FILED

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

1 2 3

4 5 6 7 8

9 PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, No. BR 41943

_liPR ? 9 ZOOl

JOHN A. CLARK~.CLERK

J.-~ 911. StIIWl DEPtflY

APPELLATE DIVISION OF THE SUPERIOR COURT

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

10 Plaintiff and Respondent, Pasadena Trial Court

11 v. No. IPA30626

12 PHILIP KOK,

13 14

ORDER

Defendant and Appellant.

15 It appearing that appellant is in default for having failed to serve and file notice of

16 appeal within the time allowed by the California Rules of Court and that good cause has

17 been shown for relief from default,

18 IT IS ORDERED that appellant is relieved from this default and may serve and

19 file notice of appeal with the clerk of the trial court within 10 days of the date of this

20 order. When so served and filed, the notice shall be effective for all purposes as though

21 it had been filed as prescribed by the Rules of Court. (People v. Camarillo (1967) 66

22 CaL2d 455.)

23 24 25

26 27 28

and

NOTICE OF FILING NOTICE OF APPEAL

ATTORNEY FOR (Name)

NAME OF COURT: f (1 ') J til VI C\ _~y( ~ } D (" ( 0 u r+

STREET ADDRESS. I '.- 1) '111'\(1 ~ .;: f

MAILING ADDRESS: n~ <')(j Ap,11 C( I (1 &11101

CI1Y AND ZIP CODE: 1/('1 fI 11

BRANCH NAME:

NOTICE OF APPEAL I

IAppeHa nr's Na me I

(P.I~intjff/D •. fe nda ntl

-

in the above-entitled action hereby appeal(s) to the Appellate Department of the Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles,

Date _;:__ _

(STgnsture of Appellant 0' ~eI18nf. Anorneyl

NOTICE OF FILING NOTICE OF APPEAL

~-

I. Clerk of the above-named Court do certify that I am not a party to the within cause that on this date I served the within Notice of Filing of Appeal upon the person(s) shown, belp_w.by depositinqe-true-copv thereof, enclosed in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid in the l1i'\ited States mail at

yA ~adLI1jl '~I

California addressed as follows:

Deputy

76NS' 5R3·CT 49 (IIKOY)

DISTRIBUTION - ORIGINAL AND 2 COPIES TO ci:lURT

...

-----2~~-tt-----------------------------------------------------------------------~--------

1 Mr. Philip A. Kok (Rev.) 16828 Chicago Dr.

2 Bellflower, CA 90706 Post Office Box 93261 3 Pasadena, CA 91109

(please use mailing address)

4

5

Superior Court, Los Angeles County

6

7

Mr.Kok (Philip A.)

(Rev.) IPastor/Teacher/Wri terl ) Evangelist/B .A. /B .A. /M. Di v. ICEO )

/Founder/Presidentl )

M.S.Ministries )

l )

Appellant )

) ) ) ) )

)

--------------------------------)

Case No: 1PA30626 Notice of Appeal

8

9

10

11

v.

12

The People,

Respondent

13

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

25

Notice of Appeal

This is not the Appeal Brief, but the Notice of Appeal. This also is the substance of the

Petition for Writ of Mandate scheduled to be heard on 3 -12-02. While a brief will be

properly filed in due time, this is the Notice of Appeal. In order for the court to

understand this petition, it is necessary to provide contextual information for the court. On

February 3,2000 I, Mr. Kok (Rev.) PastorlTeacherlWriterlEvangelist, RA.lRA.IM.Div.

had just left a class at Fuller Seminary where I was a full-time student at the time, (as well

as a part-time certificated teacher for the LAUSD(Los Angeles Unified School District)). I

was heading north on Lake Avenue in Pasadena towards a dinery to eat before my next

evening class. Earlier that day I had substitute taught at a high school in the San Fernando

,

Valley, as I have been doing in various schools for the LAUSD for some time now. As I

was coming to the intersection of Lake and Villa I noticed my light was green. As I

entered the intersection suddenly a car heading east on Villa entered my path. I hit the

brakes and skid and avoided a major collission. Our bumpers just barely bumped each

other. I did not feel any immediate pain, nor was there any obvious injury to my passenger

( a dog) and so I pulled over to the side of Villa, taking a right. The other driver pulled

behind me. As I stepped out of the car suddenly two officers came bounding up to us

(myself and the other driver before I had even spoken with the other driveL. One of them

said "we didn't see it but we heard it , what happened?" I began to describe what I had

observed and experienced according to the above but was interrupted by one of the

officers (Brown) who apparently had already concluded that I was at fault.

He apparently believed that because he observed the other driver enter the intersection

(going east) "just prior to his light turning red" that she had entered under a green or

Notjce of Appea!/Case No PA 30626

yellow light. Apparently, based on this assumption he remained convinced that she had the

right of way and that I should have looked more carefully both ways even in had a green

light by the time she made it to the other side of the intersection. It is not perfectly clear

what he actually contended or contends in this regard, but that is a short summary of my I

,

interpretation of his words and actions. I was also later informed that at a non-injury

accident a determination of fault is not expected nor required.

One of the problems with the officers assumption that the other driver must have entered

the intersection going eastbound under a green or yellow light because she entered "just

prior to his light turning red" is that this intersection happens to have an "all-clearance

red" signal at that particular time of day. Not only did I go back and personally observe

.

this, but the city maintains records which show that such is the case. That is, for exactly

,

one second at this intersection, when one light turns red, the other light remains red as

well. This apparently is to ensure that the intersection is dear before traffic proceeds.

Subsequently, which I will discuss further below, I have discovered more enlightening

information about what actually happened.

Although I basically just stood there and refused to admit or acknowledge fault, the officer

apparently thought I was being too loud and too close to him. He told me to lower my i

voice and back.up. I thought I complied accordingly. Apparently he thought otherwise.

The next thing ~ knew he had pulled his baton and struck me in the stomach. Then the two

of them grabbed at my arms and shoulders with the apparent intention of arresting me. I

said "please, just let me sit down on the curb." Officer Brown said "it's too late for that."

Notice of AJ'pealfCasc t~o. PA:30626 2

They pushed me to the ground, face down, put their knees in my back (by which time other officers had already arrived and were also assisting and! or on top of me) and bent my arms up over the shoulder blade The left arm was bent particularly high, to a painful and abnormal extent. I cried out in pain. Then they put the handcuffs on me without bothering to use the safety lock (which prevents them from further tightening). They put me in the back seat of their patrol car where the radio was blaring rock'n'roll music and there I sat for ~ while, the handcuffs digging into my wrists. I asked them to loosen the handcuffs to which one of them (Pratt) responded "you should have thought about that f--

---g earlier!"

I lay down on the seat and prayed. This apparently alarmed them, and suddenly one of the doors was opened and Officer Brown pulled my eyelids open and shined his flashlight in my eyes and asked if I was on some sort of drug. I responded no. I was simply praying. He shut the door. I tried to explain to another officer who I was and my purpose for being where I was at the moment (i.e. seminary student), and he yelled "you're never wrong, are you?" They took me back to the station, impounded my car, took my dog to the humane society, asked me a few questions at the police station (handcuffs still on the entire way at an extremely tight level) and after a few hours at the police station released me. I walked to a nearby ATM (Automatic Teller Machine) withdrew some money to get the impound release form, and the next day immediately went to the doctor for treatment for the injuries I sustained. There were abrasions on my face from being pushed into the concrete.

There was a "dime-sized" contusion to the stomach where I was hit with the baton, and there was soreness and pain in both wrists and in the neck/shoulder area.

~~et:iEe {if App@al/use ~J9i PAJO~29 l

I was still in school full-time at the time as a divinity student working on a Master of Divinity (M.Div.). They charged me with disturbing the peace. One month later I appeared at the court, anti. because, and only because I was in school fulltime, and was still working on Biblical language building block classes, I did not want to interrupt the quarter with a trial. It was important to me to maintain focus on the classes. Therefore, and that is the only reason, I agreed to nolo contendere and a few anger management classes. I completed the anger management despite the fact that it was not I who was angry at the scene, but the officers and the other driver. I only refused to admit fault which is not only the advice that insurance companies give (i.e. "never admit fault"), but also fault should not have been the major or immediate issue at the scene given it was a non-injury accident.

One year later after seeing several physicians and specialists who diagnosed my wrist injury as "carpal tunnel syndrome" and my neck injury as "cervical radiculopathy" I filed a lawsuit in the Los Angeles Superior Court system at Pasadena. Also, the record, at my request, pursuant to code, was expunged around that time (March 2001).While I am/was still a part of the Fuller community both as a student and spiritually, I had more time to properly address the issue.

Over the period of several months from March 2000 to the present I have proceeded with discovery in the case ofKok v. City of Pasadena, et.al.. This discovery has included at

least six depositions of the different officers at the scene and has been revelatory in terms of what actually happened. In addition to the above comment I made about the "all-

Morice of AppeaHCase l'ito. P:A:300:!O ...

clearance red" the other driver contends that she was delayed from crossing through the

intersection because a car in front of her suddenly turned on its left-turn signal after it had

entered the intersection. Officer Brown, however, under oath in oral deposition states that

he was sure that there was no car turning in front of her.

Now Brown has also stated some things which I contend are not true in regards to my

actions, but also perhaps other material facts. He has a motive in such regard for

misrepresenting those facts in terms of clearing himself However, there is no apparent

motive for him to intentionally misrepresent the facts of what he observed in regards to the

traffic in front ofhim, although there is/was one point about his being able to see the

eastbound traffic signal from where they were waiting to proceed in the southbound lane

on Lake which I contend to be questionable. Nonetheless, assuming no motive to

misrepresent the facts in regards to the traffic in front of them, it is safe to assume he is

correct that there was no car turning in front of Bustamante.

If so, then Ms. Bustamante (the eastbound driver) was untruthful about being delayed

going across the intersection due to a late-signalling left-hand turning vehicle. This

confirms my assumption about what actually happened. I contend that Ms. Bustamante

I

got out of the car ready to apologize, or at least simply exchange information and let it be.

I contend that she was feeling nervous about having entered the intersection late and was

not sure how to respond to me. I got out of the car wondering what had happened. I have

a good driving record, and no history of seizures or blackouts, and can be reasonably

assure that what I observe is/was accurate. However, given there was no significant

l'~e£ice sf A~~eaI/Ca§e ~Je. PAJG629 5

damage to either car I was willing to let it pass even if or though she had entered the

intersection late and perhaps recklessly.

Nonetheless, tile officers set the tone for what happened next. When Officer Brown

immediately became accusatory towards me, Mr. Kok, Ms. Bustamante then "jumped on

the bandwagon" relieved to be let off the hook, so to speak. Had Officer Brown allowed

the two driversto speak alone, or calmly approached the two drivers, what actually

happened may have properly emerged. However, Ms. Bustamante, going beyond not

admitting fault, decided to blame first, and loudly so. I only refused to admit fault, and did

so in good faith based on what I perceived to have happened.

There were a few other peculiarities about the incident. As Mr. Brown (Officer) came

close to me I noticed his eyes were dilated. Whether this was due to anger or some sort of

prescription medication I do not know, but it was noticeable. I also mentioned the loud

music in the patrol car and although it is apparently or allegedly allowed by the

department, it seems to be to be imprudent given the type and volume of the music and the

nature of their job. There are studies that have shown a correlation between heightened

!

tension and agression and types of music. Rock and roll music is one of these types of

music.

In order to make my case against the officers for use of excessive force in their actions

against me on February 3, 2000 I decided it would be helpful to find out if any of the

officers at the spene had any record of excessive force, or other disciplinary problems

which might attest to my concerns and action against the department for excessive force,

assault, etc. Therefore I. filed what is apparently commonly known as a "Pitchess Motion."

On August 22,. 01 the motion was presented before Judge Pluim at the Los Angeles

Superior Court in Pasadena. The motion was denied. I presented a few other things before

the court at the same time and the court also was predominantly negative towards my

concerns and motions. Nonetheless, I have used the court judicial system before as a

plaintiff and while disappointed that the motion was not affirmed I am aware of

alternatives to the denial ofa motion (i.e. file for writ to the Appellate Court) and was not

overly defeated by the disposition.

I turned and walked out the door of the courtroom. This now brings the context to the

present matter. The attorney for the defendant is the assistant city attorney of Pasadena.

He works for city hall and his name is Hugh Allan (Tim) Halford. All of the prior

correspondence and communication about this case was between myself and Mr. Halford.

Some of the correspondence from him was rather insulting in regards to my religious

beliefs and fait~, and the fact that he wanted to hear nothing about it or my vocation or my

profession, or anything related. He interpreted any references to faith, God, my profession,

etc. as an intent on my part to impose religion on him. This apparently bothered him very

much, but rather than simply and kindly work around my "religious flair" he decided to

affirmatively insult it and criticize it. Nonetheless, this was not the issue on August 22. 01.

,

Other correspondence as well as a "Request for Judicial Notice" had to do with my

concerns about his previous involvement in a case entitled People v. Mooc (2000) , a case

t~oEi(e6f A~~eaI/Gase t>le. PA1QeUI 7

he assisted in as assistant city attorney in Santa Ana. I came across this case as I was

searching to find out more about Me Halford given what I considered to be his

anachronistic presence in Pasadena. When I first met him, 1 knew his energy level and style

was different from the Pasadena norm. My instincts turned out to be correct. He had just

moved here from Santa Ana in January 0[2001 after some controversial involvement in

Peoplev. Mooc.

The issue as we stepped out into the hallway was a rapid discussion of a few different

topics. One of these topics was my (plaintiffKok in that action, defendant Kok in the

instant matter) medical records. I had previously asked all my health care providers to

send me the copies of my medical records and I copied them and provided copies to the

,

assistant city attorney, at his request. Later, r served a set of admissions on the City

Attorneys office asking them to confirm these medical records. He denied all the requests

for admissions and demanded that the medical records be attached to the set of

admissions, even though I had already provided a copy of the medical records.

Nonetheless, I sent another set of admissions along with an attached copy of the medical

records. This time his response was to deny all requests for admissions because there was

no way for him to verify the authenticity of the medical records.

Not being able to verify the authenticity of medical records is one thing, but in the hallway

on August 22, 01, after the motion Mr. Halford decided to instead affirmatively accuse me

of falsifying medical records saying "you're untruthful, I think you're untruthful." Before I

recount to the court what happened next, I need to back up and provide more context. I

~~6tke. e f Afl f:I @OII/Ds@ ~I g, PA 30626 a

mentioned above that I am a certificated teacher, and in addition to having taught school

full-time for two years, 1 have been a "guest teacher" (or "substitute" ) for the last few

years while I have been attending Fuller Seminary.

As a substitute teacher I enter "unknown" situations on a regular basis. Sometimes a

teacher has a planned absence in which case there are lessons prepared along with a

seating chart. and roster, other times it may be an unplanned absence in which case

sometimes there is no lesson plan, and sometimes not even a roster or seating chart.

Most of the time students are kind and respond without duplicity to the fact that I may not

know their actual name. Most of the time they are hospitable. However, there are

i

occassions when they decide to take typical advantage of "the sub. II In some cases this

simply involves inattentiveness to requests to "sit down" or "please be quiet", other times

it involves not providing their real name or actually being disrespectful.

There are times where I have to gain control of a classroom where I do not know the

names and do not have any help (i.e. "T.A."-Teachers Assistant). In some cases where a

student or stud::mts are being particularly disrespectful I will tap a ruler on a desk or make

a loud noise to capture their attention and my sincere desire for proper behaviour. This !

never, absolutely never, involves anything physical against or towards the students,

regardless ofthe extremity oftheir behaviour. If it ever came to such a point where it was

necessary for physical intervention, apart from emergency requirements (i.e. breaking up a

fight which I have only had to do once) I would normally summon security.

No tk~ or AI'I3 ea liGase l>~a. PA J01l2 e 9

This (i.e. attention captivating motion/sound) is/was my modus operandi as a substitute

in the classroom for some situations. I have never been told it was inappropriate, nor ever

had anybody complaint about it. Thus, on August 22.,01, when I was accused,

inappropriately.so in my opinion as well as my attorney's, by Mr. Halford as having

provided false medical records, along with a sneering, contemptuous look on his face, I

responded with my normal classroom "M.O." I took my notebook and with a straight-

down motion of my right arm and the notebook in that hand, I attempted to hit the ground

with a solid noise, in the same way I might do with a textbook on top of the teachers desk

in a classroom. .In this case, there was no teachers desk, there was only the floor.

As my arm went down for some reason my sleeve brushed the elbow of Mr. Halford's

right arm. There was perhaps a tiny amount of actual body contact under the sleeve of his

elbow. The effect of throwing the notebook on the floor was not as fruitful as a textbook

on the teachers desk, but I thought it might help wipe the smirk off his face. However, as I

bent down to pick up the notebook suddenly I heard him yell "battery, that's battery, you

battered me .. l." or something to that effect. I thought he was joking, but he ran over to the

two fellows nearby and asked the first one if he had seen anything. The first fellow

(apparently an attorny by the name of Simpkins) said he didn't see anything, and

,

apparently wasn't even bothered by the alleged "yelling" prior, because he had apparently

remained with his back turned.

Next, Mr. Halford asked the other fell ow (al so an attorney) by the name of Charles J.

LeBeau who apparently or allegedly saw something and handed the assistant city attorney

~~s(iee sf Al'lfJeallus€ ~J9oPAlOQ;z.6 10

his card. Then Mr. Halford turned back to me and said "you hit me ... he hit me." in an

exaggerated and animated manner. Around that time the court baliffby the name of

Vasquez came out due to the commotion. Mr Halford kept saying "he hit me ... " and I

said, sarcastically, "yeah, 1 hit him" to which he responded "thanks for admitting it." My

brief bag was on the floor and, in disgust, I kicked it. Then I picked it up and with the

baliffby my side began to walk down the hallway.

I still thought he was simply (or not so simply) trying to make a commotion to defend his

case against me in, Kok v. City of Pasadena, but didn't think anybody would believe him.

But then I was the only one or one of the few who had recently read People v. Mooc and

about his nebulous involvement in that case. I was scheduled that same day to go to the

police department to view photographs of the unnamed police officers, and had to talk

with this fellow again only a few hours later, as absurd as it was. On the phone (by which I

refuse to correspond with him anymore) he said he was filing charges against me. I said i

"for what, accidental and incidental and almost a non-existent brush of your elbow?" He

said "you forgot the part about pushing me up against the wall." I thought to myself, "Oh

my Lord, what am I up against?"

Nonetheless, I continued with discovery that day, this assistant city attorney acting as if

nothing had happened, but when I, myself, tried to file a complaint, a Seargent Uribe

declined to file one, saying "ifwe filed a complaint every time somebody was insulted, you

know how many complaints we would be filing?"

Notice of Appeal/Case No. PA30626 11

The problem, as it turns out, and as will be discussed further below is that there appears

that Mr. Halford may have played a participatory part in the "battery" incident, by

intentionally moving towards me, Mr. Kok, PastorlTeacherlWriterlEvangelist.

But first it should be mentioned that the complaint filed by Mr. Halford was approved by a

Seargent Pratt at the Pasadena Police Department. The problem with this is that Mr. Pratt

happens to be a defendant in my case against the city for refusing to loosen my handcuffs

on February 3, 2000. Is this not a conflict of interest? The District Attorney's office, led

by Alison Meyers, prosecuting attorney, proceeded to file charges against me for

"disturbing the peace" and "simple battery. "There was another prosecuting attorney

apparently by the name of Dean who assisted. My impression was that Ms. Meyers was

being used by somebody. I did not get the impression that she wholeheartedly believed in

this case.

Nonetheless, they prosecuted the complaint. I pled "not guilty" and the trial lasted from

12-5-01 through 12-14-01. I was represented by an attorney by the name of Mr. S.

Boysaw from the public defenders office. I initially was pleased with the efforts of Mr.

Boysaw to defend me. I thought he accurately discerned the situation and fairly drew out

the facts that I was not the only person with a loud voice, in fact Mr. Halford admitted to

I

being "loud", and that despite Mr. Halford having accused the plaintiff/defendant Mr. Kok

of being "emotional" it was he, Mr. Halford, who persisted in calling Mr. Kok "untruthful"

in the hallway. He also brought out the fact that Mr. Halford has an interest in "getting

l'IJocfce of Appea!fCase No. P:AJ06:2.6 1 £

something" on Mr. Kok to defend his case against the city, which led to the possibility if not probability that Mr. Halford actually leaned into Mr.

Kok as he was moving his arm, with the intention of creating such a situation.

What Mr. Boysaw did not do is bother to call Mr. Simpkins who was standing there talking to Mr. LeBeau, but yet despite the alleged commotion did not bother to turn or look or apparently consider the matter much of a commotion at all. What :N.1r. Boysaw did not do is bother to check the records of either Mr. LeBeau or Mr. Halford for previous duplicity. In fa~t, I made mention to Mr. Boysaw at the time that Mr. Halford had been nebulously involved in the case at Santa Anajust one year ago (eeople v. Mooc (2000)). When I asked I'M. Boysaw if LeBeau was an attorney before I had affirmatively discovered thai he was, Mr. Boysaw looked through some book and said he was not listed

there.

I don't know what book Mr. Boysaw was looking at but Mr. LeBeau is/was an attorney and also has a record of public discipline for which he was actually suspended for nine months and put on probation for the remainder of the two year sentence. Apparently he had some involvement in misuse of clients funds. NOw I don't know if anyof that would be admissible to impeach Boysaw or LeBeau altogether, but it certainly is not altogether irrelevant.

By the same token if their nebulous behaviour in the past is irrelevant, then my involvement in ,the incident on February 3, 2000 also should be irrelevant. And while none

Notice 01 Appeal/ease lcJu. fJAJ0626 13

of the particulars of this matter were discussed, the fact that I agreed to "anger

,

management" classes was raised as an issue against me during the trial of People v. Mr.

Kok. In fact, th,e prosecuting attorney, Ms. Meyers, asked me on the stand (or "the box")

as they call it if! had not, in fact, taken "anger management classes" in an insinuating tone.

The literal truth is that yes, I had, but I was not given opportunity to explain why, nor

offer any of the contextual background.

I had previously mentioned to Mr. Boysaw that it may be helpful to make a "Motion to

Quash" any mention of this previous matter not only given the fact that it was not so clear

that I was not wronged rather than wrong, but that the matter had been expunged. I also

cite Peoplev. Jbhn Field Court of Appeal of California, 4th Appellate District.Division

One, 31 Cal App 4th, 1778,1995, Cal App. LEXIS, 87, 37, Cal Rptr. 2d 803,95, Cal

Daily Op. Service 905 which said that "generally speaking, expungement is a legislative

provision, as oJ?posed to executive, for the eradication of a record of conviction or

adjudication upon the fulfillment of proscribed conditions. It is not simply the lifting of

disabilities attendant upon conviction, and a restoration of civil rights, though tins is a part

of its effect, it is rather a redefinition of status, a process of erasing the legal event of

conviction or djudication and thereby restoring the regnerative offender to his status quo

ante (see United States v.Fryer N. D. Ohio 1975 402 I Supp 831, *34, quoting Grough_

Expungement (!f Adjudication Records 1966 Wash UL. Q 147, 149. They also say that a

"successful probationer shall thereafter be released from all penalties and disabilities

resulting from the offense. A grant of relief under section 1203.4 is intended to reward an

individual who successfully completes probation by mitigating some of the circumstances

Iqudce of AppeaiiCase t~o. PA306£6 I ~

of his conviction, and with few exceptions, to the extent that Legislation has the power to

do so." (See Selby v. DMV (1980) I lOCal App 3d 470 , 473, 168 Cal Rptr. 36.

Now I am more interested in reading the Bible and exegeting passages and enlightening

people and being an encourager in the Word, but as a teacher and pastor and citizen it

seems especially here in California one has to have some legal knowiege, at least a

rudimentary working knowledge. I am fortunate to have an environment that allows such

knowledge to he freely obtained and used, and have participated in other legal matters as a

plaintiff. I don't pretend to be an attorney and have bcorne increasingly aware of the

antagonism some attorneys have towards persons "in propria persona" , but that does not

change the fact that citizens are allowed to defend or represent themselves. I was pleased

with having Mr. Boysaw represent me insofar as he brought out the nuances, in general,

fairly well, but he did not do everything possible.

There was one point during the trial when Mr. Halford was on the stand that Mr. Boysaw

asked him about him, Mr. Halford, referring to Mr. Kok as "Mr .. Kook." Mr.Boysaw, with

the apparent attempt to reveal that Halford was intentionally bothering and insulting.Mr.

,

Kokelicited that such was true to which Halford responded, falsely, by saying he wasn't

sure what to call Mr Kok given that he (Mr. Kok) has "given me thr~ee different

pronunciations of his name, Mr. Coke, Mr. Kook, and Mr, Cock."

It does not take a brain surgeon to realize that most normal persons do not offer a

pronunciation c;'ftheir name which would be pronounced in a derogatory manner. In fact,

~J9~ice sf AppeaVCue ~j9. PA10626 I S

while I had never heard Mr. Kook before until Mr. Halford used it, I have intentionally

given the pronunciation of my name as Mr. Coke in order to avoid it being pronounced in

a manner which is also a sexual euphemism (i.e. Mr. Cock). 1 do not find that

pronunciation to be flattering, especially as a teacher where certain minds find such very

amusing (Mr. Lebeau, on the stand, also referred to me, Mr. Kok, as Mr. Cock")

Futhermore, Mr. Boysaw was making reference to the "Mr. Kook" pronunciation from a

page of a deposition I had provided to him where I had told the court reporter to make

sure she recorded Mr Halford's insulting pronunciation of my name. He only did so once

or twice, and Mr. Boysaw could have "impeached" him then and there by asking him why,

then, ifI had given him three different pronunciations, the rest of the time, at least in the

, \'\ II

depositions, Mr. Halford properly referred to Mr. Kok as Mr. Coke.

This raises the next point about the trial. Both the prosecuting attorney (Ms. Meyers) and

Mr. Halford made reference to "anonymous notes" which I sent to two of the police

officers shortly after the February 3, 2000 incident, and to "anonymous flowers" which I

allegedly sent to the City Attorneys office. They both attempted to make these letters and

flowers appear to be something ominous or sinister in nature. In fact what Mr. Halford

also referred to' as "religious propaganda" were simply evangelistic letters inviting them to

accept Jesus Christ as their Saviour and were signed "A Friend." Furthermore, the

recipients were simply a few additions to a large list of recipients of my evangelistic

correspondence, some of whom expect them, others of whom are new, most of whom are

church friendly.

If the best the District Attorneys Office can "get on me" is being too good, I plead guilty.

Or, as John Ashcroft, Attorney General of the United States once said at a church function

which I attended, "I hope ifl am accused of being Christian, there is enough evidence to

convict me." Yes, doing positive, good things for people either by mail (sending notes or

Bibles) or otherwise is part of my Christian nature. Furthermore, I noted that,. in fact, I,

myself, had received an anonymous note, but was not given the opportunity to explain that

this note, in fact, was not so kind or positive, but, in fact had Satanic references on it.

Finally, I noted that "I had no idea who it was from" which is the definition of

"anonymous." While I plainly and clearly informed Mr. Halford of the notes I sent, it is

presumptuous to assume one can be certain of the identity ofa sender simply by the

logical reasoning that because it has "religious propaganda" and because Mr. Kok is

"religious", therefore Mr. Kok must have sent it In fact, what appears to be more certain

is that the prosecutors were grasping for something to make Mr.Kok look bad or sinister.

This not only was unfair and mean-spirited, but apparently mayhave had some influence on

the jury. This raises the next issue, the jury. While the jury selection was uneventful by and

large, there seemed to be one or two points where, I thought, Mr. Boysaw could have or

should have considered dismissing one of the jurors. The first point was when a fellow

identified himself as being the jail supervisor at the Pasadena Police Department. It was

worth at least thinking about whether he might be biased in a case which has a history that

began with my, :MR. Kok's, action against the City of Pasadena and some of its police

,

officers, Nonetheless, this fellow voluntarily withdrew himself shortly later. More

Notice of Appeal/ClSe Jlilo. PA30626 17

importantly was juror #2 who announced at one point that she was familiar with one of the

City Attorneys who, in fact, the City Attorney (M. Bagneris), and with whom she had

apparently worked at one point in time. THis same juror later became the jury foreperson

and, in my opinion, may have had, consciously or otherwise, some political interest in the

matter.

Apart from the-actual trial issues I thought that the sentencing was awry as well. While I

thought my attorney, Mr. Boysaw, was as flabbergasted by the guilty verdict as myself

and a few othets, it was only because of my prompting that he made a motion to the court

for "Judgement Notwithstanding the Verdict." He said "we don't usually do that" and the

judge responded saying it would be more correct to "Motion for Retrial" but either way it

was declined. The judge did not assertively or convincingly say why it was declined other

than, with some coaxing from my attorney and the prosecuting attorney that it was "not

without cause.' They did not explain themselves, nor have I yet to see the transcript,

which I have requested. The judge also said that the court would not "second guess the

jury." Nonetheless, I thought it is relevant here to mention my concerns about juror

number two who had some previous political association or affiliation with Ms. Bagneris

when she was city attorney of Monrovia ..

I I ,

Furthermore, I thought it was inappropriate to refer to my actions against "the victim" as

"going around wacking people ... " or something to that effect. Not only was the evidence

not all that clear that I had "wacked' him or "hit" him, even if there was some actual

physical contact to his sleeve or elbow, but I testified and continue to maintain that my

, .

t~otice of Appeal/Case t~o. PA306:26 18

arm went straight down and that any physical contact was not only accidental and

incidental on my part, but may, in fact, have been caused, intentionally so by the assistant

city attorney. He admitted that he would use, if allowed, this conviction as "rebuttal

evidence" against me, Mr. Kok, and he admitted that he did not have a very high opinion

of Mr. Kok.

In fact, because I sent flowers to the officer ofthe City Attorney they sent a notice to me

,

saying that ifI fame to their office unannounced that police would be summoned.

Although I have no particular desire to go socialize at the City Attorneys Office, I thought

the notice was unwarranted and simply was done to add to their anecdotal case against me

as some sort o~"terrorist" type of person. In fact, their unwarranted exploitation of my

letters and flowers during a time when anthrax letters were being recived in other parts of

the country was an obvious and malicious attempt to defame me, a pastor and a teacher,

among other things.

As I mentioned above I have a ministry which includes sending letters to people,

sometimes unsigned if only because the ministry is not seeking financial contributions. It is

an encouraging, inviting, and informative ministry to others which will continue to be

supported from separate funds as long as possible. It is unique in that it gives "something

for nothing. " Yes, that may seem strange in this day and age, but it is a part of not only

I

my personal ministering efforts, at times, but affiliated with a larger organized church

effort, one which is fairly well known and well regarded.

t~otice of AppealfCase l~o. PA306£6 19

Finally, I thought the comments of Judge Burke at sentencing to the effect of "how can the defendant counsel other people as a pastor ifhe can't control his own anger?" were also out of place. I stated specifically, albeit briefly, as much as I was allowed, to describe the way 1 use "controlled anger" which is not always necessarily anger as a way to make a point, or to sober people in a setting which should not be entirely folly (i.e. as a teacher in a classroom where students are supposed to be relatively attentive to the lesson). As a pastor, on the other hand, not presently employed by a congregation I can only speak hypothetically about how 1 would counsel a parishioner in regards to "anger."

Certainly, anger in and of itself is not wrong. I sent a fax to Mr. Boysaw saying "God gave us a full range of emotions ... " If anger goes unvented or inappropriately vented it could cause trouble. If unvented it could bottle up and "explode" at the wrong time. Police officers need to be aware of such just as much as any other person or group. If inappropriately vented it could come out in a violent manner whereby people are physically harmed. Nonetheless, there are situations where I, as a pastor, would be more concerned if a person did not get angry about something. In situations of injustice, if people do not get angry, it could lead to a relativizing of all crimes. Ms. Meyers referred to this as a "slippery slope. "

At the same time, however, there are "slippery slopes" of another kind, namely, false accusation. Ifwe allow hyperbole and exaggeration to define a persons actions (i.e. "he

kicked his bag fifty feet down the hallway", or "wacking people ... ", or what have you) the slippery slope semantically can have just as much of a negative effect.

NotICe of Appeal/case No. PA30626 20

At Fuller Seminary, and seminary, in general, i"n the more demanding programs (i.e. M.Div and Ph.D, as opposed to "Master of Arts" Of "Master of Mission", etc.) the concentration is on the smaller and smaller parts of "the Word." In order to be truly effective as a pastor or translator of the Bible the notion is that one has to set aside incoming preconceptions or misconceptions about the Old and New Testament and find out, in part, what it "really says. 11 This involves exegesis. One has to learn Greek and Hebrew, and can choose to continue on studying related Biblical languages such as Aramaic and Arabic, among others. One learns the language bit by bit, part by part, in the same way one starts out as a kindergartner. This takes time and patience, but is rewarding, and, I believe, truly does help one be more true to the Word as it was originally intended. One learns how the Bible was formed, who chose to include what and why, how it continues to change, and how culture, interpreters, and other factors have shaped it, or our understanding of it. In the same way a chemist may study molecules, seminary demands, to a certain extent a similar study.

Therefore, at least while one is immersed in seminary one is "grounded" in the Word. When Judge Burke assumes I willbe a pastoral counselor she's assuming I intend to be a "general practioner'' of the Word in a typical church with a typical congregation However, not all M.Div graduates or pastors do pastoral counselling. Some churches em playa" preaching pastor" , a "pastoral Call nsel or" , a "pastor of congregati anal life",

and so on and so forth. The pastors are used according to their gifts. This is the case in my

Notice of AppealfCase No.PA30626 21

particular local 'congregation in southern California, which is very large and very di versifi ed.

However, arguendo that 1 was going to counsel somebody who had an "anger" issue, there are a lot of things to consider. If I found that a person was being unfairly treated, abused, misused, or what have you, I do not think it would be appropriate of me to be shocked at one's feelings of hurt, alienation, which may give rise to anger. At that same time that I would try to help the person come to a resolution, whether it has to do with grief or loss of a loved one, or something more antagonistic, I would allow the person to express him or herself (i.e. cry, state honest words of anger), if not act violently accordingly.

I sent a letter to Supervising Judge House at the Los Angeles Superior Court in Pasadena shortly after the trial, and again after sentencing, both of them ad hoc reflections on what had happend. SOme of them were interspersed with references to some of what I had come across in reading bits and pieces oflegal cases. One of the cases I made reference to mentioned what they, that particular court, call "fighting words." I am not sure that is the best term for antagonism, but the court does acknowledge that there are some actions in certain situations which not only disturb the peace but present a dear and present danger to others.

In mentioning such I was not necessarily intending to imply that Mr. Halford's actions and statments (i.e. "you're untruthful") were to be considered "fighting words" but that the

t~ocice of Appeab'Case No.PA306£:6 £:2

court, itself, recognizes, that some actions are inappropriate. At the same time that the court protects its officers and employees from abuse, it has a certain obligation to protect its citizens as well from abuse not only from other citizens, but "reverse abuse" so to speak from its employees and "peace" officers.

I have made reference to my coping or control methods in terms of antagonism or dangerous behaviour in the classroom, especially when I do not know the names of students, but also note that the Bible is another source of "anger management" for me. Yes, I read thePsalms, or find a passage in the New Testament which soothes me, and helps me walk away from antagonism. Nonetheless, there are settings where hostile, intimidating behaviour which one cannot immediately walk away from requires appropriate assertive behaviour. Assertive behaviour includes speaking directly, politely, but firmly to the matter or person about what one needs to communicate to the immediate situation. There are certain situations where an unscrupulous person can cast a "false light" on a person, wrongly so, simply by innuendo, raised brow, or what have you. These situations call for an assertive, not aggressive, response. Without such assertiveness, the social order can be wrongly altered. A non-educated, aggressive, and unscrupulous person, can demean and defame an educated person in certain situations, and there are those types of characters who are plainly intent on making educated people certain that they are no fool, and perhaps even may go so far as to show that the educated person is the fool. If it is a police officer who is demanding that one acknowledge fault at a scene

where fault is/was not immediate clear, or where fault need not be determined, or where even if fault is dear, does not require a person to admit it then and there, then an assertive

l\lotIce or Appeal/Cis e lo;Jo.~A 3062 6 2:5

response is warranted. IF the person deems assertiveness as anger or danger, there is the

possibility that ~uch a person is overreacting. If in the hallway of a court someone such as

a former-police-officer-turned-attorney (which Mr. Halford apparently is) loudly calls

another person untruthful or a "liar", walking away, in some settings, may be considered

an admission of such, or mistaken as something else.

In fact the police, as well as former police, know how to use "momentum", emotion,

commotion, and title to their advantage. Does the court believe that every case of police v.

citizen which leads to the use of force is because the citizen was aggressive and out of

control? I recently came across a little pamphlet written by a former police officer by the

name of Michael Papadopoulos who says that in police academy the officers are told,

when making an arrest, to repeat the words "stop resisting" over and over, in case they are

being audio-taped, of if they are taping the interaction, themselves. It serves to protect

them from charges of excessive force, even if such is true. This is obviously unethical and

unscrupulous, but then Mr. Halford repeatedly did the same thing in writing to me using

the word "emotinal'' over and over, repeatedly. It was this, along with the insulting nature

of the correspondence that eventually led me to seek a restraining order against him

(which was denied). I realized that there was some sort of hidden agenda in this, but was

not yet sure what. But now I am certain that his use of the word "emotional" was exactly I

in the same vein as the coaching they give police officers to say "stop resisting."

Mr. Halford, a former police officer, has carried over some of his training and

unscrupulous teclmiques into his practice oflaw. Perhaps he wishes he had remained a

'~otice of AppealfCasetJo. PA30626 2 ~

police officer. It is easier living a life where physical force can be used virtually at will. I reckon that someone who learned and lived such a way oflife for several years (apparently about twenty) may find it difficult to have to patiently respond and listen to the words of" college boy" or "seminary boy" either in writing or otherwise. I realize that it may be difficult for some "force people" to know how to get an upper hand on a person without a record or "priors."They need and cherish a clearly established "superiorinferior"relational definition. There is a quasi-militaristic nature to the police force and a former police officer-turned attorney is going to have some of those same needs.They want a clearly established "pecking order" so to speak. Power and control are esssential to these types of minds. This, however, is not the essence of our goverrunent by and for the people, and the essence of citizenship. Although I was not thinking about it that much prior to August 22, 01, I submit now, in retrospect, that he was hoping and intending to provoke some sort of commotion, of any sort to help defend his case. He had asked me just moments before the alleged "hit" on his elbow to go back to his office. I had made clear that I was not interested in talking with him at his office. Was this some sort of ploy to set me up along the way if I had gone with him? I have told him repeatedly that I did not wish to discuss any further matters informally, but he has continued to try calling, and even has attempted to approach me in the courtroom after the August 22, 01 hearing, despite my forewaring that I did not wish to speak informally with him at all. Even shortly after the conviction in . The People v. Mr. Kok he tried calling. Does he not get the picture? He has unfairly wronged and framed me, and yet continues to think it is all just a

part of "business." The truly classy attorneys I know consider their job to be a profession, not a business. I, myself, consider teaching and pastoring to be a profession.

lo;toclce of Appea.!/Case No. PA30626 25

The police say, that on February 3, 2000, that I walked towards my vehicle and they were concerned that I might be trying to "get away." In fact, 1 am glad they acknowledge that I backed away or walked away from the situation in an assertive attempt to diffuse the matter, but it just goes to show that one cannot always walk away or too far away without the danger of misinterpretation. In fact, I was going back to my car to get my information as well as hoping to give the situation a few moments to settle, but also to check on my dog who was obviously excited from the commotion, and may, in fact, needed to relieve herself.

This request for Writ of Mandate to defer or quash the sentence pending appeal, or, in the alternative, a retrial is written to a Los Angeles audience, a larger city audience .. Yes, I am speaking to judges who process information in a certain similar manner to each other based on training and experience, but I know there is a difference in responsiveness at the Los Angeles courts as opposed to Pasadena. I am very concerned that certain persons in the Pasadena setting are affirmatively trying to alter my good name and position which I have attained here after several years of quiet, careful, devoted study and work. I have not and do not go around and about the town stirring up trouble. I have a regular pattern of study, work, devotion, at both the academic and spiritual level. In fact, I have affirmatively gone out of my way to remain uncontroversial and non-political, but when trouble comes after me, I have to have some sort of assertive modus operandi to employ. If it has been

misinterpreted, unintentionally or otherwise, then such should be addressed by the court, as such. However, I can assure the reader that what they are being informed about here

~~6(iee sf A""eal/Case ~~e. PA3Qe2' 2'

within has less to do with any of my, Mr. Kok's personal anger problems, as much as it has

to do with a perceived or rnisperceived political and control issue. That is, there are those

who simply want to maintain the status quo which places themselves in control. If it means

falsely accusing others, or framing them, it may be that important to them to do so, even if

what they are doing is more due to their own personal fears and insecurities than it has to

do with a real threat.

I am not that young anymore, even if I have a youthful appearance. My birthday was

yesterday, January 20. I cannot simply be pushed aside as a "schoolboy" or "not a lawyer"

anymore especially if it involves my own personal rights and liberty. I could cite others,

the Bible, the Constitution, or particular cases in defense of my assertions, but I am

speaking here from the heart, a heart and mind filled not only by the Word, but by the

Holy Spirit. It is not an angry Spirit or spirit or temperrnent, it is a regnerating and I

sanctifying Spirit which fills me and moves me. It is not a fearful Spirit, nor a hostile or

aggressive spirit, it is a positive, purposeful Spirit. I am a "vessel" for the Lord, filled not

only with His Word, but also a product of years and years of education.

This brings me to the next point in regards to sentencing. I am aware that the court is

supposed to consider not only "mitigating circumstances" (i.e. actions of the other party

that provoke a person), but also a person's position in life, the educational position he or

she has attained. Title alone does not suffice to characterize a person, but what one does

or did in order to arrive at that level. One has to remember that any accredited educational

institution has specific requirements and obligations that a student must maintain. It also

l~ 0 lice of AppealfCas e t~o. PA 30 62 6 27

requires that one live in a certain manner, all the more so in a Christian institution, at least

the one's I have been a part (of). One question to ask is "how many times in life has Mr.

Kok not gotten angry?"Throughout elementary school, how many bullies or antagonizers

did Mr. Kok walk away from? IN middle school, and high school how many times did Mr.

Kok not get in a fight? Throughout college, graduate school(s), and Seminary(s), did

Mr. Kok avoid unnecessary contentious interactions? And in the situations where he did

have to address a matter assertively what are/were the circumstances?

On February 3, 2000, there was an initally nebulous incident, unclear as to all of the

circumstances. Mr. Kok refused to admit fault, was misinterpreted as dangerous and

subsequently hit with a baton and pushed face down to the ground thereby incurring long-

term and potentially permanent injuries. Was this out-of-control anger or appropriate

assertiveness, wrongly attacked? How long must we cater to the lower judgments and

superstitions of others? On August 22,01, Mr. Kok was called "untruthful" by an

I

assistant city attorney who had been repeatedly insulting and antagonistic. Mr. Kok

responded by trying to make his point in the same modus operandi that he occassionally

employs as a teacher in the classroom. Subsequently, the real possibility, and more

ominous and sinister possibility, that the assistant attorney intentionally moved into the

arm motion cannot be ignored.

In any case, the court has a obligation to consider the mitigating circumstances as well as

the defendants position, person, character, education, and other factors in making an

appropriate sentence. I also note to the court that I attempted to get a restraining order

1'4 DeIce of App eab'Case 'fit o. Pl'\ 30626 28

against the assistant city attorney, but it was denied, I have informed the court in Kok v.

City of Pasadena about my concerns, and they have been minimized. If the court wishes to

see a transcript or record of one sort or another it is available. In any case, I have been

wrongly accused, and wrongly convicted. The only question of any possible guilt is

whether I, Mr. Kok, Plaintiff and Defendant, Pastor/TeacherlWriterlEvangelist raised my

voice too loud and thereby disturbed the peace. But then Mr. Halford acknowledges that I

he raised his voice to but asserts that it was not at the same "intensity level" as Mr. Kok.

Isn't that rather subjective? Isn't "raising one's voice" rather subjective? Why didn't Mr.

Simpkins the other witness (or non-witness) react to the alleged "loud, out-of-control"

behaviour? Why didn't Mr. Boysaw bother having the investigators at least interview

him?

This is now apparently an internal matter for the Superior Court at Pasadena which allows

some people to. be "persona gratis" and others not. Just down the street I am "in" at the

Seminary, but so far I am apparently "out" at the court. Why? Because I am in propria

persona? Because I have a "beard"? Whatever the case may be, it requires outside

intervention, a~d I am asking the Court of Appeals at Los Angeles Central to consider

this matter, accordingly. If it means making a oral presentation to the court so be it, may it

be! So far I have trusted the attorney, Mr. Boysaw, and his approach, but it may be that I

am the only one to save myself, God willing, with the responsiveness of the appropriate

court.

Notice or Appea!/Clse 10;1 o. f! A 306:2 6 :2~

I write this without much reference to specific citations, and by memory. I note that I have requested the transcript from the entire proceeding as well as the sentencing, but that it may take some time to acquire. The sentencing transcript should be relatively easy to obtain, court reporter willing, but then I have had delay from some court reporters in such regard. I can't wait for them to respond, and if! get too demanding, 1 fullfil! the accusation of being an "angry person." I hope the court can appreciate the Catch-Zz Those who have the pointing stick and determine who is angry have a tendency to control the milieu, attitudes, and morale of the people. This is not what our country and courts, by and large, behoove.

Therefore, I ask with all urgency that the Court of Appeals come to my assistance. Set me free from this nonsense. Pound the gavel as it may be needed accordingly to rebalance the scales. The non, .. state/city/country employed citizens are as much a part of the city, state and country as anyone else. IT would be a shame to think. that one must be formally employed by the city/state/country in order to be properly protected.

How long also must we cater to the superstitious nature of people, and to the lowest denominator affright. That is, the logic of "because your looks or facial hair or simply because I don't understand you, or what have you frightens me, therefore you are bad" leads to wrongful persecution, when in fact, in some cases the alternative logic of "because you are irrationally scared of me, because you don't understand me, because you dislike

my facial hair.i.therefore you are a danger to me" may, in fact, be the more poignant logic for our times. Some of the illogic of the former comes from those with a one-dimensional

~jetice ef Afll'leal/CasE ]>'J9. PAlOe2e 10

perspective on life, perhaps somewhat misled by "Hollywood", whereas, in fact, we are, or should be, three-dimensional persons, at least as a Christian in my understanding of Christology, I am a three-dimensional person, and it should not be that the threedimensional person gets persecuted by the one-dimensinonal person, not because it is a matter of superior v, inferior, but it is a matter of truth to the person being persecuted, While I (we, as regnerative, sanctifying Christians) are warned of such possibility, it should not be something that occurs here in the United States which was founded, by and large, by and for the Protestant Christian purpose.

It was John Adams I am told who explained "The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were.; the general principles of Christianity" (Letter to Thomas Jefferson, June 28,1813), And it was founding father Noah Webster who said "The religion which has introduced civil liberty is the religion of Christ and His Apostles. THis is genuine Christianity and to this we owe our free constitution of government" (History of the United States, 1832). It was Thomas Jefferson who said "Can the liberties ofa nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that His justice cannot sleep forever" ( Notes of the State of Virginia, 1781). James Wilson, a signer of the Constitution, and an original Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court, said "Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that law which is

divine ... Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and

NoClCe of Appeal/Cst! Iqo. PA306l6 31

mutual assistants. Indeed these two sciences run into each other. (" Lectures on Law,

Delivered in the College of Phil adelphia" 1 790-1 791)_

This is more than I wanted to say, or should have to, I am at a point in life where what I say speaks for itself. I deserve the benefit of the doubt, and I submit that "people of the flesh" cannot adequately judge a "person in the Spirit." The above is spoken as such, without qualification,

Nlo[lce of AppeailCise lQo. flA306l:6 Jl:

Supplement to Notice of Appeal.

First, I thought it was a improper for the judge to characterize my alleged actions, which I

contend I did not do because I did not do so as described or portrayed by the alleged

victim or the prosecution, as "going around whacking people ... " I am a teacher and a

pastor. I do not indulge in that sort of behaviour, no matter how much the prosecution,

the alleged "victim", or the court wishes to characterize me as such. I note the following in

regards to such.

The Code of Judicial Ethics

Canon 3 B: Adjudicative Responsibilities ("A Judge Shall Perform the Duties of Judicial. Office Impartially and Diligently" (4)A judge shall be patient, dignified and courteous to litigants, jurors, witnesses, lawyers and others with whom the judge deals in an official capacity, and shall require similar conduct of lawyers and of all court staff and personnel under the judges direction and cornrcl.;."

(5) A Judge shall perform judicial duties without bias or prejudice. Ajudge shall not, in the performance of judicial duties, by word or conduct [emphasis added] manifest bias or prejudice, including but not limited to bias or prejudice based upon race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic status.

Canon 2 A

"Public confidence in the judiciary is eroded by irresponsible or improper conduct by judges. Ajudge must avoid all impropriety and appearance of impropriety. A judge must expect to be the subject of constant public scrutiny. A judge must therefore accept restrictions on the judge's conduct that might be viewed as burdensome by other members of the community. The prohibition against behaving with impropriety or the appearance of impropriety applies to both the professional and personal conduct of a judge. The test for the appearance of impropriety is

---------w=l1e!1'ier a person IT: ortt-re~1ICtnITighn-e1fScmaiJly-entertain---a-do-trbt-thatth-e-------

judge would be able to act with integrity, impartiality, and competence. "

B Use of the Prestige of Judicial Office

1) Ajudge shall not allow family, social, political [emphasis added], or other

relationships to influence the judges judicial conduct or judgment.

Peop Ie v .. Jackson NoS 1 01 0723, Sup reme Court of Cal i fornia (1 996) It A defendant has

the "right to place before the sentence relevant evidence in mitigation of punishment" (see_

Skipper v. South Carolina (1986) 476 U.S. 14, 90 L.Ed 2d 1,6, 106, S. Ct. 1669. This

,

inc! u des "any aspect of a defendants character or record any of the circumstances of the

offense .. "

Even if I was actually guilty, which I am not, it would be proper for the court to not only

consider mitigating circumstances))in terms of the role of the alleged victim in the matters,

all or most of which are part of the record/transcript, but also my character and record as

a whole. This includes a commendable academic record, including academic honors,

participation in and with the church as a missionary, teacher, and again as a pastor, both

vocationally and academically. It also includes being a certificated teacher without any

record of a problem of physical force in the classroom or otherwise. Instead, the judge

seemed intent on ignoring all the potential positives on my behalf, and characterized me as

a person with an anger problem. I thought it was inappropriate, despite the verdict of the

jury, and because of the nuances involved in this case.

These nuances include, but are not limited to, the fact that it was Sgt. Pratt. who approved

the complaint of'Mr. Halford. Sgt. Pratt, of the Pasadena Police Dept., happens to be a

lo;Joclce of Appeal/Case f~o. P1d06:1:6 34

defendant in my case against the City and several officers of the Pasadena Police Dept. It also includes the fact that "disturbing the peace" as discussed is a very subjective charge, and requires various limitations and qualifications. It also includes the fact that the prosecution failed to inform the jury and the court about the other "witness" (or nonwitness as it may be) who was also present talking to the fellow named Mr. LeBeau, who testified against me. If there was such a commotion, and I did make such outrageous noise and motion, why did this fellow (Simpkins, also an attorney) not turn to look? Why, when Mr. Halford ran up to him and asked him, "did you see that?" did he respond negatively? The fact that he was not called speaks loudly against the prosecution, and suggests that the prosecution was selective, and intent on procuring a conviction, rather than determining truth.

In Peoplev. Seaton (No S011425) Supreme Court of California 26 Cal 4th 598,28 P. 3d 175,2001 Cal tEXIS 5244 (2001) the court says, "Under well-established principles of due process, the prosecution cannot present evidence it knows is false and must correct any falsity of which ids aware in the .evidence it presents, even if the false evidence was not intentionally submitted" (also see Giles v. Maryland (1967) 386 U.S. 66, 17 L. Ed, 2d 737, 87, S. Ct 793.

The prosecution undoubtedly knew about the other witness or nonwitness, but not only did they fail to call him, but as best as I can tell they did not give my attorney the

information needed to interview him. Although my attorney apparently interviewed Mr. LeBeau, the alleged witness, it is not clear whether they obtained the information about

l~o(lCe or Appeal/Case 1qo. f'JA30626 ., 5

Simpkins at the time. I urged my attorney, Mr .. S. Boysaw, to try to find out the

information, but it is unclear whether he was unable or thought, without rationale, that it

was important. I contend it is obviously important that one of the three witnesses

apparently did 110t see or hear much of anything. His absence speaks for itself. The court

in Kyles v. Whitley (1995) 514 U.S. 419,438, 115 S. Ct. 1555, 131 L.Ed 2d 490. said

"Due process requires the prosecution to disclose exculpatory evidence that is material to

the defendants guilt or innocence or to punishment."

Disturbing the Peace

In In re Brown, In re. Bozorg on Habeus Corpus, Criminal No. 15580, 15399, Supreme Court of California, 9 Cal 3d. 612, 510 p. 2d, 1017, 1973 Cal LEXlS 213, 108, Cal Rptr 465 June 18 (1973 they discuss a "disturbing the peace" conviction and noted the following:

"The jury was read the pertinent parts of PC 415 , no general explanation of the statute was given, and only three words were specifically defined. They were told that 'tumultuous' means 'boisterous conduct, disorderly, noisy;' that 'Willfully' means simply a purpose or wllingness to commit the act or to make the omission in question and 'maliciously' means with an intent to vex, annoy, or injure .... u " ... in fact the phrase ["loud or unusual"] was continually misstated by the court. THe judge twice used "loud and offensive" rather than "loud or unu sual" ... , the literal language of 415 embraces a wide variety of prohibited conduct much of such conduct was never intended to be proscribed, and some of the other prohibitions are limited by the First Amendment considerations. We held in the case of In re Bushman (1970) 1 Ca13d 767, 773, [83 Cal Rptr. 375) that the portion of section 415 prohibiting disturbing the peace by tumultuous and offensive conduct was limited to disruption of public order by acts that are violent or that tend to incite others to violence .... "

;

" ... IN &0 limiting the state, we relied upon the traditional and historical meaning of similar statutes, and in addition reasoned that such limitation was essential so that

----------:t'h-e-s-ec-:t...,..io-n-. -w-o....:u~,...,-n-o-,-.t I"TiIFinge on the guarantee or reeaom 0 . speech se -rorrl'i4fl-------

the First Amendment.. could not be validly applied to speech or conduct which

merely had a tendency to provoke others to violence and that the proscription was

valid only where there was a clear and ~resent danger, that violence will

Notice of AppeaIJDse No. PA30620 36

imminently erupt.. the instructions on the right to assemble was qualified by language which indicated that shouting which disturbed others in the enjoyment of property was unlawful.. --not only were these instructions too broad, but it further appears that evidence did not warrant any instruction on the part of section 415 prohibi~ng "tumultuous" and offensive conduct"

"THe statute ... cannot be interpreted consistently with the First Amendment and traditional views as making criminal all loud shouting or cheering which disturbs others, and is intended to disturb persons. When the word 'noise' in the statute is properly construed with the First Amendment and traditional views it encompasses communication made in loud manner, but only when there is a clear and present danger of violence, or when the communication is not intended as such, but is merely a guise to disturb persons."

11 As early as 1927 the California courts recognized that loud shouting is not in itself unlawful (People v. Kerrick (1927) 86 Ca. App 542, 551-552 [261 p. 756] stated "pot every meeting where violent, boisterous, and tumultuous conduct occurs may be denominated as unlawful assembly--- it is particularly dangerous in a country where meetings are constantly held for every conceivable purpose, many of them; accompanied by much noise and excitement, to lay down such a doctrine ... the manner limitation 'loud' is so broad as to amount to a total prohibition on loud public speech ... we conclude that section 415 cannot consistently with First Amendment rights be applied to prohibit all speech that disturbs others, even if it was intended to do so ... [the conclusion, therefore is that loud noise is prohibited in only two situations:] "I) where there is a clear and present danger of imminent violence; and 2) where the purported communication is used as a guise to disrupt lawful endeavors. It

I submit that such was not the case on August 22, 01. Not only had I been in

correspondenc~ with the assistant city attorney in writing, but had also been present at

depositions. If there was any danger from me, petitioner Kok, it was a figment of Mr.

Halford's imagination, either an intentional figment, or otherwise. Of course, Mr. Halford

has an interest in characterizing me as dangerous. However, as I have repeatedly stated,

upset with being insulted by Me Halford does not logically conclude that I would attempt

to use physical force on him because of it. IF such rationale was logical as applied to

society in general there would be chaos. I submit that most of society gets upset or

Notice or Appeal70se No. PA30<S26 31

perturbed about something on a daily basis, but does not respond by using physical force

on a person. There may be a few "cavemen" who do things in such a way, but I am not

one of them, no matter how much Mr. Halford or the prosecution would like to

characterize me as such. This is insulting behaviour coming from the city attorney's office

as well as the district attorney's office. It is not appropriate. I have done nothing to

deserve such.

Abuse of Discretion

California Code of Civil Procedure 1049.5 says that,

"Where the court finds that there is relevant evidence that, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, could not have been produced or that was improperly excluded at the hearing before respondent, it may enter judgment as provided in subdivision (f) remanding the case to be reconsidered in the light of that evidence, or in cases in which the court is authorized by law to exercise its independent judgment on the evidence, the court may admit the evidence at the hearing on the writ without remanding the case. "

[l 049. 5(b)] "The inquiry in such a case shall extend to the questions whether the respondent has proceeded without, or in excess of jurisdiction, whether there was a fair trial, and whether there was any prejudicial abuse of discretion. Abuse of discretion is established if the respondent has not proceeded in the manner required bylaw, the order of decision is not supported by the findings or the findings are not supported by the evidence. u

In this case, I defendant/petitioner Kok contend that the findings, apart from, arguably

raising one's voice too loud and thereby disturbing the peace, which is also very subjective

and requires qualifications and limitations (see above), were nQt supported by the

evidence. CCP .1049 continues to say u ... in cases in which the court is authorized by law to

exercise its independent judgement on the evidence, abuse of discretion is established if

Notice of Appeal/case No. PA3001a 38

the court determines that the findings are not supported by substantial evidence in light of

the whole record. "

Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict

[CCP 657] "The verdict may be vacated ... for any of the following causes .. 1) irregularity in proceedings ... or any order, preventing fair trial...' 2) misconduct of jury, if a juror has been induced to assent to any general or special verdict; 3) accident or surprise which ordinary prudence would not have guarded against; 4) newly discovered evidence which could not have, with reasonable diligence, been discovered .... [at time of trial]; 5) excessive or inadequate damages; 6) insufficiency

~ ~ .

of evidence to justify the verdict; 7 )error in law.

The prosecution had an obligation to call Mr. Simpkins whether or not his testimony was

favorable to their case. Their job is to uncover truth, not to selectively prosecute for

political reasons or to bolster their defense in the case of Kok v. City of Pasadena et.aJ

Res Ipsa Loquitur is a legal phrase which means, the matter or issue "speaks for itself."

No expert commentary or opinion is required. A reasonable person can make note of a

matter without need for outside opinion or authority.

In regards to CCP 657, I don't know whether the jury instructions were improper or not,

because I have not yet received a copy of the instructions. I don't know whether there

were obvious irregularities that become apparent from a reading of the transcript because I

have not yet received a copy of the transcript (see People v_ Smith 34 Cal 2d 449 [211 p.

,

2d 561] on appeal in a criminal case ... the defendant is entitled to a reporters transcript

at states expense ... " ).

!

Notice or AppealfCise lcJo. PA;;0616 39

I don't know if there was any jury misconduct because I was not allowed to speak with the jury, nor was made privy, other than what I heard in passing, to what the jury divulged to the attorneys after the verdict in regards to their deliberative process. What I do know is that there is ample room for debate about what constitutes "disturbance of peace" and what I do know is that the third person who did not make much of the alleged commotion and yelling is relevant to the case, but was not called. I do not know whether the prosecution int~ntionally withheld information about this person from my attorney, but I did make specific mention of him (Simpkins) to my attorney. His absence speaks for itself, even ifhe were subsequently called by the prosecution in a re-trial, or the prosecution had an opportunity to coach him to testify against me, which is also unethical.

The absence of Simpkins speaks for itself. The commentary above in regards to "disturbing the peace" speaks for itself. As the court said in Flowers v. Torrance Memorial Hospital Medical Center 8 Cal 4Lh @ p. 1001 fn. 4 "the common knowledge rule appears to be a corollary to the observation 'you don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows." I ask the court to please consider all of the above along ith the original petition in issuing an appropriate order.

'~o(lce 6rAppealJQse 1'\16. PA30626 40

Proof of Service by Mail

)

State of California

County of Los Angeles

I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party. to the within action; my business address is 2450 Lake, Altadena, CA

)-1-62__

On I served the foregoing document described as:

Notice of Appeal.

On Interested parties in this action by placing the ( ) original, a (X) true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed enveloped addressed as follows:

C/o Ms. Alison' Meyers District Attorneys Office 300 E. Walnut Pasadena, CA 91101

c/o

Public Defenders Office Pasadena Superior Court 300 E. Walnut Pasadena, CA 91101

Judge Burke's Office Department C

Pasadena Superior Court 300 E. Walnut·;

Pasadena, CA 91101

(X) {by mail} I am readily familiar with the finn's practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. It is deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on the same day in ordinary course of business. I know that the envelope was sealed and, with postage thereon fully prepaid, placed for collection and mailin on this date in the United States mail at

( ) { Fax and Regular Mail} I caused such envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid to be placed in the United States Mail at

( ) {By Personal Service} I caused such envelope to be delivered by hand to the offices ofthe addressee

(X) {State} I declare under penalty of perjury WIder the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. ;

(X) {Federal} I declare under penalty of perjury Wlder the laws of the United States of America that the -------=-rabove is true ana correct.