DECLARATION OF BARBARA JOYCE ATKINSON
I, BARBARA JOYCE ATKINSON, declare:
1. I am an Appellant and defendant in the above-entitled cause. The following facts are stated from my personal knowledge and if called upon I could and would competently testify thereto.
2. Following the false conviction of co-Appellant Shaun Y. Stanistreet and me in the above-captioned matter,
3. The prosecution concealed and is still concealing the exculpatory evidence that parents made complaints about the indecent exposer and such evidence falls within the scope of Brady v. Maryland, (1963) 373 U.S. 83, 87, and the present attorneys sought to be relieved intentionally omitted Brady violations by the prosecution from Appellants' grounds on appeal and did everything in their power to make sure Appellants lose in this Court and should be relieved if this Court is interested in justice.
4. MATERIAL AND EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE MUST BE TURNED OVER TO THE DEFENSE. THE PROSECUTION STILL HAS THE AND IS BREACHING ITS STATUTORY DUTY TO TURN OVER TO APPELLANTS THE EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE OF THE COMPLAINTS MADE BY PARENTS ABOUT THE INDECENT EXPOSER AND THE IDENTITIES OF ALL THE EYEWITNESSES THE PROSECUTION CONCEALED TO CONCEAL APPELLANTS' FACTUAL INNOCENCE.
5. It is well settled law that the prosecution must disclose exculpatory evidence to defendants in a criminal case. Brady v. Maryland (1963) 373 U.S. 83. On appeal or upon a motion for a new trial, the prosecutor's duty to disclose evidence is limited to circumstances where "(1) the government failed to disclose favorable evidence, and (2) the undisclosed evidence was material."(U.S. v. Amiel (2nd Cir. 1996) 95 F.3d 135 citing Brady, supra, at p. 87.) The newly discovered evidence is such that it would probably lead to an acquittal.
6. Appellants' present attorneys concealed in their DA engineered briefs that the District Attorney had the Brady obligation to disclose the complaints made by parents and that the prosecution knew the result would have changed if the prosecutors disclosed the exculpatory evidence at the trial that parents made complaints.
7. Appellants pray this Court to discharge the court-appointed attorneys CDA Andrew Michael Wolf, representing Appellant Stanistreet and CDA Steven P.C. Warner, representing Appellant Atkinson, appoint new counsel and allow Appellants to be heard and file another brief.
8. The concealed exculpatory evidence, alterations of the record and concealed witnesses violated Appellants' constitutional rights to a fair trial as was the DA's plan when the Superior Court [Civil] Division requested Honorable Stephen J. Hintz, Judge of the Superior/Municipal Court, to send the instant cases for trial to the Civil Division (unlawful judge shopping by the DA) to the Civil Division, where Judge Hunter, the trial judge, was waiting for Appellants, to make sure to prevent Appellants, who trustingly believed all they had to do was go to trial and tell the truth, from proving their factual innocence.
9. This Court can see, upon review of the record as a whole, that Appellants were deprived a fair trial by the Oxnard City Attorney, Oxnard Police and District Attorney, et al., due to the deliberate suppression of exculpatory evidence that parents made complaints, concealment of material witnesses and the false, vicious vilification of Appellants at trial in the prosecutor's closing argument, which is grounds for mandatory reversal the present attorneys refuse to raise in Appellants' defense to make sure Appellants lose their appeals and to protect and serve the indecent exposer and all his aiders, abettors, actors in concert and co-conspirators.
10. All the City of Oxnard officials who had their subpoenas quashed by the Superior Court on April 2, 1998 when ordering Appellants' cases to the Superior Court [Civil] Division, was done to prevent Appellants from confronting the concealed eyewitnesses listed on the paper Appellant Atkinson provided to Oxnard police Sargent Gary Linn Chennault on August 26, 1997 which he omitted from his police reports and committed perjury when denying its existence and concealing all other favorable witnesses whose identities were unknown to Appellants.
11. The fifty plus children who were eyewitnesses Appellants reported as present for the indecent exposure to Sargent Gary Linn Chennault on August 26, 1997, whose identities were unknown to Appellants were concealed by Sargent Chennault simply by omitting them from his police reports who were with the Summer Employment Youth program with Workforce Development and assigned to Oxnard City Corps and then assigned to the Oxnard Police Activities League and who were eyewitnesses to the criminal lewd act by Oxnard police detective James Stephen Adams on August 22, 1997, and the Community Hours Youth from the Oxnard Union High School District and the Ventura County Probation Department assigned to Oxnard City Corps and then sent by Efren Gorre, Director, Oxnard City Corps, to the Oxnard Police Activities League on August 22, 1997, the Oxnard City Attorney, Oxnard police, and District Attorney also concealed from Appellants before trial and concealed from Appellant as they knew their claims against Appellants were false before ever filing them which is the only reason for the concealment.
12. The present attorneys Deputy District Attorney Douglas H. Ridley reported and finally admitted the DA's concealment of material witnesses in open court on February 18, 2000, in oral argument, "We didn't release those kids' names because they are on welfare," which shows Appellants were deprived of a fair trial. This Court can see on the video documentary of argument that DDA Ridley admitted the "kids' names" of the children were concealed by the prosecution
13. The present attorneys failed and refused to obtain and add to the record on appeal the transcript of said disclosure in the above paragraph to aid and abet the wrongdoers names above and make sure Appellants lose their appeals.
14. The present attorneys' failure and refusal to investigate, file true and correct pleadings in the record on the instant appeals, competently represent Appellants in the matter entrusted to them by refusing to raise all the issues on appeal listed in the Certified Engrossed Settled Statement and for filing an unverified transcript replete with errors, omissions and false additions of statements and comments never made, refusal to file Appellants' Petitions for Writs of Habeas Corpus constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel and Judge O'Neill refused to relieve them, before the United States Supreme Court ruled otherwise, to continue to conceal Appellants' factual innocence and protect and serve the indecent exposer, one of their own and the Oxnard City Attorney, Oxnard police, Ventura County District Attorney, CDA attorneys, Public Defenders, Ventura County Counsel, Workforce Development, Inc. that received a lot of complaints about "police misconduct" during the summer of 1997, Oxnard City Corps, Oxnard Risk Management Marie A. Taylor-Briggs, attorney Joseph D. O'Neill, Oxnard City Corps Director Efren Gorre, the Ventura County Probation Department, Juvenile Division, the Oxnard Union High School District, PAL and so many other parties, both known and unknown to Appellants, have all acted in concert to conceal what they have the duty to disclose, the exculpatory evidence and Appellants' factual innocence, which means all of them, and each of them, are accessories after the fact still protecting and serving the indecent exposer, the prosecution's witnesses who committed perjury at trial and the effect is still to pervert and obstruct justice for Appellants and the fifty two at risk, high risk and very high risk, victimized children, ages 4-17, mostly young teenage girls from the Ventura County Probation Department, the Oxnard Union High School District and the PAL Youth Council, and their complaining parents, who were the intended and actual victims of the indecent exposer and their parents who made complaints about the indecent exposer.
15. The present attorneys and such parties named above are saying to hell with their statutory duties, oaths of office, the rule of law, justice, Appellants' factual innocence, and to hell with the at risk, high risk and very high risk, children victimized by the indecent exposer, the Oxnard police, the DA and the rest of the prosecution team, Ventura County Supervisor John Flynn, the Ventura County Counsel, Workforce Development, Inc., the Oxnard City Attorney, the Oxnard City Council, the Oxnard Union High School District, the Public Defenders, et al., and so far, the lower courts, forty of whom were already in trouble and sent to PAL from the Ventura County Probation Department (ten children) and the Oxnard Union High School District (ten children) to complete their community service hours.
16. The present attorneys were brought along with the instant appeals to this Court to continue making sure Appellants improperly lose their appeals in this Court and to continue to prejudice Appellants in their important legal right to a fair appellate proceeding, due process, and to obtain the exculpatory evidence of the complaints made by parents about the indecent exposer.
17. The District Attorney and Deputy District Attorneys violated Rules of professional conduct, Rule 5-220, Suppression of Evidence, by unlawfully suppressing the exculpatory evidence that the member or the member's client had and have a legal obligation to reveal or to produce.
18. Appellants' Petitions for Writs of Habeas Corpus in District Court may be dismissed due to the court-appointed attorneys' ineffective assistance of counsel as the court-appointed attorneys have made sure not to allow Appellants to exhaust all their administrative remedies and therefore Appellants Petitions for Writs of Habeas Corpus must be reviewed by this Court in order to ascertain the truth as the court-appointed CDA attorneys deliberately concealed and are concealing the truth from this Court to protect the Oxnard City Attorney, Oxnard police and office of the District Attorney Michael D. Bradbury.
19. All the false claims against Appellants filed by the Oxnard City Attorney, Oxnard police and Ventura County District Attorney are worthy of an abject banana republic, or Russia, or China, and Appellants are now relying upon this Court to discharge the CDA attorneys, appoint new counsel and for such other and further relief this Court will determine necessary for ascertainment of the truth.
20. Appellants filed their own appeals while falsely imprisoned. I first telephoned Deputy Public Defender Neil Quinn and asked him to file my notice of appeal, and he refused and said, "No appeals. Just do your time," showing the conspiracy and lack of quality of the work of the evil Public Defenders.
21. On May 4, 1998 while falsely imprisoned, Appellant Atkinson suffered her first heart attack due to the prescription medications she was dispensed, for which she received no medical treatment, except that the jail doctor, Sean Aldrich, M.D., harshly yanked off the oxygen the nurse had given her and the so-called jail doctor stood over appellant Atkinson for more than an hour waiting to watch her die but she did not die and lived to keep on telling the truth about the indecent exposer and the conspiracy to protect and serve the indecent exposer, one of their own.
22. Appellant Atkinson filed her state petition for writ of habeas corpus on or about June 16, 1998 while falsely imprisoned and later SAW it stamped "FILED" in the Court's file and listed in the docket but no action had been taken on it and when she brought it to Judge O'Neill's attention, her habeas petition "mysteriously disappeared" from the file and then from the docket, after she told the clerk she did not have a conformed copy. After her first heart attack while falsely imprisoned, Appellant Atkinson placed herself on calendar with Judge O'Neill for a motion for a stay so she could be examined by her personal cardiologist but Judge O'Neill wrongfully, summarily denied the motion without even calling Appellant Atkinson to court, thus denying her due process right to be heard.
23. Appellants' separate petitions for Writs of Habeas Corpus were filed with the United States District Court on April 23, 2001.
24. The District Attorney requested Judge O'Neill make an evidentiary ruling in Appellants' habeas petitions that was designed to preclude and prevent Appellants from being able to file their habeas petitions in District Court but, the District Court will see that the exculpatory evidence was withheld in violation of Appellants' constitutional rights and will therefore hear Appellants' habeas petitions unless they decide that because the CDA attorneys delay and failure to file the habeas petitions dismiss the habeas petition without prejudice and order the habeas petitions to this Court with the appeals.
25. Appellant Atkinson's problems with the District Attorney and his gang which includes clerks and Public Defenders, began many years ago when the unlicensed auctioneers Eubanks, John W. Eubanks, Sr., John W. Eubanks, Jr., and Mary Eubanks, California Auctioneers, stole more than 7.5 tons of appellant Atkinson's family heirlooms dating back to 1864, and appellant Atkinson put so much pressure on the Oxnard police, who didn't want to do anything, that the police sent a report and criminal charges over to the DA, who refused to file the charges to protect and serve the unlicensed auctioneers. DDA Investigator James D. Henderson told appellants, "We know they're crooks. We need more witnesses. Got any?"
26. The witnesses for the prosecution were tainted due to their perjury, the officers who committed perjury were trained to stand by their professional code of silence and the lies they told even in the face of allegations of misconduct, and the nature and scope of the conspiracy.
27. At the end of argument on these appeals on May 2, 2000, Judge O'Neill called the attorneys and ACLU attorney Dan Tokaji to the bench after he declared recess. Judge O'Neill told the attorneys Appellants may be liable for slander to the persons Appellants have accused, too mean because Judge O'Neill knows parents made complaints about the indecent exposer and is concealing the exculpatory evidence. Attorney Wolf told appellants Judge O'Neill's message in his inimitable, prissy, bland manner and was obviously startled by Appellant Atkinson's response, "Good. Let them try to sue us. Great! Because then we'll have subpoena power and we can subpoena the concealed complaints made by parents about the indecent exposer and finally prove we are factually innocent and clear our names!"
28. I have a point to raise about Penal Code section 148.6(a)(1) that none of the court-appointed attorneys has raised. That code states it is unlawful for a person to FILE a complaint about misconduct of a police officer knowing the complaint is false when made. Appellants knew what they reported was true and so did the police and prosecution. The point is the code does not state WHERE the "FILED" complaint is filed presumably with the POLICE but the parents filed complaints with Workforce Development about the indecent exposer and they were protected and appellants were ordered under color of authority to file their complaint with the Oxnard police and were falsely arrested after they were psychologically coerced by the Oxnard police to report what they witnessed and even though the complaint was true appellants were still falsely charged with one offense and then when presented to the District Attorney he changed the offense appellants were initially cited with violating and charged petitioner Atkinson with three criminal acts and appellant Stanistreet with two criminal acts for the one alleged offense. In other words, file a complaint with the police and be prosecuted but file a complaint about the police with a private company and be protected under constitutional privacy and confidentiality rights. The other BIG message the co-conspirators want to send was sent: DO NOT COMPLAIN ABOUT THE POLICE OR YOU WILL BE FALSELY ARRESTED, FALSELY CONVICTED AND FALSELY IMPRISONED which equals Oxnard's and the District Attorney's police state mentality that is the guiding force behind Appellants' false convictions. The attorneys' deficient performance in failing and refusing to develop all of Appellants' grounds on appeal rendered the decision by the Appellate Panel of the Appellate Division of the Superior Court unreliable and made the proceeding fundamentally unfair, just as the trial was fundamentally unfair because the prosecution team excluded and concealed the exculpatory evidence that parents made complaints about the indecent exposer and the police and witnesses committed perjury that the prosecution suborned and failed to correct.
29. Further, there was a fairly recent 9th Circuit decision that a police officer cannot sue a complaining citizen for slander, which has bearing on the sentencing component: Appellants shall not "slander" Steve Adams. But appellants always told the truth and even the trial court knew that all along. As far as appellants' "citizen complaints" to the Oxnard police, they were coerced into signing by the Oxnard police while the police were detaining and interrogating appellants and appellants were not free to leave and were not Mirandized. Appellants each listed only "Improper Conduct" NOT "criminal misconduct" as the complaint. At the beginning of trial, Judge Hunter said to the prosecutor, "I looked at the citizens' complaints and they do not say criminal misconduct." Whereupon, the prosecutor said, "We are [unconstitutionally] going by what they SAY, not what they wrote on the complaint forms." Judge Hunter merely shrugged and commenced the unfair trial to falsely convict appellants and deleted these statements from the record if they were audio taped were erased.
30. Witnesses for the prosecution in the first Rampart police corruption trial testified that four LAPD officers routinely lied and framed innocent people to rid the streets of gangs. The Oxnard police are the same as the LAPD Rampart Division but appellants are not gang members and are on the District Attorney's and other co-conspirators' personal hit lists which is why appellants' human and civil rights were violated and human and criminal wrongs were and are being committed against appellants by the co-conspirators and appellants were severely punished all for telling the simple truth about the indecent exposer. The wrongs committed against appellants were self serving for the co-conspirators' abuses of power, whose minds are ruled by hate and revenge, because appellants have shown their conspiracy to pervert and obstruct justice and violate Federal law by the Oxnard Police Department failing to Mirandize appellants when appellants were detained and not free to leave when appellants were each interrogated by Sgt. Chennault before appellants were falsely charged and falsely arrested two weeks later based upon Sgt. Chennault's false claims in his police reports.
31. Perjury by police officers does not stop at the L.A.P.D. Rampart Division border. More than one hundred (100) tainted convictions in Los Angeles have been overturned due to Rampart Division police perjury, false reports, framing, and false arrests and other corrupt acts.
32. As a step in the conspiracy to pervert and obstruct justice, protect and serve the indecent exposer and destroy Appellants' lives, four Oxnard police officers perjured themselves at Appellants' unfair trial. The perjury by the four Oxnard Police Officers was suborned by and not corrected by the prosecution, showing another aspect of the conspiracy: Conspiring to commit perjury by the 4 officers, 3 male PAL employees and five teenage girls, ages 14-17, who perjured themselves at Appellants' unfair trial as a step in the conspiracy to pervert and obstruct justice to protect the indecent exposer and further violate the rights of the victims of the indecent exposer whose parents made the complaints about the indecent exposer that were and are still being concealed by the Prosecution Team which includes the Oxnard Police, Oxnard City Attorney, District Attorney, Efren Gorre of Oxnard City Corps, Workforce Development, Inc., and the Ventura County Counsel. Being Assistant Chief of the infamous, deadly Rampart Division of the Los Angeles Police Department was Oxnard Police Chief Art L. Lopez' previous employment. The Prosecution Team and their co-conspirators plus the Oxnard police are the real gang. One hundred plus criminal convictions in Los Angeles have been overturned due to framing of innocent people, false reports, planting evidence, concealing exculpatory evidence, withholding reports of Police Officer Misconduct and perjury by the Rampart Division Police, one of whom is an alleged triple murderer.
33. Appellants pray this Court to take a good look at the fact that Appellants are factually innocent, as the prosecution team, hundreds of people, all the co-conspirators, the parents who made complaints, the 50 concealed witnesses and Honorable Vincent J. O'Neill, Jr. already know.
34. The justice system fell completely apart and was turned upside down by the co-conspirators for appellants and justice was perverted and obstructed for Appellants once they left Department 14, and even before the unfair trial the Court said, "The Civil Division wants these [Appellants] cases!" That was a part of the plan of those parties known and unknown to falsely convict and falsely imprison Appellants, after their evil ruse to try to have Appellants committed for life to a mental institution where no Court in the country could order their release, as is well known that the Public Defenders and CDA attorneys are just puppets for the District Attorney, who pays them and has the power over them when it comes down to the truth, as appellants have paid a terrible price to have learned the hard way and it's still not over. The travesty and abortion of justice was done to harm appellants by the Prosecution Team, the Oxnard police, the Ventura County Counsel, Workforce Development, Inc., the Oxnard City Attorney et al, the Oxnard City Council and staff. All the co-conspirators know appellants are factually innocent because the Oxnard City Attorney and the Oxnard Police fully briefed the Oxnard City Council and staff and City manager and Assistant City Manager and Mayor Lopez about the reality of the indecent exposure to fifty children, several adults and appellants and the fact that they all knew before trial that parents made complaints, as Deputy District Attorney William P. Haney, III told appellants before trial, "Parents made complaints [about the indecent exposer]."
35. The Oxnard City Attorney has his spies ask appellants about their activities and then they sneak around and "secretly" stab appellants in the back and spread vicious, conjured up lies about appellants. Gary Gillig, as a co-conspirator, was a big, primary, behind-the-scenes-instigator of the recent false and retaliatory evictions of appellants, another move in the insidious and pervasive aspect of the conspiracy which is to commit financial lynching of appellants and do the worst to appellants. Even the corrupt Rampart Division Police did not go so low as to bring in five young teenage girls to perjure themselves along with 4 police officers and 3 male PAL employees, plus Alex Flores to falsely convict appellants, two factually innocent people, to protect and serve the indecent exposer, one of their own, who indecently exposed his erect genitalia to more than fifty at risk and high risk youth in his care. The massive, ongoing cover-up of the conspiracy to pervert and obstruct justice by framing appellants through a campaign of false claims, falsely arresting and falsely charging appellants and the co-conspirators' lies on police reports, pleadings and in court, in the infamous Rampart tradition, filing false claims against appellants to falsely charge, falsely arrest, falsely convict, falsely imprison, attempt to murder, and commit other acts against appellants including, but not limited to appellants' recent retaliatory eviction instigated by Gary Gillig, the City Attorney of Oxnard and his minions executed by a judge pro tem Charles Schneberg who is the most prominent landlord attorney in Ventura County for over 20 years, still retaliating against appellants for telling the truth abut the indecent exposer. There were many other complaints made to Workforce Development, Inc. about the Oxnard police during the 1997 Summer Youth Employment Program that have also been concealed. Appellants received confidential information that the indecent exposer had stolen and embezzled tens of thousands of dollars from the Oxnard Police activities league including, but not limited to all cash donations, the entire proceeds of the Pride Bowl of 1998 and the PAL video cassette recorder and big screen television, which were seen at his home. The Oxnard police, after an internal investigation by Detective Mike Palmierri, sent over to the District Attorney for prosecution 8 or 9 felony grand theft and related charges against Detective James Stephen Adams, the indecent exposer.
36. To protect and serve Detective Adams, Gary Gillig, the Oxnard City Attorney and other public and elected officials, such as Efren Gorre, Director of Oxnard City Corps, Oxnard City Council members Dean Maulhardt and Bedford Pinkard et al prevailed upon the District Attorney to fail to file any charges whatsoever against Detective Adams because the 8 or 9 felony charges, if filed by the DA against Detective Adams would make Appellants "look good" and they were afraid Detective Adams would sue Oxnard for racial discrimination as he had already sued the Sheriff's Department and won. Appellants brought the 8 or 9 felony charges by the Oxnard police against Detective Adams to the attention of Judge O'Neill. The District Attorney filed a motion for an order sealing the records of a "witness at trial who may have committed an act of moral turpitude." Solely Judge O'Neill heard the motion and signed the order sealing the records along with 2 more judges who were not present. This Court should vacate the void order and release the records. Franz Kafka never imagined anything like these two cases.
37. Appellants request judicial notice of the statement by Assistant Public Defender Jean Farley to Honorable Herbert Curtis, III in open court after the order relieving the Public Defenders had been made, "OUR INVESTIGATION HAS SHOWN THAT THE INFORMATION, AS TO THIS DEFENDANT (ATKINSON,) WAS NOT FALSE. THE WAY TO END THIS CASE IS 1368!" With her own words, Assistant Public Defender Jean Farley revealed to the Court the next step of the conspiracy: To conceal appellants' factual innocence to conceal the complaints made by parents, to conceal the parents who made complaints, to conceal 45 eyewitnesses, to suborn the perjury of five young teenage girls, to unlawfully alter the record to remove other exculpatory evidence, to have appellants committed for life to a mental institution where no court in this country can order their release and to conceal the false claims the Oxnard City Attorney, Oxnard police and District Attorney filed in retaliation and revenge with the superior power the state and voters erroneously placed in their hands.
38. After I was released from being falsely imprisoned, I asked Oxnard Mayor Pro Tem John Zaragoza if he knew before our trial that parents made complaints about the indecent exposer and he replied, "Yes!"
39. The false convictions and false imprisonment of Mr. Stanistreet and subsequent events have taken the meaning of "for better or worse" in Appellants' marriage vows nine years ago to new meanings.
40. I pray this Court to find a solution and to not be part of the problem of the concealment of the exculpatory evidence! I further expect this Court not to be swayed by the vile, lying accusations against me it has undoubtedly been exposed to, which I shall not reinforce by listing, only to say the conspiracy began when I divorced my former husband of the Central intelligence Agency in 1973 after he complained for 16 years and ever since I have been on law enforcement's hit list.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the law of the state of California that the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration is executed art Oxnard, California on July 9, 2001.
Dated: July 8, 2001
Barbara Joyce Atkinson
Appellant and defendant
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
Thank you for visiting my page at Angelfire.
Please come back and visit again!
