I dont have a lot of time today to write, but I will recap and add a bit.

1)Galvan brags that he has read my police report from riverside so and displays some knowlege of it so he is perfectly aware that I was actually convicted of exactly what I was accused of by the 'witnesses.'  I say witnesses because that is all that they are, they are not "victims" because there is no victim in so called "offenses" of this nature. It is not even an "offense" in the traditional sense.  

Now, This occured off the I-10 free way, first at the rest area, on the shoulder, during the day, and then up east at the singleton overpass.

It is important to note here, for Galvans hypocricy, that there are no houses on the shoulder of the ten freeway and in fact from these location there are none in sight.

Here is what Galvan went around telling women on crafton campus. I know this is what he told them, because when I told him I was convicted of 'lewd conduct in public and am not a sex offender"  he said,  "Yeah but you were arrested for a felony....  I cut him off at that point and said "I was convicted at a bench trial of lewd conduct in public, it doesnt matter what I was arrested for.."

 I could see this point was no lost on him because his eyes flicked like he had just been stumped by an argument he could not refute.

 The importance of this, it just this.   The arresting officer was not too knowlegable about the law.  First in the police report it is perfectly clear that no one ever said they saw me from the front. No, one ever claimed that I was a male. The report clearly states that officers up untill the time I was pulled over were under the impression that I was a female.

So, what Galvan is trying to insinuate, is that I was arrested for "felony indecent exposure."    It is false to say that I was arrested for this, I was in fact arrested for lewd conduct in public and that is all that the police report supporsts and all that it implies.  Galvan obvious could not escape this glaring fact.

But what he chose to do, is the malicious slandering he proceeded with, in misinforming people that I was "arrested for felony indecent exposure" which is not, true, it is merely the statute entered into the computer by the cop who obviously did not know how to read.  

Indecent exposure is committed only when a person exposes lewdly his genitalia.   Without that there is no indecent exposure. His genitalia also must be naked.  That is not merely a "bulge" covered by skimpy spedos displayed "lewdly."      The supreme court made sure that this was the case because they worried that a women wearing a thong bikini for sexual gratification coult be prosecuted otherwise.   So, what protects women also protects men.

Now, Indecent exposure is a felony only in two ways.  First, when  a person enters into a home and exposes himself. What makes it a felony is that the crime, a misdemeanor was commited after someone entered into a dwelling with the intent to commit a crime, therefore it is a felony.

The other way indecent exposure is a felony is upon a second conviction.

As stupid as this is, I will not address that, I will merely point out, that a police officer cannot charge a man with "felony" indecent exposure unless it involves entering a dwelling, because the other way in which it becomes a felony is only done by prosecutors, and that is a second offense of 314.1.

So, when Galvan went around telling people I was "originallly arrested for felony indecent exposure" what he is attempting to convey is the message that I had "entered into a dwelling to expose my genitalia" but this is a different statute.

So, Galvan, was misleading people by insinuating that my conviction for lewd conduct in public was merely a result of a "plea bargain" from a felony indecent exposure, i.e. intereing into a home.

This explains why Lynn Hunter stated that she "heard her door nob turn at 3:30 am"  and that she was "frightened" by me.

She was in fact frightened of the person Galvan had mis-represented me as, not of me.

 Galvan, however is without excuse. Galvan read the police report, he therefore must have known that the "arrest" statute was an error, and that the conviction was appropriate to the fact in that report and no more.

It is precisely that reason that I went to trial and had a judge weigh the evidence because the prosecutor charged me with misdemeanor indecent exposure as well as lewd conduct under the misguided theory that indecent exposure could be commited by exposing ones "anus" which came from the assertion that I had no "panties on" a claim by a "witness" that she later contradicted on the stand by admitting that I had on what she called "leapord print thong" Which is not true since I do not use thongs, I need panties to cover my cleavage and in fact had 3 pairs on.  At the time I was arrested.  First pair keeps my "junk" as they call it up the second is a larger pair to keep the outter third pair from riding up my crack. 

Well, the prosecutor was without any argument or case law to support this theory, since the case law makes it abundantly clear that genitalia exposure must be "beyond a reasonable doubt" and no where is it permitted to argue that exposure of the anus is "genitalia" within the meaning of the statute.  It was so funny in court she said "california case law makes it clear that the "anus is within the meaning of genitalia"  I just shook myhead because not only was it abundantly clear that it was not, but she did not even profer a cite.  I knew what she was attempting to do. The Judge was partial to her anyways, and what she wanted was to mislead him so that I would have to suffer the effects of a conviction for that statute, misdemeanor indecent exposure while waiting for it to be overturned on appeal.   Prosecutors do this all the time. They are shady dirt bags.

 Well, the judge did not buy it, and stated correctly that by law he could not convict me of indecent exposure.  But he did this begrudgingly, because he too was an ass who thinks God died and left him incharge.

But back to Galvan, that moron, after reading the police report, knowing that I was not even accused of felony indecent exposure in that report, now would it have been physically possible given the location, just a few miles from here, to have been accused of that crime, he never-the-less maliciously and mendatiously proceeded to not only violate penal code 290 law by informing people on campus that I was a 290 registrant, but he lied to them and told them I was a "dangerous sex offender" who was "originally charged with felony indecent exposure"   implying of course that I entered into a home and exposed myself, then "took a plea bargain" to lewd conduct,  but having read the police report, he must have known that the arrest record was a mistake and that I was convicted of exacvtly that which I was accused of by witnesses and nothing more. Nothing dangerous at all, and not even a sexual offense at that. Lewd conduct is a "disorderly concuct" offense and is not even at that a crime in its underlying conduct but it is only against the law to do that in a public place.  In this case on a section of the ten freeway not even in view of houses.