SM
SM
SANTA CLARA COUNTY GOVERNMENT OFFICERS' HOME ADDRESSES
We have web pages devoted to special categories of Santa Clara County government officers; for example, at least one court page which provides home addresses of Superior Court and Municipal Court judges. As another example, we have a few Web pages listing names, jobs, and pay of all county government officers in 2007 although those pages have few home adresses. . Officers of cities in the county (for example, San Jose) are on other pages.
BLANCA A ALVARADO, 2390 LUCRETIA AVE, SAN JOSE CA 95122, (408) 297-3567.
He was Gilroy's mayor.
DONALD F. GAGE, age 59, 771 4TH ST, GILROY CA 95020, (408) 842-2968
DONALD F GAGE Born Apr 1945, 777 1ST ST, 03/05/2002, GILROY, CA 95020 .
He was born GAGE, DONALD, FR. 04/18/1945 MALE. mother's maiden name BOZZO, born in county SANTA CLARA.
Her maiden name may be Hayden. She was a registered nurse for the San Mateo County government. She was mayor of Palo Alto City. On her supervisory webpages, she tells the world that her husband is Rick and her daughters are Liza (not Liz) and Johanna. When a politician says something, we have the right to investigate how much truth the statement contains and to report the results of our investigation.
RICHARD D KNISS Born Sep 1940, 1985 COWPER ST, 11/18/2003, PALO ALTO, CA 94301 (650) 321-1985, (650) 322-7130, (650) 322-7700. WE guess that supervisor Kniss may live here.
Supervisor's daughter ELIZABETH M. "LIZA" KNISS, born about 1964, may recently have lived in PALO ALTO CA 94301.
Supervisor's daughter Johanna. JOHANNA KNISS (415) 922-4080. JOHANNA C KNISS, Born Sep 1971, may recently have lived in Santa Monica, California (area code 310), or Cotuit, Massachusetts (area code 508).
He was born in Massachusetts and worked as mayor of Milpitas.
PETER P. MCHUGH, age 48, 654 LOS PINOS AVE, MILPITAS CA 95035, (408) 263-5285, (408) 263-8504.
PETER P MCHUGH, 913 JUNGFRAU CT, 11/27/2003, MILPITAS, CA 95035 (408) 263-5285
He was a San Jose City Councilmember.
KENNETH E YEAGER Born 1952, 1925 CLEVELAND AVE, SAN JOSE, CA 95126
KENNETH E YEAGER Born Dec 1952, 2311 MCLAUGHLIN AVE, 01/14/2001, SAN JOSE, CA 95122.
Born YEAGER KENNETH E 12/12/1952 MALE, mother FRENCH, county RIVERSIDE.
maybe TIM D NEALE Born 1964, 945 2ND ST, 05/01/2005, SPRINGFIELD, IL 62704, (217) 522-8133
ROBERT W OVERBY Born 1956, 1345 DE LOACH CT, 08/14/2002, SAN JOSE, CA 95125-5978, Santa Clara County. A dead end street north of Hamilton Place.
MICHAEL POUND, 60 DESCANSO DR, SAN JOSE, CA 95134-1816, Santa Clara County, (408) 944-9899. Near Moitozo Park.
The officers below were officers of the Santa Clara County or City government. The officers now get CalPERS pensions. After retiring from Santa Clara, the officers may have become officers of other governments. For each retired officer below, there is a monthly and annual pension amount.
GARY W STEINKE Born 1946, 2215 LOUIS HOLSTROM DR MORGAN HILL, CA 95037
GARY W STEINKE Born 1946, 4646 PINTO RIVER CT SAN JOSE, CA 95136
GARY S MASAMORI 12 ORTALON AVE SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060 (831) 429-1522
GARY G MASAMORI 209 HIGHLAND CT SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060
Possibly born MASAMORI, GARY 06/22/1950 MALE SANTA CRUZ.
GARY B NIBLOCK Born 1947, 175 MERRY LN APTOS, CA 95003 (831) 688-4119, (831) 662-0257
2008jun15
Bloomfield, Gary C SUPV CUSTODY SUPPORT ASSISTANT $61,919.27
GARY C BLOOMFIELD Born Oct 1946, 290 SPOSITO CIR SAN JOSE, CA 95136. (408) 578-8605.
GARY C BLOOMFIELD 1946-10-01 lived in San Jose CA 95136.
In about 2006 or 2007, someone with a similar name may have contributed to Santa Cruz's Dominican Hospital Foundation. Santa Cruz is near San Jose.
2004 December 23, officer GIBBONS STEPHEN, employer COUNTY, office LAWYER, address SAN JOSE CA 95138, may be STEPHEN P. GIBBONS, age 48, 6950 GREGORICH DR, SAN JOSE CA 95138, (408)
Another webpage of this site deals with this department.
She became California lawyer 139357 in January 1989. WINIFRED BOTHA, 1704 WILLOW CREEK DR, 10/05/2004, SAN JOSE, CA 95124. We don't know if she's related to Ms Ntombazana Gertrude Winifred Botha, South Africa's Deputy Ministry of Arts and Culture.
The civil grand jury investigated terribly.
Discussion
Once there was a prisoner in the Santa Clara county jail system ("Prisoner1"). Approximate descriptions of some of his experiences and observations are below.
Prisoner1 was delivered to the jail exhausted, late at night, by an extraordinarily cruel delivery servce. Then, the jail staff connected him (maybe by handcuffs) to a chair. He was interrogated by civilian employees who seemed to want to know if he should be recommended for O.R. or low bail. He had no interest in O.R. or low bail. The civilian employees did not care about his lack of interest. He told the interrogators his name and a few other facts. The jail employees, who seemed to be civilians, asked many questions; for example, residenence and employment. Exhausted, uncomfortable, late a tnight, Prisoner1 clearly said that he did not want to answer the questions, and said that he had been told by his lawyer not to answer the questions. This did not stop the interrogators, who persisted questioning. After someone says that he does not want to answer questions, it is rude to persist in asking. Furthermore, the questioning (after the prisoner said that he did not want to to answer) may have been illegal. We don't know if the interrogation was a crime.
Prisoner1 occasionally had been a volunteer, unpaid, temporary judge.
Also, he had been on that jail's IRB (Infraction Review Board). As a Board member, he had sometimes voted to find jail prisoners guilty of infractions, with the result that those prisoners were punished.
For those two reasons (judge, IRB), he conluded that his fellow prisoners might attack him. He requested PC (protective custody), referring to the judging as a reason. Because of that request, he was assigned to PC. He and another PC-bound prisoner were delivered to a PC area by a C.O. The delivering C.O., upon delivery of the prisoners to a receiving C.O. in the protective custody area, said to the receiving C.O., "I have a couple of faggots [gays] for you." This was a lie. Prisoner1 pointed out the lack of truth in the remark. No one took the remark back or apologized. (By the way, we are unaware of any Santa Clara county jail employee ever apologizing to any prisoner for anything.) No one seemed to care that a C.O. had lied about at least one of the prisoners. Furthermore, the remark may have been a crime (fighting words) against the prisoner, because the remark (calling someone a faggot in his presence) would provoke a reasonable person to immediate violence. Some C.O.s often say fighting words (words which would provoke a reasonable person to immediate violence) to some prisoners.
Much later after the faggos remark (maybe a month or so later), Prisoner1 asked a relatively well informed jail employee if it was a violation of jail rules for a jail employee to lie about a prisoner. The employee said "No.".
In New York city, a police chaplain once called a lawyer (a prosecutor, we vaguely guess-remember) a faggot. The mayor fired the chaplain.
In addition to an astonishing number of honest mistakes, the Santa Clara county jail staff often lies about prisoners.
Voluntary, gay sexual intercourse (penis-mouth and penis-anus) was done in the PC area in full view of other prisoners. Sometimes, two men would voluntarily be near each other as one caressed the other. For example, two prisoners might voluntarily stand near each other with one blatantly stroking the other's arm. The public character of the conduct seemed to result from lack of privacy rather than exhibitionism. There was no rape.
Prisoner1 was disconcerted, disgusted, and depressed by seeing the blatant, gay sexual intercourse and physical display of gay fondness. (That does not mean that the conduct was wrong; merely that seeing it had that effect on Prisoner1.) He realized that, if he were chemically tranquilized, he could live placidly in PC. Prisoner1 asked a C.O. to arrange for Prisoner1 to regularly get a tranquilizer. The C.O. said that, to be evaluated for such medicine, a prisoner had to live in the jail's psycho unit. After telling the prisoner that important fact, the C.O. asked Prisoner1 if he wanted a tranquilizer. Prisoner1 said "Yes.". A few days later, Prisoner1 was living in the jail's psycho unit, waiting to be evaluated.
After Prisoner1 arrived in the psycho unit, there was no physician interview for about a few days. During that time, Prisoner1 did not see any blatant, gay sexual intercourse or caressing. Thus, there was no longer a need for chemical tranquility, the cause of transfer to the psycho unit.
The jail staff was appallingly inept. Because the top people were inept, subordianes were. The jail staff cannot begin to imagine what a well-run jail would be like. We don't supply myriad examples.
In the middle of a night, a typical C.O. whistled as he walked through a part of the jail in which prisoners slept. Prisoner1, who became acquainted with thet C.O., saw that he wasn't cruel, just stupid.
Prisoners have the right to chat with each other about religion. Prisoner1, expessing his own view of religion, chatted with another prisoner. An obnoxious C.O. (not the whistler) occasionally expressed, loudly enough for prisoners to hear, his ontempt for Prisoner1's religious views. The C.O. was a white male working the night shift. When a prisoner chats with another prisoner about religion, he should not be forced to hear an evaluation of his religious views from a C.O.
There was a feminine, gay prisoner. For example, he shaved his legs. It was said that, whenever he was in court, jail C.O.s would go into his cell and make a mess. Whenever he came back from court, he found his property maliciously re-arranged and messed up.
Prisoners have varied behavior in jail and after they get out. Why do prisoners vary in their in-jail and post-jail behavior? An important cause of variance is prisoners' influence each other. For example, some prisoners can and do influence their fellow prisoners to act appropriately during and after jail. Prisoners should be carefully selected to have the best possible influence on each other. For example if there are eight prisoners in a room, they should be carefully selected to have the highest possible probability of having a good influence on each other's behavior during and after jail. For another example, if there are two prisoners sharing a bunk bed (one in the upper bunk, one in the lower), they should be carefully selected to have the highest possible probability of having a good influence on each other's behavior during and after jail.
Consider a man and a woman who are not prisoners. They live together. Each may have a salutary influence on the other. The man and woman may each handle life better because of the other's influence. If a man and a woman did not choose each other, but were chosen to live together by a third person, they might have a hellish life together. Prisoners have to live together, often in crowded rooms, often spending more hours together everyday than many spouses spend together. Among male prisoners, the results often are unpleasant, violent, or even lethal.
There is a crude kind of sorting in Santa Clara county jail. For example, if a prisoner breaks an important rule (for example, stabs another prisoner), the rule-breaker might be housed with other rule-breakers. Santa Clara county jail does not have finer sorting than that. For example, if two rule-breakers share a cell, there is little or no analysis of which two rule-breakers are most right for each other (as measured by their influence on each othere's conduct during and after jail).
Part of the hellishness (stealing, fights, rapes, and other behavior) and dehabilitation of life in Santa Clara county jail is caused by the stupidity and randomness with which prisoners are assigned to housing in the jail. Independent, expert consultants (the jail staff is much too stupid and ignorant to do this in-hpouse except at an unacceptably primitive level) need to develop a sophisticated, computer system (based on statistical analysis of empirical research) for assigning prisoners to housing (for example, deciding which pairs of prisoners shoudl share a bunk bed). In a well-done system, one would be able to measure the system's benefits in jail (for example: fewer fights, fewer escapes, less vandalism) and after jail (for example: a lower proportion of returning prisoners). It should also be possible to measure benefits for different kinds of prisoner (for example: men, women, young prisoners, old prisoners, maximum security prisoners, general population prisoners, blacks, whites). Statisitical analyis of the computerized housing system's effects would lead to occasional improvements in the system.
The system would be used two ways: for initial housing assignments, and for occasional modifications in the housing of some prisoners.
He, like other jail prisoners there for decades (perhaps from the inception of the jail), would often buy from the jail's prisoner commissary. There would be one purchase per week. Money was deposited into an account for that prisoner. This money was the prisoner's property. Some prisoners did not have an account because no one deposited money for them. The prisoner would make an order by filling out a one-page form which had no copies or duplicates (for hypothetical example, an order of seven candy bars). The prisoner was able, by multiplying and then adding, to calculate how much he would eventually be charged for the total order (for hypothetical example, 3 of brand A at 25 cents each, plus four of brand B at 30 cents each, equals a grand total of $1.95). Days later, maybe a week later, the ordered merchandise would be delivered. At the time of delivery, the prisoner would be told how much he had been charged in total. By that time, prisoners had forgotten the amount of their orders. Note that the county provided the prisoner with no written record or receipt of what he had ordered. Collecting the order forms, distributing the ordered merchandise, and much other commissary work was done by prisoners ("trusties") selected by the county jail C.O.s. (Trusties have that title because the C.O.s trust them.) The trusties were employees of the county, doing work in the jail. They were paid by the county. For example, the county fed the prisoners. Trusties were given extra food by the correctional officers (for example, extra meat or extra desert). Trusties were also provided with privileges as payment for their work. For example, they were not confined to their cells as much as the other prisoners.
For decades, the county jail trusties seemingly had been stealing from prisoners who ordered from commissary. This is how it was done. A trusty, seeing that a prisoner had ordered seven items, would charge the prisoner for eight items. The trusty would keep the eighth item. The prisoner would be handed a paper bag containing the seven items he had ordered. The commissary's records, which the prisoner-customer did not see, would show that eight items had been sold to that prisoner. At the time that the merchndise was handed to the prisoner-customer, he prisoner-customer would agree to pay the total price (calculated for the eight items that the commissary provided, not for the seven items that the prisoner had ordered). At that the time of delivery, the prisoner would be told the total sum owed. Many of the prisoners had never calculated the total when they placed the order, sometimes because they were incapable of doing the calculation, sometimes because they naively relied on the integrity of the county government. If a prisoner had calculated the total (to see if he wanted to spend that much money, for example), he would forget the total by the time that delivery was made. (Recall that delivery was days or even a week later.)
One day, Prisoner1 made an order, calculated the total before he submitted the order form, and vividly rememberd the total purchase price. When the merchandise was eventually delivered, the prisoner was told the total he had to pay. He immedaitely realized that it was excessive, and immediately protested to the trusty and to a C.O. Promptly, there was an inquiry. The theft and how it was done were quickly discovered.
Many prisoners in that room overheard and thus discovered the theft although they did not understand how it had been done. Many prisoners then came to Prisoner1, asking him to check for free, as a favor, whether they had been cheated. (Many prisoners are unable to add or multiply, or to understand how the theft was done.) Prisoner1 calculated for one prisoner only, not for all prisoners who asked for help, feeling that it was the county government's responsibility to calculate the amount stolen from each victim.
What did the county jail staff do? The trusty was demoted to ordinary prisoner. To protect him from violent attacks by his many prisoner-victims, he was moved to another part of the jail (where the prisoners were kept ignorant of how the trusties were stealing from prisoners who were commissary customers). Prisoner1 eventually was correctly charged for what he had actually ordered on that one order. A new order form, designed to make that kind of theft quickly obvious to its victims (and thus to deter that kind of theft) was introduced throughout the entire county jail system. We vaguely think that one of the features of the new order form was that it automatically made a carbonless copy of the customer's order, which copy each customer kept. Anyway, the new form was designed to deter that kind of easy stealing. It had been reckless, not merely negligent, for the county governmetn to use the former form. The former form had made it extremely easy to steal.
No trusty was prosecuted. The county government was supposed to protect prisoners from theft of money in their accounts but what the county government really protected was itself and the thieves. This event (the discovery of the commissary's easy-theft system by a victim, Prisoner1) happened early in the life of the Department of Correction, perhaps in 1988 or 1989. We guess that the theft crimes should have been reported to law enforcement agencies (perhaps the county sheriff, because the jail is county property, the thieves were county employees, and the victims were county prisoners). We guess that the crimes weren't reported to the Sheriff's Department or any other law enforcement agency. Prisoner1 wanted re-calculation by the county of all of his purchases. This was promised and repromised but not done. Once the easy-theft system was discovered, two agencies should have checked every purchase by prisoner-customers of the jail commissary system going back to when te system was created: the DoC (county Department of Correction), because it operated the commissary system (and therefore had a duty not to overcharge, and a duty to pay refunds for every overcharge), and the OotS (Office of the Sheriff, which we sometimes call the Sheriff's Department). The OotS should have investigated for two reasons: for decades, it had operated the entire jail system including the prisoner commissary (for example, the OotS probably had created the easy-theft commissary system including the easy-theft order form); and because the OotS is a police department that might have have arrested the thief-trusties (and mayb e also the jail staff which concealed the crimes from prisoner-victims and maybe from law enforcement agencies). Maybe the C.O.s' seeming lack of reporting the thief and thievery to the Sheriff's Department was obsruction of justice.
Stealing by commissary personnel is common in American jails and prisons. For example, prisoner1 once was told in detail how a prison's commissary trusties steal from prisoner-customers at that prison. One Santa Clara county jail trusty was caught (by Prisoner1) but there must hve been many, many Santa Clara county jail trusties doing exactly the same, easy thing.
The DoC seemed to want to keep the matter as quiet as possible. Although a new commissary order form was soon introduced throughout the jail system, there was no audit or investigation to find all of the trusty-thieves or to pay refunds (plus interest) to all of the customer-prisoners who had been overcharged by the county jail commissary for decades.
We guess that the DoC never told the OotS or any other government agency about the thief-trusty whose stealing had been discovered, or about the easy-theft system that had been used). DoC seemed to try to conceal what had happened. DoC should immediately have told all of the jail system's prisoners about this technique (which was easy to spot by the trusties who operated the commissary). DoC did not even tell all of the jail sytem's current prisoners (much less, former prisoners). We would be amazed if a Santa Clara county grand jury (which seems to do the quality of work one would expect from what seem to be part-time, temporary, unpaid or nominally paid volunteers) knew about this. When the easy-theft commissary sytem was uncovered, nothing was done to find out every prisoner who had been stolen from by the county jail commissary staff (much less, to pay a refund plus interest to each victim).
The county government cannot run the commissary system well. The commissary system should be entrusted to expert personnel, not county personnel. Independent auditors (not county government employees) should agressively audit the commissary and the trust fund budget, and report seeming crime directly to law enforcement agencies, later to prisoner rights organizations and publishers (and finally to the county DoC, which concealed theft of prisoner funds). When seeming crime is discovered, it must be reported in such a way as to thwart the DoC's understandable desire to minimize legal liability and trick people into thinking DoC's doing an excellent job. Law enforcement organizations and other concerned parties must be informed before the DoC.
Much money was stolen. There were many prisoners (this was not a tiny, country jail), many trusties, and an easy-theft commissary system that seems to have been operating for decades.
Once, there was a court case against the county government brought on behalf of prisoners. The case settled. The court order settling the case had been agreed to by both sides (ncluding the county government). The court ordered, among other things, that the county govrnment provide chess and other games to the prisoners. We don't remember the precise wording but chess was explicitly part of the order. The word "chess" appeared.
Prisoner1 asked for a chess set and board. This was refused. He was told that he could buy a ches set. This violated the court order, a copy of which he had gotten (maybe from the jail prisoners' law library, maybe from a volunteer organization that helps prisoners). He submitted a grievance form asking that he be provided a chess set. A C.O. interviewed Prisoner1, read the pertinent part of the court order, agreed with Prisoner1's interpretation of the order, and decided that Prisoner1 won the grievance. The C.O. ordered in writing that the prisoner won and that he be given a chess set, including a board. This was written on the grievance form. The C.O. walked away, explaining that he would take care of everything.
Later (maybe the next day), the prisoner was told, by a different C.O., that there had been an appeal, and that the prisoner had lost the appeal. There was no explanation for the prisoner's loss on appeal.
The prisoner bought a chess set.
Prisoner1 played chess only with those prisoners he wanted to play with. Destitute prisoners never played chess because they could not afford to buy a chess set (unless Prisoner1 wanted to play with them). They could just watch Prisoner1 play chess with his chess buddies. One day, a destitute prisoner complained to a jail employee that Prisoner1 was hogging the chess set, not letting the complainer or his buddy use it (not mentioning that the set was Prisoner1's property). The employee immediately went to Prisoner1 and told him to give the set to the complainer, which Prisoner1 immediatley did. (It is a serious matter for a prisoner to disobey an order.) Prisoner1 interrupted a game he was playing to give the chess set to the destitute prisoner. Then, Prisoner1 asked the employee why Prisoner1 had been forced to give his set, which previously had been his private property, to another prisoner. The employee did not offer to pay for the chess set which he had converted to the county's use. The empoloyee said that he was sorry and had not known that the set was Prisoner1's private property. The employee told Prisoner1 that he could take his chess set back. Prisoner1 took back the set (interrupting the destitute prisoner's game), then restarted his own, interrupted game.
Every prisoner who was charged for a chess set, should be paid a refund plus interest. The county government has a duty to provide chess to the prisoners.
By the way, the county provides free checkers. Chess should be provided the way checkers are provided.
What is fair compensation to pay the destitute prisoners who wrongly were deprived of a chess set by the county government? In many places in America, chess sets are rented. In a public park for example, one may be able to rent a chess set (for hypothetical example, for $5.00 hourly). This is a measure of the enjoyment of playing chess to those who rent the chess sets. The customer derives more than $5.00 of pleasure from each hour of playing, so he pays $5.00 hourly. Imagine that there are 15,000 destitute prisoners who would have played chess an average of 4 hours daily for 50 days each. Each of those prisoners has, in a sense, been deprived of more than $1,000.00 (50 days x 4 hours x $5) because the pleasure of playing exceeds the rent (which is why people pay the rent). The county should pay the money plus interest. The pleasure of chess far exceeds the sale price of the chess set. At the very least, the county should pay each destitute prisoner (who would have played chess had he had a game) the price of a chess set, plus interest. The county should not profit from violating the court order.
We guess that the commissary chess sets are sold because the county government's jail management wants to evade and delay the court order. Destitute people cannot afford to buy. Even when a prisoner does buy, there is delay. Checkers is promptly available to prisoners for free. For chess, the prisoner must wait unti he gets a commissary order form, fill it out, submit it (submission is once weekly), then wait days for delivery. Thus, refusal to provide chess for free causes delay. Some prisoners are in the jail briefly. For example, a prisoner might be arrested Friday and released Monday. Because prisoners order from commissary once weekly and the merchadise is delivered days later, there is no way a four-day prisoner (Friday-Monday, for example, ) can get a chess set by buying it from commissary. Therefore, the effect of selling chess is to deny chess to brief prisoners. That does not seem to have been the intent of the court order.
The question is not what is a good chess policy for the jail. There already is a court order establishing a chess policy. The question is whether the county violated the court order, and what compensation (for example, what size of refund) has to be paid to prisoners for that violation.
The total compensation for chess violations (assuming that the reader agrees with us that there were violations of the court's chess order) is probably less than the total compensation that should be paid for the commissary thefts. On the other hand, the refusal to obey the court order may be a contempt of court, particularly when one remembers that the grievance-resolving C.O. agreed that the county had a duty to provide a free set to Prisoner1. The county (through the C.O.) agreed that it had a duty to provide the free chess because of a court order but refused to do so.
The inmate (prisoner) trust fund buys many newspaper subscriptions for the prisoners. This permits prisoners to read the newspaper. The newsapper subscriptions are not bought for anyone else. Much of the reading of the newspapers is done by C.O.s, who pay nothing for the subscriptions. Prisoner1 once said to a C.O. reading a prisoner newspaper, that he hadn't paid for it, that it was bought for prisoners (not him), and therefore he should not read it. Amazingly and incredibly, he put the newspaper down and did not resume reading it. However, we guess that he did not pay the prisoner trust fund. Because much of the reading of the prisoner newspapers is done by the C.O.s, the C.O.s and the county government (their employer, and the supposed protector of the inmate trust fund) should reimburse the prisoner trust fund for a fair part of the cost of the subscriptions, plus interest. We did not precisely measure how much of the newspapers' reading was done by C.O.s. Much of the reading of prisoner newspapers (more on some shifts than on others) is done by C.O.s. We guess that the county government should reimburse the inmate trust fund for 2/3 of the cost of all of the subscriptions, retroactively to the beginning of subscriptions. C.O.s seem to have been reading the prisoner newspapers for as long as the newspapers have been there.
This is an issue of unjust enrichment. The C.O.s read free newspapers on the job. The county governmetn providws a fringe benefit to C.O.s: the opportunity to read free newspapers on the job when time permits. The inmate trust fund should not pay for this.
One day, a C.O. was rolling a cart with commissary merchandise. He offered a candy bar to another employee. The employee refused. The C.O. said that it was free, it would be a sample. Prisoner1, who saw and heard this, was surprised that a commissary candy bar had been offered to an employee as a free sample.
Prisoner1 read in the prisoner law library about prisoner commisaries and inmate trust funds. Budgets had to be itemized. Prisoner1 wrote to the county government, asking for a copy of the pertinent budget, and got a copy. It didn't seem to be as itemized as the law required, altough Prisoner1 had not become an expert on the issue of budget itemization.
The budget contained an item for samples. It seemed like a huge amount of money. There didn't seem to be a need for samples at all (much less, such a huge amount of money for samples). Somehow, Prisoner1 formed the impression that the samples budget item meant something in addition to what the word "samples" normally means. From the extremely brief coverage of that item in the budget, it was impossible to figure out what the budget meant by that term. Prisoner1 guessed that, any time a gift was given to anyone at the expense of the inmate trust fund, the gift was called a sample.
The inmate trust fund budget and the commissary budget should be much more itemized. Much of the budget is incomprehensible because it is not sufficiently itemized. Copies of inmate trust fund budgets (including tentative, preliminary budgets used to plan the actual budget) should be in the prisoners' law library.
There should be a detailed disclosure of what the samples item actually pays for (for example, whether it actually pays for petty gifts, such as a candy bar, that one member of the staff gives to another). Some gifts (inclduing to prisoners) may be wrongly paid for by the inmate trust fund, regardless of whether the gifts are paid under the samples item of the budget.
FREDERICK R "Fred" DEFUNIAK, 6701 TANNAHILL DR (between Almaden Expressway and Trinidad Drive), SAN JOSE, CA 95120-5406. (707) 887-0764, (408) 997-3989. He seems to live near foreperson pro tem Layman.
RONALD R. LAYMAN, 6292 MOJAVE DR (west of Almaden Expressway), SAN JOSE, CA 95120-5324. (408) 268-3743. He seems to live near foreperson Defuniak.
RICHARD H. WOODWARD, Born 1945, 1450 PINE GROVE WAY (south of Royal Ann Way), SAN JOSE, CA 95129-4732, (408) 257-9824.
This paladium.net Web site and all of its contents are provided as is, solely for informational purposes, and without warranty. There is no express warranty, no implied warranty, and no warranty of fitness for an intended purpose. We are not liable for informational errors or incompleteness. We have no duty to update anything. Verify all statements and claims. Carefully read and consider many sources of information, analysis, and opinion. Please inform us of each and every falsehood in this Web site. We own all email messsages and other communications to us. This Web site contains parody and humor. Our linking to a Web site is not approval or endorsement. This Web site, which is not exclusively about government officers, identifies some people who never were government officers. Our discussions and editorials do not necessarily apply to anyone named or identified in this Web site.
Home Addresses of People Most of Whom Are Current or Former Government Officers
| |||
|---|---|---|---|
| publicity about this site | search this site | an idea | research tips |
| California main page | previous page | next page | |
