#Alameda County | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

if-you-fan-a-fire · 3 years

Photo

”During the pandemic, as jails raced to release incarcerated people because prisons became coronavirus hot spots, many judges nationwide responded by putting those who were being released in electronic ankle monitors that tracked their movements 24 hours a day. Other people were assigned ankle monitors as an alternative to bail as they awaited trial in a backlogged court system that moved online.

Now, early data shows how much the use of electronic ankle monitoring rose nationwide during that time, according to research from Kate Weisburd, a law professor at George Washington University and a former juvenile defender. Researchers are finding that ankle monitors are keeping people connected to the prison system longer than ever, as more remain strapped to the devices for over a year.

“Everyone is looking for ways of getting people out of custody, which obviously is a good thing,” Weisburd said. “But what's happening in some jurisdictions in the adult system is that more and more people are being released on monitors as a response to decarceration.”

In Chicago, the Cook County Sheriff Office's use of ankle monitors for adults who are awaiting trial jumped from 2,600 people in April last year to over 3,500 in December, according to data from the Chicago Appleseed Center for Fair Courts, a research and civil liberties group that advocates to improve court processes and find alternatives to incarceration. Chief Adriana Morales of the sheriff’s office said in a statement that electronic monitoring is always court-ordered and confirmed that during Covid-19 there’s been a “dramatic increase” in orders for them.

Law enforcement departments that use electronic monitoring say the devices are supposed to serve as an alternative to incarceration and help people remain in their community rather than serving time in jail. But interviews with people who have been incarcerated and then placed on ankle monitors and researchers who study recidivism say the surveillance devices hurt people trying to get their life on track after prison and that there’s no evidence the technology is rehabilitative. They often drag adults and youth even deeper into the criminal justice system and sometimes back behind bars.

“I've seen kids incarcerated for technical violations of their prohibition terms with an ankle monitor,” said Cancion Sotorosen, an attorney with the Youth Defender Clinic at the East Bay Community Law Center in Berkeley, California. “Going to the store on the way home, seeing their friends at the park — for all of those technical violations, they can and do go back to jail.”

Law enforcement experts find that ankle monitors seem to work best for a targeted population, like adults who are found to be at high risk to reoffend, said Kelly Mitchell, executive director of the Robina Institute of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice at the University of Minnesota. “But for your average drug and property offenses, it’s not a good use at all.”

Mitchell said electronic monitoring can be helpful from a probation officer’s perspective when keeping track of individuals who have committed more serious offenses or violent crimes but would still benefit from being taken out of the jail system.

“Electronic monitoring can provide a little bit of extra something to monitor that person for a period of time if we decide that we’re ready to give them a chance in the community,” Mitchell said.

Ankle monitors were first developed by social psychologists in the 1960s in an effort to offer positive reinforcement to juvenile offenders. They came into use by the justice system in the 1980s and early 1990s.

While they still offer the upside of an alternative to prison or jail, they have in recent years become the focus of growing skepticism — particularly as their use has widened. Advocates for criminal justice reform say that while ankle monitors may appear preferable for people who hope to get out of jail sooner, they don’t address systemic issues that land so many people behind bars.

“We're not putting resources into their communities to address the issues of violence, to address the issues of unemployment and poverty and structural racism,” said James Kilgore, an author and activist with the Challenging E-Carceration project at the Center for Media Justice. “Instead we’re going to slap this thing on them so we can track them, and we can keep them locked up in their house.”

One minute late

When Evelyn Canal was first placed on probation in high school for charges associated with auto theft, she was given the choice to either be on house arrest with an electronic ankle monitor or return to juvenile hall. The device was secured so tight around her ankle that it cut into her skin, she said, causing lacerations. But Canal couldn’t loosen it. Just like she couldn’t step out of her house to take out the trash without violating her house arrest, she said, which would land her back in juvenile hall.

“All the complaining people are doing about Zoom fatigue and staying in the house and not going outside, imagine being forced to do that by the government,” Canal said.

Canal — who is now 20, based in the Bay Area and in college studying for a business degree — was one of the roughly 10,000 youth who are put on electronic ankle monitoring a year in the state of California, according to a report from the University of California, Berkeley, law school on the use of ankle monitors in the state’s juvenile justice programs. While the use of electronic monitoring is high across California, in Alameda County, where Canal lives, there have been efforts to reform electronic monitoring of juvenile offenders, according to Brian Ford, the assistant chief probation officer of the juvenile division of Alameda County. There are currently 25 young people in the surveillance devices in the county, compared to 51 youths who were assigned the monitors in 2020, he said

The electronic cuff was provided by the Juvenile Justice Center in Alameda County. Canal said she was innocent, but since she refused to turn in others who were responsible, she was incarcerated and then released on house arrest. She noted all of the rules wearers have to follow. Each violation resulted in two more weeks locked up in juvenile hall, she said.

“I got violated for charging my ankle monitor one minute late,” Canal said. “I also got in trouble when my grandma’s house had a fire at 3 in the morning and I had to evacuate. My GPS officer wanted me to turn myself in because I was standing outside my house after the fire. What was I supposed to do?”

In Alameda County, young people on ankle monitors are required to charge them daily between 7 and 9 p.m. They must get permission 48 hours in advance from their probation officer to leave their house or go to non-pre-approved locations, making it difficult to attend after-school activities, pick up extra shifts at work, exercise or go to the drug store for a quick errand.

Alameda County changed its rules in April of last year to no longer charge youth with violations for small infractions of the electronic monitoring rules, said Ford, the probation officer. While he could not comment on Canal’s case, Ford added that electronic monitoring for youth in the county is court-ordered.

In other jurisdictions, the rules are even more strict. For adults in electronic monitors in Chicago, their homes are subject to warrantless searches, and wearers have to submit a written request 72 hours in advance to go anywhere other than pre-approved locations, meaning even stopping for gas can amount to a violation. Copies of the wearer’s pay stubs may need to be submitted to the sheriff’s office, too, according to a copy of the rules obtained by NBC News.

Morales, of the Cook County Sheriff’s Office, said that for minor infractions of the ankle monitor rules, offenders are issued a warning, but a person can be reincarcerated for multiple violations. Morales also said the 72-hour advance request for additional movement is necessary because of the high volume of requests the department has to process from people on ankle monitors.

Pay per day Though electronic monitoring is cheaper for municipalities and states than jail, the cost of the surveillance device is often passed on to the people wearing them. And during the pandemic, when millions of people lost their jobs and unemployment benefits were backlogged, that cost added up.

In at least 30 states, agencies require those who are placed in an electronic monitor to pay between $2 and $20 a day to wear one, not including activation fees that some counties tack on, according to Weisburd’s research. In areas like Baltimore County, Maryland, the hundreds of dollars a month people assigned to ankle monitors awaiting trial were paying as court dates continued to be delayed due to the pandemic became such a burden that the county moved to eliminate ankle monitor fees altogether.

Ankle monitors can be so expensive that some people in the system must choose between paying rent or their electronic monitor fees, according to Kilgore, with Challenging E-Carceration. Those fees are sometimes paid directly to the private companies contracted to provide the ankle monitors by law enforcement. Kilgore also wore an ankle monitor for a year as a condition of his parole.

While the cost of incarceration is higher than the cost of an ankle monitor and being on house arrest for many is a better option than being in jail, in places like Chicago, the majority of people who are on electronic monitoring are awaiting trial and have yet to be convicted. But unlike other jurisdictions, Cook County does not charge offenders.

"People are supposed to have a presumption of innocence," said Patrice James, director of community justice at the Chicago-based Shriver Center on Poverty Law. "But when you put people on electronic monitoring, you’ve not solved the incarceration problem. It just shifts the jail cell to inside our communities, inside our apartment complexes and to our residential blocks."

Technical difficulties Like so many electronics, ankle monitors also don’t always work.

When the electronic monitor senses a violation, whether from not being charged at the right time or when someone steps outside their house at the wrong time, the company running the monitor notifies law enforcement. Then officers may be sent to the wearer’s home or work.

With the dramatic increase of people on ankle monitors during the pandemic in Chicago, local watchdogs say they’re seeing a rise in violations for small infractions. Matthew McLoughlin, an organizer with the Illinois Network for Pretrial Justice, said he’s also seen an increase in more false violations and technical glitches for people whose ankle monitors rely on GPS tracking.

“I was talking to a gentleman who had an escape case because he was late getting home from work and had to charge the monitor. He was in Zoom court when they told him they were filing an escape case against him,” McLoughlin said.

Still, Joseph Russo, a board member of the American Parole and Probation Association, said overall, electronic monitors can be a reliable tool for tracking offenders who need a high level of supervision and they can help link people to crimes. One of the rioters who investigators say broke into the Capitol in January was caught because he was wearing an ankle monitor.

“Some people might be deterred who know their location might be tracked. But we’re not dealing with folks who always apply rational thinking to their behaviors,” Russo said. “There’s countless news reports of people being tracked back to murders and other crimes based on their ankle bracelets.”

Growing Up Evelyn Canal now is a Dream Beyond Bars fellow with Communities United for Restorative Youth Justice, a nonprofit organization that provides support and advocates to end youth incarceration and criminalization in California. She’s working with the group to pass the Juvenile Justice Realignment bill, which determines what will happen to incarcerated youth in California after state facilities are closed by 2023.

She’s also working to advocate for increased funding for California’s Office of Youth and Community Restoration, which she said could have helped her when she was having trouble with her probation officers and her ankle monitor and felt there was nowhere to turn.

From a criminal justice reform perspective, Weisburd, the law professor, said there’s no empirical evidence that the technology is rehabilitative and that “more often than not people are both on monitors and are in custody because they cycle in and out on small violations.”

“Viewing electronic surveillance as an alternative to incarceration furthers and perpetuates a dangerous false binary between incarceration or monitoring and ignores an obvious third option, which is freedom,” she said.

- April Glaser, “Incarcerated at home: The rise of ankle monitors and house arrest during the pandemic.” NBC News. July 5, 2021.

Image is: Evelyn Canal, Dream Beyond Bars fellow and advocate for incarcerated youth, in Oakland, Calif., on June 24. Canal, who was fitted with an ankle monitor while in the juvenile justice system as a youth, recounted what it was like wearing a monitor and now fights for young people's rights while in the system.Peter DaSilva / for NBC News

#oakland #alameda county #cook county #ankle monitor #electronic monitoring #bail conditions #released on bail #covid19 #circulation of surveillance #carceral state #at home you're a prisoner #penal reform #american criminal justice system #Dream Beyond Bars #ex-convicts #rehabilitation #failure of rehabilitation #crime and punishment

1 note · View note

victorvolta · 5 months

Text

Black Friday Hike - Redwood Regional Park

Avoiding the crowds that were avoiding the crowds I can honestly say that for as long as I’ve done my own shopping, I’ve yet to venture out shopping on a Black Friday. Generally, I’d rather spend a couple extra bucks to save my sanity. Many times, being in the restaurant biz, I was scheduled to work. But even on the occasions when I had the day off, I wasn’t remotely tempted. This year, I had…

View On WordPress

#Alameda County #California #hiking #humor #ladybugs #mushrooms #nature #Oakland #photography

0 notes

conandaily2022 · 5 months

Text

Piedmont, California's Dani Friedland disappears from Houston, Texas airport

Danielle “Dani” Friedland, 36, lives in Piedmont, Alameda County, California, United States with her husband Jordan Friedland, 36, and their two children.

youtube

View On WordPress

#Alameda County #California #Piedmont #Youtube

0 notes

circuitmouse · 5 months

Text

Alameda County

#california #Alameda County #Oakland #Berkeley #Emeryville #East Bay

0 notes

tasso1972 · 10 months

Text

https://www.culinarybusinessstrategy.com/about/

#Deagon Williams #Culinary Buisness Strategies #amazing #bay area #oakland #Alameda County #education #coaching #expertise #restaurant #restaurant whisperer

0 notes

eopederson · 1 year

Text

Port of Oakland, 1969.

#cityscape #port #cranes #oakland #alameda county #california #1969 #photographers on tumblr

13 notes · View notes

tenantrightslawyer · 2 years

Text

Fairview Tenants: Sue Your Landlord for Retaliation & Unlawful Rent Increases

Fairview tenants are protected from retaliation for asserting their rights under the law. At the state level, the California Tenant Protection Act of 2019 protects Fairview tenants in covered units from evictions without just cause or drastic rent increases. Locally, the Alameda County Code of Ordinances protects Fairview tenants not covered by the California Tenant Protection Act of 2019 from retaliation and drastic rent increases, potentially. Fairview tenants facing unlawful rent increases, wrongful eviction, or retaliation for asserting their rights under the law may have a claim for money damages. Contact Astanehe Law for more information.

What Laws Protect Fairview Tenants?

The five primary laws protecting Fairview tenants are:

The California Tenant Protection Act of 2019 limits rent increases to five percent (5%) plus inflation and requires just cause for evictions for covered units;

The Alameda County Code of Ordinances Mandatory Notification of Rent Mediation Services Ordinance provides mediation and review of significant rent increases and prohibits retaliatory evictions;

The Alameda County Code of Ordinance Prohibiting Discrimination on the Basis of AIDs prohibits tenant discrimination due to AIDs;

The Fair Employment & Housing Act prohibits tenant discrimination; and,

The Unruh Civil Rights Act ensures all Californians receive equal treatment when applying for and renting housing.

Although other laws may protect Fairview tenants, these are the most common laws protecting Fairview tenants. This article is concerned with the Alameda County Mandatory Notification of Rent Mediation Services Ordinance.

What Tenant Laws Protect My Fairview Rental Unit?

Fairview tenants are covered by the California Tenant Protection Act of 2019 where they:

Reside in a building that is at least fifteen (15) years old;

Reside in their rental unit for at least a year, except where a new adult tenant moves into the unit, then all of the tenants must reside in the unit for a year or, at least once of the Fairview tenants must have lived at the property for at least two (2) years; and,

Not reside in a unit exempted from the law.

Click here to read more about the California Tenant Protection Act of 2019.

Fairview tenants are covered under the Alameda County Mandatory Notification of Rent Mediation Services Ordinance where:

The Fairview tenant resides in a rental unit located in unincorporated Alameda County (Since Fairview is an unincorporated census-designated place, it is covered); and,

The rental unit is part of a property with at least three (3) units, including mobile homes where the tenant rents the mobile housing unit. Alameda County Code of Ordinances § 3.68.020.

The Alameda County Ordinance Prohibiting Discrimination on the Basis of AIDs protects any Fairview tenant or applicant with, or suspected, perceived, at risk of having AIDs or any person who is believed to associate with persons who have AIDs. Alameda County Code of Ordinances § 6.24.020.

The Fair Employment & Housing Act and Unruh Civil Rights Act cover all Fairview tenants.

How Does the Alameda County Mandatory Notification of Rent Mediation Services Ordinance Protect Fairview Tenants?

The Alameda County Mandatory Notification of Rent Mediation Services Ordinance protects Fairview tenants by providing rent review and mediation services, prohibiting retaliatory evictions, and mandating landlords provide notice to Fairview tenants when increasing rent.

Under What Circumstances May A Fairview Tenant Request Rent Review or Mediation of a Proposed Rent Increase?

The Alameda County Mandatory Notification of Rent Mediation Services Ordinance protects Fairview tenants by providing mediation and rent review of drastic rent increases. Alameda County Code of Ordinances § 3.68.060.

Fairview tenants may seek rent review or mediation for proposed rent increases where their landlord:

Serves a rent increase notice increasing the rent by more than ten percent (10%);

Increases the rent by an amount greater than seventy-five dollars ($75.00) per month; or,

Serves a rent increase notice within twelve (12) months of a previous rent increase.

What is Rent Review?

Rent review consists of a rent review officer reviewing the Fairview tenant’s rent increase to determine its validity. Alameda County Code of Ordinances § 3.68.070. Any proposed rent increase that violates the Alameda County Mandatory Notification of Rent Mediation Services Ordinance shall be void. Alameda County Code of Ordinances § 3.68.110. The Fairview tenant may permit the rent review officer to contact the landlord to discuss the proposed rent increase.

What is Rent Mediation?

Rent mediation is a voluntary, non-binding, and interactive process where Fairview tenants and their landlords can discuss a proposed rent increase facilitated by a neutral third person, called a rent review officer. Rent mediation may occur telephonically or in person. Alameda County Code of Ordinances § 3.68.020. With the mediator’s aid, the process encourages Fairview tenants and landlords to come to mutually satisfactory accommodations.

The rent review officer must allow the Fairview tenant and the landlord to explain their respective positions during the mediation. Alameda County Code of Ordinances § 3.68.080. The rent review officer will consider relevant factors and may use them to recommend the parties regarding the resolution of the dispute. If the parties agree with the recommendation, they may formalize the agreement with a signed contract. Only the Fairview tenant and their landlord are parties to the agreement. The government and the rent review officer will not sign the agreement.

Relevant factors to consider at mediation include, but are not limited to:

Hardship to the Fairview tenant regarding the rent increase;

The frequency and amount of prior rent increases imposed on the Fairview tenant;

The landlord’s mortgage payments; and,

Other costs associated with owning and maintaining the property. Alameda County Code of Ordinances § 3.68.080.

Please note that, under the Alameda County Mandatory Notification of Rent Mediation Services Ordinance, the rent review officer’s proposed recommendation is nonbinding, except when mutually agreed upon by the Fairview tenant and the landlord. Alameda County Code of Ordinances § 3.68.120.

What Happens if a Landlord Violates a Rent Mediation Contract?

Where a landlord violates a signed contract agreed to at rent mediation, the Fairview tenant may bring a lawsuit for breach of contract and, possibly, other claims such as retaliation. Alameda County Code of Ordinances § 3.68.100.

Click here to request mediation under the Alameda County Mandatory Notification of Rent Mediation Services Ordinance by phone.

Click here to request mediation under the Alameda County Mandatory Notification of Rent Mediation Services Ordinance via email.

How Long May The County of Alameda Wait Before Responding to a Fairview Tenant’s Rent Review or Mediation Request?

Under the Alameda County Mandatory Notification of Rent Mediation Services Ordinance, the County of Alameda must respond to a rent review request, “in an expeditious manner.” Alameda County Code of Ordinances § 3.68.060.

How May A Fairview Tenant Request Rent Review or Mediation Services?

To request rent review, Fairview tenants may submit the request via email or by phone.

What Notices Must Landlords Provide Fairview Tenants Under the Alameda County Mandatory Notification of Rent Mediation Services Ordinance?

When increasing rent in Fairview, Fairview tenants must not only receive written notice pursuant to Civil Code section 827, but must also simultaneously receive a notice of the availability of voluntary rent review and mediation services. Alameda County Code of Ordinances § 3.68.040.

The text of the notice must state as follows:

NOTICE: Under Civil Code Section 827(b), a landlord must provide a tenant with thirty (30) days’ notice prior to a rent increase of ten percent (10%) or less and sixty (60) days’ notice of a rent increase of greater than ten percent (10%). Under Chapter 3.68 of Title 3 of Alameda County General Ordinance Code, a landlord of any rental unit on a property with three or more housing units must at the same time provide this notice of the county’s rent review and mediation program before demanding or accepting any increase in rent.You are encouraged to contact the owner or manager of your rental unit to discuss a rent increase as soon as possible. However, you may also request services under the Alameda County rent review and mediation program. Rent review services are available for any rent increase. You may also be eligible for voluntary rent mediation services if you have received notice of a rent increase that (1) will increase your rent more than ten percent (10%) above the rent you paid last month, (2) is greater than seventy-five dollars ($75.00) per month, or (3) follows one or more prior rent increases within the past twelve (12) months.Request for rent review or mediation services may be made in writing or by telephone. If you request mediation of the rent increase, you and your landlord may be requested to meet with a rent review officer for a hearing on your rent dispute. After hearing from you and your landlord, the rent review officer may make a nonbinding recommendation for resolution of the rent dispute. To request review or mediation of your rent increase, please contact the Rent Review Program, 224 W. Winton Ave., Room 108, Hayward, CA 94544 or by calling (510) 670- 6682 and requesting rent review or mediation services.Under Civil Code Section 1942.5, it is illegal for a landlord to retaliate against a tenant for lawfully and peaceably exercising his or her legal rights.

Alameda County Code of Ordinances § 3.68.040. Any rent increase served on a Fairview tenant lacking this notice is invalid.

How Are Fairview Tenants Fighting Back Against Landlord Retaliation & Harassment?

Some landlords may retaliate or harass Fairview tenants for refusing to pay an unlawful rent increase, requesting rent mediation, or asserting any other right provided under the Alameda County Mandatory Notification of Rent Mediation Services Ordinance. Any landlord that ignores the Alameda County Mandatory Notification of Rent Mediation Services Ordinance by filing an eviction lawsuit to collect unlawful rent is guilty of a retaliatory eviction. Alameda County Code of Ordinances § 3.68.100. Any landlord violation of the Alameda County Mandatory Notification of Rent Mediation Services Ordinance operates as a complete defense to the eviction lawsuit. Alameda County Code of Ordinances § 3.68.110. Further, the Fairview tenant can recover all unlawfully collected rent from the landlord by filing a lawsuit against their landlord. Fairview tenants may have additional claims for retaliation, harassment, and wrongful eviction depending on their unique circumstances.

To discuss Fairview tenant protections, the Alameda County Mandatory Notification of Rent Mediation Services Ordinance, or California Rent Control (AB1482), contact Astanehe Law, including by phone or email, to speak with a tenant attorney.

#Fairview #Fairview Tenant #Fairview tenants #tenant rights #tenants rights #tenant rights attorney #tenant attorney #tenant lawyer #unlawful rent increase #Alameda county

0 notes

sbnkalny · 6 months

Text

Johnathaniel Madden, formerly Johnathaniel Maddornest and Codenamed third coach Prince, was the Marquess of Oakland–Alameda county Coliseum in Oakland and the husband of the year 1997 has arrived. a herd of fuckin' ugly reds. are Rushing from the former Breitbart CEO's balls, chemically burning the eyes of the larger public?

#TEXT #DAY 10 #Johnathaniel Madden #formerly Johnathaniel Maddornest and codenamed third coach Prince #was the Marquess of Oakland–Alameda county coliseum in Oakland and the husband of the year Edition.. The year 1997 Has arrived. a herd of f #Smoke Was rising from the former breitbart ceo's balls #chemically burning the eyes of president Trump.

26 notes · View notes

webdiggerxxx · 9 months

Text

꧁★꧂

#brings back soooo many childhood memories #spiderman #spongebob #bart simpson #the simpsons #balloons #fair #nostalgia #county fair #alameda #california #flickr #oldweb #old web

22 notes · View notes

coochiequeens · 1 year

Text

“Antifa had been lingering for a while. We saw them watching us, but they were afraid to act while we were near the courthouse, presumably because law enforcement is present”. When did Antifa become cowardly men attacking women on behalf of other violent men?

Women protesting the placement of trans-identified males in women’s prisons were met with violence from trans activists yesterday at the Alameda County Courthouse in Oakland, California.

Led by author and women’s rights advocate Kara Dansky, the small group peacefully began their protest on the steps of the courthouse, with the women carrying banners which read “No Men in Women’s Prisons” and “Dana Rivers is a Man.” Some of the demonstrators gave speeches on the importance of keeping prisons sex-segregated for the safety and dignity of female inmates.

The women, most of whom were advocates with Women’s Declaration International USA, had gathered specifically to voice opposition to the possibility that biologically male convicted murderer Dana Rivers may be housed in a women’s prison.

But it wasn’t long before the female protesters were attacked by trans activists who had reportedly arrived with the intention of intimidating them into ending their demonstration.

Speaking to Reduxx, Women’s Liberation Front founder Lierre Keith says the protest had initially been off to a good start — with members of the public expressing support for the women’s signage. But after the group moved their demonstration to the sidewalk across from the courthouse, black-clad trans activists ambushed them.

“Antifa had been lingering for a while. We saw them watching us, but they were afraid to act while we were near the courthouse, presumably because law enforcement is present,” Keith said, noting that the demonstrators had been engaged in conversation with a passerby curious about their protest when the activists struck.

“One man rammed into Kara with an umbrella. Others attacked us by slamming things into our faces and heads. Kara also got eggs smashed into her head and body. There’s a photo of actual blood behind her ear from the force.”

Keith continued that she had “minor” swelling in her eyes from the incident after a whipped cream pie was forcefully thrown at her face.

“It was over really quickly. These things are a blur in the moment. Another man came at us from the other side on a bicycle, trying to knock women down or scare us. He came very close to seriously injuring women.”

The two banners the women had been holding were also targeted, with dramatic footage emerging from the scene of multiple trans activists successfully wrestling the signs from the women. Keith estimates that there were eight trans activists who participated in the assaults, most or all of whom were male.

Keith says that the passerby who had stopped to talk to the group just before the violent attack was “horrified” by what she had witnessed.

“We tried to explain to her then that these are the men who want to get into women’s prisons — violent, abusive misogynists who take delight in hurting women for fun [and] that this has been going for over a decade. Women have lost our ability to speak and gather in public if we disagree with men. The [trans activists] did our job for us. They showed her who they are better than we ever could have!”

Police were contacted immediately following the incident.

Many who had tuned into the Facebook livestream of the event were shocked by the attack, pointing out that the female demonstrators had been there specifically to protest a man convicted of murdering a family.

Dana Rivers, a man who identifies as a transgender woman, was recently found guilty in the triple homicide of a lesbian couple and their son. After a lengthy delay in court proceedings, Rivers was finally convicted last month of murder in the first degree for the 2016 slayings of Charlotte Reed, Patricia Wright, and Benny Diambu-Wright.

Prior to the killings, Rivers was a prominent trans activist known for fighting against “gender discrimination.”

Rivers first gained notoriety in 1999 after he was fired from his job teaching at Center High School in Sacramento County, California, for openly discussing his “sexuality and the importance of gender self-determination” in class with students. Rivers launched a highly-publicized “discrimination” lawsuit and was awarded $150,000 in compensation.

Following the suit, Rivers became a well-known advocate for trans-identified males. He was invited to speak as a guest lecturer at several universities, including Stanford and UC Davis, and served as a Board Member for the International Foundation for Gender Education (IFGE).

Rivers was also a keynote speaker for the National Center for Lesbian Rights as well as for The Tiffany Club, an organization founded to promote the political interests of those with “gender confusion.”

Rivers was arrested on November 11, 2016 as he was fleeing the home of Wright and Reed. Neighbors had called the police after hearing gunshots sounding from the house.

When authorities arrived, they found Rivers covered in blood and gasoline and running from the property, which had been set ablaze. When officers searched Rivers, they found a bloody screwdriver, a knife, brass knuckles, bullets, pepper spray, and Benny Diambu-Wright’s iPod.

According to police reports, Rivers “began to make spontaneous statements about [his] involvement in the murders” while being arrested. Rivers ultimately confessed to killing the two women and their son, but entered a plea of not guilty on charges of triple homicide in 2017.

The case had first been set for trial in 2019, but was repeatedly delayed in order to accommodate an investigation into Rivers’ mental health. The trial finally began on October 31, and Rivers was convicted just weeks later in mid-November.

The court reconvened on December 5 to begin considerations for Rivers’ insanity claim. If accepted, Rivers will likely be sent to a psychiatric institution rather than a prison. But if rejected, there is a strong possibility Rivers will be placed in a women’s correctional facility in accordance with California state law.

California has one of the most liberal prisons self-identification policies in the country, something that has become a point of contention for women’s rights advocates.

S.B-132, also known as the Transgender Respect, Agency, and Dignity Act, was signed into effect in January of 2021 by California Governor Gavin Newsom. The law provides inmates housing based on their self-declared gender identity status.

The Act has resulted in hundreds of male inmates to issue requests for transfer to women’s institutions, many of whom have been accepted regardless of their legal gender status or conviction history.

According to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, as of November 27, 342 male inmates currently housed in men’s prisons have requested to be moved to a female institution. The Department has previously confirmed to Reduxx that male inmates do not need to be on any hormones or have had any “gender affirming” surgeries in order to be considered for placement in a women’s facility.

Male inmates don’t even need to identify as transgender to request a transfer, and can simply mark themselves as gender non-conforming, non-binary, or not presently utilizing “he/him” pronouns.

Earlier this year, Reduxx reported that a pedophile who had molested a 4-year-old girl had been moved to the California Institution for Women despite having been denied a gender and name change, and still legally being a male.

By Anna Slatz Anna is the Co-Founder and Editor-in-Chief at Reduxx, with a journalistic focus on covering crime, child predators, and women's rights. She lives in Canada, enjoys Opera, and kvetches in her spare time.

#TRAs are just MRAs #California #Alameda County Courthouse #Oakland #No Men in Women’s Prisons #Dana Rivers is a man #Women’s Declaration International USA

37 notes · View notes