Two California lawyers have been arrested in a bizarre alleged conspiracy to plant drugs in the car of the PTA president of their child’s school. Lawyers Kent Wycliffe Easter, 38, and Jill Bjorkholm Easter, 38, targeted Kelli Peters because they felt she treated her son poorly by locking him outside of the school for 20 minutes. They are accused of putting Vicodin, Percocet, marijuana, and a used marijuana pipe behind the front seat of her car to frame her.
The police received a tip on February 16, 2011 from a concerned parent, told an Irvine police dispatcher that he had seen a woman driving erratically and parking at Plaza Vista School. What was a bit suspicious is that the citizen also knew her license plate, name, and witnessed her hiding drugs behind the seat. Police pulled Peters from the school and found the drugs. When she denied knowledge of the drugs, they traced the call to a Newport beach hotel and then found a surveillance tape of the business center where the call originated. The tape showed Kent Easter.
Both Easters were arrested on charges of false imprisonment, conspiracy to falsely report a crime and conspiracy to procure the false arrest of the elementary-school parent volunteer.
Kent Easter is a law graduate of the University of California-Los Angeles while Jill Easter is a graduate from the University of California-Berkeley law school.
Kent Easter is accused of driving to the volunteer’s home after midnight to plant the drugs.
Notably, in 2010, Kent Easter filed a civil suit on his son’s behalf against a volunteer organization associated with Plaza Vista Elementary School in Irvine. The complaint states that Jill Easter arrived at the then-first grade child’s school to pick him up after a tennis lesson and found that he had been locked outside for nearly 20 minutes. Ironically, it sought damages for claimed false imprisonment and intentional infliction of emotional distress but was later dismissed.
Jill Easter also filed a restraining order against Peters, alleging that Peters was “harassing and stalking” her and her son, and had “threatened to kill me.”
The police say that they have text messages between the lawyers throughout the conspiracy. That is particularly bizarre. You go to the business center of a hotel to make the call but they leave a trail of text messages with your wife. Given the past legal actions against Peters, police would likely go to the Easters first if they suspected a frame up.
The situation looks rather bleak for the Easters who are going to loose custody, go to jail, and be stripped of their licenses in quick succession.
Source: LA Times
40 thoughts on “Easter Planting: California Lawyers Arrested In Bizarre Alleged Frame Up Of PTA President”
Dredd 1, June 21, 2012 at 1:06 pm
Matt Johnson 1, June 21, 2012 at 11:58 am
Dredd 1, June 21, 2012 at 10:06 am
I haven’t been in California since 1982. I didn’t have that much difficulty when I was there.
That is anecdotal.
Rely on expert sources for your final judgment, because sometimes personal experience can blind us to the greater reality around us.
I dealt with the police more than once when I was in California. There were a few situations I would describe as less than optimal, but it all worked out nicely.
Understand their situation and their attitude. What they think their approach needs to be. I never got arrested in California.
Worrying about the underlying “pseudocause” of the two lawyers’ behavior is like carrying on about whether or not Trayvon Martin had smoked marijuana within ten days of getting shot to death. Who cares? It does not excuse, explain or justify the conduct that followed and cannot do so.
If you cannot get the law to be mobilized to protect you or (another version), if you cannot access the law to mobiilize to protect your child, that doesn’t give you a free card to set up a fraud in order to exact punishment upon the individual you blame for that unjust situation.
Really, really, if that kind of thing were OK just because there was an underlying injustice or impropriety, or even an unlawful and yet unprosecuted wrong, crime or tort that motivated the desire to “teach a lesson” or to punish someone, I’d find myself very free to:
Frame one retired federal judge and another one who hasn’t yet retired sufficiently to be gone;
Frame one retired Circuit Court judge and another Circuit Court judge who is merely pro tem;
Frame four, maybe five state agency employees;
Frame six, maybe seven attorneys; and
Frame one retired US Attorney who used to be a Commonwealth’s Attorney and later became a Commissioner of a state parole board; and
…Damn…forget it, I’m tired already.
Yeah, where DID they get all that contraband? Out of the property room?
(By the way, in California, if you steal somebody’s car, all you have to do is write up a contract where that person asked you to store the car for them for a certain amount of money per day, and then sign it for them, and then put a lien on the car, and when the police come to get the stolen car back from you, show them the forged papers — no notary needed — and assert your lien, and the owner can’t get the car back. So you see, you don’t even NEED to frame anybody. Just DO IT.)
California seems to be in competition with Texas in some respects.
Could be the child was left outside b/c the parents are habitually late in picking him up. It’s also possible that someone inside was watching out for him.
I wonder if they’re going to try the “she started it” defense.
Good to know the rules. Seems quite liveable imo.
I spent my whole life wondering which landmine would explode next. Or were they IEDs?
I should also add that editorially no one generally pays attention to the moderation queue here. It is effectively limbo.
Now it went up for me. FABBulous!
Your AVATAR is FABBulous too.
There are two “absolute” polices and one “flexible” policy.
The two absolute polices are “don’t hijack other poster’s identity” and the “right to post anonymously” polices.
The first one is fairly self-explanatory. If someone other than you posted as “idealist707” and used your avatar and you complained about it, that faux-poster would be blacklisted.
The second one means that everyone has a right to post here under a pseudonym and not have their true identity revealed either by other posters or by “blog staff”. The right to anonymous political free speech is guaranteed by law and respected here.
The flexible policy is the “civility rule”. General civility is encouraged, but to cross the line on this rule (from what I’ve been told) requires something egregious like taunting other posters about dead children or something like that. Encouraging vigorous debate and discussion kind of necessitates that rule being flexible.
Spam, of course, is discouraged but that is a common practice at most blogs. It only makes sense. The blog doesn’t take advertising either.
Aside from those, there are a couple of editorial guidelines that only apply to GB’s articles (try to set up a scenario for debate and/or conversation, etc.).
Generally speaking though, it’s a free speech zone.
These policies are the only ones I know of and are set by JT and subject to change of course at his discretion.
I wish the DOJ would take over the Phoenix PD.
Wow, these parents are wack jobs. Why do something illegal?
I think planting ‘evidence’ has to be one of the most heinous crimes imaginable. Framing an innocent person, how could one live with that knowledge whether or not you are a cop or a lawyer?
Taking a persons freedom away……
Who likes beating a dead horse? Not me. But when I get started it is hard to find the cut-off switch.
I appreciate your contributions just for the motives you give. Not all, but that would be funny if I did.
For myself, I enjoy most saying: “Whoa, wait a minute.”, when the runaway train starts up here. “Does this thing
idealist707 1, June 21, 2012 at 1:59 pm
Ok. Fair and square.
Let’s move on.
It is the next down, the next batter, the next adventure already for heaven sake.
I have a difficult time remembering who offended me or whom I offended.
I do try to inject discourse that rattles our brains, informs us of things I have observed or discovered, all in a spirit of “heads up!”
All very free of charge, with no commercials.
Intended for each to use as they so choose.
No more, no less.
Currently the moderation filter is triggered by the following four (edited for presentation purposes) words:
…so, should another of my emotionally outraged, twitchy tourettes fueled responses be triggered I’ll just say….’fabb……’…;) ulous…
Speaking of blog policies, we come into the general one of using a product without instructions. We’ve seen paper, which few read, fumble and see, ask your buddy, and net speak. All pretty well deficient. And others claim to offer intuitive products. Now does a lawyer have an advantage in performing a fraud?
Wonder if these two lawyers and hopefully joint parents have had acccess to the possible outcomes to their plantinjg exercise?
What are blog policies other that the one you named?
The two link limit on hyperlinks is the default setting for WordPress and to my understanding has been used on this blog since its inception. It is set low in part to combat spam. In fact, the exact wording on the Setting for that feature reads:
“Hold a comment in the queue if it contains [user adjustable number here] or more links. (A common characteristic of comment spam is a large number of hyperlinks.)”
Since there seems to be some confusion on the moderation filter and how it works, I’ll explain that feature too. The other pertinent parts of the moderation filter are two user defined lists. The first one contains triggers that put comments in moderation automatically. These triggers can be words, e-mail or IP addresses. Currently the moderation filter is triggered by the following four (edited for presentation purposes) words:
There is also a blacklist. These comments are not put in moderation, but rather deleted outright. It operates on the same trigger principle (user defined strings) as the moderation filter. Currently the blacklist filter contains only IP and e-mail addresses for known spammers and the very few people who have been banned for repeated violations of blog policies such as the “don’t hijack other poster’s identity” policy.
If anyone has problems with these policies, I suggest you address them on the Corrections thread.
I made the mistake in assuming we had reached the stage that kidding could be used in exchanges.
I could accept the idea that you would be kidding us, in response to the crap you were given previously.
But NEVER to honestly put down stuff for which you did not stand and have backing for.
So, my mistake. You interpreted me as “disparaging” you.
If I had disparaged you, I would not have asked for links.
Now would I?
Again, my mistake in simply not saying:”hey, that’s hard to believe. any links. all hope is not gone”. etc. Would that have been better?
Just because some disparage you and insult you, don’t go
expecting it from me at least. I’ve come out on your side many times, and you know that to be true.
As for your not so subtle embeding, screw the complainers.
Nobody is forced to click on them. They aren’t screen blackouts, pop-ups,etc.
If they say you come in with a constant bias or whatever, then say screw them. You are you, and never pretend anything otherwise. Screw them.
Let’s see if that passes moderation.
Dredd 1, June 21, 2012 at 1:27 pm
idealist707 1, June 21, 2012 at 1:12 pm
Here is how it should have read:
A commenter here complains when I provide links and now there are complaints when I don’t.
I would suspect the Unlawful Imprisonment charge stems from the Lawyers using the police as an instrumentality to detain the school official. By making false claims of the official committing a crime, they knew the police would arrest or at least detain the official under color of law while knowing such detention to be unlawful. While unconventional, I would agree with the PC to charge.
Instrumentalities are akin to using a stick to fish out a diamond ring from inside the building’s window. While the offender did not actually put his person inside the building to retrieve the ring, the instrument crossed the threshhold of the building as an extention of his person and therefore a burglary can be levied instead of just the theft.
idealist707 1, June 21, 2012 at 1:12 pm
I have never complained about your linking to your own blog or to any others. Your last comment leading off with my comment would seem to imply so.
I expect a retraction or an apology.
I also, if you read again, in my comment made clear that it was a friendly inquiry looking for info on something I found from here as improbable.
So what’s the problem. Go back to fighting with those who called you a “blog whore”. I was not and never have been one of them.
And to repeat my oriqinal punch line: there must ba a
waiting list at DOJ. Is there?
I reread that part and it was not clear that I was in reference to the Turley Blog Police, who also practice bullying.
Yes, they affect us all, and sorry for the inartful string of words.
The fools here who do not know the purpose of HTML links ( ) would limit everything to two links, otherwise when a commenter links to his own work (as scientists and courts do incessantly) will take but one link to a source of many, many authorities to support their assertion.
Bottom line, you should retract your statement disparaging my honesty, and don’t do it again … just supply a link to your blog that argues your point contra my point.
Comments are closed.