 |
| REST IN PEACE PRECIOUS CAT |
25 APRIL 2011: Jake Paolinetti and friends drove by John's house one afternoon menacing, stalking and harassing John at his residence (non-coincidental); doing exactly what they did for a number of years at night. Jake can be heard yelling "You motherfucking faggot" etc while John is clearly heterosexual. It is illegal to harass and menace people based upon their suspected sexual preference. GO TO: http://likroper.com/P1000593.MOV
This particular part of the case arose from an unwelcome visit by Jake Paolinetti. During the previous year Jake had made criminal threats towards John; saying among other things that he was "going to crush his skull". About one year later after the April 2011 encounter; Jake approached John's place of residence one night after driving by earlier that day menacing and making criminal threats towards John. Jake's false statements regarding his criminal trespass on John's property in April 2011 were enough to arrest Jake under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution; but the responding Sunnyvale DPS Officer on the scene that night refused to review the video evidence of Jake's criminal threats made towards John on that night in April of 2011; therefore ignoring exculpatory evidence in the process and ultimately placing himself in "dereliction of duty" by attempting to "guide the case."
This particular part of the case arose from an unwelcome visit by Jake Paolinetti. During the previous year Jake had made criminal threats towards John; saying among other things that he was "going to crush his skull". About one year later after the April 2011 encounter; Jake approached John's place of residence one night after driving by earlier that day menacing and making criminal threats towards John. Jake's false statements regarding his criminal trespass on John's property in April 2011 were enough to arrest Jake under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution; but the responding Sunnyvale DPS Officer on the scene that night refused to review the video evidence of Jake's criminal threats made towards John on that night in April of 2011; therefore ignoring exculpatory evidence in the process and ultimately placing himself in "dereliction of duty" by attempting to "guide the case."
On December 3rd, 2011; John's beloved cat Precious was found dead on the street in front of his house. The last time John saw Precious was at about 5:30 am on that very same morning; when John said: "I love you, Precious" then went to sleep. After waking up at about 10:30 am the very same day; Johns' neighbors found Precious dead in the street; and came over to tell John what happened. While the death of Precious appeared to be an accident; John suspects that it was made to LOOK like an accident when it very likely was not.
If you click on this link: > http://likroper.com/dog1.jpg > you will see a dead dog who was apparently killed the same barbaric way as Precious during the recent Romanian dog slaughter (warning: contains graphic imagery). Do you notice blood around the dogs' body? There was absolutely NO blood at the scene of the crime where Precious was found dead; only clear fluid from her head after being smashed in the street. (no photos were taken; but several witnesses saw her body). The evidence was suspicious and suggested foul play was somehow involved.
If you click on this link: > http://likroper.com/dog1.jpg > you will see a dead dog who was apparently killed the same barbaric way as Precious during the recent Romanian dog slaughter (warning: contains graphic imagery). Do you notice blood around the dogs' body? There was absolutely NO blood at the scene of the crime where Precious was found dead; only clear fluid from her head after being smashed in the street. (no photos were taken; but several witnesses saw her body). The evidence was suspicious and suggested foul play was somehow involved.
About one month later after the death of Precious;
John found this email from Jake Paolinetti in his email inbox:
--- On Sat, 12/10/11, Jake Paolinetti <tjpaolinetti@yahoo.com> wrote: From: Jake Paolinetti <tjpaolinetti@yahoo.com> Subject: videos To: "likroper@yahoo.com" <likroper@yahoo.com> Date: Saturday, December 10, 2011, 2:18 PM
"Hi this is Jake Paolinetti, I am sorry about all the harassing and headaches I have caused you in the past and wanted to let you know I am done with it all and won't be happening anymore. I was also wondering if you could take down the videos of me? I would really appreciate it, because that person in those videos isn't me. Thank you, Jake..."
This email not only strongly suggests that Jake Paolinetti is not only very likely responsible for the death of Precious; but it also shows that deleting the videos in question only gave this little criminal his way; helping to cover up his criminal activities from the past. > SEE ALSO: REST IN PEACE, PRECIOUS @ http://addendumblog1.blogspot.com/2013/11/rest-in-peace-precious.html
QUESTION: Why were Jake Paolinetti and friends not detained and questioned regarding this incident? And why is the SCCDAs' office lately speaking about incarcerating a cat killer for up to 16 years; while alleged cat killer and/or video-convicted human stalker and harasser Jake Paolinetti runs free? > GO TO: Alleged San Jose Cat Killer Now Faces 21 Felony Counts of Animal Cruelty @ http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Alleged-San-Jose-Cat-Killer-Now-Faces-21-Felony-Counts-of-Animal-Cruelty-386708791.html
<><><>
LEGAL NOTE: Jake Paolinetti is clearly NOT entitled to the qualified immunity available to government officials; as the legal principle to bar Jakes' illegal and threatening conduct is clearly pre-established. Also; no court has ever recognized a First Amendment right for ANY citizen to be free from retaliatory non-arrest with probable cause; nor was such a right otherwise clearly established at the time of Jakes' non-arrest.
And while it has been pre-established that government officials may not be sued under the First Amendment for retaliatory prosecutions where there was probable cause to pursue prosecution; the question remains whether government officials CAN be sued under the First Amendment for retaliatory non-prosecutions where there was probable cause to pursue prosecution.
And while it has been pre-established that government officials may not be sued under the First Amendment for retaliatory prosecutions where there was probable cause to pursue prosecution; the question remains whether government officials CAN be sued under the First Amendment for retaliatory non-prosecutions where there was probable cause to pursue prosecution.
SEE ALSO: THE REVOLVING DOOR OF VIOLENT STALKING AND HARASSMENT @ http://likroper.com/TRDOVSAH3.wmv + YOUTUBE.COM: PRIVATE BUSINESS OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION + THE SUNNYVALE POLICE ATTEMPT TO CHANGE A REPORTERS' STORY? @ http://addendumblog2.blogspot.com/2016/07/youtubecom-private-business-of-public.html + REST IN PEACE MISSY CAT / 25 DEC 2015 @ http://addendumblog1.blogspot.com/2015/12/rest-in-peace-missy-cat-25-dec-2015.html
“My family faced one of history’s most evil regimes. I learned from an early age, when tyranny rises it’s justice that disintegrates first–we must fight to protect and promote justice no matter the challenges.” — District Attorney Jeff Rosen
“My family faced one of history’s most evil regimes. I learned from an early age, when tyranny rises it’s justice that disintegrates first–we must fight to protect and promote justice no matter the challenges.” — District Attorney Jeff Rosen
No comments:
Post a Comment