Legal Grind Movement

at 2130 N Arrowhead Ave, Ste 206D, San Bernardino, 92405 United States

Legal Grind Movement is founded by Tyreece Reynolds. Our mission is to assist in the legal process by aiding American Citizens with educational tools.


Legal Grind Movement
2130 N Arrowhead Ave, Ste 206D
San Bernardino , CA 92405
United States
Contact Phone
P: (909) 961-6632
Website

Company Rating

1 Facebook users were in Legal Grind Movement. It's a 6 position in Popularity Rating for companies in Community organization category in San Bernardino, California

115 FB users likes Legal Grind Movement, set it to 6 position in Likes Rating for San Bernardino, California in Community organization category

LEGAL GRIND MOVEMENT PRESENTS : " PROJECT RELEASE " CONCLUSIVE THOUGHTS I've come to the conclusion that the only way to expose the truth of my innocence and regain my freedom is through the man that was coerced in the first place, Luiz Ramirez. He'll never realize that he was lied to by Tanner until the truth of the matter is fully disclosed to him through Tanner's case files and certain trial transcripts. The fact that I became Tanner's suspect through an inadequate investigation of the facts and wasn't checked in at motel yet when White's cell phone # placed call there. Expose trial transcript testimonies of Avise Parsons, Rosie Parsons, and Margaret Dukes testifying that they've never seen me before nor do they know me. In addition, Tanner's testimony and interview with Roy White Jr. which both revealed White stating that he does not know me. Point out the fact that the evidence connects a whole diffferent person to the first two calls made from Ramirez' cell phone seconds after incident occurred. The calls were placed to a Lamont Dukes' girlfriend and mother's residence. Inform Ramirez that Margaret Dukes stated that her son lived with her during the time crime took place. That particular statement correlates with what he said suspect told him, " I live with my mother." Ask Ramirez did he ever mention that the suspect had a 'P' on his left ankle? If so, bring to his attention that Reynolds doesn't have any tattoos. (REYNOLDS CASE NO. FSB042486-TANNER'S CASE FILES NO. 130306755.) There's questions that must be answered. Was Ramirez bribed? Was he threatened based on his potential illegal immigrant status at the time? These diamond in the ruff answers must be brought to the surface to uncover the truth of the matter. Once Ramirez is aware of, and admits, certain truths it'll reverse the coercive effects. I believe Ramirez' statements will unveil coercive tactics and simultaneously produce newly discovered evidence in the form of an affidavit. As history shows, this case being no exception, some detectives and district attorneys use witness coercion in order to make a case worthy of prosecution. We seen it done to Jerry Trump (janitor) and Charles Ericson (co-defendant) in the Ryan Ferguson case. We've seen it done against Damien Echols and the West Memphis 3 just to name a couple. As a result of this investigative poison (witness coercion), someone innocent always takes the fall for a crime while the guilty go free! Now on a deeper note, what's the difference between a physical death and a systematical death? In the sense of both being caused by unlawfulness, there is no difference! Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, Eric Gardner, and countless others, including those that weren't African-American, have lost their lives due to excessive force administered by an officer of the law. I'm an innocent man that's been wrongfully convicted because of an inadequate investigation and witness coercion. I'm not the first nor unfortunately will be the last. Harmful and unconstitutional technicalities rendered based on a law officer carrying out an ulterior motive or hidden agenda. Unethicalness at its highest degree! The law is not being followed, rather spat on, by those that have been sworn to uphold it. Understand that this is a huge life-threatening problem for the masses. However, the resolution is people taking initiative to be apart of the solution. Here are some ways you can get involved: Learn your constitutional and civil rights. Parents, teach your kids how to deal with peace officers if, or whenever, they're approached by one. If you have someone in your family that's presently detained fighting his/her case, make sure all investigative leads are thoroughly followed and supported by the facts of the case. You do this by staying informed on the latest developments of the case through communicating with that particular inmate's lawyer. Review the evidence and use your instincts. More importantly, never hesitate to suggest the investigation of a certain fact. In addition, utilize your rights to vote. As a collective, lets put someone in the position of power that understands injustice is a cancer that needs to be cut out. To all my readers and viewers, I appreciate and thank you greatly for your time and support. The litigation events to attain my release (i.e., hiring inveatigator) from present day forward will also be posted in " Project Release 2 " so viewers may continue to follow my litigative steps on my road to exoneration and release. The fight to right this wrong called injustice continues. Stay focused everyone and God bless!!! Legal Grind Movement website coming soon (www.legalgrindmovement.com). "Project Release 2" coming soon. Any beneficial info or comments pertaining to Project Release please email me at: pro.release.tr@gmail.com .

Published on 2015-02-07 18:39:31 GMT

LEGAL GRIND MOVEMENT PRESENTS: " THE PLAYING FIELD " ( US V. THEM ) This piece is protected by the- FIRST AMENDMENT Restrictions on Powers of Congress [SECTION 1 *.] Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Proposed September 25th, 1789; ratified December 15th, 1791. The American Criminal Justice system is very efficient. The mechanics of the system isn't the problem. Actually, it's ingenious. The problem lies within certain individuals, in the position of power to administer particular laws, that push their personal agendas. Whether it's based on being racist, financially greedy, or otherwise. Unfortunately, true justice always takes a backseat to these ulterior motives. The results of these actions land the innocent in prison. These horrific actions also take the lives of young African-Americans like Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, Eric Gardner, and others that have suffered the same fate without receiving any national attention. These murderous events aren't nothing new. I encourage people to vote because voting is a game changer. Slowly but surely. However, the best solution is to acknowledge your circumstance and the superpower you're dealing with. A war consists of numerous battles. There's always one in particular battle that determines the winner of a war even though it's ongoing. African-Americans are losing the momentum-shifting battle in this war called life because we're failing to equipped ourselves with the superior knowledge-of-self and the law. Meet force with force through proactive thinking. Learning how certain laws can work to your advantage in different circumstantial aspects. Now it's a proven fact that we (African-Americans) are the majority of the prison population in North America. Genocide is a major removal of our people. The other major removal is our ignorance of the law which enables the criminal justice system to eradicate us as well. The system doesn't impose no physical harm while in motion but yet and still creates the most damage. Understand that the enemy is those certain individuals that push their negative agendas. Every person that works in law enforcement is not crooked. Every judge and prosecutor is not dirty. However, you won't never defeat the enemy if you do not figure out the way he thinks. So peep and analyze the set-up. They know you don't know shit about the law. Point added for them, point taken from us. It's hard to protect yourself from something you don't understand. So once you've granted law enforcement permission through senseless acts to arrest you the railroading begins. Once they position you to where they're lawfully able to paste you with a long prison term(life; jetson years) they'll do so. Figuring prison's living conditions and circumstances will kill you off in a matter of time or at least keep ya mind occupied enough to where you miss your boat of opportunity at giving that time back. On the streets, police are against gang territorial takeovers. But behind the walls, they support it through playing the division game. Everything from who you celly up with to yard boundaries. Blacks against Mexicans, Blacks against Whites, Bloods against Crips (black on black), Black Muslims against Black Christians, and Blacks against administration, so we're up against it from all angles. Under these circumstances, only 5% or less of the black population in prison (right now) will make it back to the public. The remaining 95% will perish within these "human warehouses." The more of us they incarcerate, the more our reproduction rate lessens. Our murder rate on the streets and population in prison slowly but surely leads us to extinction. This is how a whole race gets wiped out at a fast rate without even being aware of it to prevent it. An indication of how deep the devil's hatred runs. To all African-Americans incarcerated, every life-lesson you've learned up to this point won't mean a damn thang if you fail to apply them to your present situation by learning the enemy's game then using it against him in order to secure your freedom for a better future. The enemy is smart, but you're smarter though! There are some things money just can't buy. Like streetsmarts which is what most of us (African-Americans) have. You can't buy that but only attain it through experience. We're naturally aggressive when it comes to getting our point across (whether verbally or physically). Manipulating situations to work to our advantage is what we do. This frame of mind comes from being without for so long. We're wise enough to know that on the other hand, the enemy has to come up off hundreds of thousands of dollars to go to school for years just to learn the law and how to be what we naturally are. Laws wouldn't be shit if they weren't utilized aggressively and manipulatively. Point added for us, point taken from them. Now the playing field is even, but to our advantage. How? Because learning their booksmarts (the law) is free (paid for by the state) all we gotta do is take initiative in doing so. Stay signed up for prison law library. The method of incarceration is used as a form of punishment. Punishment is supposed to be miserable. But once you punish the punishment by embracing it and utilizing it to make yourself bigger,better, and stronger all across the board, their method backfires creating an unstoppable well-equipped monster. I'm gonna be that monster. To my peoples, you must become that monster! Your advantage on the playing field is the will to take initiative and play your part. Put the necessary work in to achieve success. Fuck blaming someone else. The only person you need to be pointing the finger at is the one in the mirror! Learn about'em. To all LGM viewers and readers, stay focused and God bless!!! Special shout out to the mothers and families of Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, Eric Gardner, and all others who have lost a lovd one to senseless police brutality. God bless, your strength is inspirational!

Published on 2014-12-25 00:12:10 GMT

BEFORE YOU COMMIT A CRIME REMEMBER THIS!!! Amendment 13 (1865) Section 1- Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. #itsthelaw

Published on 2014-12-19 05:49:46 GMT

LEGAL GRIND MOVEMENT PRESENTS: "PROJECT RELEASE" DEDICATION & COMMITMENT I've maintained my innocence from day one. My story has never waivered. The only thing that has changed is my ability to articulate the facts better. However, facts never change. Even over the course of ten years, thoughts I've expressed back then on this case are parallel to the ones I present to you now. Back in 2005 in a letter to my appellate attorney I expressed my thoughts on how Tanner's inadequate investigation and witness coercion were based on building a quick case. I expressed my thoughts on the fact that deputy at the D St. police station asked me twice, "Do you have a tattoo of a 'P' on your ankle?" Left ankle specifically. Also, I explained how arresting officer ask me did I have a tattoo. I mentioned how I felt that the victim had to inform Tanner about this specific tattoo or why would deputy ask. Furthermore, I expressed that Tanner,first & foremost, should've investigated the first two calls made from Ramirez' cell phone # seconds after the incident. (letters to direct appellate attorney, Jefferey Stuetz; dated 6/9/05, 7/7/05.) Upon finding out about the California Innocence Project at the end of 05', I reached out to them. On November 8th, 2006, the Innocence Project responded informing me that they'll be unable to assist me in pursuing my claim of innocence. I prepared a detailed letter to Dr. Robert Shomer, a renoun identification expert, based on the occurrence of misidentification due to the false color perception of my DMV I.D. photo. Within that letter, I express how the victim did not I.D. me as the suspect in open court. I also explained Margaret Dukes misidentifying me as someone else due to the false color perception of my photo. However, letter was never submitted due to Shomer informing my daughter's mother that he charges $3000 on appeal. Had he been called for case during trial, his opinion would be free on appeal. After receiving this information, I chose not to send the letter cause I couldn't afford Shomer's fee. This occured in January 2007. (all above discussed documents will be posted on L.G.M. website.) Throughout 05' to 07', I took initiative to learn criminal law and the post-conviction relief process. I figured that would be my only chance at proving my innocence. I constructed my state writs, federal writ, motion for reconsideration, and both Ninth Circuit certificates of appealability (COAs). The following are all my litigative case #'s : (SAN BERNARDINO SUPERIOR COURT CASE #-FSB042486/ CA. COURT OF APPEAL-4TH DISTRICT CASE #-E037520/ CA. SUPREME COURT CASE #-S140505/ (PRO-PER LITIGATION WORK)- S.B.S.C. WRIT #- SWHSS700067/ CA. COURT OF APPEAL-4TH DIST. WRIT #-E044861/CA. SUPREME COURT WRIT #-S162659/ U.S. DISTRICT COURT FEDERAL WRIT #- 5:08-cv-00905-VAP-AN/ 9TH CIR. COURT OF APPEALS C.O.A. #'s- 08-56935 & 09-55409/ C.O.A.'s GRANTED AND CONSOLIDATED APPEAL # - 08-56935/ FEDERAL LAWYER APPOINTED TO 9TH CIR. APPEALS CASE ( R. SHANTI BRIEN) NEW MAGISTRATE JUDGE ASSIGNED AND EVIDENTIARY HEARING GRANTED, ON TIMELINESS ISSUES FOR FEDERAL WRIT FILING ONLY-APPEAL # -5:08:cv-00905-VAP-RNB/ EVIDENTIARY HEARING RULING; GRANTING OPPOSITIONS MOTION TO DISMISS/ NOTICE OF APPEAL NEW 9TH CIR. #-13-56531). ( C.O.A. DENIED.) I have never given up the fight to right this wrong done to me. I know if I do, it's over! I'll be lost in the system for the rest of my life. I'm an actually innocent man. Therefore, I don't deserve to be incarcerated and condemned from the public. I'm paying a debt to society that I do not owe. I've already lost ten years away from my family that I can never get back. And for what? All because a detective coerced a witness/victim to identify a man that the detective believed to be the suspect based on a blatant inadequate investigation of the facts. I've learned how to channel the stress of my situation by staying optimistic while doing what needs to be done in order to produce an opportunity to prove my innocence! I never knew how a polygraph test worked ( tracking heartbeat, blood-pressure, and pulse rate) before I agreed to take one. All I knew is that I was innocent and wanted to get home quick as possible. Soon as I heard the D.A. say, " charges will be dismissed if I agree to take a polygraph test and pass it" I was all in. However, I was nervous before, during, and after the polygraph test. Not because of any guilt, but the fact that I was facing a life sentence for a crime I did not commit. An unimaginable position to be in, but it was realistic. Anybody wrongly accused and looking at a life sentence because of it would be nervous. The nervousness comes from knowing your innocent and therefore shouldn't be in that position in the first place! Big shout out to all my viewers and readers. Thanks for your support. I appreciate you greatly. Project Release's V and final component coming soon. Check Legal Grind Movement page periodically. Stay focused and God bless. Any positive feedback messages pertaining to Project Release please email me at : pro.releasetr@gmail.com .

Published on 2014-12-18 19:54:29 GMT

LEGAL GRIND MOVEMENT PRESENTS : "PROJECT RELEASE" (VOLUME I) COMPARISONS (INADEQUATE INVESTIGATION, WITNESS COERCION, AND FAILURE TO FOLLOW EVIDENCE THOROUGHLY) The truth about this whole case is that Tanner screwed up the investigation from the beginning. Here it is, a man was shot twice and robbed for his cell phone. Tanner secures Ramirez' cell phone records and discovered two calls made seconds after the incident occurred. Plus, the two calls were made to local residence within the area attempt murder and robbery took place. Yet and still, Tanner chose not to investigate these calls first. Tanner's decision not to is contrary to his reason stated within his probable cause that the court used to support its order which authorized district attorney's office to subpoena Ramirez' cell phone records. Tanner stated, " its been known that suspects who take cellular phone will make calls to friends and relatives and then discard the phone." Based on that statement why not, first and foremost, investigate the first two calls made from Ramirez' cell phone seconds after he was shot and robbed for it? Had Tanner done so, he would've been informed at that point that Margaret Dukes has a son name Lamont Dukes and Rosie Parsons, a granddaughter name Avise Parsons, who was Lamont's girlfriend. Tanner would've also known that Rosie knows Lamont. Following the evidence that arose seconds after incident occurred (two calls to local area) leads Tanner to a suspect, based on being connected to both calls, a Lamont Dukes. (REYNOLDS S.B.S.C. case # FSB042486 2004- TANNER'S investigative files S.D.C.S.B/Highland Division-case# 130306755). Instead, Tanner chose to obtain a search warrant for a cell phone # that frequently corresponded with victim's cell phone # which commensed 22 hrs. after incident occurred. Again, here's a decision that is contrary to Tanner's statement within probable cause pertaining to a suspect discarding the phone. It's reasonable to believe that more than likely the victim's cell phone would be in the suspect's possession seconds after incident occurred as opposed to being in suspect's possession 22 hrs. after incident. So why not immediately investigate first two calls? Tanner retrieves records of frequently corresponded cell phone # owned by a Roy White Jr. .He says that he noted White's cell phone # placed several calls to a Rialto Travel Inn at 9:14 a.m. on 12-14-03. No surprise during trial his testimony revealed that it was only one call made there for a hundred and sixty-three seconds starting at 9:14 a.m. . Tanner's next investigative move indicates he felt that White called the motel to talk to the suspect. Tanner goes to Rialto Travel Inn, retrieves 12-14-03 guest list from motel manager, and recognizes a black male by the name of Reynolds on that list. Once again, at that point Tanner inadequately investigates by failing to ask motel manager, "What time did Reynolds check in?" According to Tanner's theory, the time White's cell phone # placed call at the motel (9:14 a.m.) has to be equally important as the date call was made (12-14-03). So why didn't Tanner inquire about Reynolds check-in time? This was a serious crime so everything must correlate with the facts of this case. Tanner never took that into consideration. Nor did he take into consideration the fact that an innocent man could be wrongly accused and convicted for a crime he didn't commit. (TANNER'S files-S.D.C.S.B. case # 130306755/REYNOLDS trial transcripts-TANNER'S testimony pgs. 132,211.) Had he done so, the motel manager would've informed him that I checked in on 12-15-03 at 1:57 a.m. . Also, the reason why I was on 12-14-03 guest list even though I checked in on 12-15-03. Given that reason, Tanner would've retrieve the correct guest list (12-13-03) to pinpoint black males, if any, that were checked in already during the time White's cell phone # placed call at motel. Takes Reynolds right out that equation of being Tanner's suspect because Reynolds was not at this motel during that time. Tanner's unreasonable decisions, resulting in the adequacies of this investigation, shows that he had no intentions of thoroughly investigating the facts of this case. Tanner's sole purpose was to hurry and identify any black male as the suspect in order to quickly hurdle step one in making this case worthy of prosecution. Tanner stated to Ramirez over the phone, "that I possibly had the suspect identified in his shooting." Tanner's "implicated" suspect's (Reynolds) motel check-in time never correlated with Tanner's theory that White called motel to talk to culprit of the crime. Thereby, rendering Tanner's reason for preparing photo line-up with Reynolds DMV I.D. photo as headliner based on White's cell phone # calling motel, extremely inadequate and illogical. (REYNOLDS trial transcripts-MOTEL MANAGER DESAI'S testimony pgs. 200-205/TANNER'S files-S.D.C.S.B./Highland Division case # 130306755.) Now subsequently, here's Ramirez selecting the photo of the same black male Tanner identifies as a suspect through an inadequate investigation. The same black male that doesn't align with Tanner's theory. Step two in quickly making case worthy of prosecution complete through use of coercive tactics. Now the out-of-court identification is corroborated by, and with, Tanner's blatantly inadequate investigation. Tanner's disposition : "Forward to DA for review and filing/warrant." Tanner purposely rushed through investigation to hurry and implicate a black male,coerced victim to identify same black male, as a means to render case worthy prosecution quickly as possible. (TANNER'S files-S.D.C.S.B. case # 130306755/MOTEL MANAGER ANUF DESAI'S testimony pgs. 201-202.) Once Reynolds was arrested, Tanner picked investigation back up where he should have started it. The first two calls made to local area from Ramirez cell phone # seconds after incident occurred. First call to the residence of Margaret Dukes at 1:34 a.m. . Second call to the residence of Rosie Parsons at 1:37 a.m. . Tanner's only intention was. to strengthen the case that he foundated against Reynolds through inadequate investigation and witness coercion. Therefore, Tanner never paid attention to evidence adequately connecting a whole different person to the possibility of being the perpetrator of this crime. Avise Parsons was one of Rosie's three granddaughters that lived with her during time of crime. Margaret Dukes is the mother of a Lamont Dukes. Margaret recognized the name Avise in Tanner's notes then stated it was her son Lamont's old girlfriend. Margaret also stated that that her son (Lamont) used to live with her during the month of December and recently moved to Tacoma, Washington. This info Tanner retrieved through interviewing Rosie and Margaret, connects a Lamont Dukes to the first two calls made from Ramirez' cell phone # seconds after incident occurred. Furthermore, Mrs. Dukes statement places him in the area where, and during, the time crime took place. (TANNER'S files-S.D.C.S.B. case # 130306755.) My DMV I.D. photo depicts me as 3 or 4 shafes darker than my actual skin complexion. Due to this false color perception, Tanner believed I was dark-skinned and Mrs. Dukes mistakenly identified me as someone that's a crips gang member and friend of her son's. However, I don't know a Lamont Dukes, a Margaret Dukes, an Avise Parsons, Rosie Parsons, or a Roy White Jr. . I don't have any tattoos, never been a gangbanger, nor have I ever been in any law agency's gang-files in my life. Mrs. Dukes testifying that she's never seen me before as an "A" to Waitman's "Q", "Have you ever seen this gentlemen sitting next to me before?", revealed the negative effect of the false color perception. Tanner thought I was a dark-skinned black male, based on DMV I.D. photo, until he seen me in person. (TANNER'S files-S D.C.S.B. case # 130306755/ REYNOLDS trial transcripts-TANNER'S testimony pgs. 126,132/MARGARET DUKES testimony pg. 95.) Once Tanner realized that I was actually light-skinned, along with the fact Ramirez failed to ideentify me as the suspect in open court, Tanner coerced Ramirez again as revealed in his trial testimony. During trial Ramirez testified that he told Tanner it was a black male but that he wasn't very dark. Ramirez also testified that he identified no. 2 but that he had lighter skin. (REYNOLDS trial transcripts-RAMIREZ' testimony pgs. 58-59.) According to Tanner's investigative files, he only interviewed Ramirez twice. The first time was at L.L.U.M.C. . Ramirez described the suspect as just a black male. No other description given. (COMPARE Tanner's files to Ramirez' testimony pgs. 58-59.) The second time Tanner interviewed Ramirez was during photo line-up procedure at Ramirez' sister's house. At no time during this second interview did Ramirez state to Tanner that, "it was a black man but that he wasn't very dark" and "it was no. 2, but that he had lighter skin." (COMPARE Tanner's investigative files to Ramirez' testimony. pgs. 58-59.) In fact, during re-interview with Ramirez, Ramirez told Tanner that suspect said to him, "he lives with his mother." (TANNER'S files-S.D.C.S.B. case # 130306755.) This is yet another piece of evidence that correlates with a Lamont Dukes being the actual perpetrator of this crime. The first call made from Ramirez' cell phone # seconds after incident occurred was to the residence of a Margaret Dukes. Margaret stated that her son lived with her during the month of December, which is when the attempt murder and robbery happen. She also connected Avise Parsons to her son as an old girlfriend. Avise, Rosie Parsons granddaughter, was the residence where second call from Ramirez' cell phone # was made. Even after Tanner's awareness of all this evidence unquestionably identifying a whole different person, Tanner still didn't retrieve a photo of Mr. Dukes for the purpose of a photo line-up procedure with Ramirez. Nor did Tanner seek Mr. Dukes for questioning. Due to Tanner's inadequate investigation, witness coercion, and failure to follow the evidence thoroughly, I was charged and convicted for a crime I did not commit. (TANNER'S files-S.D.C.S.B. case # 130306755.) I'd like to send a big shout out to all my readers. I highly appreciate your support.God bless. The IV component to "PROJECT RELEASE " coming soon... " DEDICATION & COMMITMENT" Check Legal Grind Movement page periodically.

Published on 2014-12-04 05:23:45 GMT

LEGAL GRIND MOVEMENT PRESENTS : " PROJECT RELEASE " (VOLUME I) STATEMENT OF FACTS On December 13th, 2003, around 1:33 a.m., a hispanic male name Luis Ramirez was shot twice and robbed for his cell phone. The incident took place on Highland and Palm Avenue near Atlantic Ave. in Highland, California. Ramirez was taken to Loma Linda University Medical Center. (hereinafter "L.L.U.M.C. .") Detective Bobby Tanner (hereinafter "Tanner"), was assigned to investigate the crime. Tanner, accompanied by Bernice Henley (language specialist), went to L.L.U.M.C. where Ramirez informed him that he was shot by a black male (BMA). No other form of description given. Tanner obtained a search warrant for Ramirez' cell phone records and discovered that two local calls were made from Ramirez' cell phone # seconds after incident occurred. Tanner also noted that a Jacksonville, North Carolina cell phone # frequently corresponded with Ramirez' cell phone #. Correspondence began 22 hrs. after incident and continued until Ramirez' sister had phone turned off on Dec. 17th, 2003. Tanner obtained search warrant for Jacksonville, North Carolina cell phone #. Tanner recognized that the Jacksonville # was owned by a Roy White Jr. . The Jacksonville # placed fifteen additional calls to Ramirez' cell phone # before it was turned off. White's cell phone #, as Tanner realized, placed a call to a Rialto Travel Inn on Dec. 14th, 2003, at 9:14 a.m. . Tanner believe White could've been talking to suspect in shooting at the motel. Tanner goes to motel and retrieves 12-14-03 guest list from motel manager to see if any BMA's were on it. Tanner located a BMA subject name TyReece Reynolds. Afterwards, Tanner prepared a photo line-up based on the cellular phone tolls from White's cell phone to the motel. Tanner tells Ramirez he possibly has the suspect identified in his shooting. During photo line-up procedure at Ramirez' sister's house, Ramirez picks no. 3 photo then says "no" it's no. 2., Reynolds photo. A warrant for Reynolds arrest ensued. (All above info is public court records derived from the S.B.S.C. case no. of PEOPLE V.REYNOLDS FSB042486-2004/SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO CALIFORNIA case no. 130306755/B TANNER, T0040). I went to Rialto Travel Inn to rent a room on the evening of Feb. 13th, 2004. I seen an attempt murder "wanted" poster with my DMV photo on it as I walked into the office. I asked the motel manager, "What's this a joke?" He replied,"I don't want you here leave!" At that piint, I was surprised and spooked. Later that night, due to driver's side headlight not being up, I was pulled over. I was arrested based on attempt murder and robbery warrant. The deputy at police station asked, "Do you have a tattoo of a "P" on your left ankle? I replied, "No. Don't have any tattoos. I showed him both ankles and chest as well. I called Tanner from West Valley Detention Center and asked him, "what's this about?" "This is a mistake!" "I didn't attempt to murder or rob anyone." He replied, "You have to wait and see what happens in court." (PEOPLE V. REYNOLDS trial transcripts-REYNOLDS testimony pgs. 180-182/TANNER'S testimony pg. 209). In April '04, I wrote the judge a letter maintaining my innocence. Upon finding out who Ramirez was at a pre-trial hearing on Oct. 13th, 2004. I asked my lawyer Gregory Waitman (hereinafter "Waitman") to go ask Ramirez, "Am I the one who shot him?" While Ramirez stood with prosecutor Douglas Poston ( hereinafter "Poston") and his interpreter for that day Theodore Lewis (hereinafter "Lewis"), Waitman walked over to Ramirez and asked, "Do you see the man who shot you in the jury box?" Ramirez looked at jury box detainees, including myself, and answered, "Nadaa!" (no in spanish.) He looked again and said, "Nadaa!" In any event, I still picked jurors on Nov. 9th and 10th, 2004. A week before trial on Nov. 15th, 2004, Waitman visits me at West Valley Detention Center. Waitman presents a deal from Poston. If I take a polygraph test and pass Poston will dismiss the charges. If I fail then I'll have a bench trial. Trial by judge. I agreed to this deal on the record on Nov. 22nd, 2004. Sworn-in jurors were excused. (REYNOLDS trial transcripts-LEWIS' testimony pgs. 167-68/REYNOLDS testimony pg. 175/trial transcripts pgs. 13-17). Minutes later, Rosie Parsons testified. Rosie was the owner of one of the two locally called #'s placed by Ramirez' cell phone # seconds after incident occurred. Tannet interviewed her on March 2nd, 2004. Rosie testified that she does not know me nor has she ever seen me before. Rosie told Tanner the same thing during interview. Avise Parsons, one of Rosie's three granddaughters, testified that she's never seen before. Avise testified about her friendship with a Lamont Dukes. Tanner interviewed a Margaret Dukes on March 2nd, 2004 because she was the ownet of one of the two locally called #'s placed from Ramirez' cell phone # seconds after incident occured. Margaret told Tanner she had a son name Lamont Dukes that lived with her during December and recently moved to Tacoma, Washington. Tanner showed Margaret my DMV photo and asked her, "Do you recognize this person?" She replied, "Yes, that's a friend of my son." She said the guy in the photo is a "crips" gang member and a thug that hung around her house. She also stated Avise was her son's girlfriend. Rosie testified that she knew Lamont and he lived two doors down. Avise testified that Lamont was around 18 or 19 around the time. (REYNOLDS trial transcripts-ROSIE'S testimony pgs. 19-28/AVISE'S testimony pgs. 28-37/TANNER'S files-S.D.C.S.B. case no. 130306755). Now my DMV photo, used in photo line-up procedure and single photo shown to Rosie and Margaret, depicts me as 3 or 4 shades darker than what I really am. I'm very light-skinned. As a result of this false-color perception, Tanner believed that I was a dark-skinned BMA. If there was an actual skin complexion reconstruction of each person in that specific photo line-up, I believe I'd be the only light-skinned BMA in it. (REYNOLDS trial transcripts-TANNER'S testimony pg. 126/ TANNER'S files S.D.C.S.B. case no. 130306755). However, I took the polygraph test on Nov. 30th, 2004. I appeared in court the next day (12-1-04) and Waitman informed me that I failed the test. The bench trial resumed a few minutes later. Ramirez testifies and identifies me as the suspect. Ramirez was also untruthful about failing to identify me, or anyone else in the courtroom on Oct. 13th, 2004, as a suspect. Ramirez testified that he mentioned to Tanner that it was a black man, but that he wasn't very dark. Ramirez also stated that he identified no. 2 but he had lighter skin. Margaret Dukes testified that she told Tanner, in light of photograph shown to her, yes, that's a friend of her son. On cross-examination, Waitman asked Margaret, "You've never seen this gentleman sitting next to me (pertaining to myself), have you?" Margaret answered, "No." (REYNOLDS trial transcripts-RAMIREZ' testimony pgs. 58,59,80/DUKES testimony pgs. 93-95). Tanner detailed his investigation of the case during his first testimony. Tanner also testified that Mr. White claimed not to know Mr. Reynolds. The people rested after Tanner's first testimony. Lewis testified that Ramirez did in fact answer, "no" to Waitman's question. I testified in my own defense maintaining my innocence. I never denied being at the motel on Dec. 14 th, 2003, because that's what the guest list showed. But I always told Waitman that I checked in at night and wasn't at this motel when White's cell phone # placed a call there at 9:14 a.m. on Dec. 14th, 2003. I constantly told Waitman to go to motel and retrieve my exact time I checked in and he'll see that it corroborates with what I'm saying. Waitman never did up to the point if my testimony. I testified that I checked in motel around 8:30 or 9:00 p.m. . After my testimony, Waitman decided to subpoena the motel's manager due to my numerous request. (REYNOLDS trial transcripts-TANNER'S files S.D.C.S.B. case no. 130306755/TANNER'S testimony pg. 141). The motel manager's testimony undermined the circumstantial evidence altogether and revealed what I already knew based on my innocence. Tanner inadequately investigated the facts of this case which resulted in me being catapulted into this situation as his suspect for a crime I did not commit. The motel manager explained how I wound up on the 12-14-03 guest list when I actually checked in on 12-15-03 at 1:57 a.m. according to my registration card. Waitman recalled Tanner to the stand and asked him, "During your investigation, did you ever check out the time that Mr. Reynolds checked in to the motel?" Tannet replied, "No, sir, I didn't ." (REYNOLDS trial transcripts-MOTEL MANAGER'S testimony pgs.200-205/TANNER'S testimony pg. 211). Consequently, the judge felt the cade was about the witness for all practical purposes. I wad found guilty. (REYNOLDS trial transcripts pg. 258). Iii component "COMPARISONS" coming soon. Thanks for your support. God bless!

Published on 2014-11-29 20:53:59 GMT

LEGAL GRIND MOVEMENT PRESENTS : "PROJECT RELEASE " (VOLUME I) By Tyreece Reynolds "INTRODUCTION" First and foremost, may it be in the creator's will that this missive reaches everyone in good health and good spirits. Amen. I am an actually innocent man that's been incarcerated for ten years for a crime I did not have any knowledge of, involvement in, nor did I commit. However, I was convicted of attempt murder (Pen. Code § 664/187) and robbery (Pen. Code §211), including enhancements (Pen. Codes § 664(a) and 12022.53(d), bench trial. See (PEOPLE V. REYNOLDS San Bernardino Superior Court Case # FSB042486). I know you may hear numerous prisoners claiming to be innocent. You can now add me to that list as well. But just saying it isn't enough. A truly innocent man will take advantage of every available opportunity to prove his innocence in order to regain his liberty. Its a long energy-draining process with no guarantees that the truth of the matter will ever be exposed. That's the spooky part about it. Howwever, that fear doesn't compare to the size of the drive, determination, and will to consistently work towards creating an opportunity to prove my innocence. Being actually innocent, but yet incarcerated, has sparked a passion in me to right this wrong. My passion began from within and continues to grow outward through my body of work (pro per) that pertains to the litigation of this case. See ( DEDICATION & COMMITMENT SECTION). The Legal Grind Movement is defined as : " the motion of taking initiative to learn, articulate, and apply law as a means of methodically going about proving one's innocence." To put it blatantly, a detective,s inadequate investigation and witness coercion resulted in me being convicted for a crime I did not commit. However, this type of injustice can happen to anyone in America. Gender, age, ethnicity, or religion does not matter. Consequently, my experience wll be awareness to others. The Legal Grind Movement presents, "Project Release" (Vol. I.) consists of five components : "INTRODUCTION", "STATEMENT OF FACTS", "COMPARISONS", "DEDICATION &COMMITMENT", and "CONCLUSIVE THOUGHTS." Project Release's intentions are to - (1), expose this miscarriage of justice in its entirety to all parents and youth across America; (2), encourage people to follow the litigation of this matter which wil also teach how not to allow the pitfalls of the criminal justice system to put you in the position of being innocent but incarcerated; (3), attract the attention of any and all lawyers with the passion for vindicating the innocent; (4), raise investigator and advertisement fees in order to continue pursuing release thoroughly. Project Release does not intend to create any dislike or hate for none of the non-fictional characters involved in this case. My message to the reader is thanks for your support. Appreciate yall greatly. Keep an open mind, pay attention to logic, and use your instincts. You are now prepped and ready to enter, "Project Release" (Vol.I.). "Statement of Facts" (Project Release's second component) coming soon. Review Legal Grind Movement page periodically. "PRAYER" THANK YOU LORD FOR INSTILLING IN ME THE KNOWLEDGE, UNDERSTANDING, WISDOM, COURAGE, STRENGTH, AND POWER TO ENDURE THIS DERANGED DILEMMA; BLESS ALL MY LOV'D ONES, KEEP THEM SAFE EMBRACED IN YOUR GRACE LORD; THANK YOU FOR ANOTHER DAY OF SURVIVAL ALONG WITH THE CHANCE TO SEE AND GET THROUGH ANOTHER DAY; THANK YOU FOR KEEPING YOUR BLANKET OF BLESSINGS OVER MY FAMILY SO WE CAN CONTINUE TO PROSPER, BE FRUITFUL, AND MULTIPLY; THANK YOU FOR CARRYING ME THROUGH THIS HELL BURNING OFF MY IMPURITIES TO SOLIDIFY ME AS THE MAN YOU WANT ME TO BE, THE MAN I KNOW I CAN BE. ALL PRAISES DUE TO THE CREATOR. A MEN.