Due Process, and When is Perjury, Not Perjury?

Committee on Chicano Rights (CCR)
 Martin L. King.
It was with amusement, elation and sadness that I read statements from individuals voicing concerns about “due process” for San Diego’s good Mayor, Bob Filner. Due process is a basic right (supposedly) guaranteed not only to Mayor Filner but every person in the U.S by the U.S. Constitution. Some of the lofty statements about “due process” were, “It is a fundamental right to be able to face our accusers. If we allow this mayor to be forced out without due process then it can happen to anyone. This is the basis of law since the Magna Carta.”
While the above pronouncements were righteous they were also somewhat hypocritical to me knowing what happened to 65 year-old Jose Guadalupe Martinez’s “due process.” An issue that was reported (July 19, 2013) in La Prensa San Diego. While I understand that Mr. Martinez has no political title, power, money, patronage, media, attorneys, etc. (just another Mexican caught in the just-us system) the question for those who profess to care about “due process,” (even in our own community) is why hasn’t one word of concern been voiced for Mr. Martinez’s “due process, or the injustices he suffered? Why no one has condemned California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) Deputy Director, Ms. Jean Shiomoto for her actions? Actions that on June 8, 2013 summarily punished Mr. Martinez by suspending his driver’s license, placing the suspension on his driving record, having him attend two kangaroo hearings, take a written test, and then forced Mr. Martinez to ride his bike for 42 days to his work, doctor, groceries, etc.?
The official reason SDPD Officer, Andrew Scheidecker (badge #6827) falsely accused Mr. Martinez of lack of skill to operate a vehicle on a DMV form that he signed under the penalty of perjury, in which he stated he had observed Mr. Martinez,
“A) Caused, or nearly caused the collision, B) Struck a stationary object, C) Not adequately controlling vehicle, D) Struck parked / unoccupied vehicle. The facts are Mr. Martinez was never in the vehicle, or driving his vehicle!
The arbitrary actions of the DMV seem to be more in line with agencies that exist in Russia, China, Iran, Afghanistan, etc., than the U.S. Under Ms. Shiomoto’s DMV policy, a person instead of being innocent until proven guilty is guilty until proven innocent. Then the DMV proceeds without one iota of due process to punish the accused just like the systems above.
So the question for the community is, why should anyone care about what happened to Mr. Martinez? The obvious reason should be that it could happen to anyone, especially those persons from Chicano/minority communities. Also, what happened to Mr. Martinez raises a number of systemic issues and questions concerning the DMV, San Diego/California’s elected/appointed representatives, and our own community.
1. The DMV – as stated above has proven to be a law onto itself, or a Keystone Cop operation. The DMV’s rationale is “it’s the law,” and, “driving is a privilege and not a right.” This even when evidence is provided to the DMV proving that the accused (as in Mr. Martinez case) was falsely accused and perjured.
2. San Diego’s elected representatives or so-called “public servants.” Why did every one of the representatives stonewall the issues? – Staring with Chief of Police William Lansdowne incompetent mis-management of the SDPD. Chief Lansdowne has refused to investigate the serious charge of perjury by Officer Schidecker? Other charges that Officers Barrett, badge #6469 and Schidecker harassed intimated and threatened Mr. Martinez? Failure of his two officers to do their jobs and investigate the accident (twice) one a hit and run that Mr. Martinez was supposedly involved in? Why San Diego’s elected representatives (responsible for city employees) i.e. Mayor Bob Filner, City Attorney Jan Goldsmith, Assembly Member Shirley Weber, City Council Member Myrtle Cole, D.A. Bonnie Dumanis, along with California’s so-called California Latino Caucus representatives, and DMV Deputy Director Ms. Shiomoto failed to investigate Mr. Martinez’s case? Their actions are but another blatant example of, “dereliction of their sworn duties.”
3. Our own community – there is no doubt in my mind after dealing with rights issues for the last 45 years that the reason law enforcement officers, (police, border patrol, custom agents, etc.), like Officer Schidecker feel they can act with impunity, lie, and even perjure themselves is because of their thinking that, “Mexicans and their community will not report, say or do anything.” Unfortunately there is a large degree of truth to their thinking. Honestly, ask yourselves why haven’t our local so-called elected “His-Her panic” officials, and statewide (California Latino Caucus) representatives, attorneys, organizations, and persons clamoring for “due process,” raised their voices? One can assume they don’t read, care, or have become so institutionalized that they think (like law enforcement and the just-us system), it’s just another Mexican, what’s the big deal?
To date, Mr. Martinez has had his driving license returned, but the suspension charge still remains on his driving record.
Unfortunately, the issue of the above injustices against Mr. Martinez and community still remains and raises numerous questions. Questions such as how many other unknown persons have been subjected by SDPD officers to the same illegal treatment as Mr. Martinez? Why the SDPD doesn’t have a check and balance system, overseen by superior officers (to sign off) to prevent similar rogue actions by its officers? Why the DMV retracted Officer Scheidecker’s subpoena denying Mr. Martinez the right to face his accuser, and his Attorney, Mile Slomanson the right to represent and defend him?
The facts are Mr. Martinez’s rights have been violated and an investigation of his case, Chief of Police William Lansdowne inactions, DMV Deputy Director Ms. Jean Shiomoto’s actions, and the stonewalling by San Diego’s elected representatives of perjury by Officer Schidecker still remains to be conducted. The good book states, “Justice demands accountability-that is, judgment.” It is our position that if Officer Schidecker is found guilty he should be held responsible for damages, fired and incarcerated for violating Mr. Martinez’s rights. In closing, the question remains; when is perjury, not perjury?

Due Process, and When is Perjury, Not Perjury?

Tags