Just released!!
I was incarcerated for almost 20 years for a crime I didn't commit. I could have stayed bitter and resentful, getting caught up in the violence inherent in the prison system or even plotting my revenge for the day I was finally released. Instead, I chose to focus on making the best out of a bad situation which, I assure you, is much more difficult than it sounds. I used my time to learn all sorts of interesting hobbies, to read, educate myself and plan for the day I would ultimately be released. Instead of letting me go, however, the CDCR instead chose to illegally continue my detention beyond the expiration of my prison sentence, claiming that I couldn't be released until my accusers had received a full 60-days notice of my pending release. It was frustrating to the extreme, made even more so by the fact that all of this was taking place in the middle of a pandemic that was killing more of my peers than all of the acts of violence committed by my fellow prisoners combined. I still suspect it's because they'd figured out who @F0Q_CDCR was and were trying to seek revenge. Whatever their reason, not only did they illegally continue my detention, paperwork was also filed to have me indefinitely committed to a mental hospital.
For those who've followed me on Twitter, Facebook and here on my blog, you already know I'm nowhere near having a mental disorder, let alone one serious enough to have me committed. When the system is as corrupt as this one, however, facts matter not. The only thing that matters is who is in whose pocket and how much power they truly have. The first thing I had to do was figure out how to win in a game where the outcome had already been decided by a system full of more corruption than a communist government. Fortunately, I had a plan.
One of the things I love most about my country is the fact that the justice system is so transparent. Sure, there are some exceptions to the rule, but for the most part, hearings are constitutionally mandated to be open to the public, and this was one of the silver linings to the COVID pandemic. What was a government to do when the constitution mandated that hearings be open to the public, but a health crisis prevented people from being able to attend in person? In a world of technology, the solution was simple: open the hearings digitally. Long before I showed up for my hearing, they'd already instituted a system of conducting their hearings via Zoom and YouTube. When my turn rolled around, they continued to do so. They made two crucial mistakes. First, they believed that I'd roll over and play dead, allowing some overworked, court appointed lawyer to represent me in a field of law they'd never practiced. Second, they thought the public would automatically believe anything they had to say, no matter how ludicrous. When I successfully fought to represent myself, I threw everything out of whack. Instead of just sitting there as the prosecution presented its flawed case, accepting as a foregone conclusion that I'd be committed, I fought back, pointing out these flaws and proving, beyond a shadow of a doubt, how the prosecution's so-called expert witnesses had literally falsified documents and committed perjury in their overzealousness to commit me. During the process, I discovered evidence of this very same thing, done 20-years ago in an attempt to incarcerate me for a crime I hadn't committed, evidence which had been intentionally withheld from me, and the rest of the public.
The probable cause hearing lasted for well over a week, drawn out over the course of several months. During this time, more and more people continued to tune in and all were horrified by what they seen unfolding before their very eyes. The District Attorney wasn't just sitting there as her witnesses mistakenly reported the facts, she was actively suborning perjury, over and over in her attempt to have me committed. And this isn't a subjective statement, based on one person's interpretation of the facts, nor is it a statement of someone lashing out in anger. This a factual statement, one which is supported, in black and white, by the very words of the District Attorney herself.
Earlier, I made comment about how corrupt our system of justice is. The probable cause hearing would prove that, once and for all. I ran circles around the prosecutor, proving, beyond all shadow of a doubt that the detective originally investigating the case had not only lied, but had actually fabricated evidence, that one of the evaluators had also fabricated evidence and that many of the records reviewed by the evaluators weren't even mine. Even the attorneys who were watching me represent myself online were commenting on how well I was doing. When it was all said, done and over with, the judge not only determined there was probable cause (which was kind of surprising, considering how I'd ripped apart their case, piece--by-piece), he also revoked my right to represent myself. This, I should point out, was done after he'd commented on how I had "literally done nothing" to provoke the court and how I'd properly done my job of bringing to his attention the earlier mentioned faults. There was absolutely no reason whatsoever to revoke my pro per status, and yet, he did it anyway. Why? Because particular judge was incredibly biased against me. And this isn't just the voice of someone who's disgruntled commenting on what happened, it's the sentiment of everyone who took out time to read so much as a single transcript. The judge was biased and made very little attempt to hide it.
As the probable cause hearing continued to unfold, the People and their witnesses began to worry about the legalities of what they were doing. This was due in large part to the fact that a remote viewer actually reached out to me, via my court appointed assistant, to notify me that she'd witnessed the first evaluator committing perjury and violating his code of ethics as he testified. When the People's second witness went to testify, she actually objected to anyone seeing her testify, so much so that the District Attorney herself spoke up in an attempt to have the hearing closed. Naturally, I fought it. As I explained to the judge, "that which makes you laugh can make you cry." In other words, televising the hearing usually hurts people in my situation, making the District Attorney laugh. Now that the focus is on them and their bullshit, however, they're no longer laughing, they're crying. I successfully fought their attempts to close the hearing, but the judge was upset that someone had had the nerve to record and upload the hearing. He then informed the remote viewers that they were not permitted to record the hearings. When the witness, Dr. Roudabeh Rahbar, Psy.D., appeared to testify, the first thing she did was voice her objections, yet again, to her testimony being televised.
I'd like to say I shredded her completely, but the truth of the matter is that the judge all but stopped trying to hide his bias on that particular day and sustained just about every objection made by the District Attorney. She even objected to my asking Dr. Rahbar if she went by the nickname of "Dr. Rudi." I can't say that my performance was anywhere near as good with her as it was with the other evaluator, but I did manage to prove that she'd actually fabricated evidence and committed perjury. Not that it did any good, as the judge promptly revoked my right to represent myself. This, I should point out, is what happens when you refuse to allow the system to steamroll you and publicly reveal their corruption.
While I'd had my right to represent myself revoked, I had not even come close to giving up. As John Paul Jones once said: "I have not yet begun to fight!"
