[Codee]

Some of my thoughts on the case.

1) On cover page the officer is listed as “appearing” for the DEPARTMANT of the California Highway Patrol. I think “Appearing” is reserved for “PARTIES.”

2) On page 13 Officer states that he is employed by the California highway Patrol… however the court reporter got it the straight dish and on page one lists the officer as there for DEPARTMENT of the California Highway Patrol.

3) Page one (INDEX) lists Officer as a witness. Not a party.

4) Cover page lists the officer as appearing for the DCHP. DCHP is not “The State of California” which is the party listed at the top of page 1. hmmmm… Is the DCHP an interested party?

5) Page 2 the judge offers a recusal to the officer. The officer denies the offer. Who is this guy to be making attorney like decisions in my case? He does not represent the state so why is he being asked to protect the state’s interests?

6) Page 2 Officer approaches the Board before being sworn in and with no foundation laid for it yet.

7) Page 3 the first comment made attributed to Rocha was actually made by me.