Showing posts with label Dead Politicians. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Dead Politicians. Show all posts


Card image cap

Some quick example text to build on the card title and make up the bulk of the card's content.

Bernard Bynum was employed at Mainframe Designs Cabinets and Fixtures located at 545 Bliss Ave


622 F.Supp. 196 (1985)

Dorothy BYNUM, Sylvester Bynum and Dorothy Bynum as Administrator of the Estate of Bernard Bynum, decedent, Plaintiffs,
CITY OF PITTSBURG, Leonard Castiglione, individually and in his capacity as Chief of Police for the City of Pittsburg, Ray Giacomelli and William O'Malley, individually and in his capacity as District Attorney for the County of Contra Costa, Defendants.

United States District Court, N.D. California.

November 12, 1985.

Amended November 27, 1985.

Tito Torres, San Francisco, Cal., for plaintiffs.

James L. Hazard, Sellar, Engleking, Hazard & Snyder, Walnut Creek, Cal., ElizabethB. Hearey, Deputy County Counsel, Martinez, Cal., Jerrold M. Ladar, Stephen W. Sommerhalter, San Francisco, Cal., for defendants.


PATEL, District Judge.

This case arises out of the shooting death of Bernard Bynum by Ray Giacomelli, a police officer for the City of Pittsburg. The shooting occurred on January 27, 1982. Decedent's surviving heirs, Dorothy and Sylvester Bynum, filed this action on November 22, 1983 alleging that defendants City of Pittsburg ("Pittsburg"), police officer Ray Giacomelli ("Giacomelli"), police chief Leonard Castiglione ("Castiglione"), and district attorney William O'Malley ("O'Malley") had violated their civil rights by performing acts which caused their son to be shot to death by officer Giacomelli. Dorothy Bynum also sues in her capacity as administrator of the decedent's estate.1

Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint filed on August 6, 1985 contains five causes of action, all based on 42 U.S.C. § 1983. First, plaintiffs allege that defendant Giacomelli acting under color of state law deprived their son of several constitutionally protected rights, including the right not to be deprived of life without due process of law, the right to be free from excessive force, and the right to be free from battery motivated by racial prejudice. Second, they contend that defendant Castiglione instituted a policy of inadequate police training which caused the death of their son. Third, they claim that defendant Pittsburg encouraged its police department to abuse minorities causing the death of their son. Fourth, they allege that defendants Pittsburg, Castiglione, and O'Malley had a policy of exonerating officers who brutalized or killed minorities and that this policy was a proximate cause of their son's death. Finally, they allege that defendants Pittsburg and O'Malley caused their son's death by failing to prosecute law enforcement officers who brutalized or killed minorities.

Defendants Pittsburg, Giacomelli, and Castiglione filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint on August 22, 1985 on the grounds that plaintiffs' claims are barred by a one year statute of limitations and that no constitutional violation is shown in the pleadings. Castiglione also moves to dismiss the second cause of action against him claiming that respondeat superior is an insufficient basis for imposing liability on him. Finally, Pittsburg asks the court to dismiss it from the fifth cause of action since it contains no allegations of wrongdoing on the part of the City. Defendant O'Malley joined in the motion to dismiss on August 23, 1985. In addition to the grounds asserted by the other defendants, O'Malley claims that the plaintiffs have no standing to bring this action, that he is absolutely immune from prosecution, and that plaintiffs are not entitled to the equitable relief that they seek.

The court has considered all of the papers in support of and in opposition to these motions. For the reasons discussed below, the fifth cause of action is dismissed as to defendant City of Pittsburg and the remainder of defendants' motions to dismiss are denied.


Defendant O'Malley's motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint is based on several arguments which the court heard and rejected on July 23, 1984. On that date, the court denied O'Malley's motion to dismiss plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint based upon prosecutorial immunity, lack of survival and standing, and failure to state a claim cognizable under § 1983. It also refused to strike plaintiffs' prayer for equitable relief.2 O'Malley's arguments here amount to nothing more than a motion for reconsideration. Since he advances no new arguments, the motion is denied.

The only issue raised by O'Malley that the court must consider here is the claim that plaintiffs' action is barred by a one year statute of limitations. This is discussed below since defendants Pittsburg, Giacomelli, Castiglione also raise this claim.



Defendants Pittsburg, Giacomelli, and Castiglione ask the court to dismiss this action on statute of limitations grounds in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Wilson v. Garcia, ___ U.S. ___, 105 S.Ct. 1938, 85 L.Ed.2d 254 (1985). Defendant O'Malley joins in this motion.

In Wilson, the Supreme Court held that state statutes of limitations for personal injury should be applied in § 1983 actions. Id. at 1949. The shooting of plaintiffs' son occurred on January 27, 1982; they filed suit on November 22, 1983. Defendants argue that Wilson should be applied retroactively to bar plaintiffs' causes of action under the one year California statute of limitations for personal injury.3 See Cal. Civ.Proc.Code § 340.

Defendants cite several cases from other circuits for the proposition that Wilson should be applied retroactively. All of the decisions rely upon the test announced in Chevron Oil v. Huson, 404 U.S. 97, 92 S.Ct. 349, 30 L.Ed.2d 296 (1971), to analyze the retroactivity question. In Huson, the Supreme Court held that a decision could be applied nonretroactively if three criteria were met:

First, the decision to be applied nonretroactively must establish a new principle of law, ... by overruling clear past precedent on which litigants may have relied ... Second, it has been stressed that "we must ... weigh the merits and demerits in each case by looking at the prior history of the rule in question, its purpose and effect, and whether retrospective operation will further or retard its operation." ... Finally, we have weighed the inequity imposed by retroactive application....

Id. at 106-07, 92 S.Ct. at 355-56 (citations omitted).

In Smith v. City of Pittsburgh, 764 F.2d 188 (3rd Cir.1985), the court used the Huson test in making its determination to apply Wilson retroactively to the case before it. The court relied heavily on the fact that the Third Circuit did not have a well-established statute of limitations in § 1983 actions prior to Wilson. The first and third prongs of the Huson test were not met since the "application of the [statute of limitations] law had been erratic and inconsistent, without clear precedent on which plaintiff could reasonably rely in waiting to file suit." Id. at 194-95. With respect to the second prong of the Huson test, the court held that "[a]lthough we cannot say that the policies referred to in Wilson v. Garcia militate clearly in favor of retroactive application, neither do they militate against such application." Id. at 196.

In this circuit, by contrast, the Huson test suggests that Wilson should not be applied retroactively.


Prior to Wilson, "the three-year limitations period in section 338(1) [had] long governed suits against state officialsbrought pursuant to section 1983." Marshall v. Kleppe, 637 F.2d 1217, 1223 (9th Cir.1980). The state of the law regarding the statute of limitations was well-settled in the Ninth Circuit. See Wilson, 105 S.Ct. at 1947 n. 35 (Supreme Court noted that the Ninth Circuit had created uniformity by adopting a uniform characterization of § 1983 actions as claims arising on a statute). Since Wilson announced a new principle of law in the Ninth Circuit, the first prong of the Huson test is met.


The Court in Wilson was attempting to promote "federal interests in uniformity, certainty, and the minimization of unnecessary litigation." 105 S.Ct. at 1947. Retroactive application would neither retard nor promote these goals. Therefore, the second prong of the Huson test is inconclusive. Jackson v. City of Bloomfield, 731 F.2d 652, 655 (10th Cir.1984) (en banc) (refusing to apply new statute of limitations retroactively); see also Smith, 764 F.2d at 196.


As the court noted in Smith, "[w]here a plaintiff could have reasonably waited to file suit under the established prior rule, it would be inequitable to say he had slept on his rights because of a later and unforeseeable Supreme Court decision." 764 F.2d at 196. Prior to Wilson the statute of limitations in actions under § 1983 was three years. Since this case has been pending for almost two years based upon plaintiffs' reasonable reliance on a three year statute of limitations, it would be inequitable to apply Wilsonretroactively.4 Thus, the third prong of the Huson test is met.

Because the Huson test is met, Wilson should not be applied retroactively in this case.5 Accordingly, defendants' motions to dismiss on statute of limitations grounds are denied.


Defendants Pittsburg, Giacomelli, and Castiglione have also moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint on the grounds that it fails to allege a constitutional violation. They argue that the availability of adequate state postdeprivation remedies bars this court's consideration of plaintiffs' § 1983 claims under the rationale of Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 101 S.Ct. 1908, 68 L.Ed.2d 420 (1981).

Defendants' argument fails in several respects. First, in Hudson v. Palmer, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 104 S.Ct. 3194, 3203, 82 L.Ed.2d 393 (1984), the Supreme Court elaborated on its holding in Parratt stating that "postdeprivation remedies do not satisfy due process where a deprivation of property is caused by conduct pursuant to established state procedure, rather than random and unauthorized action." In this case plaintiffs have alleged that defendants acted pursuant to a policy of exoneration; plaintiffs do not allege merely commission of a random and unauthorized act which defendants could not have predicted. Therefore, the rationale of Parratt is inapplicable.

Moreover, even if the shooting death of plaintiffs' son were a random and unauthorized act, plaintiffs might still have an action under § 1983 despite the availability of a state remedy. In Haygood v. Younger, 769 F.2d 1350, 1356-57 (9th Cir.1985) (en banc) (citation omitted), the Ninth Circuit noted that

Parratt and Hudson did not decide, and we do not reach the question, whetherthe availability of some remedial relief in state court might be imposed as a bar to federal relief under § 1983 in the myriad fact situations that might present themselves in other cases against state and local government officials. Parratt and Hudson dealt with relatively minor infractions of prisoners' interests in their personal property, and did not deal with official assaults, batteries or other invasions of personal liberty.

Finally, to the extent that plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint alleges violations of their substantive due process rights the procedural rationale of Parratt is inapplicable. In Parratt the Supreme Court recognized the distinction between procedural and substantive claims when it noted that the case involved only violation of "the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment simpliciter," in contrast to previous § 1983 cases before the Court involving fourth amendment and eighth amendment claims. 451 U.S. at 536, 101 S.Ct. at 1913. Courts in this circuit have also noted this distinction between substantive and procedural due process. See Haygood, at 1354-57 (court applies different analyses to Haygood's eighth amendment and due process claims); Garcia v. County of Los Angeles, 588 F.Supp. 700 (C.D.Cal.1984) (Parrattanalysis does not apply to substantive due process claims). If plaintiffs succeed in proving the allegations contained in their Second Amended Complaint, "defendants' conduct may have been sufficiently outrageous to constitute a violation of substantive due process." Garcia, 588 F.Supp. at 707.

The law of this circuit remains unsettled. In Wakinekona v. Olim, 664 F.2d 708 (9th Cir.1981), rev'd on other grounds, 461 U.S. 238, 103 S.Ct. 1741, 75 L.Ed.2d 813 (1983), the court found a prisoner could assert a protectible liberty interest in certain prison transfer regulations. The prisoner was allowed to assert these under § 1983. However, in another case decided the same year the court applied Parratt and held that a prisoner was not deprived of due process where he not only could pursue state tort claims for injuries suffered at the hands of a guard, but had pursued those remedies. Rutledge v. Arizona Board of Regents,660 F.2d 1345 (9th Cir.1981), aff'd on other grounds sub nom Kush v. Rutledge, 460 U.S. 719, 103 S.Ct. 1483, 75 L.Ed.2d 413 (1983).

Nevertheless, this circuit has recently made it clear that claims of excessive force may still be brought under § 1983 where they are based on Fourth Amendment grounds. Robins v. Harum, 773 F.2d 1004 (9th Cir.1985). Plaintiffs' allegations are grounded on the Fourth as well as the Fourteenth Amendment. The availability of state postdeprivation remedies does not bar Fourth Amendment claims. Id. at 1008-09.

For all of the foregoing reasons, defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a constitutional violation is denied.


Defendant Castiglione argues that this court should dismiss plaintiffs' second cause of action against him because respondeat superior is not a basis for imposing § 1983 liability. He cites the Supreme Court's decision in Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978), for this proposition. In Monell the Court held that local government entities may be sued under § 1983 only where the alleged deprivation of constitutional rights resulted from the execution or implementation of an official government policy.

The Supreme Court recently elaborated on its decision in Monell in City of Oklahoma v. Tuttle, ___ U.S. ___, 105 S.Ct. 2427, 85 L.Ed.2d 791 (1985). In Tuttle, the widow of a man shot by a police officer brought a § 1983 action alleging that a policy of inadequate training brought about her husband's death. The trial court allowed the jury in the case to infer a policy of inadequate training from the mere fact that the victim was shot to death. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that "where the policy relied upon is not itself unconstitutional, considerably more proof than the single incident will be necessary in every case to establish both the requisite fault on the part of the municipality, andthe causal connection between the `policy' and the constitutional deprivation." 105 S.Ct. at 2436 (footnotes omitted).

In their complaint, plaintiffs allege more than a single incident; they allege an ongoing policy of inadequate training which caused their son's death and involved the injuries and deaths of other minorities. At this stage of the proceedings the allegations are sufficient to defeat a motion to dismiss. Therefore, Castiglione's motion to dismiss the second cause of action is denied.


Defendant City of Pittsburg contends that this court should dismiss the fifth cause of action since it contains no allegation of wrongdoing by the City. Plaintiffs conceded this at oral argument. Therefore, the claim is dismissed as to the City of Pittsburg.


This court dismisses the fifth cause of action of plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint as to defendant City of Pittsburg. The motions to dismiss are otherwise denied for the reasons stated herein.



1. For the purposes of this order the court refers to plaintiffs jointly, although certain claims are held only by the administrator.

2. Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint does not differ substantively from their First Amended Complaint. The Second Amended Complaint simply adds Dorothy Bynum in her capacity as administrator.

3. Defendants contend that the Supreme Court itself mandated that Wilson be applied retroactively. The Court remanded Springfield Township School District v. Knoll, ___ U.S. ___, 105 S.Ct. 2065, 85 L.Ed.2d 275 (1985), for reconsideration in light of Wilson. It did not, as defendants suggest, tell the court of appeals to apply Wilson retroactively. Moreover, in Wilson, the Court seemed to recognize that there might indeed be cases in which the decision should not be applied retroactively. ___ U.S. at ___, 105 S.Ct. at 1941-42 n. 10 (the Court cites Jackson v. City of Bloomfield, 731 F.2d 652, 655 (10th Cir. 1984) (en banc), a case decided the same day as the circuit opinion in Wilson which refuses to apply the new personal injury statute of limitations retroactively).

4. The court is aware that plaintiffs' former counsel was less than diligent in pursuing this case. However, it was reluctant to penalize plaintiffs for this absent some acquiesence on their part. Plaintiffs obtained new counsel who has been diligent. The equities still balance in plaintiffs' favor.

5. Another district court judge in this Circuit has also suggested that retroactive application of Wilson is inappropriate in the Ninth Circuit. See Estate of Cartwright v. City of Concord, 618 F.Supp. 722(N.D.Cal.1985).

Spinal Meningitis: Former Contra Costa County treasurer Bill Pollacek dies

By PETE BENNETT - Contra Costa Watch EMAIL
Phone: 510-460-5641
Posted: 06/13/2013

Reposted to Protect My Sons

Arson Murder - Magalia / Paradise CA
Related: Arson / Murder By Bacteria

Former Contra Costa County treasurer Bill Pollacek dies

Updated:   05/03/2013 11:10:46 PM PDT

MARTINEZ -- A public memorial service is being arranged for former Contra Costa County treasurer Bill Pollacek, who died Friday after a three-week bout with spinal meningitis, a county official said.
"It is with sadness that I announce the passing of our friend and colleague Bill J. Pollaceck," wrote County Treasurer-Tax Collector Russell V. Watts in a news release.
Arne Simonsen, Antioch's city clerk, said Pollacek had been a close friend for more than 15 years and that his death was a "loss to all of us."
Pollacek was "friendly as hell," Simonsen said, and was known for his great sense of humor and for looking out for the county that had elected him to serve as both their treasurer and their tax collector.
Pollacek retired in January 2011 and had moved to the Napa area before his death, according to Simonsen.
Before serving as the county treasurer, Pollacek served on the board for the Center for Human Development, based in Pleasant Hill, and was a city councilmember in Martinez.
He was elected as the county treasurer in 1998.
"He always looked great in a tuxedo, and he always had a smile on," Simonsen said. "He had real dedication, stayed solvent. You just don't see too many people in politics who look out for the tax payers the way he did."
Pollacek is survived by his wife Nancy, who is arranging a memorial service for Thursday, May 16, at 1 p.m. at Tulocay in Napa.
"She wants to make this a big  event for Bill to let him know how much we'll miss him," Watts said. "Indeed, I will."
Check back for updates.
Contact Katie Nelson at 925-945-4782 or follow her

Obit: Margaret Lesher May 13, 1997 Drowning of heiress left many questions, rumors

Walnut Creek CA: The Suspicious deaths of Margaret Lesher and the son of former late Senator John A Nejedly, John T. Nejedly.

Under a Cloud of Suspicion / Gossip plagues man after wife's death

Editor's Note: Sam McManis takes over the thrice-weekly Contra Costa column from John King, who becomes The Chronicle's urban design writer. King's column on the new Ritz-Carlton resort is on Page One today. McManis, 41, has written columns and features for The Chronicle's Friday sections for three years. He has also been a reporter for the Los Angeles Times and a columnist for the Contra Costa Times.
Four nights a week, to wild applause and squeals of shock, he lies in the dirt and lets a 3,000-pound buffalo crush his chest. He sits astride the rampaging beast and soars through rings of fire. Toting .45-caliber rifles, his posse deftly shoots objects out of people's mouths.
At show's end, Collin "T.C." Thorstenson doffs his cowboy hat to bask in the approval of an adoring audience at the Rawhide Wild West Town in Scottsdale, Ariz. Folks cheer, they fawn, they pose for photos with him.
"People absolutely love his show," said Rawhide publicist Dawn M. Sullivan. "T.C.'s very popular." 
But he also occasionally hears the whispers, the vicious gossip, the scurrilous accusations that he had something to do with the death of Orinda newspaper heiress Margaret Lesher nearly four years ago at a remote lake outside of the couple's Scottsdale ranch. 
He hears the talk, but he chooses to tune out. Keep smiling, keep showing off his beloved buffalo, Harvey Wallbanger Jr. The show, you know, must go on.
"You got to get on with life," Thorstenson said in his first extended interview with a Bay Area reporter. "Things happen that are major, you still got to make a living. They're trying to throw s-- into my face all the time when what they say never happened."
If Thorstenson were to come back to Contra Costa -- where he is considered, in some social circles, as the male version of Anna Nicole Smith -- he'd hear a lot more than whispers about his six-month whirlwind marriage to Lesher, 25 years Thorstenson's senior.
Though the Maricopa County sheriff long ago ruled Lesher's death accidental,
and authorities say Thorstenson never was a suspect, some still point a finger at the widower.
These are people who crave neat and tidy endings, who want the closure only a criminal conviction would bring. To them, Thorstenson is the logical choice as the villain. He gained more than $5 million of Lesher's $100 million estate after her death. He was, remember, with her at the lake in the early-morning hours of May 14, 1997, when she disappeared. And he, in the minds of Lesher's relatives, never came off as sincere in the grieving-husband role.
"There's no one in this county who thinks my mother's death was an accident, " said Wendi Alves, one of Lesher's four daughters. "I mean, come on, I hear he sought out somebody like my mother. That's all I can say. My attorney doesn't want me to make any accusations. But I think the entire community thinks he had something to do with it."
Vanity Fair and People magazines have long since moved onto other scandalous celebrity deaths, ones with easily identifiable villains. Even "Hard Copy" dropped its weekly leering into the Lesher lives after Thorstenson was cleared.
In upscale Scottsdale and opulent Orinda, though, curiosity lingers. Thorstenson, 43, knows it and accepts it, but doesn't like it one lick. He sees himself as an O.J. Simpson figure, forever dogged by the taint of his wife's death. The major difference, he quickly notes, is that he never was arrested or even was officially a suspect in the investigation.
"There are some people who, every time they hear my name, think I had something to do with it," Thorstenson said. "They talk behind my back -- the reporters, the people up (in Contra Costa). It's a sorry situation when something like that happens.
"I'm a little bitter, to say the least. Unless you lose somebody you love, you probably won't ever understand how I feel. Picture something happening to your wife or kids and then have to (watch) people coming after you like you did it when you were 100 percent innocent. Wouldn't that put you in a defensive mode?"
Thorstenson and his bison haven't appeared in Northern California since 1998. These days, he works quietly at the 17-acre Scottsdale ranch he inherited from Margaret after an acrimonious out-of-court estate settlement with the Lesher children. He has an exclusive engagement, Thursdays through Sundays, to perform at the Rawhide Wild West Town in Scottsdale.
Rawhide is sort of a cowboy's Disneyland, and Thorstenson is its E-ticket ride. T.C.'s act is described on Rawhide's customer phone line as featuring "six-gun spinnin', cowboy mounted shootin', bullwhip crackin' and buffalo ridin' " fun.
Perhaps part of Thorstenson's appeal is the cowboy-widower storyline. Then again, it could just be his charismatic bison. Regardless, T.C.'s 15 minutes of infamy seems stuck on 14:59.
"You think I'm rich, but I work," Thorstenson said. "What's wrong with smiling and enjoying how you make a living? I personally guarantee that if anyone doesn't enjoy the show, I'll give them their money back. Not a single person has asked.
"People ask to come on down and have us shoot stuff they hold in their teeth. Between me and you, we know who we're picking out of the audience for that. It's important to have people who'll stand still while you shoot."
Trust him. Thorstenson certainly knows how to pick 'em.

Councilman Gary Bell - Bacterial Infections Natural or Deliberate?

By PETE BENNETT - Contra Costa Watch  EMAIL • 925-399-1082 (Google Voice) 
Posted: 06/13/2013
Reposted to Protect My Sons

Related: Arson / Bacterial / Politicians

Around June 15th 2009 I filed a police report with Danville Police about my findings about bacterial infections near me over many years.  I was always troubled by the Docs Pharmacy incident, even more concerned about the Alamo mom I met in 2003 who's daughter died in 2002, then reading about Supervisor Glover illness.  I filed the near clairvoyant police report then councilman Shimansky contracts and dies from Spinal Meningitis - now Gary Bell.  There plenty of possible deaths around the Bay Area where homeless have died from "natural causes" there were two in March 2013.

It's the easiest method possible if you've got access to biological's e.g. the Coroner or cadavers.  I did the research with my limited background but the numbers speak for themselves.  I do have some help from persons above Contra Costa County Level.  What Officer Murphy didn't know was I vetted and recorded that police report with the FBI.  I knew better after nearly getting killed in Danville three times or better.

Richmond Councilman-elect Gary Bell will not take office January 8 due to illness

Richmond councilmember-elect Gary Bell. Photo courtesy Germaine Bell.
Councilmember-elect Gary Bell will not take office next week due to complications from a bacterial sinus infection, which was previously misreported in news accounts as a meningitis infection, according to a press release sent out Thursday night by Bell’s family.
Next Tuesday, January 8, is the swearing in ceremony for the new councilmembers. Councilmember Nat Bates and Councilmember Tom Butt were re-elected in November—Bell won the third seat on the council with about 15 percent of the vote.
This was the fifth time that Bell ran for office in Richmond. He was first elected to the city council in 2000, and served until 2005, when he lost his reelection bid. In 2006, he ran unsuccessfully for mayor and in 2010 he ended his campaign early due to his wife’s health. Bell’s political life began early in Wichita, Kansas when at 25 years old he became the youngest councilmember in that city’s history.
Read the full story by Jennifer Baires at Richmond Confidential.

Danville Councilman Michael Shimansky
Phone 510-460-5641

August 2009 Contracts Meningitis
Sept 15th diess from Meningitis 
Danville Councilman Michael Shimansky
Councilman Shimansky Died

Bacterial Infections - Coincidence or Deliberate

By PETE BENNETT - Contra Costa Watch EMAIL
Phone: 510-460-5641
Posted: 12/12/2012
Updated: 07/12/2013 

Walnut Creek CA: In 2009 I began tracking certain types of infections after having dinner with Supervisor Federal Glover.  In 2013 it happened again.  

Bacterial Infections
  • Spinal Meningitis
  • Bacterial Meningitis
  • Non Specific
  • No Witness Deaths of Transients
  • Dying of Natural Causes - Ages roughly

In 2005 I nearly succumbed to a untimely death via bacterial intestinal infection.  A few years earlier a Danville/Alamo mom shared her story how she lost her daughter around 2002 to Meningitis.  That stuck with me but duirng a chance Dinner with Supervisor Glover during April 2009 was his startling revelation on how close our medical drama appeared to be. 

In June 2009 I filed a police report after researching if this wasn't some random coincidence and weeks later Councilman Shimansky died of spinal meningitis.  Councilman Elect Gary Bell as December 15th has been in CCU since Nov. 10th 2011.  Supervisor Glover suffered a near fatal infection in 2007, but in 2005 I nearly succumbed to near identical infection.

In 2009 I was already positive my infection was deliberate but after a brief chance dinner with Federal Glover where I learned of his near fatal infection I filed that police report that precedes Mr. Shimansky's death.  There are others that have been classified as natural causes throughout the county. My research is central and east county but today another one may have surfaced. 

The characteristics are churches, transients or politically sensitive persons. 

Unfortunate Bacterial Victims - Statistical Anomaly or Tactical Plan?

November 6th, 2012
Gary Bell
August 2009
Danville Councilman Michael Shimansky
une 2008
Eric Nunn


Contra Costa Flaws

Popular Posts

Blog Archive

Ad Home

More Links

Ways to Donate

Card image

Donate via Venmo

Venmo is easy, fast and goes directly to a credit card.

Donate Here

Follow Us

No one has ever become poor by giving, Please Donate

Flickr Images


Powered by Blogger.


Search This Blog

Find Us On Facebook

Random Posts

Recent Posts

Header Ads



Popular Posts

Recent Posts

Unordered List

  • Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit.
  • Aliquam tincidunt mauris eu risus.
  • Vestibulum auctor dapibus neque.