Examination of Affidavit Raising Troubling Questions About Woodland Shooting

Share:

img_2248.jpg

In the days following the shooting death of Luis Gutierrez by Sheriff’s Deputies in Woodland, there was a rush of papers released by the Sheriff’s department.  One of them was the affidavit used to obtain a warrant to search Mr. Gutierrez’s property after he was dead.  The Vanguard has spoken with a number of attorneys and experts in this manner and many of them have indicated that the extent and length that the authorities have attempted to demonstrate that Mr. Gutierrez was in a gang and also with the release of the autopsy on drugs, is highly unusual.

On Wednesday during the Vanguard radio show, we spoke with Michael Risher, a staff attorney with the ACLU of Northern California.  He raised troubling questions about the warrant itself.

“The warrant itself and the affidavit in support of the warrant is extremely unusual.  The whole purpose for the police to get a search warrant to invade a private house–which of course is a very significant invasion of privacy–is to collect evidence to aid in the prosecution.  The affidavit is suppose to make clear that they are getting this warrant because they’re arguing that Mr. Gutierrez is committing a crime.  Specifically assaulting a police officer on behalf of a gang.  But there can’t be any prosecution of Mr. Gutierrez because he was unfortunately shot and killed.  So there’s really no reason they should be invading somebody’s house in aid of a prosecution here–so I can’t see what proper use of this evidence would be.

Even if Mr. Gutierrez were still alive there’s really no reason in this warrant/ affidavit to serve this particular house.  They say they want to find evidence that he was in a gang and they claim that that’s relevant to the crime of assaulting a police officer in furtherance of gang activity.”

As many suggested–why would the police have any reason to take out a search warrant at all given that the individual is deceased, there is no crime here per say because there will be no prosecution of this individual.

It appears then, that the only reason that this request is being made is so that law enforcement which includes the investigatory agency, the Woodland Police Department, can establish in their investigation that Mr. Gutierrez was conducting himself in the furtherance of gang activities when he fled undercover gang taskforce officers and then allegedly attacked them with a knife for the benefit of the gang.

If we examine the affidavit itself, the evidence for this is sketchy at best and delves quickly into the bizarre.

According to the affidavit, law enforcement’s description of the incident is as follows:

Upon contacting Navarro and identifying themselves as Deputy Sheriffs, Navarro ran from the deputies. The deputies pursued Navarro, catching up to him approximately 200′ from the original location, Navarro turned towards one of the deputies (Deputy Sgt Dale Johnson) and produced a knife. Navarro then swung the knife in his right hand toward Sgt Johnsons mid section. Sgt Johnson estimated that he was approximately three feet from Navarro, took evasive action and jutted his midsection away from the path of the knife. The other Deputy (Deputy Oviedo), fearing that his partners life was in danger, fired two shots from his service weapon at the suspect to stop the assault. Sgt Johnson also drew his service weapon and fired four shots to stop the assault. Navarro was fatally struck by one of the rounds through his right scapular area.

From my standpoint, one of the key and unresolved questions is the extent to which Mr. Gutierrez identified in this affidavit as Luis Gutierrez Navarro, understood that the people contacting him were law enforcement officers rather than gang members themselves–as they were wearing gang attire in their capacity as undercover officers.

Along the same lines, why were they contacting Mr. Gutierrez to begin with.  What was he doing at 2:00 in the afternoon walking home from the DMV to warrant any kind of contact.

As Mr. Risher points out:

“The affidavit makes it clear that the police initiated this tragic encounter by approaching Mr. Gutierrez.  There’s nothing there to suggest he was out to assault a police officer.  According to the affidavit he just reacted very badly when he was approached by them, then ran, and turned and attacked them.  That’s what their affidavit says.”

There have emerged two justifications for the shooting.  First, he is according to police a gang member.  And second he was on drugs.  Neither of these explanations have so far gone that far in explaining the situation.

Mr. Risher argued that even if Mr. Gutierrez was a gang member, there is no probable cause to believe that the warrant would turn up relevant evidence to aid in anything that he could be charged with.

“So there’s nothing to suggest that his assault on these officers has anything to do with him being in a gang–even if he was a gang member.  The constitution of the United States and the State of California say that you can’t issue a warrant without probable cause–there’s simply no probable cause to believe this warrant would turn up relevant evidence to anything that he could have been charged with.”

And the evidence cited in the warrant to support him being in a gang, is sketchy at best and at times bizarre.

First, they identified tattoos as being consistent with the Sureno Criminal Street gang.

“Sgt. Davis reviewed the pictures of Luis Navarro’s tattoos consisting of a single dot on his right index finger, a single dot on his left pinky finger, a single dot on his left ring finger, and a single dot on his left middle finger. Sgt. Davis told me that based on his training and experience, it is his opinion that the dot tattoos consisting of a single dot on one hand and a three dots on the other represent the number “13” which is a common symbol used by the Sureno Criminal Street Gang.”

Mr. Risher questioned the validity of those tattoos as indicators of his gang activity.

“And with the tattoos–I have no idea what these tattoos are, I haven’t seen any photographs–but if you get tattoos when you’re a kid they stay with you for life.  So although they had evidence that at some point he was in a gang, it doesn’t in anyway show that he now in 2009 is in a gang.”

Moreover, he was concerned about the use of a two year old traffic stop with an alleged gang member as evidence.

According to the affidavit:

On 5/6/07, Woodland Police Officer Ben Christiansen completed a Field Identification card listing Luis G. Navarro, with a date of birth of __ and CDL# of __. Officer Christiansen noted that Luis Navarro was a passenger in a vehicle stop with Luis Santillan and noted that Luis Navarro was with a known Sureno Gang member (Santillan).  On 5/5/09, Woodland Police Sgt. Tom Davis confirmed that Luis Santillan was listed in the police records system as a validated Sureno Gang member.”

For Mr. Risher this is almost absurd evidence.

“If you look at the evidence that they’re trying to use to show that he’s in a gang it’s really incredibly attenuated.  They say two years before this incident he was in a car with a single gang member and he has dots tattooed on his fingers, which they say is a sign of gang membership.  The fact that somebody was in a car with a gang member two years ago is absolutely worthless to show that he is currently in a gang.”

The affidavit goes on to argue that Mr. Gutierrez is a member of the Sureno criminal street gang based on his tattoos and actions.  It goes on to state:

“It is a known fact that Sureno street gang members have a dislike for law enforcement, and have killed and or assaulted law enforcement officers while engaged in the performance of their duties.”

It is not clear what relevance this has to this particular situation, but there is more.  The affidavit goes on to mention a completely unrelated incident at a state prison where two Surreno Gang members attacked four correctional officers with large knives.

Mr. Risher:

“The affidavit goes on to talk about an assault at the state prison by two people that as far as anyone can tell have absolutely nothing to do with this case.  The affidavit as I said seems really just thrown together trying to support the search of a house without any good reason based on really a very strange thought pattern that somehow this fellow that the police are saying was under the influence and just reacted badly when approached by the police, must have had some prior plan of attacking the police.  It just doesn’t make any sense.”

And yet, the warrant was in fact served which means that a judge actually had to approve it.

Mr. Risher:

“It’s difficult to say just looking at this affidavit whether the judge had any concerns, whether this was presented on a very rushed basis.  In general we want the police to go get a warrant before they conduct a search.  But we also hope that they will do that in good faith.  It’s impossible to tell what happened here.”

To me, if you add all of this up, it appears that the reason that this warrant was requested was to demonstrate that Mr. Gutierrez was some sort of gang member and therefore provide a defense to the police in their investigation and possible civil suit.  According to several, this motivation for obtaining a warrant after the death of Mr. Gutierrez would be completely inappropriate.

Mr. Risher agree.

“This really raises the inference that the reason they are doing this is that they will try to collect evidence that shows he was a bad guy and try to use that in disciplinary proceedings or use that in a civil suit to avoid responsibility.  That’s extremely troubling and I certainly wouldn’t want to say that that’s what’s going on here without knowing a whole lot more.  But I hope that we don’t see that coming up, their using what they’ve got from the search in that type of, really improper way.”

There seems very little evidence here that Mr. Gutierrez assaulted the gang taskforce members due to the fact that he was attempting to further gang activity.

Perhaps understanding that this case is weak on gang membership evidence alone, the police have employed the autopsy report that purportedly shows a high level of methamphetamine in Mr. Gutierrez’s blood.

The argument therefore is that Mr. Gutierrez had a level of meth in his system that would make him have violent tendencies.  But his initial encounter with the police was to flee not attack them.  Moreover, the only point in time that he is alleged to have attacked them is after they caught up to him on the pursuit.

“Navarro ran from the deputies. The deputies pursued Navarro, catching up to him approximately 200′ from the original location, Navarro turned towards one of the deputies (Deputy Sgt Dale Johnson) and produced a knife. Navarro then swung the knife in his right hand toward Sgt Johnsons mid section.”

Law enforcement argues that this attack is symptomatic of an individual who is on meth, but it seems equally likely that they are symptomatic of an individual who believes he is defending himself from an attacker.  That is why the key question is still at what point was he credibly made aware that his pursuers were in fact police officer.  And them simply stating that they were such, is probably not convincing evidence in his mind.

Keep in mind, there are likely witnesses to Mr. Gutierrez’s state of mind.  He spent at least one hour in the DMV where he took tests to obtain a new driver’s license.  He successfully received his new license in the mail two days latter.

This is not an incidental fact.  It suggests that contrary to the portrayal of out of control and paranoid behavior, that Mr. Gutierrez was lucid and able to demonstrate sufficient proficiency to get a driver’s license.

Once again this appears to raise key questions that need to be reconciled.  But to me there is a plausible alternative explanation for what happened.  Mr. Gutierrez went to the DMV, took his driver’s test, passed it, and began to walk home on Gum Ave.  He was then approached by undercover officers who either failed to identify him or failed to do so credibly.  Believing they were in fact gang members as they were dressed in gang attire and driving in low-riding cars, he fled on foot.  When they caught up to him, he thought he was defending himself.  He pulled out his four-inch knife, and instead of pursuing alternative means of subduing him, they fatally shot him in the back of the neck and in fact fired six shots in total.

I am not saying it happened that way, I was not there.  But for those who believe there is only one way that this incident transpired, allow yourself just a moment of doubt.

This is exactly why we need a full investigation by an independent agency.  I think the authorities in Woodland understand that as well by now.  But my concern is a public release of the initial report may taint future investigative efforts.

For those who have not heard it, you can listen to the full conversation with Michael Risher, and also Al Rojas on the Woodland Shooting.  There is an interesting exchange between Yolo County Supervisor Matt Rexroad and Al Rojas around the 30 minute mark.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Share:

About The Author

David Greenwald is the founder, editor, and executive director of the Davis Vanguard. He founded the Vanguard in 2006. David Greenwald moved to Davis in 1996 to attend Graduate School at UC Davis in Political Science. He lives in South Davis with his wife Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald and three children.

Related posts

20 thoughts on “Examination of Affidavit Raising Troubling Questions About Woodland Shooting”

  1. Greg Kuperberg

    Certainly with the meth issue, your argument against the authorities just seems obtuse. The apparent fact that Gutierrez was high on meth puts his fatal police encounter in a completely different light than if he was sober. (I’m going to assume that the coroner’s office did not fabricate the urine test and the blood test.) It is true that the authorities shouldn’t editorialize ahead of time, but I don’t see any basis for sealing the autopsy report. It doesn’t seem any more confidential than any other basics of the incident, for instance that Gutierrez was shot in the back. After all, where he was shot is another fact that comes from the autopsy.

    Also, if Gutierrez was high on meth, that in no ways contradicts the fact that he panicked and fled when the officers approached him. Meth intoxication doesn’t just make you violent in the narrow sense; it also makes you high-strung, paranoid, and prone to fly off the handle in ten different ways. Running for cover is a very similar reaction to drawing a knife; in animal biology they are grouped together as “fight-or-flight reactions”. In fact, someone high on meth could conclude that three police officers are gang members, even if they are in uniform and walk out of a marked police car. (I’ve never used illegal drugs, but I have been drunk before. These crazy miscalculations do happen.)

    Yes, it is very important to talk to witnesses at the DMV, but not just to learn Gutierrez’ composure when he was there. It’s also important to establish a timeline.

    As for the search warrant, I listened to the interview and I think that Risher has a fair argument that the warrant was poorly constructed. It really does read as probable cause against Gutierrez himself, and that doesn’t make sense because it would be throwing the book at a dead man. That argument is fine as far as it goes. However, the police are investigating whether the three undercover police officers committed a crime. I would hope that they can obtain search warrants not only for the property of the accused, but in any location that might shed light on whether the accused are innocent or guilty.

    After all, this is not the only recent shooting in the area with a claim of self-defense. In May, they arrested Michael Moniz in West Sacramento for shooting Joe Villanueva. Jeff Reisig (the one who Al Rojas doesn’t like) said that the shooting looked like self-defense, and that Villanueva had gang ties. Now consider that the question is whether to lock up a member of the community, Moniz, for half of his life or even all of his life. Suppose that Moniz insists that he had been threatened by a gang member. Would the police have probable cause to investigate Villanueva to see if that was true, or would Villanueva’s family be able to say that they shouldn’t harass a dead man?

    [url]http://www.sacbee.com/crime/story/1883528.html[/url]

  2. Disagree with Greg

    The problematic nature of this is that we are making assumptions about behavior based on two presumed facts–drug use and purported gang membership–assumptions about how an individual would behave based on those presumed facts–rather than conclusions based on how he ACTUALLY did behave and comport himself.

    To that end, I think David is right to ask the questions he did.

    To my mind, the only things presented gang membership and drug use are almost irrelevant if the cops didn’t behave properly.

    The point on the search warrant is that you cannot get a search warrant as a means to defend the police based on his being a gang member. Why? Because it was irrelevent as to whether he was or was not a gang member. It is not illegal to be a gang member. The only thing that matters is not gang affiliation, but behavior.

  3. Greg Kuperberg

    [i]To my mind, the only things presented gang membership and drug use are almost irrelevant if the cops didn’t behave properly.[/i]

    You can’t separate intoxication on the scene from whether the cops behaved properly. If a man pulls a knife on you, then why he did it and how you should respond have everything to do with whether he is high on meth.

    As for gang membership, these policemen were in an anti-gang task force and it was their job to stop people who they think are gang members and ask them about their business. They have been accused of straying from their duties and stopping Gutierrez for no reason. The police certainly should investigate that accusation.

  4. vair3yoct4

    “. . .Navarro turned towards one of the deputies (Deputy Sgt Dale Johnson) and produced a knife. Navarro then swung the knife in his right hand toward Sgt Johnsons mid section.”

    Drugs, gang affiliation/member seems to pale in light that Gutierrez swung a 4-inch knife at a police officer which resulted in Gutierrez being shot because he was a deadly threat to that officer at the time.

  5. Greg Kuperberg

    [i]Drugs, gang affiliation/member seems to pale in light that Gutierrez swung a 4-inch knife at a police officer[/i]

    At one level, that’s certainly true. However, there is no physical evidence to prove what Gutierrez did with the knife, only at the most that he held it in his hand. And David is asking whether he swung the knife in self-defense. If he was high on meth, then that is additional evidence that he truly did swing the knife, and that he was thinking self-defense mainly because he was high.

  6. alphonso

    If you swing a knife at a police officer you certainly better expect dire consequences – there is no excuse for that.

    I do not understand why the police officer confronted Gutierrez in the first place and I do not understand why they pursued him when they had no reason to detain him. The officers initiated the confrontation and that needs to be explained. Bad things happen when you bother people.

    My real concern is the lack of discipline displayed by local police, the DA’s office and the Yolo Judges. Why is so much done in a self serving manner? Why not follow proper procedure and the law?

  7. Again

    “If you swing a knife at a police officer you certainly better expect dire consequences – there is no excuse for that.”

    Only if you KNOW it’s a police officer. If you reasonably believe it’s a gang member and that you are being attacked, it becomes a bit different.

    “If he was high on meth, then that is additional evidence that he truly did swing the knife, and that he was thinking self-defense mainly because he was high.”

    This is again a supposition. Even if he’s high, the question comes to what would a reasonable person expect and it comes back to when did he reasonably know he was dealing with police officers rather than gang members and if the answer is never, the officers are on the hook for this.

  8. alphonso

    “Only if you KNOW it’s a police officer. If you reasonably believe it’s a gang member and that you are being attacked, it becomes a bit different. “

    Yes, but there is a tendancy in Yolo County to overuse weapons. Call a truce and put away the guns, the knives, the tasers etc. Everyone will be better off.

  9. ANON

    1. I want to know what police procedure is in so far as undercover cops stopping citizens. A citizen would not know the people stopping him are cops, pure and simple. A uniformed cop, yes, but an undercover one, no. It would be perfectly rational for the stopped citizen to try and defend himself.

    2. How could the victim pass a driver’s test high on meth? Is this within the reasonable realm of possibility? If not, then one has to doubt the coroner’s report, and suspect evidence tampering.

    3. The sheriff’s office has no business speaking to the news media/publicly until the investigation is OVER. To do otherwise brings their objectivity into question.

    4. What if the victim belonged to a gang? So what? Is the implication that gang members can be shot on sight?

    As far as I am concerned, the warrant was nothing more than a lame attempt at damage control – and shame on Yolo judges for going along with it. The family of the victim should file a civil suit, and my guess is they will win. Yolo County needs to clean up its Wild West image – it is getting disgraceful.

  10. Mono

    The police officers were clearly the initial moving party; the fact is that people have the right to defend themselves, without question it is human nature to react when felt threatened.

    Whether its a law enforcement officer or not, should we allow ourselves to overlook the truth? This situation is bad for the relationship with the community and the law enforcement officers. Justice must prevail, and our leaders must understand, that they represent the interests of the general community, and voters, not political interest groups.

    The priority of our elected public servants should the protection of the general public, not the protection of the reputation of political interests at the cost of the communities rights, and well being. Unfortunately some of our elected public servants forget by who, and for what they are working for, and should consider both perspectives given the situation at hand in Yolo County.

  11. Cirenio Rodriguez

    I want to clarify some statements made by Mr. Al Rojas. My name (Cirenio Rodriguez) was mentioned my supervisor Matt Rexroad. I was never contacted nor invited to attend any meetings as was stated by Mr. Rojas. Claims by Mr Rojas such as “We made efforts…they were invited to the Community Center…We have called them…They all declined” These statements made by Mr. Rojas are not correct as it applies to me. I suspect that they also apply to other members of the Woodland Chicano/Latino community. However, I do not pretend to speak for them.

    I did find out about the meetings at the Community Center. The first one conflicted with my teaching responsibilities; however I did attend the second meeting. This meeting was held on the same day as the Latino Community Council Aguila Award Dinner. I made the decision not to attend the dinner but to attend the meeting at the Community Center. At this meeting, many speakers were introduced as members and or leaders from communities outside Woodland (West Sacramento, Sacramento, Stockton etc.) All with the exception of one young lady were not from Woodland. Mr.Rojas is correct, it is a free country and he as well as others have the constitutional right to protest, speak up etc. However Mr Rojas in my opinion violated one the fundamental rules of organizing, by not contacting those of us that live in this community and are involved in public policy or community organizations. Many of us that live in Woodland have been involved with this issue from the start and have questioned the authorities and the process. I did not attend the vigil on Saturday May 6 as I had made previous plans and was out of the country. I would have attended such vigil if I had been in town.

    I for one welcomed the efforts by Mr. Rojas and the other organizers from outside Woodland. They have raised important issues that need to be answered. We all are searching for the truth. At some point, we will know such truth and the the interest in this specific case will subside. However, those of us that live in Woodland will be here to deal with the aftermath.

    I disagree with statements by many, including some of my close friends, that is not a Woodland issue. Here are the facts, a resident of Woodland was killed within the city limits. The investigation is being conducted by the City of Woodland Police Departments. The meetings and vigil were conducted in Woodland and people are saying that Woodland needs to be changed or will be changed. It is an issue that many of us from Woodland will deal for years to come. We are concern with the gang problem in our city, but also with the action of the authorities. About a month, prior to the incident, members of the Woodland Latino/Chicano community met with elected officials about gangs in our community. Many of us will continue to be involved and someday our community will no longer have such problem.

    Those of us from Woodland that met with the Woodland Police Chief, as was reported by the newspapers are elected officials or members of Latino/Chicano organization. Some of us are native born Woodlanders and others such as myself have made Woodland our home. Contrary to claims by Mr. Rojas none of us are employees of the Woodland School District, however one member does work for Woodland Community College and is a highly respected member of this community.

    I have lived in Woodland for over 28 years, and have worked for the betterment of this community as a member of the Head Start Policy Council, parent volunteer at local schools, member of Latino Community Council, TANA, City of Woodland Redevelopment Agency Citizens Task Force, Yolo County Affirmative Action Committee, President of Yolo County Arts Council. I also served 8 years as a member of the Woodland Joint Unified School District board of Trustees and am currently a member of the Yolo County Office of Education Board of Trustees. I am also a faculty member at CSUS and teach Chicano/a Studies courses at UCD and Woodland Community College. The other community members that met with the Police chief have similar or broader involvement in the Woodland community. The reason I list the various community activities is to counter the impression left by Mr. Rojas that we only work for the school district or community college and are not real members of the Woodland commuity.

    Our community, like many in our state has its set of problems, and these problems will be addressed and changes made by our residents.

  12. seen a lot

    Mr. Rodriguez writes eloquently, and has my respect…

    I had the experience of ‘surveying’ a crime scene where an individual, high on meth, climbed over a 6 foot high fence, entered a home, slashed a 8-month pregnant woman’s belly (almost full term baby was delivered and died due to its injuries) and then hacked her nearly two-year old child to death. The attack was so violent that blood was on the wall 6 feet away from where the child died. He then ran out to the street, stripped off his clothes, and yelled threats until the police came.

    Yes, an independent investigation needs to be done… but it is IMHO too soon to presume that the officers behaved inappropriately…

  13. To Cirenio Rodriguez

    To Cerenio Rodriguez:

    You are my friend, so please give this the appropriate weight.

    I have also lived in Woodland all my life, I have been active in trying to change this town for the better. But lets be realistic, woodland is controlled by individuals with interlocking interest. Republicans and Democrats, Chicanos and Non-Chicanos, all the lines are blurred- they all stick together.

    I was particularly offended by the claims that the Latino Leaders of woodland were not notified. I am a Latino, from woodland and I am very involved. So why am I differentiated from the “click”? I’m sorry Cerenio but it is time Latino leaders start stranding up and stop selling out. Take for example Matt Rexroad, you (along with other latino leaders) have endorsed him for 2010. Woodland’s Latino leaders endorsed someone who voted to end health services for illegal’s. How can this be? Aren’t they human beings? How can your agenda coincided with that used by many nativist groups, such as the minutemen?

    We need to understand that for whatever reason, the Latino leaders in woodland have forgot or ignored their duty to question and advocate for everyone.

    You did mention how those of us who live in woodland need to deal with the aftermath. This can easily be disputed, all you have to do is search for information about the case online and you will see Woodland Latino leaders that have already jumped at the first sight of injustice.

    What im trying to say is that you cannot keep saying that Latino leaders from Woodland are not being included. I know of many that are included and so do you. What is a Latino Leader? Someone who has endorsed Matt Rexroad (whose agenda is far from that of chicanos)? I personally believe the problem in woodland lies with the cronyism that has plagued our town. Lines are blurred, everyone is in on it. People are scared to stand up to friends. Maybe the Latino leaders in woodland should cancel their endorsement for Matt and endorse a new Latino leader for city council, someone that will not compromise morals for political security.

    Again, take this as advice. I understand your circumstances, your career and your friendships- but at some point woodland needs to be changed. I invite you to the next meeting, show up, get informed and understand that other latino leaders in our ciudad are making sure woodland gets justice.

    Best Regards,

  14. Logical Thinker

    “I had the experience of ‘surveying’ a crime scene where an individual, high on meth, climbed over a 6 foot high fence, entered a home, slashed a 8-month pregnant woman’s belly (almost full term baby was delivered and died due to its injuries) and then hacked her nearly two-year old child to death. The attack was so violent that blood was on the wall 6 feet away from where the child died. He then ran out to the street, stripped off his clothes, and yelled threats until the police came.

    Yes, an independent investigation needs to be done… but it is IMHO too soon to presume that the officers behaved inappropriately…”

    But the victim had just passed his driver’s test, and was not showing any violent tendencies at that time. So how come, when accosted by undercover cops a little bit later, did the alleged meth in his system suddenly make him violent? The logic is just not there…

  15. Cirenio rodriguez

    Best Regards

    I am not sure who you are since you did not disclosed your identity. My friends would not do that or would have called or email me. My name is not Cerenio but Cirenio. My friends would know how to spell it. I strongly disagree with you that Latino leaders “have forgot or ignored their duty to question and advocate for everyone.” In addition, I never said that Latino leaders were not included. I responded to a comment by Mr.Rojas that his group called me and many of us to participate. I and many of us do not need to be invited to participate in publicly held meetings. As matter of fact some, as I did, attended some of the meetings.

    As to your comment that we must stand up and not sell out, is totally out of bounds. Many of us attended the Supervisors meetings and contacted them regarding the health issue. From your uninformed comments, the three supervisors (two democrats and one Republican) that voted for such action must also be supporters or members of the Minutemen. Que ridiculo! I endorse individuals, based on many things and not on single vote. For you information and education Matt Rexroad is not a candidate for City Council. Do your homework.

    Your comments “I understand your circumstances, your career and your friendships” seems to indicate that I put my career and friendship first before my obligations to the community. Let me tell you my so called friend. I am retired form Sac State and do not depend on employment from any of the local governmental agencies. If you were my friend, you would have known that I have been an activist fighting for social justice for over 40 years and in many occasions have sacrificed my family and career.

    Thank you for the invitation to attend more meetings; however, I am currently out of the country and will not be able to attend any more meetings but as soon as I get back I will continue to advocate for social justice.

    I do invite you to stand behind the words you wrote and publicly disclosed your identity. With friends like you who needs enemies! Hasta La Victoria Siempre.

  16. 30 year Woodlander

    Hasta la victoria siempre?

    Por favor amigo.

    I apologize for misspelling your name, that blame I do take. But I will not on any other point. You said you supported Matt for other issues, what are they? Both you and I know that what the supervisors did was a big step backwards. It is beyond me why you still endorse him. This is the issue at hand, Why is he being endorsed when he did what Pete Wilson aspired to do.

    I am very aware Rexroad is a supervisor, I mentioned city council in hopes that you would be able to read between the lines. Let me spell it out for you. Woodland needs people in city council who do not have interconnecting interest. i.e not Art.

    This is the point I want to make. Al was wrong if he said you had been called, when you were not; But please don’t expect a personal invitation. You are a member of the community, and the community was invited. I said Latinos in Woodland are selling out, I meant to say leaders in woodland are selling out. I am not out of bounds here. I am merely saying what everyone believes but does not have the courage to say. It cannot be denied that Woodland has key power brokers, people who have the influence to move things. What is happening now is that the power structure is being challenged. I want to sincerely apologize if I offended you, I believe I have. It was not my intention to offend you or call you something you are not. But this is not the time to fight amongst ourselves, it is the time to change things in woodland.

    I want to once again apologize if I offended you, it was not my intentions at all. But please do be aware of some things. Do not make the mistake of assuming that we are not educated and don’t do our homework (jaja), our degrees and merits make us educated Latinos, just like you. With friends like me who needs enemies? With friends like Matt, what about that? You see the difference is that I cannot and will not endorse someone who wants to deny health care to some of my students, community members and friends in woodland. But apparently you can!! So, with Latinos like you, who needs republicans!

    Hasta la Victoria siempre? don’t hide behind the sayings of murderers…

    Lets leave it at that.

    PS: you were not at the second meeting.

  17. My View

    Many of us know that we must take care of our own, before dipensing health care to illegal immigrants. There is only so much money to go around. The United States cannot be all things to all people. We are denying health care to our own citizens, yet with precious few dollars you want us to provide health care to people who have come here illegally? If you want to advocate for a guest worker program, I have no problem with that. But to advocate paying health care for illegal immigrants when our own citizens are being denied health care is outrageous. And by the way, I don’t care for Matt Rexroad, and don’t agree with most of his positions. But I do agree w him on this point.

  18. At the same time

    “Many of us know that we must take care of our own, before dipensing health care to illegal immigrants.”

    Are you in so doing, actually not taking “care of our own” as you put, because you expose them to a variety of health threats by allowing people and particularly children to have untreated health conditions.

    You actually do not agree with Matt Rexroad here. He agreed with the view I mentioned above along with the fact that it will cost us more when they have to go to ER and we are forced to treat them rather than treated earlier for less. The problem was, he couldn’t figure out where to get the money to pay for it.

  19. earoberts

    “Are you in so doing, actually not taking “care of our own” as you put, because you expose them to a variety of health threats by allowing people and particularly children to have untreated health conditions.”

    The problem w this argument is that most people tend to wait until things get to an emergency before they go to the doctor. Many use the emergency room as if it were a physician’s office. You are assuming that illegal immigrants use the health services offered to them, which I think is a huge assumption that is probably not accurate.

  20. Cirenio rodriguez

    To: 30 year old Woodlander

    Disclose your identity. It is easy to hide under an assume name and not take responsibility for your words. By the way, I was a the meeting, the same Wednesday that he Latino Community Council had its dinner. Why would I lie? There were several persons in attendance know me (some were my ex-students).
    As I have said before, I do not need a personal invitation to attend publicly announced meetings. If you are my friend as you claim you are, call me when I get back to Woodland after July 22.

Leave a Reply

X Close

Newsletter Sign-Up

X Close

Monthly Subscriber Sign-Up

Enter the maximum amount you want to pay each month
$ USD
Sign up for