Jack Christiana was targeted by the Huntington Beach police department. A Huntington Beach police officer, Victor Ojeda, went under cover and while Jack was practicing his speech in a public hallway that he was about to present to the city council, the police officer contacted the police chief and lied, absolute lie, and said that Christiana was in a broom closet.
Based on this lie, Police Chief Robert Handy targeted and detained Jack Christiana for 30 minutes while officers asked to search his belongings where allegedly there was crystal methamphetamine planted. Christiana had reported the drugs planted the prior week.
Police chief Robert Handy made two statements on the reason why he targeted and detained Christiana. They were a year apart and both under oath. The problem for the police chief is he changed his story.
At first blush, it could be interpreted that Respondent Police Chief Handy changed his mind as to the whereabouts of Christiana as the chief might have realized that police officer Victor Ojeda might have lied to the police chief.
But upon a careful reading of the two statements under oath on August 28, 2017 and July 20, 2018, Chief Handy stated two different things – and here is the key – he said he believed those two things – both on the night on the incident, February 21, 2017. And this is not whether or not Appellant had coffee that night; this is whether or not Christiana was in the broom closet which could be considered not a public area. This two different versions is the only relevant possible evidence to support the police argument of “reasonable suspicion” of which probably cause is required for a 30 minute detainment. No court has determined 30 minutes is “brief” which is a reasonable suspicion length.
The two statements:
August 28, 2017, Informal Discovery Interrogation No. 23
Here is Jack Christiana’s interrogatory question to the police chief:
"Defendant City of Huntington Beach, Defendant Robert Handy, on the night of February 21, 2017 when Plaintiff visited the City of Huntington Beach City Hall where a city council meeting was in progress and Plaintiff was detained, did you believe at the time that Plaintiff was in a closet as you claimed it was reported to you? Do you still absolutely believe that now?"
Defendant Handy answered “YES” and “YES.”
Based on this lie, Police Chief Robert Handy targeted and detained Jack Christiana for 30 minutes while officers asked to search his belongings where allegedly there was crystal methamphetamine planted. Christiana had reported the drugs planted the prior week.
Police chief Robert Handy made two statements on the reason why he targeted and detained Christiana. They were a year apart and both under oath. The problem for the police chief is he changed his story.
At first blush, it could be interpreted that Respondent Police Chief Handy changed his mind as to the whereabouts of Christiana as the chief might have realized that police officer Victor Ojeda might have lied to the police chief.
But upon a careful reading of the two statements under oath on August 28, 2017 and July 20, 2018, Chief Handy stated two different things – and here is the key – he said he believed those two things – both on the night on the incident, February 21, 2017. And this is not whether or not Appellant had coffee that night; this is whether or not Christiana was in the broom closet which could be considered not a public area. This two different versions is the only relevant possible evidence to support the police argument of “reasonable suspicion” of which probably cause is required for a 30 minute detainment. No court has determined 30 minutes is “brief” which is a reasonable suspicion length.
The two statements:
August 28, 2017, Informal Discovery Interrogation No. 23
Here is Jack Christiana’s interrogatory question to the police chief:
"Defendant City of Huntington Beach, Defendant Robert Handy, on the night of February 21, 2017 when Plaintiff visited the City of Huntington Beach City Hall where a city council meeting was in progress and Plaintiff was detained, did you believe at the time that Plaintiff was in a closet as you claimed it was reported to you? Do you still absolutely believe that now?"
Defendant Handy answered “YES” and “YES.”
Image 1 - Cover page of police chief Responses to Interrogatories
Image 2 – Interrogatory Question No. 23 and police chief response
Image 3 - Verification of Police Chief Handy under oath
Image 4 - Cover letter from city attorney office
Image 2 – Interrogatory Question No. 23 and police chief response
Image 3 - Verification of Police Chief Handy under oath
Image 4 - Cover letter from city attorney office
July 20, 2018 Declaration of Respondent Robert Handy also signed under oath, Defendant Handy wrote: “The undercover Huntington Beach officer reported to me that he had seen Plaintiff in or near an open maintenance closet off a side hallway.” (bold and italic added).
Both under oath statements by Respondent Handy are of his intent and thinking on the night of the incident, February 21, 2017, which clearly contradict each other.
Both under oath statements by Respondent Handy are of his intent and thinking on the night of the incident, February 21, 2017, which clearly contradict each other.
Images 1 and 2 - Declaration of Police Chief Robert Handy - July 20, 2018
TO SUMMARIZE
In the above 1) Interrogatory (with Verification) and 2) Declaration, both under oath under penalty of perjury, the Police Chief Robert Handy clearly changed his story on why he targeted John Christiana - that is - whether Christiana was in the closet or not so the chief could detain him.
But was it perjury?
18 U.S. Code § 1621.Perjury generally In any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code, willfully subscribes as true any material matter which he does not believe to be true; is guilty of perjury and shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
YES IT IS PERJURY
Interrogatory (with Verification) states the police chief believed that night February 21, 2017, that Christiana was in the closet.
Interrogatory (with Verification) states the police chief absolutely believed (same) on August 28, 2017, when he signed interrogatory.
So then it is not possible for the police chief to state on July 20, 2018 that the undercover police officer told him that night that Christiana was in or near the closet.
Both statements govern his thinking on the night of the incident. The difference between in the closet - or - in or near the closet is analogous to being in the bank at midnight - or - being in or near the bank at midnight (like at ATM). One is strictly off limits and one is not.
The City of Huntington Beach and the police chief have forever been caught in perjury on targeting an innocent citizen, John Christiana.
.
.