The title consists of 3 points, so lets go over each one individually.
The war between Israel and Palestine is already well-covered. In this article, we wanted to discuss local facts that have not been covered. But first we’ll briefly go over the first point.
Congressman Jared Huffman, whose main office is situated in Marin, California, has openly continued to sponsor the genocide against the Palestinian people. Terrorism should be condemned universally. Israel is knowingly killing children and other non-combatants, targeting hospitals, and other infrastructure necessary to the lives of innocents.
There is no evidence that Hamas beheaded children. However, the October 7th attack by Hamas on Israeli civilians was an act of terrorism, and what defined it as an act of terrorism was the fact that non-combatants were targeted, attacked, and killed deliberately.
The genocide against the Palestinian people by Israel is at least as bad as the unfounded claims Israel made against Hamas, when Israel continues to knowingly kills children themselves. But quantitatively speaking, it’s about a hundred times worse, in terms of the number of innocent Palestinian children killed by Israel, based on nothing more than the location in which they are living, and their ethnicity.
South Africa has recently compiled international criminal charges against Israel for the International Criminal Court to review. The International Criminal Court has already issued arrest warrants for several Israeli government officials, as well as one member of Hamas believed to be the mastermind behind the October 7th attack.
Jared Huffman continues to sponsor giving weapons to Israel, in spite of the facts that Israel is repeatedly lying to the world, and knowingly continuously killing countless children every year. This should have been addressed by the world already and should not have been allowed to happen or to continue. Jared Huffman and a variety of other American politicians are accessories to this heinous atrocity.
Next we’ll discuss the second two points.
According to email correspondence between Jared Huffman’s office and a constituent, as well statements regarding phone calls, a constituent requested assistance that is promised not only explicitly on Congressman Huffman’s own website, but also explicitly by the Constitution.
Specifically the constituent showed Congressman Huffman’s staff undeniable proof that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal’s Judicial Oversight Council was acting in violation of the laws. More specifically, the laws say that the Judicial Oversight Council (JOC) must respond “expeditiously” to complaints received, and must accept complaints from parties of the court complaining about judicial misconduct. The Constitution also gives Congress jurisdiction over judicial misconduct.
The constituent showed Congressman Huffman’s staff the complaint that was submitted to the Judicial Oversight Council 5 years prior to requesting assistance from Congressman Huffman’s staff, and complained specifically that the complaint had been ignored, and that the constituent had already requested transcripts from the Court to support the claims of judicial misconduct, but the requests for transcripts were being improperly rejected.
Jared Huffman’s staff member, Riley Ahern, first refused to even accept a request for assistance, without valid basis. Then she responded by ignoring the complaint about the Judicial Oversight Council and suggesting that the constituent submit a complaint about the judicial misconduct to the Judicial Oversight Council, despite it being clear as day that the constituent was complaining about the violations of the law being committed by the Judicial Oversight Council, and had already submitted a complaint about the judicial conduct to the JOC.
The constituent has since been hung up on repeatedly, and treated rudely without reason, and even lied about by staff at Congressman Huffman’s office.
Arbitrarily refusing to provide public government service to certain people without a rational basis is a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.
Riley Ahern (Left), Collin Prell (Right)
The constituent also attempted to speak with Congressional staff member Collin Prell, who openly refused to talk to the constituent apparently without any reasonable basis. The constituent tried to speak with their supervisor, Jenny Callaway, but Ms. Callaway has refused to answer the phone or return phone calls.
The letters were signed by Jared Huffman, but according to the constituent, Riley Ahern admitted to forging Congressman Huffman’s signature.
The constituent has been blocked by two of Congressman Huffman’s three Facebook pages, so it can be inferred that Jared Huffman knows what’s going on, and is actively participating in the denial of the constituent’s right to fair and impartial treatment from the government.
The constituent was a victim of misconduct on the part of the Sonoma County government. Government officials admitted to applying a carotid artery choke hold to the constituent, and to destroying crucial evidence. They were also caught concealing the contact information for bystander witnesses, lying to the judiciary, and in various other legal misconduct. The constituent contends that the carotid artery choke hold was applied for an additional 4-6 minutes after they regained consciousness after the initial application. The witnesses stated by consensus that the constituent was not resisting, not even moving at all, and was polite and cooperative prior to the altercation. This occurred during the time frame when Sonoma County endorsed torture under official written policy. In addition to being put in a carotid artery choke hold for far longer than was legal or reasonable under *any* circumstances, the constituent also contends that a Sonoma County official drove their knee into the constituent’s kidney, in an act that was well known to cause extreme, lasting pain and serious injury.
It is undisputed that the incident occurred directly under a camera, that the camera was capable of recording, was being monitored by paid camera-room staff, that the cameras are digital, and record continuously. The county openly asserted in writing and under oath that the records of the camera equipment were destroyed, but that is belied by sworn declarations from other cases.
Leave a Reply