Showing posts with label Greenan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Greenan. Show all posts

CNET Officer Tanabe living large as ever

A Letter to my son 
The reality is you were kidnapped 
Dear William,

I am sorry that you've had to go through all this, that you've living a trailer, that you've had to watch another driver who tried to kill us hit the wall at High Speed ultimately kill himself, or that your father almost burned to death on 680 but like magic there is no record of that arson fire.

There is little chance that I can help you as I've been decimated financially, spent in total about 14 days in jail, lost seven cars via accidents, arson, hit and runs, and expert vandalism that the State Department of Insurance should really investigate.

A few months ago I made a desperate plea for help with the Walnut Creek City Council but apparently Officer Burns decided on July 27th that Pete Bennett needed a talking too and once again labeled a mentally ill assailant and denied my requests to call an attorney. Officers Burns all I'm trying to do is get access to my sons. Seems like you guys want to kill me for some reason and no officer Burns you don't know what I told the FBI 25 years but you appeared quite nervous. By the way whenever have a hearing, file a claim or file a lawsuit the Contra Costa County Litigant Adjustment Bureau finds me before I can appear.

The Walnut Creek Police are about as close to Uber Ops Domestic Terrorism Operation you'd ever find as when I called 911 back in June 2011 from 140 Crosby Court #1 Walnut Creek less than a month later after conversations with Chief Bryden and DA Investigator Darryl Jackson my car was totaled. I know it's just a coincidence but perhaps there is connection. Would you guys like to consider that my phones have been under surveillance for about ten years by Chris Butler plus others - so I am sure my calls are recorded.

By the way I was driven from Apartment by the legal associate of Former Walnut Creek Bomb Squad member Richard Grossman who is probably friends with Lt. David Oberhoffer (SFPD - retired) (Cops the same ages around here know each other) who showed me pictures in June 2010 of the Piedmont Lumber Fire? The same fire I'd mentioned in the November 1st 2011 meeting with Bryden and Nordoff. This meeting is so critical as I'm going to say out loud "over the course of 2011/12 numerous persons near me were killed" and it's not some coincidence to be ignored.

In between a now former Walnut Creek Officer who first name is Greg with possible full name of Greg Fish was a regular at Dallimontes which is in the same shopping center. I had the pleasure of nice short fist fight with Ron who threw me out of his pathetic Italian Joint but if it happens again I won't be so cordial.

My Suspect Officers are from these Departments

Walnut Creek, Pleasant Hill, CCSO and SFPD.

The sad reality is many officers are clearly connected to totaling my car but LPD Chief Christensen who's name bears a very strong resemblance to David Christensen which is very common spelling of Local Mormons. Even though former Bishop Clark said he would call he has not, even Pastor Reed of Hillside Church whose friend.

It seems that Hillside Covenant Church doesn't want to acknowledge my concerns, that it took six months for them to turn over their insurance company, that the Walnut Creek Police let go home when I was trying to get you the court order IME which was scheduled on July 6th 2011 but your mother drove all the way down to intercept my attempts to get to a medical professional.

You may not know this but I attempted on May 23rd 2013 by coming to Paradise High School to take you to a doctor. The principal Ms Johns called the Paradise Police when I discovered your school records were altered. When I took your to court in Family Law.

I know that you were deathly afraid of Officer Tanabe at the Pack 36 Meeting on February 4th 2007 the same day your mom vanished. At that meeting were meeting were police officers from Contra Costa Sheriff, Concord Police Department and Judge Golub who I told many, many times that someone tried to kill us on the 680 back in winter 2004/05 in months after the same F-250 truck was rigged for arson. I am sure that Alamo 1st Mormons are connected to this arson fire but they've got Pete Amnesia but one important fact they also sue the Airlines when planes crash. Even though I called NTSB with simple fact I know two pilots killed in rather coincidental accidents they don't believe a connection exists. I tried getting legal help from the Contra Costa Bar Association but ... that association is under a legal spell called "don't assist Bennett" but do what you can to kill him.

Of course my crazy story happens to include far too many deaths from far too many accidents that they call coincidences that I call far too coincidental. I know it's just a coincidence that the it's coincidental that it's a coincidence that many are connected to my mail servers taken in Dec 2010 when I was coincidentally running from a San Francisco Cop who coincidentally once show me pictures of the Piedmont Lumber fire that all Central Costa County Residents know was not some coincidence but they said it was accidental. My one opinion is the owners are taking the unfair brunt of the allegations.

Loretta Hale: November 1st 2013 former Danville Pack 36 parent who attended the same cub scout meetings with Judge Golub who's nephew is same Golub you tutored at Montair Elementary
Nathaniel Greenan: April 18th 2011 whose father is James Greenan who represents Contra Costa County and Seeno Construction - please read about their troubles here ,whose company stiffed me for 20K in 1999 which in theory is part of your lost college education fund. The Seeno's take but give so others can think they are givers but they are takers and in the 80s a whole lot of people near these givers in the 80s turned up dead. That cabinet shop I lost in 1989 was related to those takers. I am telling you this via the blog in the hopes that one day you'll discover this site as your email has blocked.
Brian Schewling: Alamo 1st Member He died right after services at Alamo 1st and quite frankly looked very bad that day but coming a survivoir of poisoning he looked as bad as me. I would have died that night in 2005 from a heart attack today as I doubt at 56 I could last through a 105 fever, vomiting blood requiring 3.5 liters of fluid.
Patricia Noel: Alamo 2nd Member died of apparent drug overdose suicide - I don't be really blunt but former Officer Tanabe is connected to a person that is connected the court, the same family law center that concealed my documents from Presiding Judge Barry Goode

Dax Craven 6111 Bollinger Canyon Rd Ste 500 San Ramon, CA 94583

Dear Mr. Craven, 

It has come to my attention that your brother in-law was killed on WB24 on April 18th 2012 in a tragic accident just like my near tragic arson accident.  I am sorry for your loss - the strange coincidence I think this was the same Nate that drummed for me at Vinnies but was nice guy.  

Of more concern was your father in-law who is James Steven Greenan who is head of the Contra Costa Bar Association which I've shared my concerns that this same Bar Association is deliberately refusing me access to the basic services available to other residents. 

It is also disturbing to learn that you submitted a withdrawal letter to the court but also were actively representing me.  With that I lost a critical Butte County Matter in September 2009 where you failed to appear thus losing the TRO Trial that I would have won.  Those temporary orders were used up at Paradise High School to prevent me from accessing my sons.  Apparently in Paradise they like to alter paperwork.  William had major surgery but I was never informed.  I guess you call that legal representation. 

It also is very much a concern that you had strong ties to members in the Alamo 1st Ward but failed to tell me you personally knew many members of that ward.  During a church meeting a member blurted out something that suggested our communications were breached.  

Over that last 24 months I've asked for the emails between us but specifically letters about Seeno which I shared which years later discover your father in-law firm or its members have represented Seeno on past matters.  I guess that explains why so many people have tried to kill me over the last ten years, they got Eric Nunn, Peter Branagh and a few others.  

You see Mr. Craven I've had so many attempts on my life that I simply don't care what nose I snub. 

This page link will be sent to the FBI as someone from the Alamo 1st Alamo is involved in my 2004 Arson fire and that's what is known as attempted murder.  

Call Greg at this web address and ask for the name of the mechanic who fixed my truck who actually witnessed the fire.  My opinion about the fire or arson.  


Obit: Catherine "Katie" Gannon Perata September 17, 1974 May 11, 2013 Resident of Napa

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

Reposted to Protect My Sons 

Related: Arson / Obit / Drowning  FBI Investigation
Seems so sad to read how a mom drowned but even sadder when you look at the other cases connected to the same people.  In 2004 my sons were nearly killed in a high speed maneuver that was an attempted murder but try finding the CHP records.  The other driver was killed.   

Catherine "Katie" Gannon Perata
September 17, 1974
May 11, 2013
Resident of Napa
Katie Perata, beloved wife of Nick Reilly Perata and mother of Taylor Nicole and Paige Elizabeth Perata, was born in Alameda, CA. She moved with her family to Napa, CA in 2006 where they ran a business together.
A graduate of Cal State East Bay, Katie worked as a biologist prior to becoming a full-time mom. 
Katie was known for her creativity and sense of style, hosting wonderful children's parties featuring her elaborate custom cakes. She enjoyed spending hours volunteering at school with her girls.
Katie is the loving daughter of Nancy Gannon Mongerson and Tom Gannon; sister of Amy Polk and sister-in-law of Jerry Polk; granddaughter of Clara Cox, Gordon Cox, Cecila Gannon and Bob Gannon; daughter-in-law of Don and Maureen Perata and Rosemary Reilly; sister-in-law of Becca Perata and aunt of Mia Rosati; and cherished niece, cousin and friend to countless many.

Private funeral services have been held. In lieu of flowers, please send donations to Vichy Parent Club, 3261 Vichy Ave., Napa, CA 94558.

Seeno Attorneys - They've represented Seeno since the 80s and they run the Contra Costa Bar

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 / Greenan Seeno CNET Contra Costa Bar

EMPLOYERS INSURANCE OF WAUSAU, a mutual company, formerly
known as Employers Mutual Liability Insurance
Company of Wisconsin, a Wisconsin
corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee,
ALBERT D. SEENO CONSTRUCTION CO., a California limited
partnership; Diablo Construction Company, a
California corporation, et al.,
No. 88-15657.
United States Court of Appeals,
Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted July 18, 1991.
Decided Sept. 20, 1991.
Robert L. Sallander, Jr. and H. Paul Breslin, Archer, McComas & Lageson, Walnut Creek, Cal., for defendants-appellants.
Dale I. Larson and Robert M. Wattson, Zelle & Larson, Minneapolis, Minn., for plaintiff-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.
Before GOODWIN and SNEED, Circuit Judges, and TAYLOR*, District Judge.
TAYLOR, District Judge:
Albert D. Seeno Construction Company ("Seeno") appeals from an order denying its request for a preliminary injunction requiring its insurance carrier to segregate liability claims handling from coverage investigation in a reservation of rights situation. While this issue may have been unsettled at the time of the hearing below, more recent cases show appellant's position is without merit, and we affirm.
Seeno is a real estate developer and general contractor which built residential tract housing in and around Contra Costa County, California. From 1975 to 1985 Seeno built several thousand homes in the area, and over 400 homeowners have made claims against Seeno for construction defects and soil movement. Lawsuits have been filed involving some of the homes ("litigated claims"), but the majority of the claims have not reached litigation ("unlitigated claims").
Seeno had comprehensive general liability insurance coverage with Employers Insurance of Wausau, for bodily injury and property damage, that could potentially cover the homeowners' claims. Seeno submitted the claims to Wausau, but a dispute arose over whether the claims were covered by Seeno's policies and over the proper method to handle the claims. Wausau reserved its right to deny coverage.
Seeno exercised its right to engage independent Cumis counsel,1 and brought in the firm of Archer, McComas & Lageson to handle the litigated claims. However, Seeno declined to employ Cumis counsel for the unlitigated claims and requested that Wausau handle them.
Wausau retained the law firm of Robins, Zelle, Larson & Kaplan to represent Wausau's interest in all liability and coverage litigation stemming from the homeowner claims. This firm and the insurance company's internal investigators handled both the unlitigated claims involving the homeowners and the coverage dispute involving Seeno. Seeno contends that Wausau has used the investigation and settlement of these unlitigated claims to gather information for the coverage dispute against Seeno.
Wausau brought this action for declaratory relief to determine that there is no coverage for the claims. Seeno counterclaimed, including a request for injunctive relief requiring Wausau to segregate its liability claims handling from its coverage investigation.
During what the trial judge described as an "acrimonious litigation," the parties filed cross-motions to disqualify each other's counsel for claimed breaches of duty to the other side. After a lengthy and careful analysis of some of the same contentions asserted on this appeal, the trial judge denied the motions. Employers Insurance of Wausau v. Albert D. Seeno Const., 692 F.Supp. 1150 (N.D.Cal.1988).
Thereafter, Seeno moved for a preliminary injunction to require Wausau to separate its handling of liability claims from its coverage investigation. At the hearing, the trial judge observed there was no legal authority to support Seeno's contentions and denied the motion.
The order is appealable to this court under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) (1982). The grant or denial of a motion for a preliminary injunction is within the discretion of the district court, and the order of the district court will be reversed only if the court relied on an erroneous legal premise or otherwise abused its discretion. Chalk v. United States, 840 F.2d 701, 704 (9th Cir.1988). Questions of law underlying a preliminary injunction motion are reviewed de novo. Guam Fresh v. Ada, 849 F.2d 436, 437 (9th Cir.1988).
Seeno argued in the trial court, and again on this appeal, that California law and insurance industry practice require insurance carriers to segregate their coverage investigations from their liability claims handling. This duty, Seeno argues, arises from a fiduciary duty between an insurer and insured like that between an attorney and client, whereby the insurer must preserve and promote the insured's interests above its own and avoid even the appearance of impropriety. Thus, Seeno asserts, where the carrier reserves its right to assert a coverage defense, it must use different people on the liability side and the coverage side, without exchange of information between them. This court concludes that California law is to the contrary.
The cases relied on by Seeno as mandating file segregation do mention insurers' segregating files. See Executive Aviation, Inc. v. National Ins. Underwriters, 16 Cal.App.3d 799, 810, 94 Cal.Rptr. 347, 354 (1971) (practice of segregation unusual); Travelers Insurance Co. v. Lesher, 187 Cal.App.3d 169, 183, 231 Cal.Rptr. 791 (1986) (insurance company tried and failed to keep declaratory judgment separate from underlying action), Betts v. Allstate Ins. Co., 154 Cal.App.3d 688, 709, 201 Cal.Rptr. 528 (1984) (both parties involved in accident were insured by the same carrier, commingling of information not permitted). However, as the court below correctly observed, none of these cases, or any other California cases, requires the separation of files.
The ethical conflict that arises when an insurance attorney represents an insured, but coverage is denied, was dealt with in the landmark case of San Diego Navy Federal Credit Union v. Cumis Insurance Society, 162 Cal.App.3d 358, 208 Cal.Rptr. 494 (1984). In 1987, the California legislature codified Cumis in Cal.Civ.Code § 2860 (West 1988), providing for appointment of separate counsel to represent the insured, at the expense of the insurance carrier, in a conflict situation. Seeno's position here is contrary to the statute, which does not impose a duty to segregate and affirmatively requires disclosure to the insurance carrier of all unprivileged information relevant to the coverage dispute. Cal.Civ.Code § 2860(d).
Although there was no California case authority specifically against Seeno's position at the time of the hearing below, it has come down in the meantime. In late 1989, a California appellate court commented under similar circumstances that the fiduciary-like relation between insured and insurer does not mandate segregation of files. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Superior Court (Durant), 216 Cal.App.3d 1222, 265 Cal.Rptr. 372 (1989). In State Farm, plaintiffs sued for "bad faith" torts and contract breaches for their insurer's failure to adequately defend after accepting the insured's defense under a reservation of rights. The insurer provided Cumis counsel and retained other counsel for the declaratory relief action contesting coverage. The insurer also assigned an adjustor who dealt with the insured's counsel, although the adjustor continuously advised that he believed no coverage was available under the policy. This adjustor also was the agent who dealt with the coverage counsel, served in a dual capacity, and maintained only one file. Id. at 1225, 265 Cal.Rptr. at 373.
Plaintiffs did not claim specific injury from this dual representation, although they alleged the adjustor did transmit adverse information to coverage counsel. Plaintiffs sought discovery of all information in the adjustor's file for the bad faith action. They argued that the adjuster aiding in the liability defense is the agent of the insured and the insured's Cumis counsel, and thus plaintiffs are privileged to see everything in the file. Id. at 1226, 265 Cal.Rptr. at 374. The superior court granted the discovery request.
On appeal, Seeno appeared as amicus curiae, urging the same contention made in the present appeal. The Court of Appeals rejected Seeno's argument:The Cumis rule requires complete independence of counsel when an insurance company interposes a reservation of rights, the basis of which creates a conflict of interest. [Insured] requests that we add a layer of separation to this mandate, requiring that not only the counsel involved in the cases but the adjusters assigned to each case (the 'liability' case as distinguished from the 'coverage' case) be separate--that the files on each case be separate and apart--and indeed, as urged by amicus curiae [i.e., Seeno], that a veritable wall be erected between the insurance company's administration of the two cases. We cannot subscribe to this proposition.
Id. at 1226, 265 Cal.Rptr. at 374.
The court found that normally, although the adjustor is the agent of the insurer, he may represent both the insurer and the insured. But, when coverage is an issue, the adjustor's loyalty is divided, and the insured cannot expect him to represent the insured's interest. This is the reason, the court noted, that the insured is provided with Cumis counsel. Id. at 1227, 265 Cal.Rptr. at 375.
The court cited California law to show that, while the relation between the parties is akin to a fiduciary relationship, the protection afforded by that relationship is not unlimited, and the insurer has no duty totally to disregard its own interests. Id. at 1226, 265 Cal.Rptr. at 374. The court went on:
The insurance adjuster is the agent of the insurer ... That the adjuster can under particular fact situations become also the agent of the insured is clear, and this most usually will occur when no issue as to coverage arises. Where coverage is in issue, however, it is obvious that the adjuster's loyalties are divided and the insured and his counsel cannot reasonably expect that he represents only the interest of the insured. Indeed, it is to remedy this problem that the concept of the Cumis counsel has been created.
The existence of independent Cumis counsel adequately protects, we believe, the interests of the insured. In these days of ever-increasing costs in the processing of insurance settlements, we conclude it would be unwise to impose yet another layer of administration.
Id. at 1227, 265 Cal.Rptr. at 375 (citations omitted).
The concurring opinion in State Farm also rejected Seeno's argument:
The [insured] contends the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing requires dual adjusters in a Cumis situation. Amicus curiae, Albert D. Seeno Construction Company, makes a similar contention, asserting 'several California decisions have recognized the need to segregate the coverage file handling from the liability claims handling.' ... [N]ot only has amicus curiae overstated the scope of existing law, there is nothing in the implied covenant to prohibit an insurer, under the circumstances of this case, in using a single adjuster for both liability and coverage ...
. . . . .
Because an insurer may appropriately consider coverage questions, and because an insured in a Cumis situation will have independent counsel charged with zealously representing solely the insured's interests, I agree with the majority's implicit conclusion that a single adjuster in the circumstances of the case does not violate the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
Id. at 1234-35, 265 Cal.Rptr. at 380.
Seeno's argument is undermined by other recent cases. The same court that decided State Farm noted in another case that the California Supreme Court has "never squarely held that an insurer is a true fiduciary to its insured," but instead it "has consistently described it as a special relationship." Love v. Fire Insurance Exchange, 221 Cal.App.3d 1136, 1147, 271 Cal.Rptr. 246, 252 (1990); see also Henry v. Associated Indemnity Corp., 217 Cal.App.3d 1405, 1418, 266 Cal.Rptr. 578, 586 (1990) (no third-party breach of fiduciary duty claim lies against insurer). Similarly, a federal district court recently held that, "As best this court can determine, the current state of California law is that the relationship between an insurer and an insured has many of the elements of a fiduciary relationship, but is not an actual fiduciary relationship." Hassard, Bonnington, Roger & Huber v. Home Ins., 740 F.Supp. 789, 792 (S.D.Cal.1990); see also Love, 221 Cal.App.3d at 1149 fn. 7, 271 Cal.Rptr. at 253 fn. 7; Bennett v. Allstate Ins. Co., 753 F.Supp. 299, 302-303 (N.D.Cal.1990) (California Supreme Court has not characterized this relationship as fiduciary).
Federal courts look to the California Supreme Court for its interpretation of California law. But where that court has not definitively spoken on an issue, the decision of the state's intermediate courts represent data that a federal court must consider in undertaking its analysis. Air-Sea Forwarder, Inc. v. Air Asia Co., Ltd., 880 F.2d 176, 186 (9th Cir.1989). Although the California Supreme Court has "characterized" the insurer-insured relationship as fiduciary,2 California law seems clear that that relationship does not compel the result plaintiff seeks. These recent decisions by the California courts confirm that the relationship does not require segregation of liability and coverage files.
Seeno cites Manzanita Park v. Insurance Co. of North America, 857 F.2d 549 (9th Cir.1988), where the court applied Arizona law and construed an insurer's obligations under an attorney-client concept where the insurer retained an attorney to defend the insured. However, California law, unlike Arizona law, has not equated the insurer-insured status to an attorney-client relationship. Moreover, Manzanita Park does not deal with the dual adjuster situation. Finally, in this case the trial court determined on a previous motion that there is no attorney-client relationship between each attorney and the opposing party, Employers Ins. of Wausau, 692 F.Supp. 1150, 1160-1161, and we concur in that reasoning.
Seeno's argument that most other carriers in the California insurance industry choose to segregate their liability and coverage activities does not establish that it is Wausau's duty to do so. As stated above, the nature of Wausau's duty to its insured does not require such a segregation. The fact that other carriers may choose to segregate does not necessarily arise out of any duty to do so, but may arise from a precautious decision to avoid later complaints of mishandling from the insured.
We conclude present California law does not require an insurance carrier to segregate its liability claims handling from its coverage investigation in a reservation of rights situation. We leave it to the California legislature to decide if a change is appropriate. The trial judge committed no error, and we AFFIRM.
Honorable Gary L. Taylor, U.S. District Judge, Central District of California, sitting by designation
Cumis counsel is counsel selected by the insured to represent its interest and paid for by the insurer in a conflict of interest situation. This right to separate counsel by the insured, which takes its name from San Diego Navy Federal Credit Union v. Cumis Ins. Society, 162 Cal.App.3d 358, 208 Cal.Rptr. 494 (1984), has since been codified in Cal.Civ.Code § 2860
See Egan v. Mutual of Omaha Ins. Co., 24 Cal.3d 809, 169 Cal.Rptr. 691, 620 P.2d 141 (1970); Frommoethelydo v. Fire Insurance Exchange, 42 Cal.3d 208, 228 Cal.Rptr. 160, 721 P.2d 41 (1986)

Contra Costa Bar - How my outside attorney was beaten

Contra Costa County Bar Association

My Personal Experience - 

The Legal System has been compromised one case at a time and it took years of sifting through cases to tie the knot together.  

Finding an attorney should be simple for many but in my case when the wagons drawn as almost every attorney in Contra Costa County has said no.  They are scared to be involved.  I have a case against the Bar Association and know it.

Several decades of observations

  • In litigation against Southern Pacific (1992)  forced into adverse settlement 

Some hard facts about my story:

  • CNET is my story - that's Chris Butler, Former Officers Lombardi, Wielsch, and Tanabe who was as Danville CA neighbor.  
  • By now I suspect most attorneys in the County know these facts 
    • My Attorney was beat up in Walnut Creek - no investigation 
    • My Truck was rigged for Arson - no record of accident or fire 
    • A Danville Building Inspector nearly killed me in 2004 - he's dead 
    • My car was totaled by a San Francisco Police Officer -no investigation 
    • That numerous persons near me have been killed, murdered or died suspiciously 
    • They all know I've compiled information about cases spanning 30 years.  
    • They know my former customer Dr. Kim Fang was murdered in 2000 
    • They know several persons near me have been murdered but several were police officers 
    • Who would want to step into my mess

It's clear as day to me that the Bar has been hit a witch doctor who has them under a spell.  Someone has needles in the asses of attorneys as the Attorneys that will speak to me tell me to move away.

You want some good examples of how some Contra Costa Dynasties behave just take a look at my other blog here >> .

The San Ramon Valley Unified School district who's employees hid my children from me in 2006 by hitting me with restraining orders.  Not only did they take my sons via this court hearing but it turns out the bailiff turned was none other than Tanabe.   Tanabe threatened me in court with arrest saying I'd made terrorist threats.  My paperwork was hidden by the clerks which thwarted my "move away prevention orders" as they never reached reached the judge.

In 2004 while living at 161 Valle Vista Danville CA an intruder arrived accusing me is stealing paintbrushes from a job site at 252 Remington Loop Danville CA. Even though I vehemently denied his allegations along with demands that he leave the property instead I was attacked, beaten and outsize by 120 lbs and 6 inches.

I was lucky to survive the attack.  The Danville Police arrived but said he was justified to come over to collect his paintbrushes but during the altercation I had idea I was fighting a friends of the Danville Police Department and Contra Costa County Sheriff   Apparently Collins has family inside CCSO which I'll detail in future articles where you will find my theory on another local murder.

ss    Gary Vinson Collins who at the time was Danville Building Inspector who was contracted to the city via LP2A (now defunct).   Mr. Collins fell down an elevator shaft a few weeks after documents linking CNET officers were handed over to Walnut Creek Chief Bryden.  Collins fell on December 5th 2011 then died from his injuries on 19th.  The last time I saw Collins he was inspecting a house on Waverly Drive Martinez.  His hair was dyed RIT Black but trust me I've got more to say about the name Collins.

On February 12th 2013 I wrote an email to the Contra Costa Bar herein as "The Letter"  which drives a point home that I cannot find counsel.  My statues are expiring, my losses significant and the harassment nearly endless.

My sons live in a trailer that in my opinion could be rigged to explode just like my truck was rigged in 2004.  The Eiko Sugihara murder was a gruesome arson where someone took the life of an 85 year old woman by leaving her to burn to death in her car.

Personally my case is about saving my sons from harm as I know of several other arson cases that occurred over 30 years ago.  Nothing has changed but in my universe the only way these events would go unchecked in that Contra Costa Law Enforcement is turning the cheek to the truth.  Just ask a few homeless black gay men found hanging from trees if you could get an answer from them.

That's Contra Costa County signed sealed and delivered.


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.