Yuba D.A. McGrath introduces new Rules!

In my recent Trial,  April 2010, in yuba county superior court, according to the transcripts of the trial, which took me two months to get, Her Honor Julia Scrogins, Department four, instructed the jury under Calcrim 220, ( rules of court based on State penal code 1096), to read the rule in common, everyday language, as the Law of PC 1096 is written, Government must prove beyond a reasonable Doubt, to all 12 jurors, the Governments case is true. PC 1096 says A defendant is presumed to be innocent until the contrary is proved, and in case of reasonable doubt whether his or her guilt is satisfactorily shown, he or she is entitled to an acquittal.. This state law comes from the Magna carta, passed down through the U.S. Constitution, and onto the State of California Constitution as a protection against Government oppression on the People.

I discovered during the Trial there are two “systems” in Yuba County law enforcement, one follows the constitution and is for people who do not question the new way officials as to where the Money comes from to afford the High benefits they now enjoy. The other “System” is reserved for “Indigents” and violate the Constitution by nullifying the constitution,  so called because the Prosecutor illegally pleads false charges and the Judge improperly instructs Jurists, the second system has as its goal a plea bargain. Having been associated with law enforcement for more than twenty five years, I know proper law and improper law and the new way in yuba county is to protect and prosper the Officials.

The Trial progressed through Jury impaneling, the D.A. and defense arguments were presented to the jury, and the Jury was given instructions as stated above. The Jury was out for Four days of deliberations, and had requested four times for clarification of “Reasonable Doubt” as instructed under CalCrim 220, and after they still were unclear, on the Fourth day, Her honor read the Jury  instructions from the older CalJic  rules that had been  replaced by the newer CalCrim Rules. Both CalJic and CalCrim rules of Jury Instructions were Based on the State law, Penal Code 1096 but the Rules from CalJic and CalCrim seemed to confuse the Jurors regarding Reasonable Doubt.

There is no Confusion in PC 1096, it states in Common , everyday language, that the Judge instructed the Jurors to follow, the Government has to Prove beyond a doubt his case by the evidence he Presented all through the trial to the Jurors or the Court must find the Defendant Not Guilty. The clear, Common sense PC 1096 law is the Protection for Citizens against Government Oppression, but the CalCrim Rules if not used in the shadow of PC 1096, are against the people. For instance, CalCrim 220 rule follows PC 1096 law up to a point. That point is when the sequence of 1096 has reached the point when the unanimous  12 member Jury has to say the D.A. has met his burden beyond a reasonable doubt or he has not met it. If there is one not convinced, then the Government has not proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

In my case, though unofficial, the Madam foreperson estimated 7-5, showing the government were far from a unanimous decision of the Government meeting their burden. Under PC 1096, since the Government had not met his burden , there was only one way for the Jury to go, and that was Not Guilty.

After the Jury had failed to follow PC 1096, and find Not Guilty, The Judge declared a Mistrial due to a Locked Jury. The Jury was not Locked, they met their duty, they followed the Judges instructions to the letter, read the Instructions to read with a common, everyday language, could not find the Government met their Burden as a unanimous group, but failed to follow through in the sequence and Find Not Guilty.  Why the Judge declared a Mistrial with no shenanigans, Paper Glitches, or Lawyer shenanigans, is beyond belief. PC 1096 does not list it as an alternative to Finding Not Guilty or Guilty, the Jurors had decided after Four days, they could not believe the Government Met their Burden, but some one decided even if PC 1096/CalCrim 220 were met and the Government had lost the alleged case, they were going to throw a Monkey wrench into the Peoples law, by ignoring the Obvious verdict, and Retrying the Defendant again.. His Name?  Yuba County District Attorney Patrick McGrath. His Motive?  Political Witch-hunt!

I am still appearing in Court this Tuesday, 10 12-2010, fighting the District Attorney Patrick MC Grath’s illegal Malicious Prosecution. I thank those of You who have helped me Financially to fight this Peoples war against The  Yuba County District Attorney, Patrick McGrath who alone is carrying on with the peoples Money, a Witch Hunt to protect the Upper Management of Yuba County Government’s salaries gained from what I believe was the Failure of Daniels Logue,  Former Supervisor Of Yuba County, Former V.Chairman of TRLIA,  a Joint venture of Yuba County and RD 784 in a levee construction update , who had control of upwards of Half A Billion ( B )  Dollars in State Grant funds, Fish & Game and Developer Funds, received but not accounted for in 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007 which I brought to the attention of  Yuba County Media in 2007 and  that the County will not account for even at this day and time. They were requested to do so in 2009 by Citizens, but declined, citing $200,000 (T) was to much to spend to locate $450,000,000 (M) .

Under The D.A.s new rules, the Court can follow the Peoples laws through the Sequence of presenting arguments, Jury deliberations,  and finally to the point when the jury must find Guilt or not Guilt.  However under Patrick’s rules of law, If the jury finds he did not meet his burden of proof, Patrick gets a Mistrial and gets to retry the defendant over again, and again, and again….

Under the Peoples Protection Law of State of California Penal code 1096, District Attorney MCGrath  brings his Evidence of the alleged Crime before the 12 Members of the Jury and if he does not convince all 12 of the defendants Guilt, the Defendant Must be held Not Guilty!  That is the peoples centuries old protection  law.

On 10 12 010, we filed several motions with the court, including a Change of venue, a Motion to dismiss, and last week we filed more motions based on the transcripts of the Trial and they are to be ruled on next week. My attorney Jim Reilly,  has filed motions against my Former attorney, Vasquez, the District Attorney, the Court for wrong doing so I am feeling a little justified finally, but we will see how the Judge rules on the motions.

We had a Motions hearing scheduled for October 25 and we appeared. Upon opening Court, Her Honor Judge Scrogin read from a note from the District Attorney asking for dismissal of all charges because he did not want to put the children through another trial. That is a weasel weaseling out when his corruption is brought to light. He for sure seeked dismissal rto avoid the corrupt Trial to be exposed for what it was, a attempt by Yuba county officials to silence a Citizen who was bringing out corruption to the eyes of the public.  Fortunately, their are learned, honest attorneys who will travel to bring justice to Citizens. I found one and I recommend his firm, Summit Defense to all who need a honest knowledgeable counsel.