Response ReplyCal. Super. - 6th Dist.January 28, 2021Ix) 0ME# o2 /C#w ?83 / Harris L. Winns I L E San, Jose CA. 95122 Plaintifl, Pro Se MAY 1 2 2021 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA San Jose, CA.«mm»- Case No.: 21CH009831 (Civil Racial Harassment With the Threat of Violence) HARRIS L. WINNS CCP§ 527.6 et seq Plaintiff, an Individual vs. PLAINTIFF 1N REPLY T0 SINUE TORRESI DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE Defendant, an Individual T0 RESTRAINING ORDER PLAINTIFF IN REPLY Comes now the Plaintiff, Harris L. Winns. On May 11‘“, 2021, Defendant Sinue Torres filed additional documents at Santa Clara County Superior Court. Within those documents, Torres made more colorful accusations than within his original response to the March 23rd, 2021 court hearing. SINUE TORRES’ ACCUSATIONS IN ITS ENTIRETY (5.11.2021) “On April 8'“. 2021 my family and I were on our way back home from doing laundry by crossing Story Rd. and Capitol Rd, Where l came across Mr. Harris. I then made a U Turn to head back a difTerenl direction when l noticed Mr. Harris in his vehicle right behind me. l kept on driving when l noticed he was then following me in and out of shopping center. I purposely drove in and out the shopping center to see ifhe was in fact following me and not make false accusation. The only way he came to a stop was when l merged to a different lane to purposely lose him. l am not sure why he states that he feels harassed and unsafe when he is the one to harass my family and l.” l WINNS V. SlNl’E TORRES CIVIL RACIAL HARASSMENT | Case No.: ZlCHm9831 IN REPLY T0 DEFENDANT l3 l4 15 l6 l7 l8 24 25 26 27 28 am: #7 o€/C#OO¢33/ Plaintiff Winns will now commence to totally disassembling Torres’ totally ”false accusation” just as he claimed above that was not engaging in such a thing. In short, the Plaintiff will expose the Defendant for being a hopelessly mendacious person. First and foremost, On April 8‘“, my family and I was out of town in Livermore, CA., which is approximately thirty-three (33) miles away from San Jose, CA, according to Google Maps. Even further, my wife has a shoppingm (see attachment) that is time stamped on April 8‘“, 2021, the same date that Sinue alleges that the Plaintiff was “following him in and out of shopping center.” Secondly, the Plaintiff implores this honorable Court to contact East Side Union High School District (ESUHSD) / Overfelt High School (408) 347-5900 for further confirmation that my Daughter; nor my Son attended class on April 8‘“, 2021. Additionally, and also on the date in question, Sinue also claims that he “then made a U Tum to head back a different direction.” But yet, he fails yet again to mention whether or not he made a u- tum on Capitol Expressway or Story Rd. This is very important because it will reveal a clear sense of direction in which the Defendant was heading and not just wandering around in his vehicle for the mere purpose of fabricating an anecdote that the Plaintiff was stalking him. Another interesting point is that if this was in fact a truthful incident, which it isn’t, the Court must ask of the Defendant the following question: Why didn’t you take either a video or pictures of the Plaintiff allegedly following you near Story Rd. and Capitol Expressway?” Besides, there is no need for Mr. Winns to follow or tailgate Sinue. Moreover, it appears that the Defendant has forgotten that the Plaintiff has requested a restraining order against him and not the other way around. This is what makes Mr. Winns believes that Sinue perhaps experienced a brief mirage or perhaps even a short state of phantasmagoria. Nonetheless, there are no shopping centers at the intersection of Story Rd. and Capitol Expressway. This particular intersection is anchored by a total of three gas stations and an AutoZone automotive parts store, with a McDonald’s immediately behind the automotive parts retailer. 2 WINNS V. SlNl’E TORRES CIVIL RACIAL HARASSMENT | Case N0.: 21CH009831 [N REPLY T0 DEFENDANT 10 ll 12 13 I4 15 l8 l9 20 22 23 24 25 26 28 C4649 03/c/+OO?83/ Additionally, to further prove that Sinue is once again revealing himself to be a pathological liar, he could’ve easily requested a copy of Video footage from one of the retailers in the shopping that he claims the Plaintiff was following him. Perhaps h failed to do so because it was in fact an imaginary shopping center. Mr. Winns is unaware of Sinue’s personal issues, but he continually defames my character in an attempt to foster the perception or even turn the table that the Plaintiff is the perpetrator. But yet, Sinue nor Alejandra, his spouse, have filed a report with either San Jose’ Police Dept. or with management at the apartment complex stating that Mr. Winns or any member of his family has harassed him or any member of his family. Interestingly enough, Defendant Torres also alleges the following: “I am not sure why he states that he feels harassed and unsafe when he is the one to harass my family and I.” This is yet another comical statement made by Sinue. Perhaps the Defendant needs to be reminded of him and his family’s collective actions that has been taking place since they unfortunately moved in next door to us. Defendant Sinue first moved next door in the summer of 2019. Shortly thereafter, he placed a toy gorilla in a plant bush near my kitchen window. This particular toy was left in the brush for approximately two weeks. It was only taken down by the front office after Plaintiff Winns complained to the front office regarding the actions of someone 'm his family. This was the first expression of hate emanating from these people that was clearly intended to send a message that was directed towards me and my family. His family members continuously and unnecessarily slammed the front door while exiting and entering the apartment. Furthermore, the Defendant and his family members unceasingly slammed medicine cabinet door, even sometimes at 1am or 4am in the morning simply to distract or ”annoy" my family. This is a clear violation of California Code of Civil Procedure § 527.6 et seq. Another interesting point is that Sinue and Alejandra repeatedly allowed their pet dog to defecate next our vehicle without removing the dog’s waste. Our shared section lawn section is 3 WINNS V. SlNUl-Z TORRES CIVIL RACIAL HARASSMENT I Case No.: 21CHW9831 IN REPLY TO DEFENDANT k) I7 l8 19 20 CM; aé‘r oe/cMzfi83 / such that it was totally unnecessary for Sinue’s family members to commit such an act, and it further gives credence that this type of “harassment” was simply to ”annoy." Pictures will be provided to the Court upon request. California Code of Civil Procedure § 527.6(3) On Dec. 26th, 2020, after returning home and getting out of the car, it seems as if Sinue was giving his oldest Daughter Arlyn instructions near their car. They then walked towards their apartment and both individually gestured with their finger as if shooting someone with a gun in front of my car as they returned home. Then suddenly, Sinue animatedly launched his head in a backwards motion, further insinuating that perhaps he had successfully shot someone. CCP § 527.6 (2) Here, Sinue’s actions present a clear ”course of conduct" and a ”credible threat of violence” targeting Mr. Winns and his family members. And thus, the Defendant stands in bold opposition to California laws pertaining to a civil ”harassment” restraining order predicted upon the victim's race. California Code of Civil Procedure § 527.6 (1)(2)(3) This entire incident was captured on our security surveillance system. A copy of this video will be brought to court on the date of the upcoming hearing. Additionally, just as soon after my family and I returned home from the court hearing on March 3rd, 2021, our neighbor immediately began ganging on my Autistic Son’s bedroom wall. The case at that time was taken “off calendar." They also resumed slamming the medicine cabinet and main entrance to the apartment, simply to ”alarm and annoy” my family in violation of the state’s restraining order statute. Code of Civil Procedure § 527.6 et seq. THE COURT’S MINUTE ORDER - Date of Hearing 3.23.2021 “The Defendant is assisted by the Coun Certified Spanish Interpreter Aex Teran." “Both parties are sworn.” “The parties are referred to mediation.” “At 10: 1 5am. the defendant reported back to the coun that the Plaintiff lefi when they were sent out in the hallway Io call the mediator and he never contacted the mediator.” “The court takes this matter ofT calendar.” Once again, Defendant Sinue has successfully deceived the Court into believing that the Plaintiff didn’t contact the Mediator(s) at Project Sentinel. However, Mr. Winns did in fact 4 WINNs v. SN'E TORRES CIVIL RACIAL HARASSMENT 1 Case No.: 21CH009831 IN REPLY To DEFENDANT h) 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 CHE ask J/ofiaflg3/ speak with Mae, one of the Mediators at the organization mentioned above. Moreover, The Plaintiff also spoke with Tessa as well the following day. Awkwardly enough, immediately after the initial court hearing, Mediator Mae asked me if I was still at the Court. I told her thatI had left the Court. Miss Mae never told me that I should return to the court for further Court proceedings. Additionally, neither court personnel informed me to remain either on the campus or in the hallway of the Court. In summary and in light of what’s mentioned above, the Plaintiff has shown good cause and thus, it is imperative that this honorable court grant this motion for a civil harassment restraining order. Sinue’s documented behavior appears to be irrational; sporadic and highly unpredictable. This includes the conduct of Alejandra Sandoval, his spouse and at times, his children as well. These people needs to stay away from Mr. Winns and all members of his family. Respectfully submitted, \ a Q ' Harris L. Wlnns Pro Se Wednesday, May 12'“, 2021 5 WINNS V. SINUE TORRES CIVIL RACIAL HARASSMENT | Case N0.: 21CHm9831 IN REPLY TO DEFENDANT CML: #7 68/01400?83/ GUCCI San Francisco Outlet 3890 Livernure Out12ts Drive San Franciscu Praniun UutIets Liuermure EA 94551 tel 925.273.3850 Trans I: 11210 Date: 4/21/21 12:53:27 Stura' 23712 Register: 5 Customer: ANNALISSR "INNS Customer ID: 962002041696 HP- ---------%--%% 120 unnsus SMLB 10/ /o P 4495955iJ1s - Iooo : un' Salesperson: 1002933 (JOSIAH) Original Receipt Information Stare:23712 Datez4/B/21 Trans 0:10143 Register25 800527546 l 235.00 235.00 120 UUHENS SILG 10/ IWHL 5364500YKBT - 1060 - NR Salesperson: 1002933 (JOSIAH) 007932948 I 159.00 159.00 130 KENS SILG 10/ ID P 262837BHJ1N - 1000 - Na Salesperson: 1002933 (JOSIRH) Subtotal 75.00 Tax 6.14 Tutu](fl$0) 81.9! Cash 100.00 Change Cash -18.06 SOLD ITEH COUNT : 2 RETURNED ITEM COUNT : I Sales Tax Anaiysis Code taxable Rate Iota] fax LOCRL 75.00 9.25% 81.94 6.94 U Eucci outlets uill accept eligible nerchandise within 14 days uf purchase fur exchange fur merchandise uf aqua] ur greater valua. No refunds uill be granted. Exchanges uill nut be accepted fur fragrances. If merchandise uf greater value is selected upon exchange. client uill be responsible ta nay the additions} cost. plus applicable tax. Merchandise fur exchange must be ununrn, in original condition. in its uriqina1 packaging and undalagsd box. uith origins] tags attached and accnnpanied by a valid proof of purchase. For 1inqeria products. the underuear protection. uhen provided. nust also be intact. No axcaptions uiI] ha acceptad. Any lerchandise purchased at a Gucci outlet location may only be exchanged at a Gucci outlet Iocatiun. original Can! nuumn1MMWWII;wuwuuimllnllutumrmullll Dqu’VPm wr TWURWKQ) W oRt'étUW/ OM q 8/1, ' W 0 @M you MW Q’H’L’ ’ -7:;f.{5;' f§3€=: 04nd Mkw 779K 46007172? UWH/ Feemu/{rs 77h: Wwqu‘mk/ ' a/OM WK, 5} <29 0469741? oe/woo ?83/ Your honor, my name is Annalissa Winns. I am the wife of the plaintiff, Harris Winns. I am not going to use the "feel sorry" tactics like the family of the defendant did. I am going straight to the point. You see your honor, it took us almost one and a half gears to get to this point to actally take this individual to court to try to make him and his family stop the emotional distress and harassments they have been putting myself and mg family through. From placing a toy gorilla. on a tree shared between our units, having their dog aw#flww%w defecate and urinate on our side of the laWn we share, by calling my husband stupid in Spanish (pendejo) and “changing defaming words about my husband with the groundskeeper of the current apartment we both currently living at, pretending to shoot at our car, slamming very hard of the medicine cabinet in the bathroom sometimes so early in the morning or very late at night and banging hard on the wall of mg son’s room, which is next to their omit. We have two older children that haVe autism and loud sounds or noises really bothers them. Mg oldest would always run to my room and tells me everytime there is a hard banging on his wall and would say it bothers him... Additionally, the wife of the defendant harassed yours truly by saying unnecessary and hurtful comments ( "You're the devil”) in front of 04W d?/c#00 ?86/ my family, especially mg children as we were walking out of the court. And also, a, male friend of the wife, who accompanied the defendant to court, made unnecessary comments towards us.. Plus they seem to try to get other people involve in this problem that is supposed to be between my family and theirs ONLY. According to the reply that the defendant submitted regarding the request of the restraining order, he denied everything of the complaints. He also stated that he was falsely accused. Your honor, we are all grown people and why would we waste ours and the court's time to file a report that they claimed that is false? What are we going to benefit from that? The wife and the oldest daughter mentioned in their letters that my husband was the cause of 0M #9 4/6/7400 ?83/ the stress and sadness that they are going through because the defendant was not able t0 stay home due to the restraining order. They also have the audacity to say that they feel harassed because of our response (filing complaints) towards all the harassment they put us through? They put themselves in that predicament because of the hatred they showed towards us. I also read on the defendant's reply that he was hospitalized because of his anxiety. He stated that the dag they moved to the apartment they currently live in, was also the dag his brother in law passed away. But he didn’t mentioned the manner he died. MS brother in law was killed by a gang member and possibly a drug user/dealer (see article attached). It was also mentioned on his wife's cmg-rkoe/Wg 3 / Facebook post that, that same day, the brother m law just brought their children from Modesto to San Jose before he got killed. Apparently, maybe, the suspect was just waiting for the victim to be by himself before killing him. Maybe that's why he had anxiety attack because of the thought that the suspect might be after them next. This is one of the reasons we want the defendant and his family away from us. We don't know their backgrounds and the kind of people they associate with. Especially since Sinue's brother in law was in fact killed by a gang member, which he failed to mention. As of April 3, zozl. The temporary restraining order was served to the defendant around I0130am. Same day, €46€+Fo€la+00 ?83 / there were slamming of the medicine cabinet and door maybe because they were upset? Your honor, please consider granting this restraining order we are requesting. And if you find this complaint not strong enough to grant a restraining order, please atleast order the defendant and his family to stop all the harassment and stag away from us. We've been in Foxdale for almost ten gears. Never experienced or encountered neighbors like them. Your honor, thank you for your time . E «day Isl ozoa/ / CAch/lik o?/CH00 98’ 3/ ® The Mercury News E Menu Search San Jose: Murder suspect arrested in deadly shooting while on parole Robert Salonga PUBLISHED: October 2, 201 9 at 9:37 pm. | UPDATED: October 3, 2019 at 2:30 pm. California News, Crime and Public Safety, Latest Headlines, News SAN JOSE - A man already in jail for violating his parole has now been linked to a deadly shooting in August, according to San Jose police. Antonio Dominguez Pinal, 25, of San Jose, has been charged with murder in the Aug. 10, 2019 shooting of Jose Castaneda Sandoval on Story Road in East San Jose. (San Jose Police Dept.) VW 0F d/uue 73926 r ’ w/Fé7' W cy/C/foo 983/ Antonio Dominguez Pinal, 25, of San Jose, was being held in the Elmwood men's jail in Milpitas awaiting a parole revocation hearing when he was charged this week w'rth the murder of 24-year-old Jose Castaneda Sandoval, who was found gravely wounded on Aug. 1O in the 1700 block of Story Road. The shooting was reported around 10:25 pm. that night. Sandoval, from the Central Valley town of Ceres just out side Modesto, died at a local hospital. In a Wednesday night news release, police did no; reveal what implicated Pinal in the slaying, other than saying that he was identified as a suspect during a follow-up investigation. San Jose police served an arrest warrant to Pinal in jail on Sept. 26, and court records show he was arraigned on the murder charge Wednesday. Pinal‘s parole stemmed from a 201 2 conviction of assault w‘rth a deadly weapon, plus a gang enhancement, according to Deputy District Attorney Oanh Tran. He has also been charged with recklessly evading police on Aug. 29. Aut horities cannot share whether there is any possible connection between the suspect and victim as the investigation is ongoing, Tran said. C#J’E‘f'? o7/Cf7LoO?8 3/ -' £53!th Swwhmfilm t; :Areafimimss #Besi‘inaask'temmmm Imx, Anyone with information about the case can contact Detective Sgt. John Cary or Detect ive Elizabeth Ramirez in the SJPD homicide unit at 408-277-5283 or leave a tip with Silicon Valley Crime Stoppers at 408-277-5283 or atmeg. Related Articles o M n thinE n - Wymrflmmmym Sharethis: 0 U G View more on Ihg Mgrcury News SPONSORED CONT:ENI Trump's IQ Vs. Biden‘s- Try Not To Laugh L.‘ By Pleype