton. Below a copy of his permit there's a note "Transfer License from Clayton PD, Approved by Lt. Willett 2/2/99". You know what's odd about that? Late in '96 a Clayton resident who like myself is an "ordinary peon" received a letter from Clayton PD saying they "don't issue at all". And Cxxxxx is a VP of Sxxx Contruction, Mr. Sxxx is a personal friend of DA Yancey and a contributor to Sheriff Rupf and other local political figures (and a permitholder). So here we have Clayton PD doing totally different policies depending on how "connected" a guy is. We have your department doing the same, it looks like, because you can guess what the guy from '96 was told when he went to your department, right? He was denied the application based on city residency same as me, and he'll testify that way if this thing ever goes to "round two".
(Speaking of a potential "round two", Trutanich - Michel LLP is already signed on as pro-bono counsel if I'm denied. You should also know that a recent Federal Supreme Court decision has implications for our situation, see attached AP article: "Rules Liberalized for Suing Government".)
( http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2000/02/23/national1100EST0605.DTL )
There is no reason CCW permits cannot be handled as professionally as the DMV handles commercial driver's licenses. Both require serious training and background checks and a trucker can do far more damage with an 18-wheeler than either of us can do with a small firearm. Becoming a trucker in no way involves campaign contributions, personal connections or the like.
I need to make a few things clear here. I've been studying the CCW issue for three years now. At first, it seemed crazy; I had a hard time believing widespread issuance wouldn't cause a problem. I exchanged Email with street law enforcement officers in six states with "shall-issue" permit systems in place; in all cases, their actual experience was that people willing to go through the hoops needed for legal carry weren't the folk they were worried about and were not contributing to violence. Not one of the 31 "shall-issue" states has seriously considered rescinding such a system.
I've also studied "legal use of deadly force" issues, including California's "death or great bodily injury" standard, including "exotic" elements like the "21ft courtroom rule-of-thumb" on lawful defense against knife/club or similar non-projectile deadly force. I'm well aware of the potential physical, emotional, legal and financial aftereffects of even a justifiable defensive shooting. I don't drink, I literally never liked the taste of any alcohol and the rare times I do get justifiably angry, I stay logical about it rather than "blow up".
Anyways. What I'm getting at is, issuing me a permit might be a step you're considering but you're not going to threaten public safety in doing so.
Lieutenant, I don't know what your opinion of me is at this point. I have some clue how Sheriff Rupf feels, just from one brief conversation J. I am truly dismayed that I had to put all of us through that mess last year, but the alternative (tolerating obvious discrimination) wasn't something I could (or will) do. You'll both find that if the discrimination ends, if you guys make CCW handling a professional and fair system versus what's been happening now, you can politically survive the fallout. Talk to Sheriff Mike Carona of Orange County; by "de-politicizing" the process he's being seen as anti-corruption rather than "pro gun". There's no reason your department can't do the same.
Thank you for listening,
Jim March, Richmond
jmarch@ricochet.net (other contact info)
---------------------------------------
Lt. Wayne Willett,
Contra Costa County Sheriff's Office,
Professional Standards and Resources Unit
823 Marina Vista
Martinez, CA 94553
Lt. Willett,
This note is an attachment to my application and I assume will be part of the permanent file.
I'm writing to you personally versus Sheriff Rupf because frankly, I'm in possession of information that seems to indicate you're trying to be more professional than I previously suspected. In particular, I have copies of your department's Freedom Of Information Act response to the law offices of Trutanich - Michel, LLP, who in case you were wondering are on permanent retainer to the NRA. I do NOT intend to publish anyone's name out of there, ever. The principle of "do unto others as you'd have them do unto you" applies in spades because my end goal is to somehow, eventually, get a permit and I wouldn't want my name all over the Internet as a permitholder.
In looking over the "good cause" statements and cross-correlating them with campaign contributions and Posse membership, it's very clear to me that things are as inequitable as I suspected back in your office on 3/9/99. What's also clear is that you're not a direct party to it in most cases.
The best single example seems to be Txxxx xxx Vxxxxx. On 3/12/98 he wrote a letter to Sheriff Rupf after you turned him down. His "good cause" consists primarily of an entire paragraph listing the various politicians he's good buddies with and most of the rest is verbiage best described as "groveling". Politely unstated was his previous attendance at a $100-a-head fundraiser for Sheriff Rupf four years earlier. I can't be certain, but he's probably a Posse member or he at least knows one or more members.
Another was Jxxxx Bxxxxxx. I'm sure you recall his highly memorable 4-page rant of 2/4/99 upon being denied (probably by you, although I can't be as sure about that). Other than the minor detail that not ALL street gangs are members of the various minorities he listed, I guess you realize I agree with his sentiments. Now, Mr. Bxxxxx was someone a friend of mine ran into last year at a local Republican party meeting, so while he's not directly connected to Sheriff Rupf by cash or other means such as the Posse, he's "wealthy and politically connected" in general. From the tone of his letter and his frequent use of boldface and CAPS plus his wealth, it seemed fairly obvious that issuance to him probably prevented a lawsuit, and unlike myself he has the cash for lawyers.
Sxxxxx Gxxxxx is another good one. Let's see: good cause here seems to be…well…there ain't any. Other than "I'm an elderly rich lawyer"? Unstated: "I can sue the heck out of you"?
And let's not forget Rxxxx Dxxx Wxxxx. His sole "good cause" is that he travels through the sort of areas I live in. He wasn't the only applicant with a "good cause" of "travel through high crime areas", either. How do think I'm supposed to feel about that, when I'm wiping gang tags off the side of my apartment building?
These are just examples. You've got a golf pro who's had a permit for ages, no "good cause" listed. Let me guess: he's got a big-bux target pistol and he's supposed to plink falling stray balls before they nail somebody in the noggin?
Contrary to the current policy manual, "good cause" doesn't seem to factor into renewals either. See also Jxxx Pxxxx, Wxxxxx Axxxx Rxx, Pxxxx Exxxxx Bxxxx (original permit '62 while employed, renewal as late as 7/7/99 while occupation lists "retired"). Those are just a few of the most obvious. Permits seem to accrue "tenured status"?
That leaves us with one major issue left, doesn't it, since "good cause" is clearly just lip-service? Sheriff Rupf's policy of blocking CCW access to towns with their own PD Chief.
At that "trial" of 12/22, Mr. Watrous's (the opposing counsel) trial brief made it clear that you agreed I'd been blocked due to Richmond residency. You could hardly deny it, after that letter of 3/17/99 already put into evidence in your side's first answer to complaint. If such a barrier to permit access was legal, Judge Patsey could have thrown me out on that basis with prejudice and ended any further potential legal struggle.
He didn't do that, did he? Instead, Sheriff Rupf gets to decide whether or not we go back to court for "round two" by denying me.
I can now prove that my application with Richmond (and denial) took a total of nine months - see also Penal Code 12052.5 which this violated. I can also prove they're attempting to impose illegal requirements (a $1million liability policy and more) and that they've had a long-standing policy of non-issuance in violation of Salute vs. Pitchess's "individual determination and investigation into every applicant" requirement. In other words, in order for your department to voluntarily back the policies of a department such as Richmond PD, you'd have to confirm they're in compliance with the law. You can't 'cuz they ain't and it's rather obvious that they're making mistakes...mistakes for which I assume you want no possible liability for. In order to shed any such liability you have no control over, you're going to have to make decisions completely independently of the various Chiefs.
There's evidence of other illegality on the various city's parts right in your paperwork. Example: Jxxxx Cxxxx of Clayton. Below a copy of his permit there's a note "Transfer License from Clayton PD, Approved by Lt. Willett 2/2/99". You know what's odd about that? Late in '96 a Clayton resident who like myself is an "ordinary peon" received a letter from Clayton PD saying they "don't issue at all". And Cxxxxx is a VP of Sxxx Contruction, Mr. Sxxx is a personal friend of DA Yancey and a contributor to Sheriff Rupf and other local political figures (and a permitholder). So here we have Clayton PD doing totally different policies depending on how "connected" a guy is. We have your department doing the same, it looks like, because you can guess what the guy from '96 was told when he went to your department, right? He was denied the application based on city residency same as me, and he'll testify that way if this thing ever goes to "round two".
(Speaking of a potential "round two", Trutanich - Michel LLP is already signed on as pro-bono counsel if I'm denied. You should also know that a recent Federal Supreme Court decision has implications for our situation, see attached AP article: "Rules Liberalized for Suing Government".)
( http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2000/02/23/national1100EST0605.DTL )
There is no reason CCW permits cannot be handled as professionally as the DMV handles commercial driver's licenses. Both require serious training and background checks and a trucker can do far more damage with an 18-wheeler than either of us can do with a small firearm. Becoming a trucker in no way involves campaign contributions, personal connections or the like.
I need to make a few things clear here. I've been studying the CCW issue for three years now. At first, it seemed crazy; I had a hard time believing widespread issuance wouldn't cause a problem. I exchanged Email with street law enforcement officers in six states with "shall-issue" permit systems in place; in all cases, their actual experience was that people willing to go through the hoops needed for legal carry weren't the folk they were worried about and were not contributing to violence. Not one of the 31 "shall-issue" states has seriously considered rescinding such a system.
I've also studied "legal use of deadly force" issues, including California's "death or great bodily injury" standard, including "exotic" elements like the "21ft courtroom rule-of-thumb" on lawful defense against knife/club or similar non-projectile deadly force. I'm well aware of the potential physical, emotional, legal and financial aftereffects of even a justifiable defensive shooting. I don't drink, I literally never liked the taste of any alcohol and the rare times I do get justifiably angry, I stay logical about it rather than "blow up".
Anyways. What I'm getting at is, issuing me a permit might be a step you're considering but you're not going to threaten public safety in doing so.
Lieutenant, I don't know what your opinion of me is at this point. I have some clue how Sheriff Rupf feels, just from one brief conversation J. I am truly dismayed that I had to put all of us through that mess last year, but the alternative (tolerating obvious discrimination) wasn't something I could (or will) do. You'll both find that if the discrimination ends, if you guys make CCW handling a professional and fair system versus what's been happening now, you can politically survive the fallout. Talk to Sheriff Mike Carona of Orange County; by "de-politicizing" the process he's being seen as anti-corruption rather than "pro gun". There's no reason your department can't do the same.
Thank you for listening,
Jim March, Richmond
jmarch@ricochet.net (other contact info)
