Nika2013
Rookie
- Banned
- #1
Also posted in the political forum as the subject is related to law and politics
...............................................................................................................
THE MANNER IN WHICH GANG INJUNCTIONS OPERATE AND WHOM THEY ADDRESS
The gang injunction is a civil procedure for the purpose of “nuisance abatement” – It was created in Los Angeles by Kenneth Hahn as a way to control the activities of gang members without presenting the protections of the criminal justice system. As the federal constitution gives the protections in the Bill of Rights, the State of California and its counties (and others that follow suit) do not have the authority to remove these protections through executive agency action. However, with few challenges, an agency will continue its illegal practices. At the current moment, county district attorneys (called prosecutors in some areas) have established a procedure which allows them to subpoena a gang to court. This summons may or may not include individual summons to people on the gang databases held by the police. Individuals may not even know that they have been called as part of a gang and therefore, cannot respond to the notice of hearing. Only those who appear in court have the right to challenge the designation as gang member and a problem arises when they cannot confront the person or evidence naming them. Even with their appearances, the administrative law judge and the D.A. may rule against the gang and impose restrictions on liberty, geographical movement, freedom of dress and expression, prohibitions on alcohol and noise, restrictions on “association” that include severe punishments and incarceration, without further warning or a day in court. The entire procedure violates every protection in the Bill of Rights and is simply a ruse to circumvent criminal procedure! With these actions under a civil process, the individual alleged gang member has not been offered the right of habeas corpus review as he would have under the criminal justice system. Here, he is not unlike the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay who have been labeled enemy combatants without access to legal representation or access to the criminal and civil courts. However, under Rasul v Bush, Hamdi v Rumsfeld and Boumedienne v Bush, the GB prisoners were given habeas corpus rights and the right to review, defining US jurisdiction over Guantanamo Bay through a long-term lease with Cuba. When asked why the prisoners were not afforded a trial under the criminal justice system, the executive branch response was “not enough evidence to convict.” This is the same tactic being used against alleged gang members. The following problems arise within the civil hearing procedures being used to incarcerate under gang injunctions:
1. Inadequate due process protections in calling “alleged gang members” as individuals.
2. No provision for legal representation as required under Gideon v Wainwright and guaranteed by the US Constitution.
3. Inability to confront witnesses and evidence as required under criminal procedure and constitutions.
4. Possible erroneous inclusion in gang databases under police discretion.
5. Issues of the “right of association” under the Bill of Rights.
6. Naming a person as a gang member for appearance and dress which are 1st Amendment expression.
7. Limiting movement by geographical boundaries as violating of freedom of movement under the “commerce clause” of the US Constitution. (Name 42 USC 1983 case resulting in criminal charges under color of state law)
8. Criminalizing non-criminal behavior, such as: dress, colors, association, hand signals, crossing boundaries, being in public places, language. Criminalizing these without statutes applying to the general populace is a violation of “equal protection” under the law.
9. Right to a jury trial and review of a criminal charge.
10. Removing the rights, specifically of minority races and the poor, increasing their percentages in the Department of Corrections.
11. Issues of federal rights under 42 USC 1983 and the violation of the same by state actors.
12. Possible genocide of specific races by incarcerating predominantly the men of reproductive age among these races.
13. Using the gang injunctions to further enhancement of sentences and punishment under the “three strikes” rule.
14. Issues concerning how the law shall deal with cases retroactively when the constitution has been violated by these procedures.
Congress has not suspended habeas corpus, although it tried to selectively suspend it for the Guantanamo Bay prisoners. The State of California may not use an administrative procedure to circumvent provisions of the US Constitution and the protections of the Bill of Rights. The Supremacy Clause forbids this action by states. In Ex Parte Endo, the court stated that loyal citizens may not be detained or imprisoned without an act of congress, even in times of war. Many of the same unconstitutional acts by government affect both the prisoners at Guantanamo and the alleged gang members under these injunctions, as they are both being named and treated as terrorists without due process.
...............................................................................................................
THE MANNER IN WHICH GANG INJUNCTIONS OPERATE AND WHOM THEY ADDRESS
The gang injunction is a civil procedure for the purpose of “nuisance abatement” – It was created in Los Angeles by Kenneth Hahn as a way to control the activities of gang members without presenting the protections of the criminal justice system. As the federal constitution gives the protections in the Bill of Rights, the State of California and its counties (and others that follow suit) do not have the authority to remove these protections through executive agency action. However, with few challenges, an agency will continue its illegal practices. At the current moment, county district attorneys (called prosecutors in some areas) have established a procedure which allows them to subpoena a gang to court. This summons may or may not include individual summons to people on the gang databases held by the police. Individuals may not even know that they have been called as part of a gang and therefore, cannot respond to the notice of hearing. Only those who appear in court have the right to challenge the designation as gang member and a problem arises when they cannot confront the person or evidence naming them. Even with their appearances, the administrative law judge and the D.A. may rule against the gang and impose restrictions on liberty, geographical movement, freedom of dress and expression, prohibitions on alcohol and noise, restrictions on “association” that include severe punishments and incarceration, without further warning or a day in court. The entire procedure violates every protection in the Bill of Rights and is simply a ruse to circumvent criminal procedure! With these actions under a civil process, the individual alleged gang member has not been offered the right of habeas corpus review as he would have under the criminal justice system. Here, he is not unlike the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay who have been labeled enemy combatants without access to legal representation or access to the criminal and civil courts. However, under Rasul v Bush, Hamdi v Rumsfeld and Boumedienne v Bush, the GB prisoners were given habeas corpus rights and the right to review, defining US jurisdiction over Guantanamo Bay through a long-term lease with Cuba. When asked why the prisoners were not afforded a trial under the criminal justice system, the executive branch response was “not enough evidence to convict.” This is the same tactic being used against alleged gang members. The following problems arise within the civil hearing procedures being used to incarcerate under gang injunctions:
1. Inadequate due process protections in calling “alleged gang members” as individuals.
2. No provision for legal representation as required under Gideon v Wainwright and guaranteed by the US Constitution.
3. Inability to confront witnesses and evidence as required under criminal procedure and constitutions.
4. Possible erroneous inclusion in gang databases under police discretion.
5. Issues of the “right of association” under the Bill of Rights.
6. Naming a person as a gang member for appearance and dress which are 1st Amendment expression.
7. Limiting movement by geographical boundaries as violating of freedom of movement under the “commerce clause” of the US Constitution. (Name 42 USC 1983 case resulting in criminal charges under color of state law)
8. Criminalizing non-criminal behavior, such as: dress, colors, association, hand signals, crossing boundaries, being in public places, language. Criminalizing these without statutes applying to the general populace is a violation of “equal protection” under the law.
9. Right to a jury trial and review of a criminal charge.
10. Removing the rights, specifically of minority races and the poor, increasing their percentages in the Department of Corrections.
11. Issues of federal rights under 42 USC 1983 and the violation of the same by state actors.
12. Possible genocide of specific races by incarcerating predominantly the men of reproductive age among these races.
13. Using the gang injunctions to further enhancement of sentences and punishment under the “three strikes” rule.
14. Issues concerning how the law shall deal with cases retroactively when the constitution has been violated by these procedures.
Congress has not suspended habeas corpus, although it tried to selectively suspend it for the Guantanamo Bay prisoners. The State of California may not use an administrative procedure to circumvent provisions of the US Constitution and the protections of the Bill of Rights. The Supremacy Clause forbids this action by states. In Ex Parte Endo, the court stated that loyal citizens may not be detained or imprisoned without an act of congress, even in times of war. Many of the same unconstitutional acts by government affect both the prisoners at Guantanamo and the alleged gang members under these injunctions, as they are both being named and treated as terrorists without due process.
Last edited:
