Post 3/23
To support my claim of a cover-up of a cheating scandal involving the San Jose City Attorney's Office and the federal courts, I am posting two complaint letters I filed with the FBI and the Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury. The letters list the names of San Jose city officials and federal court officials involved in the scandal and the crimes I believe they committed. The FBI refuses to state whether or not an investigation is being done or if my complaint has been assigned to an agent. The Civil Grand Jury simply stated that my complaint warranted no action by the Grand Jury without explanation. This is shocking that a group of citizens that are supposedly non-partisan could come to this conclusion with so much evidence of criminal misconduct by San Jose city officials. This corruption has cost San Jose taxpayers thousands of dollars. Even though the cheating in this case is far more egregious that the alleged cheating by the educators in Atlanta, not a single one of the cheaters in this case has been held accountable; whereas, many of the educators in the Atlanta cheating scandal have been sentenced to prision. What a disgrace!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frederick Bates
----------------
----------------
----------------
May
24, 2014
Federal
Bureau of Investigation
450
Golden Gate Avenue, 13th Floor
San
Francisco, CA 94102-9523
Attn:
David J. Johnson – Special Agent in Charge
Re: Public
Corruption Complaint
Dear
Mr. Johnson,
Please accept this letter as my formal
complaint against officials for the City of San Jose, the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California – San Jose Division and the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals for public corruption relative to a federal lawsuit I
filed against the City of San Jose and three retired police administrators. My
lawsuit was filed in August 2006 on the basis that police administrators
deprived me of my constitutional right to due process by denying my concealed
weapons permit (CCW), without a hearing, upon my medical disability retirement
from the San Jose Police Department in April 2004.
During the course of litigation, San Jose city
officials and the courts have violated several laws relating to public
corruption. The misconduct I’m alleging is mostly related to a summary judgment
motion filed by the City of San Jose in October 2007 and two Rule 60 motions I
filed in February 2013. Gross misconduct also occurred during my attempt to
resolve this issue in Small Claims Court in 2005 and 2006.
As to my allegations against officials
for the City of San Jose, my allegations are as follows:
·
City
Attorney Richard Doyle, Assistant City Attorney Nora Frimann, former Deputy
City Attorney Michael Dodson, former Chief of Police Robert Davis, former
Assistant Chief of Police Tuck Younis and former Deputy Chief of Police Adonna
Amoroso conspired to present false testimony in the depositions of Younis and
Amoroso in June 2007, relative to my federal lawsuit.
·
Younis
and Amoroso did, in fact, commit perjury in their depositions. Several of the
perjured statements by Younis and Amoroso were used by Doyle, Frimann and
Dodson in support of the City’s summary judgment motion which was filed in
District Court with the clear intent of perpetrating fraud on the court.
Page
2
·
Younis,
Doyle, Davis and Deputy City Attorney Carl Mitchell were in contempt of court
because they refused to appear in Small Claims Court in response to their
subpoenas in 2005 and 2006. No action was taken by the Small Claims Court for
their misconduct.
·
Doyle,
Frimann and Dodson conspired with my former attorney, Stuart Kirchick, to
obstruct justice by fraudulently stipulating to the dismissal of Tuck Younis
from my lawsuit without my knowledge or consent, then misrepresented to the
court that I had agreed to the dismissal. The dismissal provided me no benefit
whatsoever, and the clear purpose of the dismissal of Younis was to sabotage my
case because the evidence is irrefutable that Younis violated my constitutional
rights. It is reasonable to conclude that the dismissal of Younis resulted from
a quid pro quo arrangement. This
implicates the criminal act of bribery. It should also be noted that Kirchick
withheld other key evidence from the courts.
·
The
San Jose City Attorney’s Office engaged in criminal misconduct by conspiring
with U.S. District Court officials to falsify court documents and to stage
“pretense litigation” on my Rule 60 motion filed in February 2013. My Rule 60
motion seeks relief from the order granting the City’s summary judgment motion.
This allegation is addressed further in this letter.
·
At
all times the above officials were aware that their actions constituted
criminal misconduct and obstructed justice.
·
The
San Jose City Attorney’s Office violated several other rules of civil and
appellate procedure, as well as, rules of professional conduct.
·
Mayor
Chuck Reed and his former Agenda Services Manager (Sara Wright), the San Jose
City Council, former City Manager Debra Figone, former City Clerk Dennis
Hawkins, current City Clerk Toni Taber, the San Jose Elections Commission and
the Office of Employee Relations and its former director (Deputy City Manager
Alex Gurza) failed to take action on the criminal misconduct of the City officials
named above. It is clear that City officials are engaged in a cover-up and that
several officials appeared to have prospered as a result of their misconduct by
receiving promotions or high paying positions outside the city.
My allegation of public corruption
against officials of the United States District Court relate to a scheme by
court officials to conduct a fraudulent hearing on my Rule 60 motion without my
knowledge. In order to carry out this scheme, Courtroom Deputy Jackie Garcia
and another court official (initials “bw”) falsified docket entries by
mischaracterizing my motion as pertaining
to “costs taxed.” My motion was not based on “costs taxed.” It was based on
false statements made by the City in its motion for summary
Page 3
judgment; and on the failure of the courts to follow mandatory federal law in their application of collateral estoppel. In order to prevent my appearance at the hearing, Court Clerk Cita Escolano provided me with false information that no hearing would be held on my motion. Escolano falsely stated that my motion would be decided on the papers submitted; and that the decision of the court would be sent to my residence. Escolano also told me that I did not have to appear in court on the April 26, 2013 hearing date, knowing fully that a hearing was planned. I have a witness that will corroborate these claims.
Page 3
judgment; and on the failure of the courts to follow mandatory federal law in their application of collateral estoppel. In order to prevent my appearance at the hearing, Court Clerk Cita Escolano provided me with false information that no hearing would be held on my motion. Escolano falsely stated that my motion would be decided on the papers submitted; and that the decision of the court would be sent to my residence. Escolano also told me that I did not have to appear in court on the April 26, 2013 hearing date, knowing fully that a hearing was planned. I have a witness that will corroborate these claims.
The hearing on my motion was held in
front of Judge Ronald M. Whyte. According to the transcript, the court disposed
of my motion by granting a “motion to dismiss” by Deputy San Jose City Attorney
Richard North because I failed to appear. However, no motion to dismiss by the
City appears in the transcript or anywhere in the record. The City’s motion to
dismiss is a mystery. It appears that the City’s mystery motion to dismiss was
either intentionally omitted from the official transcript or it was made ex parte. The court has failed to
provide an adequate explanation for the City’s motion to dismiss other than to
make the dubious claim that the City did not make a motion and that the court
meant to say that my motion for relief was denied, rather than, the motion to
dismiss [by the City] was granted. Yet, the court has refused to vacate its
admittedly incorrect judgment or correct the falsified court records.
Further evidence that the hearing on
my motion was not legitimate is that the minute entry (Civil Minutes) account
of the hearing totally differs from that of the official transcript. As noted
already, the transcript reveals that my motion was disposed of by a mystery
motion to dismiss by Deputy City Attorney Richard North because I failed to
appear. However, the Civil Minutes’
reveals that the court made a ruling during the hearing that my motion was
untimely and that I failed to present adequate evidence to support my theories
for relief. Even if this ruling was
legitimate, which it is not, it would be absurd because it is unquestionable
that there are no time limitations on motions based on void judgments and fraud
on the court under FRCP Rule 60. After judgment was entered, court officials
refused to notify me as promised. The conflicting accounts of the hearing on my
motion and the court’s refusal to notify me of its ruling are clear evidence of
intentional fraud and a cover-up.
While it is unclear what role Judge
Whyte played in this scheme surrounding the hearing on my motion, his signature
appears on all of the relevant rulings and responses of the court. Judge Whyte knew or should have known that
the hearing on my motion on April 26, 2013 was a sham. It is also unclear if
Clerk of Court Richard Wieking played a role in this matter. But, it is sufficiently
clear that Courtroom Deputy Jackie Garcia, Case Systems Administrator Betty
Walton, Court Reporter Lee-Anne Shortridge, Court Clerk Cita Escolano, Deputy
Clerk of Court Sandy Morris and Deputy San Jose City Attorney Richard North
were all part of this elaborate plan that obstructed justice. It is also likely
that other court officials and San Jose city officials were involved.
As to my allegation of public corruption
against officials of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, I am alleging that
Clerk of Court Molly Dwyer, Case Administrator Brad Ybarreto and Deputy Clerk
Jerry Rosen willfully denied me due process of law by failing to take action on
motions and letters I filed in 2010, 2011 and 2012. Those motions and letters
sought to vacate the void judgment of the Ninth Circuit Court that affirms the
District Court’s decision to grant the
City of San Jose’s motion for summary judgment. Court policy requires that all
motions be presented to a motions panel or the Appellate Commissioner for
disposition on the merits.
Page 4
Page 4
I am also alleging that Chief Judge Alex
Kozinski provided me with false information in May 2010 that he had no
authority to consider complaints against state officials. He stated that I must
file any complaint against the San Jose City Attorney’s Office with state and
local authorities. This claim by Judge Kozinski is not credible because Ninth
Circuit Rule 46-2 states that the Chief Judge may initiate disciplinary
proceedings based on misconduct by attorneys before the Court of Appeals.
Courts also have the inherent power to initiate disciplinary proceedings based
on misconduct by attorneys. Judge Kozinski, Clerk Dwyer, Deputy Clerk Rosen and
Case Administrator Ybarreto are guilty of judicial misconduct.
I am well aware that the F.B. I. does
not normally get involved in matters relating to on-going litigation involving
the courts because of the “separation of powers” doctrine; and because of the
importance of an independent judiciary that’s necessary to the proper functioning
of government. However, the misconduct by the courts and the City of San Jose
has been brazen and persistent with a total lack of regard for the truth, the
Constitution and the rule of law. It is sufficiently clear that the San Jose
City Attorney’s Office has improperly influenced every decision by the courts
related to this matter. At the very least, this suggests some type of quid pro quo and that justice is for
sale in America. It is unmistakable that San Jose city officials and court
officials have engaged in public corruption because of their collaborative
effort to obstruct justice. A criminal investigation is mandatory based on F.
B. I. policy that places a priority on color of law abuses and public
corruption.
Several documents, including my Rule 60
motions, are enclosed to support my allegations. Additional evidence to support
my claims can be found at the official PACER website under Frederick Bates v.
City of San Jose; et al, district court case number 06-cv-05302
RMW and Ninth Circuit case number 13-16397. I am also requesting a meeting in
order to provide additional information and evidence.
Respectfully
submitted,
Frederick
Bates
Enclosures (30)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frederick Bates
-------------------
Folsom,
CA 95630
(408)
--------------
October
16, 2014
Santa
Clara County Civil Grand Jury
Superior
Court
191
North First Street
San
Jose, CA 95113
Re:
Public Corruption Complaint against San Jose City Officials and Federal Court
Officials
Dear Members of the Civil Grand Jury,
On May 24th
of this year (2014), I filed a complaint with the Criminal Grand Jury and the
District Attorney’s Office seeking an investigation into criminal misconduct by
San Jose city officials relative to a lawsuit I filed against the City in
August 2006 for civil rights violations. Complaint letters I filed with the
Federal Bureau of Investigation, the State Attorney General’s Office and the
U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee were included. It was my
intent that the Criminal Grand Jury and the District Attorney’s Office use the
complaint letters as the basis for an investigation.
On June 11th, I spoke to
Deputy District Attorney John Chase relative to this matter. Mr. Chase stated
that the District Attorney’s Office would not be opening an investigation into
my complaint. In a follow-up letter sent to me dated June 12, 2014, he stated
that the materials I submitted did not clearly list the crimes I believe were
committed. This is simply not true. In my letter to the Criminal Grand Jury, I
state the following: “My specific allegations are that San Jose city officials
committed the criminal acts of conspiracy, perjury, witness tampering,
obstruction of justice and possibly bribery.” The crimes that I believe were
committed by San Jose city officials and court officials are also stated in the
letter I filed with the F.B.I. (Copies of the letters are enclosed). Mr. Chase stated that the District
Attorney’s Office is unable to open an investigation into the crimes I allege
because the acts constituting these crimes seem to have occurred from 2005 to
2007; well beyond the four year statute of limitation for prosecution of these
crimes. While Mr. Chase notes correctly that some of the criminal acts I allege
did occur from 2005 to 2007, he failed to note that documents I submitted
reveals that San Jose city officials engaged in a cover-up of the misconduct by
the City Attorney’s Office beginning in 2010 and in 2012. Mr. Chase also failed
to note that I made an allegation that the San Jose City Attorney’s Office engaged
in criminal misconduct by conspiring with U.S. District Court officials to
falsify court documents and to stage “pretense litigation” on a Rule 60 motion
I filed in February 2013. These allegations of misconduct are well within any
four year statute of limitations. The District Attorney’s
Office lack of interest in opening an investigation into this matter can be
attributed to an apparent conflict of interest.
Page 2
Even though
misconduct relative to my lawsuit against the City of San Jose is the basis of
my complaint, I am not asking the Civil Grand Jury to review the decisions of
the courts relative to this matter. A review of the decisions made by the
courts is being made through my appeal that is pending in the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals. What I am asking is that the Civil Grand Jury, pursuant to
its civil watchdog responsibilities and its authority to receive citizens’
complaints, conduct an investigation into my charges that the San Jose City
Attorney’s Office and three retired police administrators engaged in very
serious misconduct relative to my lawsuit and that current and former San Jose
city officials are engaged in a criminal cover-up of that misconduct.
My lawsuit for civil rights violations
against the City relates to the denial of my CCW permit by the police
department after I retired on a medical disability in April 2004. The denial of
my CCW permit was bigoted, retaliatory and violated City policy, state law and
the U.S. Constitution. My federal lawsuit was filed in August 2006 after my
attempt to resolve this matter in Small Claims Court failed. During my attempt
to litigate this matter in Small Claims Court and federal court, the San Jose
City Attorney’s Office and Police officials engaged in brazen and persistent
misconduct as stated by the following:
·
Former
Chief of Police Rob Davis, former Assistant Chief of Police Tuck Younis, City
Attorney Richard Doyle and Deputy City Attorney Carl Mitchell refused to appear
in Small Claims Court in response to their subpoenas in 2005 and 2006. This is
contempt of court.
·
Former
Deputy City Attorney Michael Dodson, former Chief of Police Rob Davis, former
Assistant Chief of Police Tuck Younis and former Deputy Chief of Police Adonna
Amoroso conspired to present false testimony in the depositions of Younis and
Amoroso in June 2007 relative to my federal lawsuit. This constitutes the
criminal acts of conspiracy and subornation of perjury.
·
Younis
and Amoroso did, in fact, commit perjury in their depositions. Several of the
perjured statements by Younis and Amoroso were used by City Attorney Richard
Doyle, Assistant City Attorney Nora Frimann and Deputy City Attorney Michael
Dodson in support of a summary judgment motion by the City that was filed in district court in October 2007.
The clear intent of the summary judgment motion was to push a false narrative
that police officials had denied my CCW permit only one time; and that they
granted my permit immediately after receiving clarifying information regarding
my work restriction. This is absolutely false. Police officials, as well as,
officials from the City Attorney’s Office denied my CCW permit several more
times after receiving information that was crystal clear that I was entitled to
a CCW permit or a hearing. The City Attorney’s Office also presented false
information to the courts that the issue regarding the denial of my CCW permit was
resolved in Small Claims Court; therefore, my civil rights lawsuit was
precluded on the basis of collateral estoppel. The City’s summary judgment motion was a complete hoax, a
total fabrication. The offenses implicated are perjury and fraud on the court.
Page 3
·
Doyle,
Frimann and Dodson conspired with my former attorney, Stuart Kirchick, to
fraudulently dismiss Tuck Younis from my lawsuit by stipulation in August 2007 without
my knowledge or consent; then misrepresented to the court that I had agreed to
the dismissal. The dismissal provided me no benefit whatsoever. The purpose of
the dismissal was to prevent the district court from ruling on the unconstitutional
decision of Younis to deny me a CCW permit. I have evidence that strongly
suggest that the dismissal of Younis resulted from a quid pro quo arrangement. This implicates the criminal acts of
conspiracy, fraud, bribery and obstruction of justice. It should also be noted
that Mr. Kirchick withheld other key evidence from the courts.
·
The
San Jose City Attorney’s Office engaged in criminal misconduct by conspiring
with U.S. District Court officials to falsify court documents and to stage a
phony hearing on my Rule 60 motion filed in February 2013. My Rule 60 motion
seeks relief from the judgment of the U.S. District Court granting the City’s
summary judgment motion. This implicates the criminal acts of conspiracy, fraud
and obstruction of justice.
In addition to the criminal statutes
violated, the misconduct by City officials as stated above is also a violation
of the City’s Code of Ethics. The Code of Ethics states that City officials and
employees are obligated to uphold the Constitution of the United States and the
Constitution of the State of California and to comply with Federal, State, and
local laws and City policies. The Code of Ethics prohibits discrimination in
any form. (A copy of the Code of Ethics is enclosed) To support my claims of misconduct by
the City Attorney’s Office and federal court officials, I have enclosed the
Rule 60 motion I filed with the district court in February 2013 and a second
Rule 60 motion filed in September 2013. A motion to vacate judgment I filed in
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in September of this year (2014) and several
other documents are also enclosed.
I am charging that the below listed City
officials have engaged in a deliberate cover-up by failing to open an
investigation into the misconduct of the San Jose City Attorney’s Office as
required
by the City’s Code of Ethics and other City policies. The crimes implicated are
conspiracy and obstruction of justice:
·
Mayor
Chuck Reed and his former Agenda Services Manager (Sara Wright):Mayor Reed was advised of misconduct by
the City Attorney’s Office in letters dated April 25, 2010, February 27, 2012
and an email dated October 26, 2010. Sara Wright was advised in a letter dated
April 2, 2012. Both Mayor Reed and Ms. Wright failed to respond to my request
for an investigation. (Copies of the letters and email are enclosed)
Page
4
·
Current
and former Council Members Rose Herrera, Nancy Pyle, Nora Campos, Judy Chirco,
Kansen Chu, Ash Kalra, Sam Licardo, Madison Nguyen, Pierluigi Oliverio and Pete
Constant: All were advised of the misconduct by the City Attorney’s Office and
police officials in letters dated August 4, 2010. None responded to my letters.
(Copies of the letters are enclosed)
·
Former
City Manager Debra Figone: Ms. Figone was advised of the misconduct by the City
Attorney’s Office and police officials in a letter dated August 4, 2010. She
did not respond to my letter. (A copy of the letter is enclosed)
·
Office
of Employee Relations and its former director Alex Gurza and Deputy Director
Gina Donnelly: I filed a formal complaint with Employee Relations by letter
dated August 3, 2010. In a response letter dated November 5, 2010, Ms. Donnelly
somehow implied that an investigation into my complaint was contingent upon
action taken by the courts and the State Bar of California. This is misleading.
The initiation of an investigation into misconduct by any City official is the
sole responsibility of the City. (Copies of the letters are enclosed)
·
San
Jose Ethics Commission - formerly San Jose Elections Commission (Members
-Michael Smith, Rolanda Pierre-Dixon, Linda Edgeworth and Leon Louie): In May
2012, I filed a complaint with the Elections Commission by letter against the
City Attorney’s Office for violating the City’s Code of Ethics. The Commission
and its Evaluator, Hanson Bridgett LLP, acted outside the scope of their
jurisdiction as stated by City Council Resolution No. 75640, paragraph F.4. The
Resolution requires that the Evaluator refer any complaint where the Respondent
is a classified or unclassified employee appointed by a City Council Appointee
to the appointing authority for investigation and action. The Resolution states
that the Commission shall take no further action on the complaint with regard
to the employee. Attorneys for the City are unclassified employees appointed by
the City Council. The Evaluator failed to make the required referral; and the
Commission held a hearing on my complaint and closed it out knowing it was
beyond the scope of the Commission’s jurisdiction and in clear violation of
Resolution 75640, paragraph F.4. In March 2013, I spoke to Cecilia McDaniel in
the City Clerk’s Office regarding the Commission’s failure to make a referral.
She could not provide an explanation. (Copies of the relevant documents are
enclosed)
·
Former
City Clerk Dennis Hawkins and current City Clerk Toni Taber: Mr. Hawkins and
Ms. Taber were well aware that the Elections Commission’s closing of my
complaint against the City Attorney’s Office without a referral to the City
Council violated City policy. Yet, they took no action.
From the facts and evidence as presented
above, it is clear that City officials are covering up the misconduct by the
City Attorney’s Office. Not only is this an obstruction of justice, but as
stated above, it is also a violation of City policy. The City’s Code of Ethics
states employees who
violate the Code of Ethics will be
Page 5
subject to disciplinary action, up to and including termination. It further states that the violation of the Code of Ethics by a City official, elected or appointed, constitutes official misconduct. As of today’s date, October 16, 2014; no investigation has been conducted. The most troubling aspect of this matter is that the following current and former City officials appeared to have profited financially as a result of their misconduct. They all received promotions or high paying positions outside the city:
Page 5
subject to disciplinary action, up to and including termination. It further states that the violation of the Code of Ethics by a City official, elected or appointed, constitutes official misconduct. As of today’s date, October 16, 2014; no investigation has been conducted. The most troubling aspect of this matter is that the following current and former City officials appeared to have profited financially as a result of their misconduct. They all received promotions or high paying positions outside the city:
·
Former
Deputy City Attorney Michael Dodson left the City to become a Senior Litigation
Attorney with a private law firm in the Bay Area.
·
Alex
Gurza was promoted from Director of Employee Relations to Deputy City Manager.
·
Nora
Frimann was promoted from Chief Trial Attorney to Assistant City Attorney.
·
Tuck Younis was promoted from Captain to
Assistant Chief of Police. He then used the Assistant Chief’s position as a
stepping stone to become Chief of Police of Los Altos.
·
Pete
Oliver, a Deputy Chief of Police at the time of his involvement in this matter,
is now the Chief of Investigations for the Santa Clara County District Attorney’s
Office.
·
Cecilia
McDaniel, who was a legal assistant to former Deputy City Attorney Michael
Dodson, is now Deputy City Clerk.
It is very likely that other employees
received some benefit for engaging in misconduct related to this matter as
well.
City officials’ refusal to take action
against the City Attorney’s Office is evidence of a double standard as it
relates to the disciplinary process. For four plus years I have tried to
initiate an investigation into misconduct by the City Attorney’s Office to no
avail. During this same time period approximately one hundred or more rank and
file employees have been terminated from City employment for alleged
misconduct. Much of the misconduct alleged was for some form of dishonestly and
for reasons far less reprehensible than the dishonest and criminal misconduct
of the City Attorney’s Office and police administrators. It should also be
noted that rank and file police officers were subjected to two comprehensible
investigations in 2012 as a result of the pay job scandal. The City also
solicited complaints against rank and file police officers in utility bills that
were mailed in December 2012. Yet, City officials have rejected my many
requests for an investigation into the criminal misconduct by the City Attorney’s
Office.
From the many scandals that have plagued
the City during the Reed administration, it is clear that there is a culture of
corruption at the very top level of San Jose city government. The scandals are
also proof that there is no accountability on the part of City leaders. This is
shocking since it was Mayor Reed who promised no lying, no cheating, and no
stealing when he was first elected mayor. It was he who passed several Reed
reforms promising openness and honesty in government. He also promised that he
would eliminate corruption from City Hall. Yet, the Mayor and City Council have
allowed the City Attorney’s Office to be run like a criminal enterprise by
allowing it to engage in brazen and persistent misconduct with impunity.
Page
6
An article by Mercury News Reporter
Scott Herhold published in 2006 also supports my complaint against the City
Attorney’s Office. In that article, Mr. Herhold implied that City Attorney
Richard Doyle routinely uses unethical tactics during litigation involving the
City. The article states that Mr. Doyle has a history of pushing bad cases and
refusing to settle weak ones, costing the City millions of dollars. My case is
a prime example of Mr. Doyle pushing a bad case by using unlawful tactics. He
was given several opportunities to resolve my case without any litigation when
there was no cost to me or the City. Yet, he chose to reject those
opportunities and engage in protracted litigation that has cost the City
several thousands of dollars, and is likely to cost thousands more. It is
apparent that the unethical tactics by Mr. Doyle are unwritten City policy
endorsed by Mayor Reed and the City Council. It is indefensible that the City
has not initiated an investigation into the serious charges I make against the
City Attorney’s Office.
The action I would like the Civil Grand
Jury to take is as follows:
·
As
already requested, conduct an immediate investigation into my allegations of
misconduct by the City Attorney’s Office and the cover-up by Mayor Reed, the
City Council and other City officials.
·
Make
a recommendation for a criminal probe into the actions by City officials by the
appropriate authority such as the State Attorney General’s Office or the F.B.I.
·
Make
a recommendation that the City, by its own policy, initiate an administrative
investigation into this matter through a neutral third party.
·
Make
recommendations for reforms in the City’s complaint process whereby complaints
of misconduct against top City officials are investigated in the same aggressive
manner as complaints against rank and file City employees and officials,
particularly police officers and fire fighters.
·
Make
a recommendation that the City and Police Department adopt a written policy
regarding the issuance of concealed weapons permits to retiring police officers
that provide basic due process protections that comply with state law.
I respectfully request to meet with the
Civil Grand Jury in order provide additional evidence and insight into this
matter.
Respectfully
submitted,
Frederick
Bates
c:
Deputy District Attorney John Chase – County of Santa Clara
Special Agent in Charge David J. Johnson –
F. B. I. (San Francisco Division)
