Jan Tucker's Detective's Diary

• Eyewitness Identification Procedures

• California Public Records Act-Practical Applications & Usage

• Rules of Reciprocal Discovery for the PI

• HR 5073 & Freedom of Information

Tucker & Atty Valerie Monroe Announce Filing of 3 Strikes Reform Initiative

• Cannibis News

• Nation of Islam Final Call

Tucker with Minister Toni Muhammed of NOI

• Exodus News

• Libertarian Party

• Womens Radio

• Californians to Amend Three Strikes (CATS)

• Families to Amend California Three Strikes (FACTS)

• Blackweekly.Com

• Elected Public Defender.org

• Tucker for...

• Tucker for.....

• Tucker for.......

• Sonoma County Free Press 1

• Sonoma County Free Press 2

• Flatlands Article

• Metropolitan News Enterprise

• Newsgroup Article

• Garinagu Empowerment Movement 1

• Garinagu Empowerment Movement 2

• Newsgroup Commentary

• San Francisco Examiner on Private Eyes

• Political Zeros

• From "The Secret Wars of Judi Bari," by Kate Coleman (San Francisco: Encounter Books, 2005, p. 220)

• If you want to find out what questions were asked, how it relates to the infamous Judi Bari bombing case, and what Irv Sutley's responses were, click here to order the book from Encounter Books

• From "Never Guilty, Never Free," by Ginny Foat with Laura Foreman (New York: Random House, 1985, p. x [acknowledgements])

• Ginny Foat's personal autograph of Jan Tucker's copy: "To Jan, Always my love, respect & gratitude for being the 'California Connection'"

• For a copy of Jan Tucker's "Games Lawyers Play," send $5.50 to P.O. Box 433, Torrance CA 90508-0433, made payable to Jan Tucker.

• From "Under and Alone," by William Queen (aka Billy St. John--undercover alias) (New York: Random House, 2005, pp. 88-89)

• First, off, Queen is incorrect because this wasn't my case: another licensed private investigator subcontracted two things to me: a civil search for lawsuits which Queen doesn't even mention and the DMV check which he does mention.

• I never contacted or interviewed anybody in connection with this assignment. I didn't talk to Queen's purported relatives, school officials, employer, or anybody else.

• I advised my client that because of the lack of a Class M-1 motorcycle endorsement on the California Driver License that extraordinary precautions should be taken, including "cold call" on-site interviews (non-telephonic) of every reference on his application for membership by licensed investigators and that I be allowed to interview the applicant. The Mongols Motorcycle Club did not want to pay for these services so I had nothing further to do with the background investigation. I also advised that the applicant not be allowed to ride his motorcycle with the club because of simple liability issues in the event of an accident, since they had knowledge that he was in essence driving without a license on his motorcycle.

• If I had run a credit check on St. John (aka Queen) as he claims I did, I would have been violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Since there will be a paper trail showing that I never obtained a credit report on him, Queen has violated my above stated First Rule of Prevarication.

• Although Section 7539(a) of the Business & Professions Code restricts what I can say about issues involving my investigations, I am in a position to publicly challenge William Queen to a polygraph duel on two questions without revealing the results of any investigative material: one for him, one for me.

• My challenge to Queen is, I will take a polygraph administered by ex-Secret Service Agent and Private Investigator Joseph Paolella. Queen is free to have a polygraph examiner of his choice sit in and observe the polygraph.

• The seminal question that I will be examined on is: "Did William Queen, while posing as biker Billy St. John, ever solicit you to commit a crime?"

• Part of this challenge is for William Queen to take a polygraph examination with an examiner of his choice, with Joseph Paolella sitting in to observe his polygraph.

• The seminal question that Queen should answer to is the flipside of mine: "While workiing undercover under the alias Billy St. John, did you ever solicit Jan Tucker to commit a crime?"

• One of Three Investigators in criminal defense team with Law Offices of Glass & Reed, New Orleans, beginning with Louisiana vs. Ginny Foat 1981-82 (Client acquitted on first jury ballot, unanimous for acquittal after 1 hour and 50 minutes of deliberations (defense counsel Glass & Reed, New Orleans). Mentioned in the acknowledgements of Foat's autobiography, "Never Guilty, Never Free," as, "the California connection."

• This case is really one for the books. One of the rarest things to ever find in a criminal case is a charge so stupid that the defense "demurs" to it rather than enter a guilty plea. That's how this case started out on May 2, 2000, with Judge Rand Rubin granting our demurrer to a charge of Penal Code Section 602n, "trespassing" in a place not open to the public.

• Apparently, it never occurred to Deputy City Attorney Gina Oh, that the Burbank City Hall is a place open to the public, especially when the City Council is conducting an open, televised meeting....not exactly in executive session....

• After the demurrer was granted, that left a charge of "obstructing a police officer," in violation of Penal Code Section 148(a). Unfortunately, it never occurred to the City Attorney's Office that ALL the relevant case law on the subject quite clearly says that this law can only be violated if you resist arrest or interfere with somebody else's arrest.

• After 3 1/2 days of trial, to celebrate Cinco de Mayo (May 5), Judge Rubin granted a defense motion to dismiss the case under Section 1118.1 of the Penal Code, for insufficent evidence that a crime had even been committed (this was pointed out to the prosecutor after her first witness had testified--since it was apparent that he'd never even attempted an arrest--but she refused to dismiss the case and proceeded to put Dr. Karam through the trauma of three more days of trial). The defense never even had to put on its own witnesses the case was so lame!

• What the case was all about was that Dr. Karam, an opponent of the Burbank Airport's expansion and constant critic of Burbank Municipal Government, entered a Burbank City Council meeting under completely confusing circumstances, where the gatekeepers, a Burbank Police Officer and a Fire Inspector, had lost all control of what was going on as people were coming in and out constantly and nobody had any idea of whether there were too many people in the council chambers or not. Although people have been kicked out of City Hall for far more disruptive behavior in the past, the city chose to prosecute Dr. Karam, because as one prosecutor stated, they didn't like Dr. Karam's "attitude."

• In all my 21 years as a private investigator, I've only seen criminal demurrers filed three times, and prior to this case, only one of them was successful in a criminal case. I have never seen a demurrer and an 1118.1 P.C. dismissal granted in the same case. This is really one for the books....

• Plaintiff acquitted of armed robbery by jury after only 3 hours of deliberations. Tucker got statements from witnesses describing the robbers as not taller than around 5'7"--the defendant was over 6' tall. One key witness signed a picture of the defendant stating that he was not the person who did the robbery during a taped conversation with Tucker.

• Federal criminal defense in Eastern District of Missouri (St. Louis), United States vs. Gipson (defendant not guilty on all counts in narcotics "throw" case with five alleged police eyewitnesses). Defendant was African American; jury 11-1 white with 70% of jurors having police friends, relatives, or neighbors.

• Central District of California, dismissed on grounds of "Outrageous Government Conduct." Defendant charged with heroin trafficking. Government agents got hooker to seduce defendant and solicit defendant to get her heroin so that she could make money.

• Client originally charged with extortion and threatening phone calls, interstate. Extradited to Colorado. Venue changed on motion of Defendant to Los Angeles. Superseading indictment dropped extortion charge, added counts of interstate threats. On morning of fourth day of trial, government dismissed all charges without defense even putting on its case.

• In People vs. Blanco, ghost wrote suppression of evidence motion (S. 1538.5 P.C.) which was granted for pro-per litigant with finding of fact by Judge Hiroshi Fujisaki that police officer witnesses were liars; ruling upheld by California Supreme Court.

• Defense Investigator with assistance of Gary R. Ramos, private investigator. In 1995, after approximately 3 1/2 years of pre-trial appellate jousting, case went to trial on 12 felony counts of pimping and one count of pandering along with 13 lesser included misdemeanors. Outcome: not guilty by jury on all counts, 3 1/4 hours of deliberations.

• People of Arizona vs. Fortner (client granted probation, six months jail time, after shooting boyfriend at close range; charged with attempted murder).

• People vs. David Wayne Sconce high publicity/media intensive case (defense counsel Roger Jon Diamond). Charges dismissed against defendant prior to trial; People ultimately could not prove any murder was committed, let alone that client was guilty. One of the original prosecutors was now-Congressman James Rogan (R-Glendale), who acted as House Impeachment manager against President Clinton.

• Ghost-wrote pleadings in Rubin vs. Witek (North Central District, Los Angeles Superior Court) resulting in Plaintiff's verdict for Defamation by Libel Per Se establishing accusation of AIDS as falling under common law definition of "loathsome disease." $10,000 in general damages and $90,000 in punitive damages awarded to Plaintiff.

• Ghost-wrote initial pleadingsand conducted discovery and investigation in Silverstein vs. Save the Animals Fund et al (Central District, Los Angeles Superior Court). Jury verdict for Slander $35,000 for Plaintiff, Judge's ruling on Breach of Charitable Trust issues: Removal of all existing directors and replacement on Board of Non-Profit Corporation of Plaintiff and her allies; restitution by former board members to corporation in excess of $100,000 for fraud, embezzlement, and mismanagement.