Sounding Gongs and Clanging Cymbals

A present day economical expression, in context, is :Lip Service

Though I speake with the tongues of men & of Angels, and haue not charity, I am become as sounding brasse[1] or a tinkling cymbal.

1 Corinthians 13:1  (1611 King James Bible)

As I understand it, the Attorney General is the chief law enforcement officer in the State of California.

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION

ARTICLE 5  EXECUTIVE

SEC. 13.  Subject to the powers and duties of the Governor, the

Attorney General shall be the chief law officer of the State.  It

shall be the duty of the Attorney General to see that the laws of the

State are uniformly and adequately enforced.  The Attorney General

shall have direct supervision over every district attorney and

sheriff and over such other law enforcement officers as may be

designated by law, in all matters pertaining to the duties of their

respective offices, and may require any of said officers to make

reports concerning the investigation, detection, prosecution, and

punishment of crime in their respective jurisdictions as to the

Attorney General may seem advisable.  Whenever in the opinion of the

Attorney General any law of the State is not being adequately

enforced in any county, it shall be the duty of the Attorney General

to prosecute any violations of law of which the superior court shall

have jurisdiction, and in such cases the Attorney General shall have

all the powers of a district attorney.  When required by the public

interest or directed by the Governor, the Attorney General shall

assist any district attorney in the discharge of the duties of that

office.

This was demonstrated,  recently, in the matter of former Mayor Filner, where

Filner’s prosecution was handled by the Attorney General rather than local District Attorney Dumanis.

As shown above, included in the duties of the Attorney General is an obligation to ensure that the laws and Constitution of the State (and of the United States) are evenly enforced and upheld. To ensure this, the Attorney General, from time to time, exercises her prerogatives and overrules, supplants or abrogates local law enforcement authorities. And “When required by the public interest or directed by the Governor, the Attorney General shall assist any district attorney in the discharge of the duties of that office.”

The Vehicle Registration renewal requirements are the law of the State of California and are stipulated first and most directly in California Vehicle Code 4601[2].

On July 2010, the California Superior Court, County of San Diego, acting within its remit, found that I had complied with the Registration renewal requirements of VC 4601. The Attorney General  of California has conceded this issue in Brendlin v. California, 127 S. Ct. 1145 (2007) and again in California  v. Brendlin, 06-8120;  United States Supreme Court No. 06–8120; Argued April 23, 2007—Decided June 18, 2007.

So here we are.

In Hylton v. Anytime Towing, the Attorney General has been aware, at least, since August 2012 that a political subdivision of the State, the City of San Diego, has adopted a position this is directly in conflict with that of the highest law enforcement officer of the State, as conceded in Brendlin. The Attorney General, for the same period, has been aware that the political subdivision in adopting that renegade posture, was at least in part motivated by a desire to conceal illegal activity, approved by the city council of San Diego or by authorized officials of the political subdivision, San Diego; all this in a regime that, according to San Diego’s data, shows that certain minority groups are stopped by police, citywide, at rates that are a multiple of whites.

As noted; the practices, policies, customs and procedures mentioned above in addition to violating several provisions of the civil code, vehicle code, most particularly CVC 12110(b), have demonstrable disproportionate impact on protected groups as the result of San Diego’s targeting of those groups. This has been demonstrated by analyses of San Diego’s Vehicle Stop Data, including 2 done by San Diego itself. According to San Diego’s representations, around 350,000 persons were affected of San Diego’s conduct; some more than others.

On two or more occasions, I have asked the Attorney General and the California DMV to intervene, intercede[3], and act or to provide an opinion or brief that clearly identifies the position of the Attorney General, on the above matters and a particular matter of State law, with which the Attorney General undoubtedly is familiar.

On each occasion the Attorney General and or the California DMV[4] has ignored the request. This leads to the conclusion that the Attorney General has determined that equal enforcement of the laws of this State will not be required or is undesired, at least with respect to this individual. Additionally, an equally valid conclusion is that the Attorney General supports, approves or has determined that differential application, protection or enforcement of the law or the adoption of practices, customs or procedures that produce those results are permitted; also called knowing indifference. These are the required elements of a 4^th Amendment claim. The Fourth Amendment currently provides an avenue of redress for those subjected to discriminatory stops and searches, whether via a civil claim challenging racial profiling practices. And, as the Supreme Court has recognized, these court actions can have particular bite when they are coupled with a § 1983 claim. See, e.g., Hudson v. Michigan, 126 S. Ct. at 2167-68 ("As far as we know, civil liability is an effective deterrent here, as we have assumed it is in other contexts.").

I beg you to understand what I mean and what that meaning portends. I have no tolerance for sounding gongs or tinkling cymbals. And, if you did not know it before, I have not tolerance for racists, irrespective of the titles that they bear or sovereignty that they claim. The provisions of the constitution are not an illusory promise Guillory v. Gates.

State statutory immunity provisions do not apply to federal civil rights actions. Morrison v. Jones, 607 F.2d 1269, 1273 (9th Cir.1979), cert. denied, 445 U.S. 962, 100 S.Ct. 1648, 64 L.Ed.2d 237 (1980). To construe a federal statute to allow a state immunity defense "to have controlling effect would transmute a basic guarantee into an illusory promise", which the supremacy clause does not allow. Martinez v. California, 444 U.S. 277, 284 n. 8, 100 S.Ct. 553, 558 n. 8, 62 L.Ed.2d 481 (1980).

---

[1] Sounding gong or clanging cymbal, is more moving, but not Anglican.

[2] .  All else that is related to this section is ministerial.

[3] Only to the extent of the statutory meaning and application of vc 4601 and vc 22651(A) and (B).i.e.

(A) With a registration expiration date in excess of six months before the date it is found or operated on the highway, public lands, or the offstreet parking facility.

(B) Displaying in, or upon, the vehicle, a registration card, identification card, temporary receipt, license plate, special plate, registration sticker, device issued pursuant to Section 4853, or permit that was not issued for that vehicle, or is not otherwise lawfully used on that vehicle under this code.

[4] The DMV going so far as to collude with San Diego.