The Indigent Litigant

by Staff Writer

Hey Folks, I am JohnX, the Indigent Litigant, I have been homeless for the past nine months, between spending most of my day circling through the literal viscous cycle of poverty, i.e., food lines, general assistance workshops, case manglement and shelter schedules, I manage to make my way to the four law libraries around downtown San Francisco. Along with my thorough advocacy work on your behalf, I am currently investigating my unlawful eviction by a central California police department, which is the original cause of my homelessness.

Email your questions and comments to me at: johnX@poormagazine.org Or snail mail me at:JohnX, POOR Magazine 1448 Pine Street #205 SF 94109

Case #1 Investigating the investigators (The Alex Fagen Jr.Travesty)

I have been following the story of Alex Fagan Jr. poster boy for the San Francisco Police Department on what a police officer should not be. I read Captain Corrlaes of Mission Station in a column the other day make the comment; he had made some errors but " what criminal act was that". Well Captain, the criminal act was this. California penal code 153 (Compounding or concealing a crime). Specifically abstaining from prosecution of these officer by specifically "compounding the crime" in the initial stages of the investigation by failure to properly collect evidence at the crime scene from the officers involved in the altercation. That sir is " the criminal act". Of which you so eloquently state has not been committed.

I have spoken to several divisions of the police department regarding the criminal prosecution o f these officers only to be referred back to public affairs where they are not quite sure were the department stands at this point. There are some important points to remember here. The Office of Citizens Complaints is investigating the responding officers and Management Control (or internal affairs) is investigating the officers involved in the incident. Jean Fields attorney with the O.C.C told me that " we will apply general orders and all applicable state and federal laws".

However, it has been this reporters experience that although investigators at the O.C.C mean well, very few understand the concept or fact that the San Francisco Police General Order's very foundation is based on penal (criminal) law. What this means then is if an officer is found guilty of a general order of most types he/she has also broken a state law and has by all standards committed a criminal offense and should be punished no differently than any other "citizen".

However, what comes out of the department as well as O.C.C and the Police Commission is this. " The officer committed a policy infraction and though subject to internal review he/she would not face termination as again ,it is a policy infraction. What these agencies do not tell the general public is how these policies are actually created. So in not knowing, nothing is questioned. I ask my readers to ask themselves this question: why is it the one profession that is responsible for criminal offenses can not, or is never subject to criminal charges for their actions? The truth is they are! . When the O.C.C investigates an officer for a violation they should as a matter of course include the penal law violation as well but the do not. I can only speculate that they are specifically trained based on The General Orders. However, they are doing San Francisco a disservice.

Any good investigator should and would use all resources available to them including criminal law. This is unfortunately not the case in San Francisco. Nobody has made a clear statement of a criminal investigation into the actions of either the on-duty or off-duty officers and the unfortunate things is there is a sea of charges that could be applied in this incident and they are not .If they are, nobody is saying anything.

It is my suggestion to this readership that someone initiate action with the United States Attorney General's Office. My reasoning is this: the city was supposed to begin an oversight committee to look into the practices of the San Francisco Police Department only to continuously delay the implementation and formation of this much needed committee. If local government is refusing to take action then the Federal Government has an obligation to protect the civil rights of all of those who have been repeatedly harassed and threatened with criminal charges, while watching police officers go free and continue their rampage on a vulnerable public.

#2 The Wonderful (Frightening and illegal) World of Proposition N

"Number 46" , This day begins with my booking number. Sitting, waiting, with my paperwork in hand,charge slip. I watch the activity of security,-bailiffs. The chaotic movements of the clients, inmates, we’re all waiting for our turn. Everyone is in a sort of daze as they move about the facility. "Number 46!! " I hear from an office area. I step inside directed to a chair where I am to sit and wait to be instructed in the next activity. I notice a large sign on the desk " NOTHING ON THIS DESK IS OF ANY INTEREST TO YOU SO DO NOT TOUCH ANYTHING HERE!. The person behind the desk is talking with a friend on the phone about a boyfriend problem, never once looking up to acknowledge my presence.

I continue to sit and wait for what seemed like 15 minutes or more, But I am just a number to be inputted into the computer that is all, not a person, just a number.

" Stand here and face this way". I comply with the order and a photo is taken, then I am fingerprinted . I am told only "that is all" and ":you may leave now". San Francisco County Jail? No, Department of Human Services when I applied for my General Assistance.

I have spent the last week in several meetings focused on the post proposition N reality for poor folks in the "city". To my non-surprise I have found out some interesting information. San Francisco has already spent the benefits stolen from General Assistance recipients ( ie the five million dollars Gavin Newsome was always talking about) on a fingerprinting system soon to be installed in all shelters in the city. This is very important in the scheme of current events, homeland security, and categorizing and monitoring the activities of poor people and specifically people of color.

The unfortunate truth is more people of color have had their fair share of run-ins with local law enforcement and have in one way or another been placed in "the system" .

This Finger printing system though stated for categorizing and better allocating of services, is not going to be used for just that purpose. This categorizing of services list all of your personnel information in a system that can be hacked or in other ways exploited by the personnel who are assigned to use it , but not properly trained in it's operations. It is also my opinion that within a short period of time under some homeland security measure this database will eventually be connected to the state database to " routinely" check prospective clients for " violations" as well as immigrants for " alien status updates". Both of these are law enforcement agencies. The state database is called C.L.E.T.S ( California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System) and the other is I.N.S (Immigration and Naturalization services). Both agencies to be folded into the office of Homeland Security.

Now although you could "protest" against unreasonable search and seizure, the way around that is to issue a disclaimer upon entry to any shelter property indicating passage of this point implies that you consent to search/fingerprinting.

In order to receive any services from the city you are subject to random checks and continuos fingerprinting or "processing" all over the city. It is like walking through a revolving door at 850 Bryant Street.

The reality of this fingerprinting system in my opinion is clear. To prevent and or deter people from seeking assistance or shelter for fear of "being caught" for something or other. The Care Not Cash Implementation strategy clearly projects and hopes over half of those who receive General Assistance will refuse services thus shoring up this money for other "administrative operations", not any type of real housing.

Real housing is not master-lease S.R.O type environments. It should be noted when I first arrived to San Francisco in 1987 there were about 10 Residence Clubs that included meals in the monthly rental. Now, there are none. One of the last to close that I lived in for a while was The Harcourt on Larkin off Sutter Street. In 1996 a corporation bought it out and the kitchen was immediately dismantled, rent was raised and the tenant was forced to spend extra money at the restaurants in the surrounding community. There was a big issue for years between the local residence hotels and the restaurant association not making enough profits from the tourist community because the residence hotels offered meals.

Eventually the residence hotels gave in and began to close their kitchens all over town usually one or two per year hoping nobody would notice.

This is the same now with this prop N revenue. People are hoping others will not take notice in their actions. I intend to cover this issue as much as possible in the coming months leading to implementation so you, the community can see what a lot of people have stated all along that the " care was not there" to begin with.