"Deputy Mendes pushed aside the officer who had begun to handcuff Ray, declared “this one is all mine,” and snapped on a pair of handcuffs engraved with Mendes’ own name."

 

Second amended complaint filed today in Ray Christie's federal lawsuit against County of Humboldt, HCSO deputy and CALFire employee Travis Mendes, former Deputy DA and current Deputy Public Defender Adrian Kamada and Humboldt County Sheriff William Honsal Does 1-10. 

I have the complaint which is over 70 pages.  There is so much information that I may do part 2 or part 3. 

Defendants game plan of Ray Christie's reckoning is not even one of the top 50 lines in exposing Humboldt County and the halls of Humboldt injustice. Victory in this lawsuit isn't just about Ray Christie. It will benefit countless others. The evil in Humboldt deserves judgement day and I hope this lawsuit is just part of overdue accountability.

Shannon Miranda, Blake Alexander and more new information in this latest filing.

The excerpts I have provided will give deja vu of how HCSO and DA operated in the Miranda's Rescue Investigation and what only I covered in the Georgi Tonev court hearings and case. I have often spoken about selective targeting and enforcement in Humboldt County. If Humboldt wants to destroy and target you; they will sink to new lows and there are enough sycophants and bootlickers willing to screw someone over for the crumbs thrown their way and a false sense of power which only the weak and abusive seek.  

Ray Christie's attorneys have tried to address the concerns raised and information Judge Noel Wise wanted. Between the original complaint and this SAC, just in initial disclosures, Humboldt County Counsel has turned over more internal communications. I exclusively covered some of those communications in previous coverage. I was the only one who reported on what no one else did in the 2018 criminal case which was dismissed. If you read all my coverage, you know much of what is in this new filing. Imagine what will come out in formal interrogatories and depositions. The County of Humboldt will file a motion to dismiss the SAC.

I have exclusive remarks from Ray Christie's attorney who I spoke with this evening, "We are grateful for the chance to tell Ray's story in this Second Amended Complaint," said Mr. Rick Richmond. This version of the complaint now reflects the beginning of information revealed about internal discovery between the Humboldt County Sheriff's Office and the Humboldt County DA's office in pursuing criminal charges against Ray Christie."

From the introduction of the SAC.

"This is a civil rights action about a man criminally charged and prosecuted on the basis of evidence a sheriff’s deputy deliberately fabricated. For four generations, the Christie family has raised cattle in Humboldt County. Raymond Frank Christie (“Ray”) built his business on a simple and lawful model: he bought the sick, injured, and unwanted animals that other ranchers culled from their herds, and he nursed them back to health. For more than fifteen years, the Humboldt County Sheriff’s Office investigated the periodic complaints that Ray’s herds looked thin, or that carcasses were visible on his low-lying land, and every livestock deputy who looked reached the same conclusion: Ray was no animal abuser. 

2. That changed when Travis Mendes became the Humboldt County Livestock Deputy in late 2017. Deputy Mendes targeted Ray from his first days on the job. Deputy Mendes personally disliked Ray and, despite knowing that Ray was innocent, set out to bring Ray down. 

When his raiding party descended on Ray’s ranch in March 2018, Deputy Mendes pushed aside the officer who had begun to handcuff Ray, declared “this one is all mine,” and snapped on a pair of handcuffs engraved with Mendes’ own name."

Page 59 and 60:

190. "Sheriff Honsal’s public statements in the Miranda investigation set out the standards Defendants apply to a legitimate animal-cruelty investigation: tracing each animal’s origin, determining cause of death by necropsy, preserving the “best evidence,” and refusing to“proceed when we don’t have the evidence to support any of the charges.” Sheriff Honsal knew these standards, articulated them publicly, and enforced them for others. Defendants disregarded every one of these standards when they investigated and prosecuted Ray.

191. Defendants’ selective, result-driven enforcement was the moving force behind theviolation of Ray’s constitutional rights. By singling Ray out for investigation, arrest, and prosecution while sparing every similarly situated operator, and by doing so with no rational basis prosecution and for the purpose of imposing on Ray a burden they imposed on no one else, Defendants denied Ray the equal protection of the laws. Ray was a class of one.

56 He does not contend that Defendants acted against him because of his race, religion, or any other protected characteristic. He contends that Defendants intentionally singled him out as an individual, treating him worse than every comparable cattle rancher, dairy, and livestock operator in Humboldt County. 

Defendants investigated, arrested, and prosecuted Ray on evidence they would not have acted on—and did not act on despite having such evidence—against anyone else, and declined to apply  to him the investigative standards (tracing each animal, necropsies, preservation of “best evidence,” and charging only on sufficient proof) that they applied to others. There was no rational basis for that difference in treatment. Further, as alleged above, Defendants even went so far as to deliberately fabricate evidence in their single-minded pursuit of Ray. 

Page 72 and 73:

In addition, Sheriff Honsal, who had final policymaking authority concerning Deputy Mendes’ unlawful prosecution of Ray, knew of and made the deliberate choice to approve the specific unconstitutional acts alleged in this First Second Amended Complaint. For example, after the preliminary hearing, Sheriff Honsal emailed Deputy Mendes, “Christie’s day of reckoning is near! Great JOB!”57 

Adrian Kamada:

159. The improper preservation of evidence in Deputy DA Kamada’s cases resulted in lost evidence in Ray’s case. Before Ray’s trial, Judge Kaleb V. Cockrum publicly ordered Deputy DA Kamada to properly preserve evidence in Ray’s case, stating, “I am going to order, Mr.Kamada, that evidence you are now in possession of is not destroyed or mayhemed in any way and that you be a good custodian – your office be a good custodian of that office.” In response, Deputy DA Kamada tried to push responsibility for the evidence onto the Sheriff’s Office and even onto the Court itself, stating “to be clear, my office doesn’t possess any of those things. The sheriff’s office has them and they’re actually under the possession of the Court.” Judge Cockrum reminded Deputy DA Kamada that “it is your case. . . . I’m looking at you, Mr. Kamada.” In the aftermath of Deputy DA Kamada’s mishandling of Ray’s case, the District Attorney’s Office revealed that critical evidence was no longer available because it “appear[ed] to have been lost.

Cliff notes for those who don't read the entire post

Two recent posts you should read. All coverage on any case can be accessed via the search feature on the blog. There are paid options for those who want convenience.