Talk:2015 San Bernardino attack

Claims Against County of San Bernardino

Renee Wetzel (widow, mother on behalf of three children)

Status: County has not yet responded to the claims
Filed: late December, 2015
Respondents: the county and 25 unidentified individuals
Allegation: death was preventable and caused by negligent, careless actions of the respondents.
Attorney: #1 Andrew J. Nissen http://members.calbar.ca.gov/fal/Member/Detail/284313, #2 ?
Claimed for Widow

• $3 million for loss of wages
• $25 million in general damages

Claimed for minor children

• $10 million in general damages for child 1
• $10 million in general damages for child 2
• $10 million in general damages for child 3

Notes: Claims are originally filed directly with the county: http://www.sbcounty.gov/riskmanagement/default.aspx, if rejected (likely here) they may be subsequently filed in court here: http://openaccess.sb-court.org/OpenAccess/CIVIL/

USA v. Marquez trial notes and dates

for notes on court document research see: these notes, and these.

Court: cacd (U.S. District Court, California, Central District)
Docket #: 5:15-cr-00093
Case Name: USA v. Marquez
PACER case #: 636885
Docket Archive. Archive is not necessarily up to date. Log in to Pacer to be sure. ($15/free usage per quarter)

Note: this is no longer active but contains documents:
Court: cacd
Docket #: 5:15-mj-00498
Case Name: USA v. Marquez
PACER case #: 636012
Docket Archive. Archive is not necessarily up to date. Log in to Pacer to be sure. ($15/free usage per quarter)

Counts

1. 18:2339A(a) CONSPIRACY TO PROVIDE MATERIAL SUPPORT TO TERRORISTS
2. 18:922(a)(6) FALSE STATEMENTS IN CONNECTION WITH THE ACQUISITION OF A FIREARM
3. 18:922(a)(6) FALSE STATEMENTS IN CONNECTION WITH THE ACQUISITION OF A FIREARM (second offense)
4. 8:1325(c) MARRIAGE FRAUD
5. 18:1546(a) FRAUD AND MISUSE OF VISAS, PERMITS, AND OTHER DOCUMENTS

Next Important Dates
(trial was moved back 3x and Marquez then entered a plea of guilty to counts 1 & 2 above)

• sentencing is now scheduled for August 21, 2017 at 2:00 p.m

Loma Linda Medical Center Report

After action report by Loma Linda has several constructive comments and suggestions: [1]

USA v. Chrnykh, Farook & Farook trial notes and dates

Court: cacd
Docket #: 2:16-cr-00292
Case Name: USA v. Chernykh et al
PACER case #: 646503
Docket Archive. Archive is not necessarily up to date. Log in to Pacer to be sure. ($15/free usage per quarter)

Defendants
Syed Raheel Farook - Male shooter's older brother.
Tatiana Farook - Wife of Syed Raheel Farook
Mariya Chrnykh - Sham wife of accomplice Enrique Marquez

Notes:
Mariya Chrnykh and Tatiana Farook - are sisters
Enrique Marquez - (see above case.) Supplied explosives and assault rifles. Long term friend and neighbor of the male shooter.
Syed Raheel Farook - male shooter's older brother. Was a decorated U.S. Navy veteran [2][3]

Counts

1 18 U.S.C. § 371: Conspiracy.

In addition, defendant Chrnykh is charged with violations of

2 18 U.S.C. § 1546(a) Fraud and Misuse of Visas, Permits, and Other Documents;

3 18 U.S.C. § 1621: Perjury;

4 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2): Material False Statements

5 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2): Material False Statements

Guilty Pleas

• Syed Raheel Farook - Count 1
• Tatiana Farook - Count 1
• Mariya Chernykh - Count 1, 3, 4 & 5

Sentencing

• November 13, 2017, at 2:00 P.M. - Syed Raheel Farook
• November 13, 2017, at 2:00 P.M. - Tatiana Farook
• November 20, 2017, at 2:00 P.M. - Mariya Chernykh

Farook Life Insurance Case

Rafia Farook (mother) attempt to collect $275,000 life insurance on death of her son (the male shooter).
USA is attempting to foreclose on the policy benefits and distribute them to victims families and survivors.

Court: cacd
Docket #: 5:16-cv-01129
Case Name: United States of America v. All Monies, Including Insurance Benefits And Interest, Payable Pursuant To Claim Number 1179068 Under Minnesota Life Insurance Group Policy No. 33772-G, For Basic Life Insurance Coverage In The Amount
PACER case #: 649169
Docket Archive. Archive is not necessarily up to date. Log in to Pacer to be sure. ($15 free usage per quarter)

Court: cacd
Docket #: 5:16-cv-01206
Case Name: Minnesota Life Insurance Company v. Rafia Farook et al
PACER case #: 650001
Docket Archive. Archive is not necessarily up to date. Log in to Pacer to be sure. ($15 free usage per quarter)

Next Important Dates

• Rafia Farook (mother) and USA have filed claims to the policy benefits
• A docket item filed 08/05/16 asked for any other claims to the insurance proceeds be filed no later than 60 days after the first day of publication on an official internet government forfeiture site. Earliest follow up is therefore 10/04/2016.

Police Foundation Report

Coverage and particularly the role of DOJ in this report is misleading. more here.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2015 San Bernardino attack. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151203021542/http://bigstory.ap.org/article/e5660a0b4ae1436fb2c51354cef8f6db/california-police-respond-report-active-shooter to http://bigstory.ap.org/article/e5660a0b4ae1436fb2c51354cef8f6db/california-police-respond-report-active-shooter

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:33, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Use of the noun "attack" to describe the event

I have questions about the widespread use of the noun "attack" to describe this event. These questions similarly concern other accounts of violence where the use of the word "attack" seems related to the country of origin or religion of the alleged perpetrator or perpetrators. I will therefore try to raise this concern elsewhere as well. (For this reason, please bear with me if you see this comment elsewhere and it seems repetitive.)

My concern is roughly as follows. First, calling such an incident an attack uses the register of war to characterize the event. (Consider for example the widespread use of the expression _armed attack_ in the UN Charter and in other instruments treating the laws of war.) This is a very specific move and seems to me to be one of consequence in our understanding of such an event. This is to say that the use of war as an animating backdrop into which to integrate our understanding of the event is a very specific choice, and by no means the only option at our disposal. Using the noun "attack" and the backdrop of war to characterize an individual event assimilates it to the plane of collective action. Assimilating an individual act to wider collective action is a very specific interpretive choice, and one that is not disinterested. For example, characterization of an event as a crime does not generally carry the suggestion of collective action. It might be objected that characterizing such an event as a crime is not apt because of the apparent political motivation of the violence considered. Options other than imposing a frame of either war or collective action onto our understand of an event are nonetheless available. Consider our understanding of the Oklahoma City bombing or the Cave of the Patriarchs massacre, for example. No one doubts the political motivation underlying either event, yet our understanding of neither of these events is animated by the suggestion of either war or collective action more generally. If it is wished to indicate a wider conspiracy underlying an individual event, such a conspiracy should be indicated explicitly, not by means of suggestion or innuendo. In a dispassionate account with ambitions of being held out as a reliable encyclopedia article, collective action should be demonstrated by the evidence provided. Collective action should not be an unsubstantiated, hollow spectre that looms over every corner of such an account.

Second, even in the case that collective action--specifically, war--is chosen and adopted as the animating register for the discussion of this event, "attack" is a particularly odd choice in characterizing it. To repeat what's already stated above, both war--and more generally, collective action--are specific interpretative choices for our understanding of this event, neither is obvious or necessary. If such an interpretative choice is adopted, such a choice should be explicit and, ideally, demonstrated by the evidence--deserving a discussion of its own. Now, in the case that collective action and war is chosen as a rubric in which to understand this event, "attack" carries an added suggestion. "Attack" suggests the initiation of hostilities. Once again the claim being made is not explicit, but is glossed over by means of suggestion and innuendo. Again, one suspects that the claim comes by way of suggestion and innuendo because it would collapse if it were made explicitly. The Pentagon and Whitehall began bombing Afghanistan in October 2001, Iraq in March 2003, Syria in September 2014, and Somalia since at least October 2016. French and affiliated NATO forces began their occupation of Afghanistan in December 2001, and of Libya in March 2011. (France has also announced a bombing campaign of the Sahel region in August 2014, that includes parts of Senegal, Mauritania, Mali, Burkina Faso, Algeria, Niger, Nigeria, Chad, Sudan, South Sudan, Eritrea, Cameroon, Central African Republic, and Ethiopia.) One is by no means obligated to understand an individual act of violence in the United States, UK, or France in the context of "war" that includes these military campaigns singularly or collectively; as already emphasized, taking such an act to be one of war is the result of a specific interpretive choice. However, in the case that this route is selected--and an act in the United States, Britain, or France is taken to be part of a war--it seems highly misleading to further portray such an act with an incipient or initiating flavor that "attack" suggests. This portrayal is again glossed over without discussion and seemingly counter to all evidence: if an individual event is understood as a collective action that is part of a wider war, using language that suggests or attributes an initiating character to such an event seems highly dubious when that event takes place 15+ years into the supposed war. Characterizing such an event as an attack seems to want it both ways: to push an account of the event as a collective action that is an act of war, and to at the same time avoid any discussion of that wider war ("attack" with its suggestion that t=0; as opposed to "response," usually reserved for justifications of the ensuring state-violence).

Use of the word "attack" to describe such an individual act thus seems to me highly incoherent. It is an interpretive choice that on the one hand suggests collective responsibility for an individual act of violence, and does so by means of innuendo rather than explicitly (for doing so explicitly would seem dubious in the absence of specific evidence that is often simply not there to be found). And on the other hand, substantive discussion of the wider war being suggested as the animating context in which the event occurs is avoided; "attack" carries with it the suggestion (again, pure innuendo unlikely to survive serious discussion) that the event has an initiating character, glossing over the possibility that such an event could be the response to something.

For these reasons, this word does not seem worthy to form the basis of a discussion which aims to be neutral or dispassionate. Rather it seems highly politicized, and on even a moment's inspection, a tendentious characterization that summarily assimilates an individual event to a collective act of war, while at the same time denying the continuity of the very war being supposed ("attack" bearing the suggestion that event initiates, rather than responds to anything). Moreover, one wonders if the term carries slanderous suggestions; the spectre of collective responsibility cast by the word seems particularly given to scapegoating. "Conspiracy theorist" is a term of derision often used to characterize the speculations of those that suppose collective action or a plot in the absence of good evidence. Well, in addition to its being unthinking newspeak--in its current, and now longstanding, uniform use--"attack" is nothing if not a term of the conspiracy theorist. Collective action is supposed in the absence of evidence. The fear-mongering of supposed collective action gives rise to the war-mongering of suggested collective responsibility.

The innuendo and spectres that one might expect to litter Pentagon briefings should not provide the basis for an encyclopedia article that aims to be disinterested. Alfred Nemours (talk) 15:30, 5 July 2017 (UTC)