David Hernandez Supports the Police Officers Bill of Rights

Police Officers Bill of Rights

CALIFORNIA CODES GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 3300-3311

3300. This chapter is known and may be cited as the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act.

3301. For purposes of this chapter, the term public safety officer means all peace officers specified in Sections 830.1,

830.2, 830.3, 830.31, 830.32, 830.33, except subdivision (e), 830.34, 830.35, except subdivision (c), 830.36, 830.37,

830.38, 830.4, and 830.5 of the Penal Code. The Legislature hereby finds and declares that the rights and protections

provided to peace officers under this chapter constitute a matter of statewide concern. The Legislature further finds and

declares that effective law enforcement depends upon the maintenance of stable employer-employee relations, between

public safety employees and their employers. In order to assure that stable relations are continued throughout the state and

to further assure that effective services are provided to all people of the state, it is necessary that this chapter be applicable

to all public safety officers, as defined in this section, wherever situated within the State of California.

3302. (a) Except as otherwise provided by law, or whenever on duty or in uniform, no public safety officer shall be

prohibited from engaging, or be coerced or required to engage, in political activity.

(b) No public safety officer shall be prohibited from seeking election to, or serving as a member of, the governing board

of a school district.

3303. When any public safety officer is under investigation and subjected to interrogation by his or her commanding

officer, or any other member of the employing public safety department, that could lead to punitive action, the

interrogation shall be conducted under the following conditions. For the purpose of this chapter, punitive action means

any action that may lead to dismissal, demotion, suspension, reduction in salary, written reprimand, or transfer for

purposes of punishment.

(a) The interrogation shall be conducted at a reasonable hour, preferably at a time when the public safety officer is on

duty, or during the normal waking hours for the public safety officer, unless the seriousness of the investigation requires

otherwise. If the interrogation does occur during off-duty time of the public safety officer being interrogated, the public

safety officer shall be compensated for any off-duty time in accordance with regular department procedures, and the

public safety officer shall not be released from employment for any work missed.

(b) The public safety officer under investigation shall be informed prior to the interrogation of the rank, name, and

command of the officer in charge of the interrogation, the interrogating officers, and all other persons to be present during

the interrogation. All questions directed to the public safety officer under interrogation shall be asked by and through no

more than two interrogators at one time.

(c) The public safety officer under investigation shall be informed of the nature of the investigation prior to any

interrogation.

(d) The interrogating session shall be for a reasonable period taking into consideration gravity and complexity of the issue

being investigated. The person under interrogation shall be allowed to attend to his or her own personal phys ical

necessities.

(e) The public safety officer under interrogation shall not be subjected to offensive language or threatened with punitive

action, except that an officer refusing to respond to questions or submit to interrogations shall be informed that failure to

answer questions directly related to the investigation or interrogation may result in punitive action. No promise of reward

shall be made as an inducement to answering any question. The employer shall not cause the public safety officer under

interrogation to be subjected to visits by the press or news media without his or her express consent nor shall his or her

home address or photograph be given to the press or news media without his or her express consent.

(f) No statement made during interrogation by a public safety officer under duress, coercion, or threat of punitive action

shall be admissible in any subsequent civil proceeding. This subdivision is subject to the following qualifications:

(1) This subdivision shall not limit the use of statements made by a public safety officer when the employing public safety

department is seeking civil sanctions against any public safety officer, including disciplinary action brought under Section

19572.

(2) This subdivision shall not prevent the admissibility of statements made by the public safety officer under interrogation

in any civil action, including administrative actions, brought by that public safety officer, or that officer’s exclusive

representative, arising out of a disciplinary action.

(3) This subdivision shall not prevent statements made by a public safety officer under interrogation from being used to

impeach the testimony of that officer after an in camera review to determine whether the statements serve to impeach the

testimony of the officer.

(4) This subdivision shall not otherwise prevent the admissibility of statements made by a public safety officer under

interrogation if that officer subsequently is deceased.

(g) The complete interrogation of a public safety officer may be recorded. If a tape recording is made of the interrogation,

the public safety officer shall have access to the tape if any further proceedings are contemplated or prior to any further

interrogation at a subsequent time. The public safety officer shall be entit led to a transcribed copy of any notes made by a

stenographer or to any reports or complaints made by investigators or other persons, except those which are deemed by

the investigating agency to be confidential. No notes or reports that are deemed to be confidential may be entered in the

officer’s personnel file. The public safety officer being interrogated shall have the right to bring his or her own recording

device and record any and all aspects of the interrogation.

(h) If prior to or during the interrogation of a public safety officer it is deemed that he or she may be charged with a

criminal offense, he or she shall be immediately informed of his or her constitutional rights.

(i) Upon the filing of a formal written statement of charges, or whenever an interrogation focuses on matters that are likely

to result in punitive action against any public safety officer, that officer, at his or her request, shall have the right to be

represented by a representative of his or her choice who may be present at all times during the interrogation. The

representative shall not be a person subject to the same investigation. The representative shall not be required to disclose,

nor be subject to any punitive action for refusing to disclose, any information received from the officer under investigation

for non criminal matters. This section shall not apply to any interrogation of a public safety officer in the normal course of

duty, counseling, instruction, or informal verbal admonishment by, or other routine or unplanned contact with, a

supervisor or any other public safety officer, nor shall this section apply to an investigation concerned solely and directly

with alleged criminal activities.

(j) No public safety officer shall be loaned or temporarily reassigned to a location or duty assignment if a sworn member

of his or her department would not normally be sent to that location or would not normally be given that duty assignment

under similar circumstances.

3304. (a) No public safety officer shall be subjected to punitive action, or denied promotion, or be threatened with any

such treatment, because of the lawful exercise of the rights granted under this chapter, or the exercise of any rights under

any existing administrative grievance procedure.Nothing in this section shall preclude a head of an agency from ordering

a public safety officer to cooperate with other agencies involved in criminal investigations. If an officer fails to comply

with such an order, the agency may officially charge him with insubordination.

(b) No punitive action, nor denial of promotion on grounds other than merit, shall be undertaken by any public agency

without providing the public safety officer with an opportunity for administrative appeal.

3305. No public safety officer shall have any comment adverse to his interest entered in his personnel file, or any other

file used for any personnel purposes by his employer, without the public safety officer having first read and signed the

instrument containing the adverse comment indicating he is aware of such comment, except that such entry may be made

if after reading such instrument the public safety officer refuses to sign it. Should a public safety officer refuse to sign,

that fact shall be noted on that document, and signed or initialed by such officer.

3306. A public safety officer shall have 30 days within which to file a written response to any adverse comment entered in

his personnel file. Such written response shall be attached to, and shall accompany, the adverse comment.

3307. No public safety officer shall be compelled to submit to a polygraph examination against his will. No disciplinary

action or other recrimination shall be taken against a public safety officer refusing to submit to a polygraph examination,

nor shall any comment be entered anywhere in the investigator’s notes or anywhere else that the public safety officer

refused to take a polygraph examination, nor shall any testimony or evidence be admissible at a subsequent hearing, trial,

or proceeding, judicial or administrative, to the effect that the public safety officer refused to take a polygraph

examination.

3308. No public safety officer shall be required or requested for purposes of job assignment or other personnel action to

disclose any item of his property, income, assets, source of income, debts or personal or domestic expenditures (including

those of any member of his family or household) unless such information is obtained or required under state law or proper

legal procedure, tends to indicate a conflict of interest with respect to the performance of his official duties, or is

necessary for the employing agency to ascertain the desirability of assigning the public safety officer to a specialized unit

in which there is a strong possibility that bribes or other improper inducements may be offered.

3309. No public safety officer shall have his locker, or other space for storage that may be assigned to him searched

except in his presence, or with his consent, or unless a valid search warrant has been obtained or where he has been

notified that a search will be conducted. This section shall apply only to lockers or other space for storage that are owned

or leased by the employing agency.

3309.5. (a) It shall be unlawful for any public safety department to deny or refuse to any public safety officer the rights

and protections guaranteed to them by this chapter.

(b) The superior court shall have initial jurisdiction over any proceeding brought by any public safety officer against any

public safety department for alleged violations of this section.

(c) In any case where the superior court finds that a public safety department has violated any of the provisions of this

chapter, the court shall render appropriate injunctive or other extraordinary relief to remedy the violation and to prevent

future violations of a like or similar nature, including, but not limited to, the granting of a temporary restraining order,

preliminary, or permanent injunction prohibiting the public safety department from taking any punitive action against the

public safety officer.

3310. Any public agency which has adopted, through action of its governing body or its official designee, any procedure

which at a minimum provides to peace officers the same rights or protections as provided pursuant to this chapter shall not

be subject to this chapter with regard to such a procedure.

3311. Nothing in this chapter shall in any way be construed to limit the use of any public safety agency or any public

safety officer in the fulfilling of mutual aid agreements with other jurisdictions or agencies, nor shall this chapter be

construed in any way to limit any jurisdictional or interagency cooperation under any circumstances where such activity is

deemed necessary or desirable by the jurisdictions or the agencies involved.

Why support David Hernandez for Assembly

That’s a good question, especially since I will be asking you for your support in the form of endorsements, money, volunteer time and most importantly, your vote.

 

At every level of government, elected officials all too often reach for the “low hanging fruit” when attempting to demonstrate their concern for a challenge facing the community, city, county, state or nation.  Imposing more laws and restrictions on law abiding citizens has been the status quo for decades.

 

When such actions occur, these politicians will justify their actions in the name of the “greater good.”  They have also demonstrated their willingness to violate the California State Constitution to further their agenda and achieve their objectives.

 

Violating the California State Constitution is not just a matter of interpreting a document in Sacramento in a different light; to be determined by those with the resources to mount a legal challenge or defense. No, at the very core it is a violation of the constitutional rights of the citizens of California!

 

Yes, sometimes there are groups that step forward to challenge the actions of those politicians, but these challenges are limited and expensive. Those violating your rights have unlimited access to resources; your tax dollars and the money of the special interests who benefit, to help them defend the imposition of their agenda.

 

Do you really believe we need more laws to solve the challenges facing California?

Take a look at an existing group of California laws and ordinances.  California Law consists of 29 separate codes as shown here:   http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html

 

Now tell me our problem is a lack of laws.

 

I believe we have too many laws, many of which are not even followed.  Given the growth of the California state government and the tax dollars needed to feed this ever expanding beast; clearly more laws and more taxes are not the answer.

 

We cannot tax our way into financial stability.

 

The time has come for you to have someone representing you in Sacramento who will stand up and challenge the violations of your Constitutional rights.

 

Here is a link to the California State Constitution.  When elected I will do more than just take an Oath to up hold it. No, my friends, I pledge to you that I will fight to protect your Constitutional Rights from all who attempt to violate them.

 

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/const-toc.html

 

My name is David Hernandez and I am asking for your help and vote. Vote for me on June 8, 2010 to be the Republican nominee for State Assembly and help me then be elected on November 2, 2010, and you will have someone to challenge those who would violate your rights.

 

 

David Hernandez is now a Candidate for California State Assembly

To all my  friends and supporters,

Thank you for your confidence and support through out these many years.  We have worked side by side in various political and community efforts. We have raised public awareness from City Hall to the US House of  Representatives.

Together we continue to work for the betterment of our Community, City and Nation.

It is now time for us to work on bringing our values to the  California State Assembly. As such I would like to announce my campaign for the State Assemby, District 42.

The election will be in early 2010 and we begin today to raise the funds, volunteers and awareness to mount a viable campaign.

If you would like to volunteer on the campaign, please contact me at drhassoc@earthlink.net

If you can contribute to the campaign Mail your check to Committee to Elect David Hernandez PO Box 9158, North Hollywood, Californa 91609. ID#Pending. Please include your Name, Address, Occupation and Employer. Max Contribution is $2,300. Remember, contributions are not tax deductible but vital.

Thank You

David Hernandez

This issue is purely about horses!

Friends,

 

To Start – this issue is not about saving Malibu Valley Farms – we won that battle – this issue is purely about horses – please read.

 

On July 9, 2007, Malibu Valley Farms was granted a Coastal Development Permit from the California Coastal Commission.  Malibu Valley Farms is a 31-acre parcel, but only six acres are flat.  The horses and structures all sit on these six acres.  As part of the approval, Malibu Valley Farms offered to place an agricultural easement over the remaining 25 acres and the Commissioners asked that our offer be included in the permit. 

 

Eleven months later, Malibu Valley Farms is on the Coastal Commission agenda again for final approval of the Findings and Conditions for its permit.  We just received a copy of the Conditions and are very concerned over the language being proposed by the Coastal Commission Staff.  Basically, Staff has written the Agricultural Easement as an Open Space Easement and requires that Malibu Valley Farms obtain an additional permit for any and all agricultural activities.  The ramifications of this go beyond Malibu Valley Farms because this permit will be used as precedent for agricultural easements once this is passed.

 

 Here is the language being proposed by the Staff:

 

Agricultural Easement

 

A.     No development, as defined in Section 30106 of the Coastal Act, shall occur in the Agricultural Easement Area as shown on Exhibit 29 except for:

 

1.      Restoration, protection and enhancement of native habitat and/or sensitive resources;

2.     Existing livestock fencing as shown on Exhibit 29.

 

AND

 

3.      The following development, if approved by the Coastal Commission as an amendment to the coastal development permit:

•        Agricultural production activities as defined as “activities that are directly related to the cultivation of agricultural products for sale.  Agricultural products are limited to food and fiber in their raw unprocessed state, and ornamental plant material.

•        Agricultural support facilities directly related to the cultivation of food, fiber and ornamental plants being undertaken on the site.

•        Maintaining livestock

 

B.     Prior to the issuance of the Coastal Development Permit, the applicant shall execute and record a document in a form and content acceptable to the Executive Director, granting to a public agency or private association approved by the Executive Director an agricultural conservation easement over the “agricultural easement area” described above, for the purpose of preventing development or improvement of the land for purposes other than agricultural production, and thus ensuring that the land remains in its historical, agricultural, forested or open-space condition.  The recorded easement shall include a formal legal description of the entire property; and a metes and bounds legal description and graphic depiction, prepared by a licensed surveyor, of the agricultural easement area, as generally shown on Exhibit 29.  The recorded document shall reflect that no development shall occur within the agricultural easement area except as otherwise set forth in this permit condition.  The offer shall be recorded free of prior liens and encumbrances which the Executive Director determines may affect the interest being conveyed.

 

There are several egregious aspects to what the Coastal Staff is trying to do:

 

1.    The only things permitted under the Staff’s version of an agricultural easement is native or sensitive habitat.  This is not agriculture, this is an open space conservation easement.   Staff is trying to redefine agriculture to be the same as open space.

 

2.   Agricultural activities require a separate permit – they are trying to take away the rights you have in an agricultural area and make you go back and ask permission to do those same things.

 

3.  In addition to calling a portion of the property an “agricultural area” – the Staff has gone a major step further.  In Section B they are stating that Malibu Valley Farms must grant an agricultural conservation easement over the agricultural area to a public agency or private association approved by Peter Douglas for the purpose of making sure the property is not used for anything other than agriculture production.  Horses are not agriculture production and will never be allowed in an agriculture area.

 

4.  I have attached a copy of Exhibit 29 which is referenced in the condition that Staff wrote.  In looking at it you will see that the Agricultural Easement Area is nowhere near the creek that was at issue in the original permit.  This isn’t about horses near creeks, this is about horses, period.

 

Staff did not want Malibu Valley Farms to be issued a permit.  And they lost that battle – so now they are doing everything they can to make sure horses are not agriculture.  They are once again trying to stop people from having horses in the Coastal Zone.  Throughout the state, there are historical agricultural uses and horses have always been included.  Now, Staff is taking the bold and clear stance that horses are not agriculture, and by the way, if you are in an agricultural area, the only right you have is to grow sensitive habitat.

 

If Staff gets their way, all areas declared to be agriculture will be limited to preservation of sensitive habitat.

 

The Staff is at it again and this time they are going against the Coastal Commissioners themselves.  The Commissioners approved an agricultural area, not a conservation area.  Staff did not write this recommendation based on what the Commissioners wanted.  Please do not let Staff win this one.  The horse community showed their strength and unity last year, and it is time to do it again.  This issue is not about Malibu Valley Farms – this is how Staff is trying to redefine agriculture – and take away all of your horses and rights.  Please tell the Commissioners that agricultural rights are to be protected and that horses are agriculture.

 

Please send letters to:

California Coastal Commission

89 South California Street, Suite 200

Ventura, CA 93001

(805) 641-1732

 

Reference Application No. 4-06-163

 

I was asked to prepare a sample support letter, which I have also included.  Please feel free to use this letter or create your own.

 

Thank you and as always, please pass this along and please feel free to contact me with any questions.  The Staff report is on the Coastal Commission’s website and can be read there.

 

Beth Palmer

 

Beth Palmer

Malibu Valley Farms, Inc.

26885 Mulholland Highway

Calabasas, California  91302

Phone:  (818) 880-5139

Fax:      (818) 880-5414

beth@malibuvalley.com

 

 

Immigration An Issue With Many Facets

 

 

The United States is a nation of immigrants and will always be a haven for those who want an opportunity for a better life. However, immigration has become a divisive issue in our country. Let’s look at some of the aspects of this issue. 

Positions on how we as a nation deal with current immigration problems vary widely: from total isolation to open borders; from tight restrictions to no restrictions on the provision of services.  

Some groups address the issue by promoting anger and hatred towards the United States and its non-minority population under the banner of restoring the Southwest to its rightful ownership. They forget that every nation in the world is a nation of immigrants, and that identifying the original inhabitants of any place in the world is a near impossibility. We would have to go back thousands of years, and documents don’t exist that far back.  

Our education system, by direct or indirect means, promotes the thought that large groups of people are victims, and in doing so divides the community. They blame taxpayers and ignore the fact that U.S. taxpayers are very willing to help others. We provide more money and help to our own citizens and to other countries than any nation on earth. (Parenthetically, we also do more volunteer and charitable work than any other citizens on earth.) Clearly, paying more taxes will not gain appreciation. The people who are denying services to others are the increasing numbers of those competing for a piece of the pie.  

They also forget that every time you provide a permanent source of money to solve a temporary problem, you turn it into a permanent problem. We have created a nation of permanent victims. An atmosphere of specious entitlement, which by legislation attempts to redress grievances of the past at the expense of the present, causes more division among the community.  

Responding to frustrations and fears, real or imagined, other groups react to years of compromise and neglect. Attempts are made to restrict access to education, healthcare and other social services in order to protect limited resources.  

As the unchecked population continues to flood the limited job market, it causes those on the lower levels of employment to suffer the loss of a wage base or of benefits.  

 

Special interest groups see the immigration issue as a vehicle to increase their influence and power. 

Some employers see the opportunity to lower overhead and depress wages for those who are willing to work for less. All parties involved promote a negative effect on employees, most of whom are of the same ethnic background.  

 

Government’s Responsibility 

A sovereign country has the right and the responsibility to secure its borders. In securing its borders a country can and must use any legal method available to accomplish this vital task.  

Government has the responsibility to provide for the security and safety of its people and institutions. The first obligation of the government must be to those who by birth or legal avenues are entitled to services, education, employment or financial considerations.  

The right to vote is one which came at great cost and is still not available to millions throughout the globe. This precious right cannot and must not be diminished by those who, for selfish reasons, would ignore its value. 

All countries are obligated to provide basic services, education,  and job opportunities to their citizens. It is unfair to expect the United States to do the job that other countries fail to do.  

 

The Consequences of Uncontrolled Borders 

For every compromise, there is a negative result. Unlimited access to the U.S. removes burdens from the shoulders of other governments and places them on the shoulders of our own children. How can this possibly be fair? Our own children, who have the right to receive the best we can provide, endure larger class sizes, fewer class offerings, higher college fees, and diminished opportunities.  

Uncontrolled population growth causes the need for more and more schools. The effort to provide schools has spurred an endless line of tax-raising schemes and the confiscation of homes and businesses to acquire land in residential neighborhoods. In spite of this, our schools are filled to capacity, preventing our youngest citizens from attending school in their own neighborhood.  

At the community college level, the number of those refused entry due to filled capacity is in the thousands. Attendance fees are increased. Access to grants, scholarships and loan programs are limited to a certain number, and the result is a system which discriminates against those who should be the first considered for those limited funds.  

 

We want the best for all children, but is it right for our own children to be deprived in order to service children neglected by other countries?  

Our health care system is another example of the consequences of carelessly monitored borders. Due to massive cuts and a lack of proper planning, many facilities have cut services or closed. The result has been a disaster to our communities. In the past fifteen years 40% of the hospitals in the San Fernando Valley have closed. Clinic after clinic has closed. County hospitals have inhumane emergency room processing times. This loss of treatment is closely followed by the loss of jobs. The costs of treating illegal immigrants is estimated to be $320,000,000 per year at the county level alone. The cost to the private sector is still being totaled.  

The effects on public safety can only be estimated, but there are facts which cannot be denied: Twenty-five percent of those incarcerated in the Los Angeles jail system are in this country illegally. These individuals are not being held on grounds of their immigrant status. They have committed crimes for which they have been or are being convicted. What are the results of a 25% inmate population influx? Due to limited space, inmates are not required to serve a full or fair portion of their sentence. These criminals are released back into our communities and, with limited or meaningless deterrents; prey on our citizens with little regard for the consequences.  

Our police officers and limited enforcement resources are stretched to the maximum, causing calls for assistance to either go unanswered or result in unacceptable waiting periods. Mexican nationals who commit capital crimes and flee to Mexico cannot be extradited back to the United States. However, those who commit non-capital crimes can be returned, so there is an incentive for criminals to avoid extradition by committing more severe crimes.  

A real, but seldom mentioned, consequence is the culture which exists in the world of those living in the shadows of illegality. They are prey to human vultures that rape, rob, murder and leave them for dead in an isolated desert or mountain terrain. On a routine basis, individuals are found dead of exposure or abandoned in locked trucks or trailers.  

These conditions are rarely addressed by those who propose legislation to gain the support of special interest groups. Nor will they be solved by the political schemes of such vested interests.  

Addressing the Problems of Immigration 

There is no clear and easy solution to the problems of immigration, but there are beginnings which can and must be implemented.  

·         First of all, secure our southern border. We must have and implement the options of stationary deterrents, law enforcement and military personnel.·         Interior enforcement must also be implemented. We cannot have millions of unidentified non-citizens in our country.·         A viable method of identification must be developed for non-citizens. This involves walking a careful line to avoid requiring a national identity card for valid citizens. Totalitarian governments are notorious for requiring national identity cards. ·         In finding a way to identify non-citizens, we must not rely on governments who stand to gain by exporting their unwanted or under-served populations. ·         A humane but determined program of deportation must be enacted. This program must not be influenced by groups who place their own special interests ahead of the country’s well-being. ·         Attempts by local governments, city councils, county supervisors, and police administrators to circumvent federal regulations must be challenged and overridden. ·         Funding for projects which are in direct opposition to the rule of law must be challenged and deterred. ·         Institutions which are funded by public monies must be required to stop using public funding for non-emergency programs and services for illegal aliens. ·         A centrally-located system to process new citizenship applications must be established to ensure and encourage the process of legal entry.·         Employers, who violate the law by their hiring practices, must be deterred and held accountable.·         A full review of current procedures must be implemented to determine their effectiveness and future need.  

Our current process of reacting to immigration issues is so disjointed that in trying to be all things to all people we are short-changing our own citizens. Implementing the above steps will be a powerful start to bringing cohesiveness to this issue. Clarity and cohesive action will bring positive results for all.  

approached with the most opposite opinions

I am approached with the most opposite opinions and advice, and that by religious men, who are equally certain that they represent the divine will. I am sure that either the one or the other class is mistaken in that belief, and perhaps, in some respects, both.

 

I hope it will not be irreverent for me to say that if it is probable that God would reveal His will to others on a point so connected with my duty, it might be supposed He would reveal it directly to me; for, unless I am more deceived in myself than I often am, it is my earnest desire to know the will of Providence in this matter. And if I can learn what it is, I will do it.

 

Abraham Lincoln,

1862

 

 

No  matter what the issue I find this to be so true….

David -from the Land of Lincoln.

Welcome to our center for information on local issues in the City of
Los Angeles. We will strive to bring you not only our views on events reported in the daily press, but the results of our investigations into some of the more pressing issues.

 

I have read many blogs and print press but for the most part know only a little about the person writing the article. So I thought it would be a good idea to let our readers know a little about me and my experiences which have molded my opinions and beliefs.

I am from the land of Lincoln and was born in 1948. Now that is not the land of Lincoln in Illinois, but rather
Lincoln Heights, California. It was good to see the Lincoln Heights posting on Mayor Sam Blog. We lived on Sichel Street and used to play at Lincoln Park. I too have photos on me as a child on an alligator at the Alligator Farm. We may have been poor, but it did not hinder our spirit. My father, David Sr. was working as a Banana Loader and that is the occupation listed on my birth certificate.

That is where I come from.

 I went toPoly High School in Sun Valley and enlisted in the United States Navy in 1967. I was assigned to an Air Squadron and we were part of other squadrons assigned to Aircraft Carrier operations in South East Asia, the Mediterranean and the North Atlantic. I was privileged to see much of the world and many countries and meet many people.

I returned to North Hollywood and have been active in the community working with the homeless, those with Aids and HIV as well raising a family.  My work back experience is that of an Insurance Adjuster and Investigator. As some of you know I entered the world of politics by running for Congress in 2002. I ran again in 2004 and do not regret the experience. I have also run for Mayor during the Independence effort, Los Angeles Community College Board and Los Angeles County Supervisor.

All these efforts have brought to me many insights into the topics we will be addressing on this blog. So, here is a little about me. I may not fit the mold some of you might think, especially when it comes to my position on some issues. But as I often remind people; Today I have opinions based on experience, subject to change without prior notice based on new information.

I hope some of you will provide the new information needed for me to continue to grow and learn.

David Hernandez