Walt Disney Concert Hall, Los Angeles, California |
https://paladium.nfshost.com
Walt Disney Concert Hall, Los Angeles, California |
- Introduction 25 October 2012 FPPC: California Fair Political Practices Commission Ann Ravel is Chair of the California Fair Political Practices Commission appointed by Governor Brown in March 2011 former Santa Clara County, California, Counsel Ann Miller Ravel lived in Los Gatos, Santa Clara County, California She made state and federal, political contributions. We mention her elsewhere in this site. Obama Administration appointed Ravel on May 22, 2009 deputy assistant attorney general in the U.S. Department of Justice's Civil Division under Assistant Attorney General Tony West, a former Bay Area attorney Ravel will head the Torts Branch and the Office of Consumer Litigation. source: "Ann Ravel joins U.S. justice department" "Santa Clara County counsel heads to Washington; attorneys, colleagues hold send-off event" by Lauren Jow Palo Alto [California] Online Staff Uploaded: Friday, June 26, 2009, 9:38 AM source: www.paloaltoonline.com/news/show_story.php?id=12869
- Possible Date and Place of Birth Name Birth Date Sex County Of Birth Miller, Ann Marie 09/25/1952 Female Alameda Miller, Ann Louise 07/12/1952 Female Orange Miller, Ann Virginia 03/19/1952 Female San Luis Obispo Miller, Ann Elizabeth 03/16/1951 Female Los Angeles Miller, Ann Elizabeth 08/03/1951 Female Alameda Miller, Ann Elizabeth 08/21/1951 Female San Francisco Miller, Ann Elizabeth 12/31/1950 Female San Francisco Miller, Ann Elizabeth 11/25/1949 Female Stanislaus Miller, Ann J 07/27/1949 Female Santa Barbara Miller, Ann 01/12/1948 Female Riverside Miller, Ann 08/03/1948 Female Contra Costa Miller, Ann Margaret 11/13/1948 Female Los Angeles
- California Attorney Ann Miller Ravel - #62139 Bar Number: 62139 Address: California Fair Political Practices Comm 428 J St Ste 800 Sacramento, CA 95814 Phone Number: (916) 322-5738 Fax Number: Not Available e-mail: aravel[at]FPPC.ca.gov County: Sacramento Undergraduate School: Univ of California Berkeley; Berkeley CA District: District 3 Sections: None Law School: UC Hastings COL; San Francisco CA Bar Board of Trustees: Former board member Status History Effective Date Status Change Present Active 12/18/1974 Admitted to The State Bar of California
- Address Ann M Ravel, age 60-64 Ann M Ravel 616 E St NW, Apt 1024 Washington, DC 20004-2276 Ann Ravel Home (408) 399-4611 25 Central Ave Los Gatos, CA 95030-7132 Associated: Stephen M Ravel [California attorney] Gabriel Ravel [Gabriel Ross Ravel, California attorney?] address information source: whitepages.com
2009mar15
Richar L. "Dick" Dickerson, elected to Redding City Council in 2004. Formerly California Assembly, district 2. Before that, County Board of Supervisors, decades in law enforcement, army. Born in Colorado. He retired, perhaps from law enforcement, in 1993. That would mean that he started in law enforcement in about 1963, entered the army in about 1960 (guessing at three years in the army), born in about 1942 (guessing that he entered the army when he was about 18).
RICHARD L DICKERSON Born 1938, 1276 RIVER RIDGE DR REDDING, CA 96003, (530) 244-5617.
RICHARD L DICKERSON Born Jun 1937, 07/2003, 547 SUNCREEK TRL, REDDING, CA 96003, (530) 244-5617, (916) 930-0301. See below the Dickerson who seems to have lived in Fontana.
RICHARD L DICKERSON 1937-06-07 lived in Fontana CA. He was born on the 7th day of the 6th month. See above the Dickerson who seems to have lived on Suncreek in Redding.
RICHARD DICKERSON 1934-07-06 Redding CA. He was born on the 6th day of the 7th month.
Sacramento County CIVIL Service Commission
7 March 2004, Sacramento County Deputy DISTRICT Attorney Steve Harrold, STEVEN E HARROLD, 1020 CORONADO BLVD, SACRAMENTO CA 95864
A Fire-Eater
|
email dcharron@sacramentofirefighters.com
DAVID A. CHARRON, age 31, 3411 SKY Lane, SHINGLE SPRINGS CA 95682, (530)
He works at Sacramento Metro Fire District.
email brice@sacramentofirefighters.com
BRIAN K. RICE, age 44, 3760 N. EDGE Drive (between Whitney Avenue and Brookwood Road), SACRAMENTO CA 95821-3144, (916) 487-1129.
2003, SACRAMENTO County Sheriff Lou Blanas may possibly be:
Louis J. Blanas
age 57
4121 Puente Way
Sacramento 95864-3012.
Sheriff's Deputy Timothy James Durel
TIMOTHY J. DUREL, age 38, 8006 SHEEHAN Way, ANTELOPE CA 95843, (916).
STEVEN D. FISK, age 46, 8688 GRANT LINE RD, ELK GROVE, CA 95624, (916)
born FISK STEVEN D, 04/08/1958, MALE, mother WILLIAMS SACRAMENTO county.
Kevin Mickelson, Sacramento County Deputy Sheriffs Association
KEVIN A MICKELSON 1965-04-28 lived in Rancho Cordova CA.
KEVIN A MICKELSON Born Apr 1965, 5521 LOCUST AVE, CARMICHAEL, CA 95608
KEVIN A MICKELSON, 6041 HOLETON RD CARMICHAEL, CA 95608.
It is common for government officers to illegally get, and to illegally distribute, information. This twin problem is often a serious crime yet too few government officers go to prison or even get misdemeanor tickets for doing this crime.
After a deputy sheriff working as a jail C.O. (correctional officer) was suspected of involvement in the fatal shooting of a prison C.O., the Sacramento County sheriff's staff investigated whether that deputy may have improperly gotten information from the sheriff's computers. Below, as well as we can, we summarize an accusation that the suspect improperly got information and the possible implication that he may have improperly provided some of that information to at least one of his brothers.
According to "State Worker: Unauthorized access raises big questions" (by Jon Ortiz, jortizATsacbee.com, 30 October 2008, page 3A, which appeared on the Sacramento Bee Web site at URL www.sacbee.com/737/story/1355420.html), "... Former Sacramento County [California, USA] Deputy Sheriff Chu Vue reportedly used a department computer to look up personal information on Steve Lo shortly before the state correctional officer [Lo] was gunned down ....". Former county deputy sheriff Chu Vue worked at RCCC (Rio Cosumnes Correctional Center) jail in Sacramento County. State C.O. (correctional officer) Steve Lo worked at California Medical Facility in Vacaville, also called Vacaville prison. According to "Ex-deputy linked to officer's killing booked on computer charges" by Sam Stanton, sstantonATsacbee.com, 7 January 2009, at the Sacramento Bee Web site: county deputy sheriff Chu Vue is thought to have accessed sheriff's computers looking for names similar to Steve Lo 23 times. There is a computer at every sheriff's deputy workstation at RCCC jail. The computers are supposed to be used by deputies for the sole purpose of researching inmates in their custody. That research might involve looking up an inmate's criminal history and that inmate's associates. We guess that, in RCCC and other poorly run sheriffs' jails, many sworn officers have used the sheriff's computers to get information about people the officers are curious about (for example: neighbors, possible romantic partners, landlords and other vendors) even when the information is not work-related. This is illegal and it is common in poorly run jails. We don't know what procedures, if any, the sheriff routinely uses to systematically spot and investigate suspicious computer research by sworn officers. For example, if Officer Brown buys a house in November 2007 from Sam Seller and his wife, does the sheriff's staff (internal affairs, perhaps) check if there was any computer research, using the sheriff's computers, about The Sellers in 2007? If there was such research, there are many questions to ask; for example, was the research done by Brown or while Brown was on duty? If Officer Dawes is sued for divorce by his wife in July 2006, and his wife is represented by lawyer Lawson, does the sheriff's staff check if there was any computer research, using the sheriff's computers, about Lawson in 2006? If there was research about Lawson, it would be interesting to know, among many other things, on what day Dawes was handed the divorce court papers and on what day there was research about Lawson. When litigants had a civil lawsuits against the Office of the Sheriff (often called the "Sheriff's Department") or any other county agency, regardless of whether the litigants were plaintiffs or defendants, were the sheriff's computers used to do research about those litigants, including research into any criminal record the litigants or their associates had? When candidates ran for sheriff or other governmental office, were the sheriff's computers used to do research about those candidates? Were the sheriff's computers used to do research about this web site or people thought to be affiliated with it?
It's common to confiscate equipment used to do a crime (confiscation of an "instrumentality of crime"); for example, a car used to criminally transport drugs. Should the sheriff's computer system be confiscated as an instrument of crime (for example, the murder of Lo or the criminal research supposedly done by Vue)? Maybe the more crimes are done with something, the more appropriate it is to confiscate it. We guess that, for reasons the sheriff knows best, the Sheriff's Department does not find out how much criminal use is made of its computer system. Maybe, if the owner of property engages in only perfunctory attempts to prevent criminal use of his property, and if the property is used to do a serious crime, the property should be confiscated. Maybe it's not enough to prosecute Vue. Maybe one should confiscate the tools (especially the computer systems and data bases) Vue supposedly used to do the supposed computer crimes. Maybe the sheriff is so powerful, and he needs the computer system and databases so much, that he should be allowed to keep them regardless of how many crimes a day are done with them and of how slightly he tries to prevent those crimes.
One of the functions of prosecution and sentencing is to deter third parties from the crime for which the defendant is being prosecuted. A prosecution should be handled in a way designed to prevent recurrence of the crime by anyone. In theory, there may be a conflict of interest for the D.A. The D.A. should handle the case in a way which is best for the people of California, the plaintiff. In theory, what may be best for the plaintiff is to confiscate the sheriff's computer system. The D.A. may be reluctant to seek confiscation because the D.A. may be reluctant to antagonize the sheriff. Maybe a special prosecutor should be appointed to handle the Lo case, a prosecutor who would, if he thought it appropriate, seek confiscation of the instrumentality of computer crimes done by sworn officers in Sacramento. There is the appearance of a conflict of interest. We guess that the D.A. thinks that the sheriff should be allowed to keep his computer system and databases regardless of how many crimes a day are done with them. Thus, we guess that there is no actual conflict of interest.
Sacramento should have a sheriff who does not recklessly distribute secret information. Maybe the county could, for the jail and other functions now now performed by the sheriff, either contract with a different law enforcement agency or create a new law enforcement agency. For example, maybe the county could create a correction department to run its jails, and the boss of that department could avoid recklessly distributing secret information.
Sacramento sheriff's officers, on the lookout for crime and suspicious behavior, routinely patrol streets and neighborhoods but not their own computer system's research records (including logs of inquiries of databases by deputies), we guess. It's not enough to have traffic laws. There are deputies who issue traffic tickets. In addition to drug laws, there are police who enforce drug laws. Some police officers entrap people into doing drug crimes. It's not enough to tell deputies what computer research is allowed and what isn't. Records of computer research should routinely be systematically examined to detect suspicious use, and that use should be investigated. An interesting possibility is to entrap deputies into criminal research using the sheriff's computers.
We guess that the person who looked for information about Lo knew that there was much forbidden research, using the sheriff's computers, but had not heard of punishment being imposed for that forbidden research. In our opinion, the Sacramento sheriff's department seems not to routinely, systematically examine its own computer research records to look for suspicious research by its officers.
According to our understanding of news articles on the Web, which articles are not necessarily perfectly true: Vue (a deputy sheriff working as a C.O. in a county jail) got information about Lo from the sheriff's computers while Vue was on the job, Lo was shot soon after (not by Vue), and Vue's brothers are currently sought. With rare exceptions, C.O.s are not detectives or investigators. In properly run jails, the vast majority of C.O.s have limited information about prisoners and never investigate prisoners or their associates. For example as far as we know about properly run jails, the vast majority of C.O.s there are not even told what crimes the prisoners are accused of or were convicted of. For government officers to be physically safe, the government should carefully restrict what information about government officers the government provides to government officers. The Sacramento sheriff recklessly distributes much information, thus endangering government officers and other people.
Knowingly illegal research by government officers, who do the research for their own personal benefit, not to accomplish a government goal, is common. Much of it could easily be prevented. After the illegal research is done, victims should at least be notified and compensated even when the wrongdoers are not punished.
The value of officers' illegally gotten information is taxable as a kind of income, we guess. Assessing the value can be complicated. In assessing value, we would consider, among other things, what the information would cost if the officer had bought it (for example, from a private investigator).
The above Vue-Lo discussion was first written in February 2009, when Vue had not been tried for anything related to Lo. No one is guilty merely because he's prosecuted.
2004 December 13, Sacramento county SUPERVISOR (member of the county board of supervisors) Roger Dickinson: ROGER E. DICKINSON, age 54, 531 SOUTHGATE RD, SACRAMENTO CA 95815, (916) 922-7721
2007dec3
SAN BENITO COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION Superintendent: Timothy R. Foley 2007dec3
TIMOTHY R FOLEY Born Jun 1947, 1090 VERSAILLES DR, 08/14/2002 HOLLISTER, CA 95023
TIMOTHY R FOLEY Born 1947, 141 MCMAHON RD, HOLLISTER, CA 95023
TIMOTHY R FOLEY 4756 SANTA ANA VALLEY RD HOLLISTER, CA 95023.
This Hollister resident may possibly have been born FOLEY TIMOTHY R 06/10/1947 MALE, mother BUFFUM, county LOS ANGELES.
15 February 2004, Norm Hurst,
Deputy Chief,
SAN BERNARDINO County Sheriff's Dept.,
San Bernardino CA 92415, may be:
NORMA J HURST, age 53, 30065 MORSE RD, HEMET CA 92544-9616, (909) 658-2747.
Thermal Photo of San Diego Harbor |
Officer Daniel Burow may possibly be DANIEL A BUROW, age 36, 5936 SAN MIGUEL RD, BONITA CA 91902
Officer Gregory Bisesto may possibly be GREGORY R. BISESTO, age 37, 25464 BIRCHTREE DR, MURRIETA CA 92563
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010 NY Pistol Permits | Impropriety in USA Gov't | Home Page | ||
| Main California Page | Previous Page | Next Page | ||
