I was at the new Santa Monica mall, upstairs at the open-air patio. They have everything there…sunshine, smoke-free air, good food, reasonably priced coffee (thank you Nordstrom's Café), free public Wi-Fi and streaming music that fills the background without swallowing it whole. It's nice to look up and see the mountains off in the distance and the cool blue ocean blending into the sky.
The varied people sitting, talking and walking are like the many colors of the rainbow, so many different simultaneous conversations happening all at once.
Sitting behind me was a woman using an Amazon Kindle. I find the brand and product name slightly ironic. Amazon - as in ‘forest’ and Kindle as in ‘little twigs used to ignite something bigger’. The Amazon Kindle has ignited reading on digital devices. Printing less paper books saves the Amazonian trees for use as housing timber and toilet paper.
Jeni, as she called herself, was more than happy to share her experience on the Kindle with me. I was impressed by how well the page appeared in direct sunlight. The iPad doesn't do that.
She said she received the Kindle as a Christmas present from her husband.
“Someone must love you.” I said smiling.
“I told him that I didn't want it because I love my books. Then he got it for me anyway and I love it! I can't put it down. I have about 10 books in here right now.”
“Really? Wow, that would be a stack about 2 feet high and upwards of 25 pounds! I just came from the bookstore and purchased one blank book.” I picked up the bag containing the book and weighed it against her Kindle.
“This book weighs more and it doesn't yet have ink on the pages!” We both laughed at the difference and irony.
Jeni went on to tell me that she is a practicing career nurse in G.I. (gastroenterology). And that she is waiting for the cop shops fingerprinting division to open so she can get her mandated prints taken. To her benefit, they don't open until after 2 PM. Since she had some time to spare, I thought I would talk to her about a few things that she might know about, that I don't.
“Do you remember the O.J. case?” I asked.
“Yes. Who could forget that?”
“Let me run something by you…” she seemed interested in the topic, so I continued.
“The LA coroner's office publishes a book on the famous corpses that have lain on their slab- Bugsy Siegel, Marilyn Monroe, Nicole Brown Simpson. In the book they write that when OJ was taken into custody that about 8 or 10 mL of his blood was extracted. Then through the chain of police custody, 2 mL of his blood went missing. That leaves 6 to 8 mL remaining in the vials.
Then the detectives go to O.J.'s house and up in the bedroom they find a sock with a single drop of blood on it. They test the blood and it shows two things. One- the blood is O.J’s and, Two- the blood has a preservative in it.”
“EDTA” she chimes in. Then she adds by way of explanation “The only way for human blood to get that preservative is for the blood to be taken from the vein directly and placed into the vials, which have the preservative in them already.”
“You mean those vials they use when I get my blood drawn at the doctors office?”
“Yes, the very same.” She confirms.
“Then you have to wonder, how did OJ’s blood with EDTA get from his arm in the jailhouse to that sock later found in his house? And since the answer is so obvious, you have to ask, ‘why did the police plant that specific evidence at his house?”
“They may have done that, but he still did it.” She says convincingly.
I moved away from this blood topic and onto the famous DNA subject.
“During the trial, DNA evidence was introduced. The DNA evidence was a “near match” for OJ, but not 100%. My DNA will match my DNA 100%, right? It won’t be a “near match”-is that safe to say?”
“Well, yes, of course. Just like your blood will match your blood 100%, which his did!” she emphasized.
“Okay, then, let’s fast forward to today. Remember that old guy who was recently caught with the use of DNA evidence? He murdered all those people and got away with it for years? They caught his son for an unrelated crime and ran the son’s DNA in the DNA crime base. They found a hit that was a “near match” to the son’s DNA, but not 100%. From that, they located the father, ran his DNA against the crime scenes DNA and got a 100% match. They got their guy, 100%. Remember that?”
She nods her head affirmatively and continues to listen.
“Now, in the case of O.J. Simpson, the DNA was a “near match” to OJ’s DNA, not 100%. Which means, it is not his DNA. But, based on the above real world example, it is more likely than not the DNA of a close relative. So, this is my question: Did they DNA match OJ’s oldest son to the DNA found at the crime scene?”
Jeni listened carefully. Then, she said “Yes. They ran the DNA on the son, and it wasn't him.”
“Really? I never heard that.” I said.
“Well, I did,” she says bringing her hands to her chest.
“That must be that medical field circulation. Which is why I am asking you.” I say. She has been a nurse for her entire career. She hears things. Nurses hear things.
“They did DNA test the son and he didn't match. They ran his blood, too.” She says emphatically.
She then continued, “I think he did it–O.J. killed that woman. That much blood. The brutality of the blows. That was a crime of intense passion. It had to be a husband, lover or boyfriend. I'd never heard of that woman before that. If it was the Mafia, they are cleaner than that. They kill someone and the message is clear: this is who we killed. You better pay attention. They don't do throat slicing and gut stabbing like that. This was a massive jealous rage. He did it.” She is firm and factual in her statement.
“Okay. Then my question is answered. Thank you. Though, his son could also be a suspect. His alibi was proven junk. He had the right kind of military close combat training. He was slightly smaller than his father. The gloves didn’t fit OJ because they were probably his sons. The DNA didn’t match OJ 100%, it was a “near match”-and who would fit that “near match” as 100% if not his son? I mean, they could just run the son's DNA and be done with it, right?”
“He did it.” She affirms again.
It was interesting to listen to this woman, a professional nurse, with her very short close cropped bottle blonde hair, speak with such certainty and conviction. She was unable to even ponder the possibility that OJ didn’t do it.
I couldn’t remember anything about the oldest son being DNA tested or blood tested or fingerprinted simply to “rule out and exclude”. I do remember that this son was kept silent and in the background. They brought to the foreground the small children instead. They brought out Cato Kaelin, the limo driver, and of course, the Juice. Razzle, dazzle. And in all of the noisy media chaos, the oldest son disappeared into the shadow. Not in a headline, not mentioned in sound bites–barely any ink spelling out his name.
And it made me wonder, where was he really? That night. That fateful, awful night? What was his story in all of this?
I wondered how his presence, or absence thereof, escaped the law and media spotlight? Did O.J. know that his firstborn son, Jason Lamar Simpson, committed this crime? Did OJ take the heat for that horrific crime committed by his son? When you look at the totality and context of the son’s personal profile, actions and whereabouts at that time, including those of OJ, and string it together with the evidence and lack thereof, the answers seem to be saying “yes”.
Was Jason ever questioned by the police or DNA tested?
No. He wasn’t.
*******
DEPOSITION OF JASON LAMAR SIMPSON
Los Angeles, California May 8, 1996
as questioned by DANIEL M. PETROCELLI, ESQ attorney for Plaintiffs
Q: Petrocelli: Were you ever interviewed by any lawyers or investigators retained by O.J. Simpson's criminal defense team?
A: Jason Simpson: Never interviewed, no.
Q: Petrocelli: They never asked you where were you on the night of June 12 or anything like that?
A: Jason Simpson: I think maybe once. No, I don't think so. Well, yeah, I guess so.
Q: Petrocelli: Who asked you?
A: Jason Simpson: Mr. Cochran. I think.
Q: Petrocelli: Were you interviewed by anybody else?
A: Jason Simpson: No.
Q: Petrocelli: Any members of the prosecution team, the District Attorney's Office --
A: Jason Simpson: No.
Q: Petrocelli: -- or the Los Angeles Police Department?
A: Jason Simpson: No, sir.
*******
Why not?
Jason Simpson should, in fact, have been considered a suspect. He was a 24 year old troubled man with a history of physical violence. He had motive, means, opportunity, skill and a personal set of chef knives that would make you blush. According to James Cron, former commander of the Dallas County Sheriff's crime scene unit "I'd...question why Jason Simpson was not eliminated as a suspect," he says. "That's just standard procedure."
Several psychologists concluded that Jason Simpson should have been considered a suspect. Wrote one, "After reviewing all of the history of suicide attempts, failed relationships in which isolation and moods of violence and dependency were interwoven, it seems more and more likely that Jason psychologically could have been a very reasonable suspect in the murders."
OJ Simpson fiercely protected his son from the very beginning. The day after the murders, OJ Simpson hired criminal defense attorney Carl E. Jones, a high profile death penalty lawyer. OJ hired Carl not for himself, rather for his son, Jason. Why did Jason need a lawyer like that? Attorney Carl Jones did his job. He kept Jason from the police, the media and the public, while OJ set in motion the very public actions needed to point the finger directly at himself.
OJ knew he would get off with “reasonable doubt”-and he did.
Until he went to Vegas...
Thursday, July 28, 2011
Sunday, November 28, 2010
The State Bar of California: Really?
Four years ago this Thanksgiving, a careless, speeding and inattentive driver, Tricia Ann Ortega, smashed into our car on an Orange County freeway. She was cruising along at about 80 mph and impacted us at about 70-75 mph. Our car was at less than half that speed in the process of slowing to a stop. I sustained life altering injuries.
Tricia's auto insurance company, Infinity Insurance, has in its employ the small law firm of Francine Kelly & Associates, of Cerritos, CA, who then assigned this matter to their in-house attorney, Sara F Young (State Bar 136681).
In the legal processes that followed, both my attorneys at the time, Barry Drucker & Jason Pollack, and Infinity Insurance employee attorney Sara Young, engaged in some very unethical and illegal practices, which were of adverse affect to me and to the benefit of Tricia Ann Ortega.
The illegal practices included acts of fraud, forgery, perjury under oath, subornation of perjury, collusion to hide assets and just plain old lying. You know the kind, blatantly not telling the truth. They didn't just do this to me, they did it in court, specifically to Judge Lisa Hart Cole.
These lawyers, Sara Young, Barry Drucker & Jason Pollack, perpetrated a whammy on that judge by fast pitching her a legal brief filled with evidence of their illegal acts and Judge Lisa Hart Cole closed her eyes on the law and let them do it (see: previous posts; Motions Smotions and Incompetence Rules the Day).
In August 2010 I submitted a complaint to the State Bar of California as to lawyer Sara Young setting forth the misconduct as to fraud, forgery, perjury under oath, subornation of perjury, and collusion. You can find that here:Three Declarations.
The criteria set by the California State Bar to investigate an attorney for wrong doing has nothing to do with the law, and everything to do with The State Bar Act and the Rules of Professional Conduct. If the attorney has violated either or both of these, based on the information presented and further independent investigation by the State Bar, then disciplinary action and/or prosecution is levied against the offending attorney. In this case, that offending attorney is Sara Young.
After 4 months I received a response from the State Bar of California, dated November 19, 2010. According to Complaint Analyst V. Escobar of the State Bar of California, attorney Sara Young did not violate the State Bar Act and/or the Rules of professional Conduct, or the law, in her blatant and proven acts of fraud, forgery, perjury under oath, subornation of perjury, and collusion to hide assets. The State Bar has determined that "No disciplinary action is warranted at this time."
They instead are playing the game Pass the Buck.
Complaint Analyst V. Escobar of the State Bar of California invited me to take this matter to the Civil court ("If the court makes a determination that the attorney engaged in misconduct, you may provide The State Bar with a copy of the ruling for consideration.") and to the California Supreme Court ("The Office of the Chief Trial Counsel will only reopen its file in this matter if the California Supreme Court issues an order granting your request.")
Essentially, the State Bar is showing that they are a powerless, lame duck organization, who cannot and will not cull their own herd unless told to by a higher legal authority, even in the face of clear and convincing evidence. And of course, if the Judge in the Civil State Court did nothing and let this matter slide, which she did, and the California State Bar did nothing, as they have just shown, then what, exactly, do you think the Supreme Court of California will do?
While I did do my best to bring this unethical and illegal conduct to the attention of the the court (see Motion to Contest), and more recently to the State Bar of California (see Three Declarations), both California Superior Court Judge Lisa Hart Cole, and now Chief Trial Counsel of the State Bar of California, James E. Towery, have demonstrated through their documented complicity that the illegal misconduct and unethical behavior of attorney Sara F Young, as well as that of attorney's Barry Drucker & Jason Pollack, is perfectly okay, professionally and legally acceptable, and not punishable under the law.
Isn't it nice to know that lawyers are above the law, but you aren't?
The organizations and people put in place to deal with these types of matters clearly don't.
NOTE: Infinity Insurance Litigation Specialist Tamara Sharpe was informed early on of the illegal actions of her employee Sara Young and represented that Infinity Insurance condones this illegal behavior by their attorney as acceptable.
Tricia's auto insurance company, Infinity Insurance, has in its employ the small law firm of Francine Kelly & Associates, of Cerritos, CA, who then assigned this matter to their in-house attorney, Sara F Young (State Bar 136681).
In the legal processes that followed, both my attorneys at the time, Barry Drucker & Jason Pollack, and Infinity Insurance employee attorney Sara Young, engaged in some very unethical and illegal practices, which were of adverse affect to me and to the benefit of Tricia Ann Ortega.
The illegal practices included acts of fraud, forgery, perjury under oath, subornation of perjury, collusion to hide assets and just plain old lying. You know the kind, blatantly not telling the truth. They didn't just do this to me, they did it in court, specifically to Judge Lisa Hart Cole.
These lawyers, Sara Young, Barry Drucker & Jason Pollack, perpetrated a whammy on that judge by fast pitching her a legal brief filled with evidence of their illegal acts and Judge Lisa Hart Cole closed her eyes on the law and let them do it (see: previous posts; Motions Smotions and Incompetence Rules the Day).
In August 2010 I submitted a complaint to the State Bar of California as to lawyer Sara Young setting forth the misconduct as to fraud, forgery, perjury under oath, subornation of perjury, and collusion. You can find that here:Three Declarations.
The criteria set by the California State Bar to investigate an attorney for wrong doing has nothing to do with the law, and everything to do with The State Bar Act and the Rules of Professional Conduct. If the attorney has violated either or both of these, based on the information presented and further independent investigation by the State Bar, then disciplinary action and/or prosecution is levied against the offending attorney. In this case, that offending attorney is Sara Young.
After 4 months I received a response from the State Bar of California, dated November 19, 2010. According to Complaint Analyst V. Escobar of the State Bar of California, attorney Sara Young did not violate the State Bar Act and/or the Rules of professional Conduct, or the law, in her blatant and proven acts of fraud, forgery, perjury under oath, subornation of perjury, and collusion to hide assets. The State Bar has determined that "No disciplinary action is warranted at this time."
They instead are playing the game Pass the Buck.
Complaint Analyst V. Escobar of the State Bar of California invited me to take this matter to the Civil court ("If the court makes a determination that the attorney engaged in misconduct, you may provide The State Bar with a copy of the ruling for consideration.") and to the California Supreme Court ("The Office of the Chief Trial Counsel will only reopen its file in this matter if the California Supreme Court issues an order granting your request.")
Essentially, the State Bar is showing that they are a powerless, lame duck organization, who cannot and will not cull their own herd unless told to by a higher legal authority, even in the face of clear and convincing evidence. And of course, if the Judge in the Civil State Court did nothing and let this matter slide, which she did, and the California State Bar did nothing, as they have just shown, then what, exactly, do you think the Supreme Court of California will do?
While I did do my best to bring this unethical and illegal conduct to the attention of the the court (see Motion to Contest), and more recently to the State Bar of California (see Three Declarations), both California Superior Court Judge Lisa Hart Cole, and now Chief Trial Counsel of the State Bar of California, James E. Towery, have demonstrated through their documented complicity that the illegal misconduct and unethical behavior of attorney Sara F Young, as well as that of attorney's Barry Drucker & Jason Pollack, is perfectly okay, professionally and legally acceptable, and not punishable under the law.
Isn't it nice to know that lawyers are above the law, but you aren't?
The organizations and people put in place to deal with these types of matters clearly don't.
NOTE: Infinity Insurance Litigation Specialist Tamara Sharpe was informed early on of the illegal actions of her employee Sara Young and represented that Infinity Insurance condones this illegal behavior by their attorney as acceptable.
Sunday, June 14, 2009
These are my notes
You can't just pick up where you lifed off. The world has moved on, especially in timed events. And in no timed events, you can pick up at any point and begin to live yourself forward. Just be sure to have your expectations in check. Some timed events are faster than others and some are slower. Cycling is a fast timed event. Once you get knocked down from that, it takes tremendous amount of effort to regain your ground. And you need a big carrot to motivate you to reach for the handlebars.
As to my photography works form the 2005 Tour de France, where I had prepped and planned them for market in 2006 et seqq-well, that was knocked off trajectory by a Brinks Armoured truck driver, GED educated GEORGE ESTRADA. He drove his 12 ton truck at about 25 to 35 miles per hour into the back of the car giving me a 3 + year back and spine injury which was anything but fun. What an idiot! Who taught that guy to drive? Then, after that course diversion, I got knocked completely off track by a divorced hispanic woman in her late 30s. She was driving faster than her guardian angel could fly. She smashed her car into the rear end of the car causing me worse back and spine injury and a massive head hit that gave me a big fat concussion that still hasn't cleared all the way. Another idiot! She must have a death wish! TRICIA ANN ORTEGA, slow your stupid self down. You almost killed me and my friend, not to mention the others on the same road going in the same direction. And this was Thanksgiving Day.
Well, it is now June 2009 and I am attempting to pick up where I lifed off. And that is what brings me write this. I am looking at my event photos and realizing that, yes, they are beautiful, exciting, and historically interesting. However, it feels like time has moved on and left them behind. Or rather, time has moved on and left me behind and they are here with me, stuck in a time vortex. Perhaps I can move them forward by moving myself forward. So that is where my planning is today. I used to be good at this stuff.
I think it is a good idea to at least begin to start planning again. It is a struggle. Going from high focus to no focus to a sudden stop, and then living in that stop for a very long time. But by trying a little bit by little bit, you can eventually regain your focus. I find that by blocking out extra environmental noise helps in a large way. Without the disc-tractions of the auditory outside world, the mind can better keep the eyes focused in front and thereby assisting in the creation and maintenance of focus in the presence of multiple outside distractions. Today this involved rethinking my position and what I can do to improve myself in this situation.
So, I thought I could pick up where I left off... and found that I lack the motivation, drive, interest, focus and intention. Additionally, physically and mentally, my ability is gone. More specifically, I lost my momentum towards this venture. I should say rather, that my motive got knocked out of me! And I do not know how to get it back in such a short amount of time. Without my visual mind, I am having great difficulty seeing this to fruition. But, I stick with the numbers and look and plan and wonder if I can really do thin now. But of course I can. Anywon can.
Brinks Incorporated Attorneys John Gardner Hayes and his associate Justin Lowtrip lost to a very injured and concussed me in court. I didn't even try my normal best. Just my best under all that was upon me. John physically destroyed a piece of my medical evidence in his office, and they still didn't win a verdict. It was the worst possible case presentation by me, though not by choice, and they still lost. What that tells me is that you don't have to be smart to be a lawyer. Maybe that is why there are so many bad ones out there.
And do I have a few stories on that....
As to my photography works form the 2005 Tour de France, where I had prepped and planned them for market in 2006 et seqq-well, that was knocked off trajectory by a Brinks Armoured truck driver, GED educated GEORGE ESTRADA. He drove his 12 ton truck at about 25 to 35 miles per hour into the back of the car giving me a 3 + year back and spine injury which was anything but fun. What an idiot! Who taught that guy to drive? Then, after that course diversion, I got knocked completely off track by a divorced hispanic woman in her late 30s. She was driving faster than her guardian angel could fly. She smashed her car into the rear end of the car causing me worse back and spine injury and a massive head hit that gave me a big fat concussion that still hasn't cleared all the way. Another idiot! She must have a death wish! TRICIA ANN ORTEGA, slow your stupid self down. You almost killed me and my friend, not to mention the others on the same road going in the same direction. And this was Thanksgiving Day.
Well, it is now June 2009 and I am attempting to pick up where I lifed off. And that is what brings me write this. I am looking at my event photos and realizing that, yes, they are beautiful, exciting, and historically interesting. However, it feels like time has moved on and left them behind. Or rather, time has moved on and left me behind and they are here with me, stuck in a time vortex. Perhaps I can move them forward by moving myself forward. So that is where my planning is today. I used to be good at this stuff.
I think it is a good idea to at least begin to start planning again. It is a struggle. Going from high focus to no focus to a sudden stop, and then living in that stop for a very long time. But by trying a little bit by little bit, you can eventually regain your focus. I find that by blocking out extra environmental noise helps in a large way. Without the disc-tractions of the auditory outside world, the mind can better keep the eyes focused in front and thereby assisting in the creation and maintenance of focus in the presence of multiple outside distractions. Today this involved rethinking my position and what I can do to improve myself in this situation.
So, I thought I could pick up where I left off... and found that I lack the motivation, drive, interest, focus and intention. Additionally, physically and mentally, my ability is gone. More specifically, I lost my momentum towards this venture. I should say rather, that my motive got knocked out of me! And I do not know how to get it back in such a short amount of time. Without my visual mind, I am having great difficulty seeing this to fruition. But, I stick with the numbers and look and plan and wonder if I can really do thin now. But of course I can. Anywon can.
Brinks Incorporated Attorneys John Gardner Hayes and his associate Justin Lowtrip lost to a very injured and concussed me in court. I didn't even try my normal best. Just my best under all that was upon me. John physically destroyed a piece of my medical evidence in his office, and they still didn't win a verdict. It was the worst possible case presentation by me, though not by choice, and they still lost. What that tells me is that you don't have to be smart to be a lawyer. Maybe that is why there are so many bad ones out there.
And do I have a few stories on that....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)