DumpDumanis.com

There will be no justice, no rule of law in place and no peace for taxpayers who fund her shenanigans, until Bonnie Dumanis is removed from office. The purpose of this site is to compile stories about Bonnie Dumanis into one common source that will be readily available to investigators, or any attorney who has the courage to run - in the 2010 election - for office against Bonnie Dumanis and her gang of criminal associates.

Also, there's a complete review of the scam-case Bonnie Dumanis brought against Joe Ryan in order to harass him and drain him of resources and time. The review shows that Bonnie Dumanis is a common criminal and a true traitor in every sense of the word, who has NO regard for the constitution, and no use for ethics standards or other obstacles in her path & who cannot be trusted to hold any position of responsiblity.

This site was created by Joe Ryan, an Independent Candidate for California's 52nd Congressional District Seat in 2010

This site is not directly related to my campaign for congress, but it does reflect my views about Bonnie Dumanis and her suitability to serve as a prosecutor. I think Bonnie Dumanis is unfit to hold any office. I think she is mentally unstable. And I think she is a criminal of the worst sort, running interference for organized crime and using her office as a hammer to harass political opponents, anyone who catches her friends or associates stealing, and opponents of globalism in general. She's been insulated from political criticism by the press because she's gay and Jewish. So what, a crook is a crook. And a hypocrite is a hypocrite no matter their religious or sexual preference. JR

SITE-BUILDING IN PROGRESS; PLEASE BE PATIENT WHILE WE COMPLETE THE SITE AS TIME ALLOWS

E-Mail Joe Ryan

Call 1-877-563-1116

THE MENU

BackGround Facts:

In 2008 Joe Ryan ran for congress in the 52nd district against Duncan Hunter jr (R), Mike Lumpkin (D), and Michael Benoit (L). Joe Ryan ran as an independent.

Election and ballot qualification rules

Independents qualify for the ballot in a different manner than established party candidates such as Republicans, Democrats, and Libertarians. The members of those parties start their campaigns in the spring of the election year and they compete in a primary election. Whoever gets the most votes, from each party, in the primary election advances to the fall election as the ballot designated candidate for that party. Independent candidates don't have aprimary to compete in. They can only qualify for the Fall ballot by submitting over 10,000 signatures of registered voters to the registrar; and the signatures must be gathered over an 84 day time-period that begins in late April of the election year. Since the requirements to get placed on the ballot in the general election are so rigorous, independent candidates almost never make the ballot, and they traditionally run as write-in candidates.

What is a Write-in Candidate?

A common misperception held by most voters concerns who may win an election as a write-in candidate. Most voters believe that 'everyone' is eligible to be a write-in candidate, merely by the fact that they declare themselves to be a candidate and by getting persons to write-in their name on election day. Nothing could be farther from the truth. In order to be considered as 'qualified' to win an election as a write-in candidate, an independent candidate must collect signatures that they turn in at the registrar's office and they must fulfill other requirements created by law and enforced by the registrar.

Qualified candidates per the constitution

Based on the aforementioned misperceptions, most voters and non-students of constitutional law automatically assume the caselaw that discusses candidate's rights concerns itself primarily with differences between the rights of candidates who 'make the ballot' as opposed to candidates who do not 'make the ballot'; but actually the breakdown in most cases discussing candidate's rights, recognizes the varying degrees of difficulty that attach to 'making the ballot' in different jurisdictions; and instead, the caselaw differentiates between 'qualified' candidates for office, and 'non-qualified' candidates for office. In considering the rights possessed by candidates for office, and especially when considering issues related to access to public forums, 'qualified' write-in candidates are considered on equal footing with candidates who qualify for ballot placement based on their affiliation with a political party.

Despite partisan harassment, Joe Ryan was a constitutionally qualified candidate for office

Five days after he declared his candidacy at the registar's office, Joe Ryan was evicted from the house he lived in by partisan supporters of Duncan Hunter jr. Thereafter, judges of the Superior Court obstructed justice until the time-period for Joe Ryan to gather signatures to appear on the ballot had expired. Hunter's supporters carried their eviction case by submitting altered documents to the court (a contract with clauses pertaining to responsibility for fire damage that was altered in a copy machine). The court ignored the fraud and allowed Hunter's supporters to harass Joe Ryan and his family continuously all summer. One hearing where Joe Ryan tried to raise the issue ended abruptly after the judge's long lost girlfriend entered the court, and the judge got all excited and kicked me out of the court (so he could meet "his favorite girl" in chambers). It when on like that for awhile. Then, when the damage was done, and Joe Ryan was no longer able to gather ballot signatures, the Hunter partisans dropped their bogus case and commenced hiding. So, Joe Ryan decided to go the traditional route and simply qualify for election by gathering signatures to qualify as a write-in candidate. Joe Ryan was the only qualified candidate to run as an independent in any of the five local congressional districts (located in San Diego County). No other person was officially a qualified candidate (for constitutional purposes). Qualifying as a write-in candidate was not Joe Ryan's first choice and it served to lessen his chances to win the election by a significant degree, but it did not affect his status as a 'qualified' candidate for office, when it comes to analyzing his constitutional right to participate in particluar types of public forums.

Type of Public Forum determines whether qualified candidate can be excluded from participating in a debate

The law governing who may be excluded from a congressional debate is complicated, but relatively settled. The law varies from state to state, depending on the content of each state's constitution and a particular state's statutes (governing the use of public facilities). Of course, where a private organization sponsors an event (provides the financial support and equiptment, supplies, etc), that private group may choose to include or exclude whomever they have a rational reason to exclude. Normally private groups use their own private facilities to hold events such as candidate forums or debates, so the use of public resources and public facilities is not a concern or an issue. However, sometimes private groups who lack facilities to hold events, choose to rent public facilities in order to hold their event in a facility that will accomodate their proposed use. Private groups may use community college property to hold private events; however they are required to pay for the use of the facility and they are required to reimburse the college for any equiptment use or employee services that were rendered in support of the private party's event. In California, where the use of community college facilities is involved, the law governing the appropriate uses of a college facility has been capsulized in an advisory issued by the Chancellor of California Community Colleges. That advisory states:

The use of district resources to support or oppose ballot measures or candidates is restricted. The fundamental reason for that restriction is that public money cannot be used for partisan activities. Put it another way, resources obtained for the district's support from all taxpayers must not be used "to take sides". Therefore district employee time, equiptment, supplies, or other public resources may not be used in advocating for either side of a ballot measure or to support or defeat any candidate. These restrictions are largely set out in an article in the Education Code entitled "political activities of school officers and employees" that encompasses sections 7050 thru 7058.

The sponsor of an event held in a Community college facility is the party who paid for the use of the facility and other attendant costs

Sponsorship is not the same as being a 'host' of an event. Sponsorship of an event refers to a party's financial support of an event. College officials have no right to gift away the use of facilities and employee services. That's a given. Yet Grossmont-Cuyamaca college officials apparently have allowed the East County Chamber of Commerce to use government facilities and sap up employee resources, without making any payment to the college. That fact came to Joe Ryan's attention when he inquired about being able to participate in the congressional debate held on 10/22/08 at Cuyamaca College's civic center. Grossmont College official Dana Quittner told Joe Ryan that he could not participate in the debate because the Chamber of Commerce had made a decision to exclude him. Dana Quittner admitted to Joe Ryan that no payment was required from the Chamber for use of the Cuyamaca College Civic Center. She claimed no payment was required from the Chamber, because, she stated, 'that the college had not used any resources in support of the event'. Dana Quittner's assertion did not pass the laugh test; so Joe Ryan made a decision to challenge the school's designation of the Chamber as the 'sponsor' of the debate. There's no doubt in Joe Ryan's mind that the school spent a large amount of employee resources and used other school equiptment (podiums, microphone setups, etc) to support the debate and that the Chamber of Commerce had not contibuted any money to the school; and that therefore, Grossmont College - for legal purposes - was the 'sponsor' of the debate. Since the school was the true and actual sponsor of the debate, according to the state's advisory (as recounted above), Joe Ryan could not be legally excluded from the debate. To exclude Joe Ryan would turn the event in to one that would "support" the candidacy of the three candidates allowed to participate, while harming (by refusing equal support) the candidacy of the one candidate being excluded (Joe Ryan).

Joe Ryan contacted Grossmont adminstration personnel and asked them to obey the law. Instead they defied the law and hatched a plan to harass Joe Ryan and deprive him of his constitutionally guaranteed rights

Joe Ryan tried very hard to come to an agreement or understanding in regards to his right to participate in the debate held at Cuyamaca College on 10/22/08, but all his attempts to negotiate with Grossmont officials were completely ignored. Joe Ryan wrote to every Grossmont Collge Board member and asked for their intervention, and not one answered. Joe Ryan wrote to the Police Chief and he stated his position; but the Police Chief ignored his correspondence as well. Joe Ryan spoke with a Board Member on the phone who expressed concern about the situation and he expressed sympathy with Joe Ryan's legal assertions (regarding debate participation); but unbeknownst to Joe Ryan, the same Board member (Timothy Carruthers) joined with Dana quittner, The Grossmont College Police Chief and other Grossmont College officials in a plan to rout Joe Ryan from the stage if he tried to participate in the debate, and to then have him arrested on trumped-up charges, to ensure Duncan Hunter would not have to face Joe Ryan in a debate, and to and to punish Joe Ryan for exposing the colleges illegal gifting of its facilities to the Chamber.

When Joe Ryan asserted his right to speak in the debate held at Cuyamaca College he was quickly arrested and hauled off the debate stage by a Cuyamaca Police Officer

When Joe Ryan asserted his right to speak, by declaring his intention to participate in the debate held on 10/22, he was hauled off the stage in handcuffs. But not before the Chamber officials and other persons connected to Grossmont College and the Republican Candidate (Duncan Hunter) engaged in a wildly boisterous, organized rout that was orchestrated in order to drive Joe Ryan from the stage. When the rout failed to scare Joe Ryan into giving up his first amendment rights, the same gang prompted a Grossmoont Police officer (Ryan Montalvan) to arrest Joe Ryan and haul him from the stage in handcuffs.

SDMedia (SD Pravda) Involved in Instigating Joe Ryan's arrest

As sad it it may be, Steve Bosch of KUSI seems to have got involved in instigating Joe Ryan's arrest. Joe Ryan showed Steve Bosch the advisory referenced above regarding the use of college facilities, and after arguing with Joe Ryan about the import of the advisory, he stalked off to the lobby and talked to persons about Joe Ryan's presence at the debate. In order to cover up the medias role in the whole matter, and in order to protect the criminals that engaged in the rout that occured, KUSI and Fox-5 both claim that their cameramen shot no video of the event (even though they admit to being present for the whole debate, with cameras in hand)

Duncan Hunter also involved in instigating the defendent's arrest

According to statements made by Henry Magala, taken from recordings that were turned over to the defense (after police-dispatch tapes came up missing and were subpoened), apparently Duncan Hunter jr was so worried he might have to debate Joe Ryan, that he ran to his Daddy's friends and he made arrangements to assure Joe Ryan would be routed from the stage or arrested, just after he told Joe Ryan - to Joe Ryan's face - that he had no problem with Joe Ryan participating in the debate to be held that night (10/22/08).

Warnings fabricated after officer views Video containing weak audio

After arresting Joe Ryan, the arresting officer and the persons directing him did some research into the law and they realized that - in order to legally arrest Joe Ryan - the debate sponsors or the debate moderator would have had to have asked Joe Ryan to leave the stage, before he could be detained or removed from the satge for violating debate rules. The arresting officer then viewed a video Joe Ryan posted on You Tube of the arrest. The video had very poor audio (as seen and heard on the You Tube channnel) because audio tracks don't transfer as well as the video the tracks are attached to. After viewing the You Tube video (with poor audio), the arresting officer fabricated the 'warnings' Joe Ryan had to have been given before his arrest (in order to give the arrest some claim of right). The officer wrote a police report wherein he then claimed that Chamber officials and the debate moderator had given Joe Ryan warnings to leave the stage. Problem for the officer is, another video soon popped-up on You Tube that had been shot by another party who attended the debate, and the second video proves no warnings were given. Also, the original recorded tape has good audio that proves the same point.

Officer claims he never recorded arrest, but seen on video recording arrest. DA Knowingly suborns perjury.

In order to cover-up his fabrications, Officer Montalvan (the arresting officer) had to then also claim that the recording he made of Joe Ryan's arrest didn't exist or was never made. Otherwise, the recordings would prove the officer was committing perjury by fabricating the warnings he claims were given to Joe Ryan before Joe Ryan was arrested. So he did so. He appeared at a prelliminary motion hearing and he claimed the warnings occured and that he never recorded the arrest. But the officer made these assertions without realizing that the second video of the event proves he recorded the arrest, and that he even went so far as to stick his recorder in the defendant's face in order to make a clear recording of evertything Joe Ryan was saying (just before Joe Ryan was arrested). The assistant DA who elicited the officer's testimony (Brooke Tafreshi), had been provided with the second video; but she went ahead and knowingly suborned perjury, and claimed the defense had provided her office with a video that contained no audio track at all. That was a handy excuse to cover her criminal behavior, but the fact is, she was provided with a dvd-recording that had a perfect, intact audio track.

Officer claims Joe Ryan arrested in order to protect Joe Ryan's own safety (because crowd had gone nuts)

The officer who arrested Joe Ryan, told Joe Ryan that he had been arrested in order to protect him from the crowd (for his own safety). That may have been a logical statement when you consider that a pre-planned rout had just occured, but it did not provide the officer with the cover he needed, so within a few minutes, and after talking with other unknown parties, the officer changed his story. At that point in time, the officer's recorder, was supposedly turned-on for the first time, and he then started claiming that I had been arrested becuase I (Joe Ryan) had supposedly become a ' safety concern'.

Grossmont College official says Joe Ryan arrested for breaking Robert's Rules of Order

Henry Magala of Grossmont College came behind the stage a few minutes after Joe Ryan's arrest. At first he accused Joe Ryan of using the 'F' word in front of the crowd, and he insisted that the use of the 'F' word was the reason Joe Ryan was arrested; Even though both videos of the event that are known to exist prove beyond any doubrt that Joe Ryan never used the 'F"word or any other of the seven words made famous by George Carlin and the US Supreme Court. After Joe Ryan reminded Henri Magala that the constitution doesn't restrict the use of the 'f' word in a political debate, Henri Magala suddenly changed his tune and declared that Joe Ryan had been arrested for speaking longer than a two-minute debate time-limit that was supposedly applicable. So Joe Ryan was arrested for breaking Roberts Rules of Order. Who could figure breaking Roberts Rules of order could get you 6 months in jail.

On 10/28/08 another debate was held on the Grossmont college campus, and again Joe Ryan was arrested to stop his speech from being heard

Six days after the first debate, another debate was held on the Grossmont College campus. Again Joe Ryan contacted college officials and tried to reason with them regarding his planned exclusion form the second debate, and again the school officials ignored Joe Ryan's attempts at dialogue, and instead they hatched an even more elaborate plan to arrest Joe Ryan (again). When Joe Ryan showed up before the debate (held in the Grossmont College Student Center on 10/28/08) he was met by a phalanx of approximately eight police officers (some in riot gear). They warned him that he dare not step on the stage (or he would be instantly arrested); then after Joe Ryan stepped up on the stage, they kept there word and immediately arrested Joe Ryan. As the officers arrested Joe Ryan, The democratic candidate in the race (retired Navy Seal Mike Lumpkin) made an impassioned plea to the Grossmont College officials running the debate (two professors from the political science department) that Joe Ryan not be arrested and that Joe Ryan be allowed to participate in the debate; but the college professor rudely cut-off Mike Lumpkin and he declared that anyone can write in anyone's name for congress if they choose but the debate was limited to candidates on the ballot. So, besides displaying a gross misunderstanding of who qualifies to be voted in to office as a write-in candidate (as explained above), the college professor dissed a Navy seal, and he ignored the advisory (pertinent parts reprinted above) that told him it was illegal to exclude me. And this is a couple of guys who teach political science.

The Grossmont College Political Science Department sponsored the second debate, so issues regarding exclusion of Joe Ryan from debate are not as complicated as when Chamber of Commerce was illegally gifted 'sponsorship' of the first debate (held on 10/2208)

Despite the DA office's bizarre claims to the contrary, the second debate (held on 10/28) was not sponsored by any private party at all. It was billed as a debate sponsored by the college's political Science Department. Eliminating the issues that arise where a private party sponsors a debate or is listed as a sponsor of a debate (where the parivate party is not actually the sponsor of the event) simplifies matters. where the college is the sponsor of a debate, they may choose to exclude a candidate, only where the state has a compelling reason for doing so. The constitutional standard that involves government having a 'compelling reason' to do an act is an extremely tough standard for government actors to meet. In the matter at hand, the college professors who made the decision to exclude Joe Ryan from the debate held on 10/28 didn't even know that any person in the building couldn't be elected to office as a write-in candidate. They were operating under a delusion/msiconception of the law led them to believe that Joe Ryan was not qualified for office in any way that every other citizen in the room was qualified (candidate or not). With that misconception planted firmly in their little brains, they lacked the ability to even make a rational decision (the lowest constitutional standard) regarding who should or could be excluded from the debate. And ultimately, the professors decision to exclude just one of the four people constitutionally qualified to be elected to the office cannot be considered a compelling reason to exclude Joe Ryan, where the decison left Michael Benoit in the debate and the percentage of Libertarian Party members is about 2% of the districts population, whereas the percentage of persons registerd as independent is currently hovering above 25% of the electorate.

DA claims second debate also sponsored by Chamber. Reality defied to change forum-analysis & secure conviction at any cost

Amazingly, in a demur oppositin filing, the DA's office has assertedthat the second debate was alos sponsored by the East County Chanber of Commerce. That assertion doesn't ven pass the laugh test. It was a convenient assertion, since, if it were established as true (by false testimony of course), the forum where the second debate was held, could arguably (a very weak argument) be a private forum (for purposes of constitutional analysis). What's another attempt to cheat with false testimony? Anything to win. That's Bonnie.

The unflappable Dana Quittner now claims Grossmont College can ignore the law, as long as the use of college facilities is offered on the same basis, to Joe Ryan, at some alternative time

The advisory issued by the Chancellor office of the State's Community Colleges doesn't say anything about a college being allowed to sponsor a partisan event, as long as it allows other partisans to schedule 'their own' events that support their candidacy (while not supporting others), at some other time or place (on campus). According to Dana quittner's take, the college can support a partisan candidate, as along as it also offers the same support to other partisans. It hasn't crossed her mind that maybe a candidate might not want to make last minute cancellations or alterations to their campaign schedule, in order to try and recover from the political damage that is sure to ensue when a college sponsors a debate between candidates for office, and where they exclude one of the four qualified candidates, and allow the other three to use a public forum at taxpayer expense. A campaign shouldn't be forced to constantly alter its schedule in order to take measures to equalize a playing-field tilted by government giveaways to one's competitors.

Chamber Still using School Facilities for free or at nominal cost

I (Joe Ryan) believe that the East County Chamber of Commerce is still abusing the taxpayers by paying little or nothing for their repeated and constant use of Grossmont-Cuyamaca College facilities.

Chamber's use of school facilities is in direct contravention of the law

The law doesn't allow the school to gift its facilities to private parties by merely claiming that school resources and employee resources are not involved, when the plain and obvious reality illustrates that the opposite is true. The law also doesn't allow the school to rent out facilities (or gift the use away) at a time when use of the facility in question will have a negative impact on the students ability to access the campus. But in discovery recordings turned over to Joe Ryan, Cuyamaca college officials can be heard discussing how the Chamber's event has caused all the parking lots to overflow (leaving a lack of parking for students that night). In other words, school officials are perverting the very purpose of the school's existence and abusing the student body in order to help their Republican party/East County Chamber allies. Lets face facts; the Republican Party and Grossmont college officials have turned the school's campuses into their quasi-headquarters; and its costing us all lots of money and causing great inconvenience to the conduct of the campus and within the students lives.

Chamber collecting donations, admissions and table fees from persons at public schools; so use of college facilities is a big money-maker for Chamber

The Chamber boldly lies on its facilty-use applications. The Chamber passed a hat amongst the crowd at the debate held on 10/22 to solicit donations for the Chamber, while on the application to use the facility, the Chamber denied they would pass the hat for donations. Now they are holding events like their 'First Fridays' in the Grossmont Student Center (not the Grossmont Chamber center). They charge 25 bucks admission and make a ton of money, while the poor helpless students who want to eat at the student center are displaced. Now the Chamber has a a jobs fair scheduled at Grossmont and they are charging $100 dollars a table (to companies looking for employees).

DUMANIS CORRUPTION

Dumanis v. Ryan

Background Facts

Background Facts

Issues at Stake

Links to Statutes and Opinions relevant to Case

Citation

Notice of Complaint

Defenses informal request for Discovery

Judge's Order after arraignment

My Demur (filed at arraignment)

DA Answer/Opposition to my Demur

My Response to DA's Demur opposition

Judge's Order from Demur Hearing with Recording of Hearing

Initial Discovery Defense received from DA (three police reports & DA's complaint)

2 More requests for Discovery by Defense (first is general, second specific)

List of Discovery turned over by defense to DA (compare to pile of non-specific bunk DA turned-over to defense)

Defense's Motion to Compel

Defense's Motion for Sanctions

DA's Opposition to Defense Motion-to-Compel

Defense's Request for further Missing/Hidden Discovery from DA

Defense's Response to DA's MTC Opposition

List of Recordings Finally Turned Over by DA on April 14th, with links to the most relevant audio and video, and including links to related PD reports (proving dishonesty of PD reports)

List of Discovery material (e-mails referenced in DA's demur filing), finally turned over to Defense on April 21st with links e-mails relevant to case

Motion To Compel Hearing #1, Judge's Order with Recording of Hearing

Motion To Compel Hearing #2, Judge's Order with Recording of Hearing

List with links to First Round of Subpoena's sent out by Defense

Dispatch Recordings (audio files) turned over to Defense on 4/28

Letter to DA from Defense regarding involuntary Contact with witness

List of Documents turned over to defense on 4/28 with links to Chamber's Facility-Use Applications

Notification Letter sent by defense to DA, notifying Dumanis that her assistant DA suborned perjury, & links to Recordings and databases included with the notification letter, that prove DA and witness corruption, beyond any shadow of a doubt.

Two Articles wherein Bonnie Dumanis ran out and covered herself, just after getting my notification letter (just in case SDPravda ever tells the public about my secret persecution and trial)

Letter to DA requesting that DA's office turn over results of crime investigation (they claimed would be started sometime after the defense's motion to compel was heard)

NOTE FROM JOE RYAN. There are no links to any corrspondence received from the DA, because the DA's office simply ignores my correspondence and never responds in writing at all. Bringing charges to harass political opponents is fun when you don't even have to follow-up and actually do anything but lie and cheat, after filing the charges. That's Bonnie. Completely amoral, dishonest, mentally unstable and corrupt to the core.