In My Defence

The reason I have explained the following is to clarify that what may seem to have been published meritoriously against me may create a misunderstanding against my standing. Therefore, I have taken the time to provide evidence to the facts.
Please note the following is a testimony to the facts regarding my side yard setback requirement and the violation of my neighbor. Also, I have included the minutes of the Court ruling, a clear testimony to my kind, generous and professional conduct toward my nighber who wants to take over my property. 

Emelina Gomez is the owner of the property at 2164 E Chevy Chase Drive, Glendale, CA 91206. Emelina Gomez filed a restraining order against me for having attempted to gain access to my own property by removing the fence gate that Emelina Gomez caused to be built entirely on my property without a City permit that blocks me from access to the entire side of my house that faces her property. The transcript of the court proceedings relating to the restraining order that Emelina Gomez obtained against me is posted on this website for your review along with a copy of the earlier Alhambra court decision I obtained on appeal related to the same fence issue. For your review, I have also posted Jennifer Muir’s letter to the City of Glendale California, City Attorney that explains the serious nature of the numerous code violations involved in Emelina Gomez's  building of the fence on my property and that constructively evicts me from my property. Both Emelina Gomez and I have been issued notices by the City to obtain a City permit for the fence, or to remove it. I have included a copy of that City notice I received from the City on this website also for your review. The reason Emelina Gomez and I each have been issued a City notice is that portions of the two fences installed without City permits are on Emelina Gomez’s property while the majority of the fences combined are on my property. All of this documentation serves to explain the restraining order that Emelina Gomez obtained against me.


Testimony of Jennifer Muir regarding the facts exisiting to Massie Munroe's innocence against Emilina Gomez's publication:


February 15, 2016

Jennifer Muir, A.A., A.B.

Caltrans, District 4, Associate Right of Way Agent (Retired)

Planning & Management - Project Coordination Branch

Mail Station 11

13TH Floor

111 Grand Avenue

Oakland, California 94612


Current Mailing Address:

4416 Indiana Avenue

La Canada, CA 91011-3117


Mr. Michael Garcia, City Attorney

Office of the City Attorney

City of Glendale California

613 East Broadway, Room 220

Glendale, California 94612

SUBJECT: Conflict between Los Angeles Superior Court Civil Harassment Restraining Order Case Number: ES019551 EMELINA GOMEZ VS MASSIE MUNROE Petition/Request Granted 01/28/2016 that restrains Massie Munroe from entering the property owned by Munroe on which the subject fences reside caused to be built by Gomez without City permits, one in the front and one in the rear and beyond them on the Gomez side of Munroe’s property in the area described by Munroe’s metes and bounds survey, for any purpose without 24 hours advance notice in writing to Gomez and permission granted by Gomez to Munroe and Glendale California, Community Development Department, Planning & Neighborhood Services Division, Code Compliance & Licensing Section NOTICE OF VIOLATION dated January 05, 2016


            GLENDALE CA 91206

            APN: 5663007004

            Case # NNOPMT1600011

In the fourth quarter of 2012, I assisted Massie Munroe with finances for a comprehensive survey, inclusive of historical chain of title of her property located at 2167 E Chevy Chase Drive, Glendale, CA 91206. That survey was performed by Erik Bowers, PLS and is on file with the county under the name, MASSY MUNROE. About a week prior to the survey, I personally informed Gomez of the survey that had been scheduled to be performed by Erik Bowers, PLS. Three days prior to the survey, Gomez caused the rear vinyl fence, one of the two subject fences of the City’s NOTICE OF VIOLATION, to be installed on Massie Munroe’s property by a fence contractor hired by Gomez. The fence that Gomez caused to be installed on Massie Munroe’s property was installed during the time Massie Munroe was renting her house to a third party, without the prior knowledge of, or notice to Massie Munroe, without Massie Munroe’s consent and without a City permit. In addition, the rear vinyl fence was constructed without an accessible gate latch or any other provision for Massie Munroe to use for her to be able to gain access to the side of her owned property that faces the property that is owned by Gomez and on which side there exists Massie Munroe’s gas meter as well as the entire side of her house on which the two main bedrooms of the house are located. In addition, the placement of the gate latch is such that Gomez family members are able to open the gate to gain access to Munroe’s back yard while constructively excluding Massie Munroe from being able to gain access to the entire side of her house and to her gas meter. This condition is a serious safety and security right violations and concerns including privacy and private enjoyment property rights violation. We do not trust these people, and we are disturbed by this condition that was intentionally created by Gomez. I am equally affected, as 2167 E Chevy Chase Drive, Glendale, CA 91206 is now my principal place of residence. The existing condition includes fire code and health and safety code violations by permitting Gomez’s vehicles to be parked next to the bedroom windows that allows carbon monoxide gas to enter through the bedroom windows and disturbs sleep due to the sound of a running vehicle standing next to and just beneath the windows. In the event of an earthquake, not having access to the gas meter shut off is a serious fire hazard that, should an earthquake occur, threatens both the Munroe and Gomez properties with explosion and fire and threatens possible loss of life.

One of the most galling of facts is that the Munroe owned property being excluded from Munroe’s free use and enjoyment by Gomez’ restraining order is that none of Munroe’s owned property is of any practical use to Gomez. They do not need it for their driveway use of access. They do not need it for parking. It has no use to Gomez as a recreational use area of any kind related to their property. It cannot be used as a storage area that would be excluded anyway due to fire, safety and health code regulations.

Per the Uniform Building Code, all bedroom windows of each bedroom that are all located on the side of the house facing Gomez’ owned property are emergency required exits. Gomez has stored large throwaway items against the side of the house under the bedroom windows. With two locked gates, the one in the front and the one in the back and with trash and/or cars sparked under the bedroom windows, Gomez has created very dangerous conditions for us in violation of many codes and regulations. We have pictures showing large trash items and vehicles owned by Gomez under our bedroom windows that were placed there by Gomez.

Massie Munroe wants to comply with the City’s NOTICE OF VIOLATION by having the un-permitted fences removed and having her own permitted fence constructed very near her property line as described by the recorded metes and bounds survey of her property. In view of the restraining order placed on Munroe by Gomez, Munroe is legally prevented from doing that. The Gomez ‘restraining order against Munroe stands in violation of the City’s fire, safety and health code enforcement duties and responsibilities. This matter must be addressed by the City Attorney and expedited at once.

For the record, I have known Massie Munroe since about mid-2012. In 2013, Massie Munroe and I began living together with a third party in a house share arrangement. I have personal knowledge that Massie Munroe has never harassed any of the Gomez family at any time since I have known her.

December 27, 2012, Emelina Gomez filed amended small claims court case GLN 12S02012 against Massie Munroe for $10,000.00 for “punitive damages, invasion of private property, breaking and entering, broken fence caused by her vine tree - leaving fence open exposed with neighbors, refuse to tear down her fence causing a safety hazard” “the fence cost $2,200 to replace the rest for reasons listed above”.

January 9, 2013, case GLN 12S02012 was heard. We presented to the Court a property DETAIL OF FENCE LOCATION, EXHIBIT “A” 2167 E. CHEVY CHASE map dated 1/8/13 that had been prepared by Erik Bowers, PLS that shows the rear vinyl fence location with the fence posts and the rear vinyl fence gate shown in green in relation to the defined property areas as determined by survey that are owned by Munroe and the property areas owned by Gomez respectively. 

The Court ruled that the cause of Munroe’s fence collapsing was most likely the result of Gomez attaching a heavy plywood fixture to Munroe’s old fence, not the ivy vines that were growing along the top of Munroe’s fence. The court awarded Gomez half the cost of the fence, $1,100.00 and $30.00 costs on Gomez’ claim.

01/16/13 Judgment was entered.

04/09/2013 Emelina Gomez  filed ABSTRACT OF JUDGMENT - CIVIL AND SMALL CLAIMS against Massie Munroe.

April 28, 2013 Scott Rapkin of the LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL S. RAPKIN wrote a letter on behalf of Massie Munroe attached to which was a photocopy of Munroe’s OFFICIAL CHECK made out to Catalina Gomez dated 03/22/13 that states in part, “As soon as you send me a proper Full Satisfaction of Judgment to be recorded with the Los Angeles County Recorder’s Office, I will mail you the actual check”

Gomez never responded to Scott Rapkin’s letter.

September 6, 2013 a Trial De Novo on Appeal was held at the ALHAMBRA COURTHOUSE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES in the courtroom of the Honorable Douglas Stern, Judge of the Superior Court, Gomez v. Munroe, Case No. ALH 12G2012.

SEP 11 2013 the Court ruled in part in that case, “Complicating the situation is the question of where precisely the property line was located, and hence “whose fence is it anyway?” A fence attached to the land owned by one property owner becomes the property of the owner of the land to which it is affixed.  

Defendant (Massie Munroe) has presented the Court a survey done by Erik Bowers, PLS, which shows that the new vinyl fence placed by Plaintiff after the old fence was removed, is largely on the Defendant’s (Massie Munroe) property, although it appears that nearest the Plaintiff’s garage, it is sitting on the property line. By the time it reaches the point where it turns 90 degrees (the rear fence gate) it appears to be entirely on Defendant’s (Massie Munroe) property. Assuming, as Plaintiff testified, the old fence was in the exact same location, it would have been largely on the Defendant’s (Massie Munroe) property at the base. But because it was tilting toward Plaintiff’s property, it entered the Plaintiff’s property above the ground level.

Plaintiff has sued claiming that:

‘Massie’s vine tree grew so thick and heavy that it hung over our fence weighing it down. She refused to cut her vine tree and our fence finally broke. At this point it is a safety hazard.’

The Court finds it more likely than not that the cause of the fence tilting toward Plaintiff’s property was the fencing that Plaintiff had attached to Defendant’s (Massie Munroe) fence, adding weight. The fence had not been constructed to bear that weight.

Defendant is awarded judgment on Plaintiff’s claim. Defendant (Massie Munroe) owes Plaintiff nothing.”

I will add that during the hearing in the Alhambra Court, Catalina Gomez testified she wanted Massie Munroe to pay interest on the Judgment she had been awarded in the earlier small claims court case that had been heard in Glendale.

September 23, 2013 Catalina Gomez filed a Request for Court Order to “... accept the verdict given January 16, 2013 in the Glendale Court,” noting, “A verdict is a verdict!! Alhambra Court should not undermine or change what a judge already had determined 6 months prior only because Glendale Court closed.”

October 3, 2013 Massie Munroe filed her extensive Answer with the Court.

October 7, 2013 Douglas W. Stern, Judge of the Superior Court ruled, “The Request is DENIED and the Judgment dated September 11, 2013 remains unchanged. IT IS SO ORDERED.”

December 30, 2015 Emelina Gomez filed Request for Civil Harassment Restraining Orders against Massie Munroe stating in CH-100 (3) and (7) a. (1) (2), in part, as follows:

(3) “Massie Munroe is dangerous and unstable ... She has entered our property in the past stating our driveway & backyard belong to her (Please see Case # 12SG2012) and has broken our fence. Today she has sent 2 men to try to break our fence. Police was called.”

(7) “For years she has yelled to us stating that our driveway belongs to her. On Dec. 10, 15 she sent 2 men to enter our property. Ms. Munroe sent two men to enter our driveway stating that the driveway belonged to Ms. Munroe and that they were going to break down our fence that is on the property line.” No, this related to the rear vinyl fence gate that the judge in the Alhambra Court in his opinion said was entirely within Massie Munroe’s property and which gate continues to exclude Massie Munroe from access to the entire side of her house inclusive of her gas meter on the side of her house that faces the Gomez’s property. 

Then in (7) (3) “Ms. Munroe has harassed us since the first day we moved into our property almost 23 years ago stating that we stole her property & that our driveway belongs to her. Her vine tree broke over our fence twice. We took her to court in Glendale and she was asked by the judge not to enter our property and to pay half of the cost of the fence (1,500) Unfortunately months later somehow the court was moved to Alhambra and for some reason was retried in Alhambra and was determined she didn’t owe anything, & Dec. 10, 15 she is still fighting over the property and fence.”

In (6) b. Emelina Gomez goes on to say, “Ms. Munroe and one of the men that entered our property on Dec. 10, 15 have harassed us in the past and have entered our driveway without permission. This was discussed in Court (Case 12SG2012) in Glendale. The judge specifically told her she was never allowed to enter our driveway without permission.

“I was at that hearing in Glendale and testified. The judge in that case never said Massie Munroe was not allowed to enter the driveway area, a portion of which is owned by Massie Munroe, not by Gomez.

Massie Munroe is being maliciously and legally harassed off and away from her owned property by the Gomez family with no regard to, or respect for City fire, safety and health codes and regulations, surveys, individual land rights, or even the judge’s opinion in Alhambra Court Case ALH 12SG2012.

Now Emelina Gomez’ has gone so far as to file a Request for Civil Harassment Restraining Orders against Massie Munroe based on Criminal Complaint. The very first thing the judge hearing the case for that restraining order said to us was, “This is not a criminal case.” The charges made therein, though, were enough to get a judge to restrain Massie Munroe from free access to her own property by ordering Massie Munroe to give the Gomez family 24 hours notice in writing before entering and only then with Gomez permission to do so, and to cause Massie Munroe and me to further respond in this way to the City’s NOTICE OF VIOLATION that is costing all of us a great deal of time to do. God help us should there be an earthquake, a fire or gas leak or explosion finding ourselves trapped between two locked un-permitted gates. I strenuously prevail upon the City Attorney to enforce the City’s codes and regulations in this case in the most expeditious manner possible.

It is important to note that during the restraining orders hearing, Emelina Gomez testified to the judge that there is an existing City easement between the Gomez and Munroe properties dated 12/1/1952. To support her claim, she brought forward to the Court a legal metes and bounds survey description that she submitted to the judge. As no such easement appeared in the survey Erik Bowers, PLS had performed on Massie Munroe’s property, Massie Munroe researched the City’s easement records. Massie Munroe found that Glendale Water and Power does have an easement dated 12/1/1952 that affects Gomez’ property, but it exists between 1959 E. Chevy Chase Drive and 2161 E. Chevy Chase Drive, not between Massie Munroe’s property located at 2167 E. Chevy Chase Drive and the property owned by Gomez located at 2161 E. Chevy Chase Drive. Thus Massie Munroe’s ownership rights of the surveyed property are fee simple un-encumbered by an easement. 

January 10, 2016, I was assisting Massie Munroe with home repairs in anticipation of her moving into the residence.  I called a locksmith to change locks and to provide access through the un-permitted rear fence gate by 1) cutting the latch that is not accessible from behind the gate on Munroe’s property in the back and 2) installing a latch that would be able to be operated to open the rear gate from Munroe’s backyard for access to the side of Munroe’s house facing the Gomez’s property. The purposes of that access at the time were in contemplation of replacing all of the windows in the residence, repairing the stucco siding of the house in general and painting the entire house. With the locksmith there, Fulvia Gomez (the mother) came out of the back of her house, placed her body against the fence, claimed it was her fence and forbid us to touch it. Fulvia Gomez also claimed there was an easement there. Carlos Gomez (the father) came out of the back of the house and said he’d have to call the police. I insisted he do that. Officer Abe Chung arrived and told the Gomez I could have the gate open to access the side of Munroe’s house. With me standing at the back gate and with Carlos Gomez standing about 25 feet way in the driveway, Carlos Gomez told Officer Chung he would do bodily harm to me if I went on his property meaning any of the property that is owned by Munroe on the side of Munroe’s house that faces Gomez’s property. I yelled out to Officer Chung that Carlos Gomez threatened me. In my presence, Officer Chung informed Carlos Gomez that if he did that, he would be arrested and would be taken to jail. This was after Officer Chung had already told Carlos Gomez I could have the gate open to access the side of Munroe’s house.

                        In My Defence -2

My Journey From Governmental Corruption And Police, Military And Judicial Abuse Of   Power To Candidate For The Office Of United States Senator For California

In 1999 while employed by Los Angeles County as a California licensed Civil and Environmental Engineer, I was prevailed upon by neighbors in deference to my professional standing as an employee of the County and my educational background as one holding a Bachelor of Science degree in Civil Engineering as well as a “Civil Engineer” license from the Board For Professional Engineers, Land Surveyors, And Geologists in the State of California while working on my master’s degree in Civil and Environmental engineering, to lead local neighborhood efforts against illegal residential construction adversely affecting our homes. My home in particular was adversely affected as the subdivision project being built directly behind my property. In fact, I reported the developer of the subdivision to the City of Glendale California for violating subdivision and the structural laws in the Uniform Building Code. To deprive me of ordinary public assess at the public counter to critical information my community needed for redress of that illegal construction, high level city officials in engineering and planning conspired to falsely accuse me of threatening gun violence against one of them in the City’s planning department. That false accusation was investigated by city police in Incident #99-17946 resulting in the investigators’ finding that the allegation of threat of gun violence made by a City official against me was baseless. I read that for myself under my name, Massie Munroe, when, in a mandatory called meeting, the District Attorney required me to read it in his presence after which the District Attorney said to me that the case was baseless based on police investigation and their report#99-17946, that allegations that had been made against me will never affect me and that the case will be closed. I said to the District attorney that I was being prevented by City employees from seeing plans of the subdivision being built behind my home and that there were serious violations of the Uniform Building Code and the violation of California State Subdivision Map Act, which is a serious violation and could be considered a crime. The District Attorney replied that I was a free citizen, free to go anywhere I chose.

About a year later with increased violations of the subdivision construction activities continuing to occur behind my home, I went to the City planning department to obtain a copy of the building plans. Upon announcing my name and what I wanted, I was almost immediately confronted by a City Planning Department employee who informed me there was a restraining order against me and that I had to leave. Hearing that, I left the building and went directly to the City police records room located in another nearby city building to see if there was, in fact, a restraining order against me in their files. In the police records room, a records administrator retrieved a police file with the name Massy, spelled with a "y" at the end, and my last name, Munroe on it. After opening the file, the records administrator read documents that were in it and told me there was no restraining order there, but that there was a police report that she exclaimed was incredibly criminal and bad. In total disbelief, I insisted that it was not and could not possibly be me being referenced in the file. She assured me that it was me that the file was about. I became highly emotional while continuing to say to her that it could not be me that the report was referring to. While holding onto the file, she held the file out to me so I could see that it was me being referred to in it. When she held the file out for me to read the document that was there, I saw that it said "Crime/Arrest Report". I saw that the report said that the police department, in the name of public safety, considers me to be a "suspect for life" and that I must be put "under control for life". In shock and disbelief, I left. Exactly one week later, the following Friday, a day I always had off work, I asked to speak with the same records administrator who had shown me the police file the previous Friday and was told she had been transferred and that my file was in the sole custody of the police lieutenant. I asked the person with whom I was speaking for a copy of the report I had seen the previous Friday, but was refused and told the file says that I am not to be given a copy of it. I was then told that I would need to seek legal council to obtain a copy of it. My attorney did request a copy of this police record file through via Certified Mail on my behalf, but my attorney neither received a copy of it nor a reply. Within 40 days of the events of 9/11, I became an innocent American citizen victim subjected to remote neural monitoring, voice to skull (V2K) psychotronic verbal transmissions, police surveillance, gang-stalking, home and car intrusions, social media character assassination, completely fabricated false criminal allegations that extended to my workplace, took and wrongfully dismissed me from my job and all but destroyed my professional career and more.


Dear ReaderVoter: By reading this, my true story, do not be alarmed. Operational information  I am describing on this page was classified, but it is no longer. Through inspiration in Christ, I was able to facilitate the declassification of this hidden holocaust based on my years of research and activism, the activism and written testimonies of other victims, books written by victims, scientists and researchers and released videos that tell highly significant portions of the life stories of victims still struggling at this late date to survive subsequent to all of that vital information coming to light and being made public and that is now officially on the public record. For more information and links, please see my position papers posted under my Political Vision that I have included on this website with great care and concern for the wellbeing of the people of California and America and our most precious legacy, our United States Constitution that guarantees individual rights of the people provided for therein.

At work on July 6, 2006 in a closed door meeting I was instructed to attend with my supervisor and my supervisor’s supervisor within my chain of command after I had told my immediate supervisor privately in his office what had happened at the city, I described for them both the events at the city as already related. In that meeting I said to them, "I am treated (in my workplace) as a criminal and I am treated as a person who poses a danger to others as if I am going to bring a gun and shoot others." I said in the meeting that I was being treated at my workplace in ways that were like the ways I was being treated by officials and employees at the City. I said to them that what the City had written about me was only an allegation, and that there is no truth in it.

Next there was a Skelly hearing, which I attended. At the Skelly hearing, there was only one item brought before me for discussion, namely, whether or not I would sign their prepared Settlement Agreement wherein I would have to have admitted to 1) making falsely alleged threat and intimidation statements in my workplace, 2) falsely alleged disruptive behavior in my workplace and 3) falsely alleged failure to comply with supervisory instructions in my workplace and accept many onerous stipulated conditions. My Skelly hearing consisted of me being told that if I didn’t sign the Settlement Agreement, my name would immediately be taken off the County payroll and that I would not be allowed to go back to my desk. I was told that if I did go back to my desk, I would be removed. I refused to sign the Settlement Agreement and was then told I would be discharged, and that I would be receiving a letter related to my discharge.

The result of what I had said in the meeting with my supervisor and my supervisor’s supervisor was that I was investigated by my employer for violating the Office of Security Management’s Zero Tolerance Policy. Concerning that matter in my attorney’s office, two employees of the County, one of them an attorney, attended my deposition. The employee who was not an attorney asked me if I ever used the words "gun" and "shooting" in the workplace on July 6, 2006. I was demanded to reply only with a Yes or No. I protested the way the question was asked and requested that I be given the opportunity to explain. The response I received was a demand to answer the question as asked. Disturbed by the question I again asked to be given the opportunity to explain. My attorney advised me to answer the question with a Yes or No response with the intention of following up with other questions explaining the Yes or No answers in the Los Angeles County Civil Service Commission hearing of my case. Based on that direction to me by my attorney, I answered Yes, but due to my attorney’s misdirected filing that resulted in filing too late, there never was a hearing of my case by the Civil Service Commission. By other questions that were asked of me during my deposition, I was able to clear my Yes and No answers. However, following my deposition and upon receiving a written copy of what purported to be my deposition, I found the deposition absent either most of the answers I had given or with my answers I had given, but with parts of my answers left out.

Very near the date of my discharge from my job in 2006, I came under heavy United States military surveillance involving black helicopters that continued through 2014. The Military Commissions Act came into effect in 2006. I believe those two dated events in my life to be related.

I paid my attorney to file a lawsuit in Superior Court for a Los Angeles County Civil Service Commission hearing of my case. In Superior Court, I won the right to a hearing by the Civil Service Commission, Case Number BS 109855. My employer filed an appeal of that decision, B208003. Egregiously, the COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE in error wrote in its’ opinion on page 8, the last paragraph, the second sentence as follows: "First, Munroe was never denied due process. She does not deny she had a full Skelly hearing." Firstly, I never had the opportunity in any legal hearing to either confirm or deny that I had a "full" Skelly hearing. Secondly, the appellate court’s use of the word "full" is false and problematic. On page 2 of the appellate court’s opinion under the heading, "FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND", the appellate court wrote, "After holding a Skelly hearing, (her employer) discharged Munroe from her position as an Associate Civil Engineer for "threatening and intimidating statements about "guns" and "shooting" people in the workplace...disruptive behavior...failure to comply with supervisory instructions." The County of Los Angeles has a "Zero Tolerance Policy" for acts of violence or threats in the workplace." The net effect of all this is that the appellate court convicted me of those acts without a trial by it’s publication of its’ opinion, thus damaging my character, reputation and employability globally without due process for these past fifteen years.

Further, the appellate court’s opinion makes it appear as though I engaged in threats of public gun violence in two separate alleged incidents, one at the City and one in my workplace, when, in fact, neither event occurred at any time whatsoever. Where and when will there be justice for me based on our nation’s constitutionally guaranteed right to due process? To end the practice of corrupt local government officials going through local police departments to send false Crime/Arrest Reports of innocent citizens to powerful agencies of the federal government that result in military surveillance. The fact that my "Civil Engineer" license from State of California Board For Professional Engineers, Land Surveryors, And Geolopgists has been intact throughout out to this date and the fact I am receiving my early retirement pension from the Los Angeles County Department Of Public Works (LACDPW) my employer who took any unlawful measures to damage my wellbeing and livelihood are the most distinct and fundamental evidence to my innocence against such empty accusations placed upon my good character. I would never be able to access my early retirement from the same employer and would never be able to keep my Civil Engineer license from State of California intact if there was a slight truth to any of their (baseless) accusations. Now I take my case to you, the voter, here in our court of public opinion. Please vote for me and contribute to my campaign and struggle for justice and human dignity, and I will do all within my power and the strength of my being to end constitutional due process abuses on behalf of all of us, we, the American people.

Political advertisement paid for and approved by the candidate.
Powered by Online Candidate