My Response · Oct 30

What he asked The District Attorney's answers to his five questions on the October 22 review. Asked Oct 22 · due Oct 28. Violation of Penal Code §11116.10 and Cal. Const. art. I, §28(b)(6)

What they wrote · Victor M. Rodriguez, Director, District Attorney's Office · October 30, 2026
“When evidence is reviewed for filing consideration, all applicable crimes are evaluated.”

My response

October 31, 2026, 5:58 p.m. · To Victor M. Rodriguez, District Attorney's Office · Copied to the Attorney General's Public Inquiry Unit

Mr. Rodriguez,

Thank you. Two questions are still open, and each takes one line.

1. Were the counts under Penal Code section 523 among the crimes evaluated on 19 March 2026? A yes or a no is enough.

2. Penal Code section 11116.10(a) requires the prosecuting attorney, on the victim's request, to "inform the victim or witness by letter of such final disposition" within 30 days. Which writing, and of what date, is that letter?

Halsey Minor

[Contact details are not shown on this page.]

See it in the full list

WHEN WILL LOS ANGELES COUNTY AND BEVERLY HILLS “JUSTICE” BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE TO THE LAWS?

Halsey Minor warned the Beverly Hills police, in writing, that his case would be dumped. It was rejected for the very reasons he warned about.

217 days: from the rejection to the first written explanation

  1. Mar 19, 2026A deputy district attorney rejects the case.
  2. Sep 8, 2026He learns the case was rejected in March: nearly six months on, and no one had told him.
  3. Oct 22, 2026The first written explanation of the decision: nine days after the 30 the law allows, when the victim asks.10
The law
Penal Code §11116.10: on the victim's request, the prosecutor must, “within 30 days of the final disposition of the case, inform the victim or witness by letter”.

0 of 8: his requests to talk with the prosecutor

The right · California Constitution, article I, §28(b)(6) (Marsy's Law)
Every crime victim has the right “to reasonably confer with the prosecuting agency, upon request”.11
His eight requests

March 11 and 18, 2026, before the decision of March 19; then March 20, 23, 29 and 30, and April 6 and 17.

Halsey Minor
“No one in the office conferred with me, before the decision or after it.”
Round 13Battle for Justice Round 1Going Federal

Why Halsey is going federal

JUSTICE INJUSTICE LIVE MEASURED AGAINST CALIFORNIA LAW
Only the Attorney General can turn it to justice.

It strains a little less toward justice with each failure to answer as the law requires. Last moved October 31, 2026.

Rob Bonta, Attorney General of California. Official portrait.

His office has the file.1

“Victims of crime often struggle to rebuild their lives, and so, it is incumbent on all of us — in particular those of us in positions of power — to have their backs.”2

Rob Bonta, Attorney General of California

Thirteen times, in writing, he warned that the case would be sent unprepared and dumped.

13

warnings, November 5, 2025 to March 11, 2026, to the detective, his superiors, the Chief and the City, and to the District Attorney.7

November 19, 2025: “…framing it in a way that the case might be prematurely rejected…”

February 9, 2026: the police send the case. March 19: a deputy district attorney rejects it. No one conferred with him, before or after. He asked on November 19, 2025 that the case be reassigned. No one answered.

The law did not stop this case. The justice system did.

The District Attorney's office counted three years. The law gives four: Penal Code §801.5, from discovery or from the last transfer, whichever is later. That runs to November 15, 2026 at the earliest, so on March 19, 2026 the case was within time.

2023 2024 2025 2026 With the Beverly Hills police: Apr 1, 2025 – Feb 9, 2026, then sent to the DA 2015 About $450,000 · 2015 now about $1.5 million, his estimate Five transfers move $1,134,000 · Nov–Dec 2022 Dec 2, 2025: “Do not let it die on the vine.” 4 years · §801.5 Nov–Dec 2026 at the earliest He reports the crime · Mar 25, 2025 Rejected: “beyond a statute of limitations” · Mar 19, 2026 Within time under Penal Code §801.5 He learns · Sep 8, 2026
  1. 2015The first theft he reported: about $450,000, moved to hidden accounts. About $1.5 million today, by his estimate.
  2. Nov 15 – Dec 15, 2022Five online transfers move $1,134,000.
  3. Mar 25, 2025He reports the crime after recovering from a serious injury, only to find out his money had also been sent, account closed and he believes in violation of the law to a family member.
  4. Apr 1, 2025The police assign a detective.
  5. Dec 2, 2025He writes to the police and the City: “Do not let it die on the vine.”
  6. Feb 9, 2026The police send the case to the District Attorney.
  7. Mar 19, 2026Rejected: “The case was beyond a statute of limitations.” Under Penal Code §801.5 it was within time.
  8. Sep 8, 2026He learns the case was rejected in March.
  9. Nov 15 – Dec 15, 2026Four years after the transfers: the earliest end under Penal Code §801.5.

Wrong by law. His premarital agreement made the money his separate property, and the police sent the case as grand theft. For grand theft, Penal Code §801.5 gives four years. The case was within time.

The record behind it: the office's count, the law, his question

District Attorney's office · September 8, 2026
“A case like this must be brought within 3 years. This occurred in 2022 and thus would have required being brought by 2025.”
The four-year rule
Penal Code §801.5: four years from discovery, or from the last transfer, whichever is later.8

That runs to November 15 – December 15, 2026 at the earliest.

Halsey Minor · to District Attorney Hochman, September 21, 2026
“Was the discovery rule part of the analysis?”

No answer.

About $3.8 million taken from him, estimated at the S&P 500 today.25

$1,134,000

2022. Five transfers he did not authorize.4 The police sent it to the District Attorney as grand theft. About $2.2 million today, estimated.

$450,000

2015. Moved to hidden accounts.3 About $1.7 million today, estimated.

Halsey Minor · October 25, 2026
“I never knew there was a ‘college’ fund for my kids. I guess that is because the financial statements were sent to her sister’s house and no one EVER said a word about it…to the children’s father.”

Where did her Vanguard accounts come from? $915,203.56 on December 31, 2024. The police never asked.24

His complaint and the police record

A California tax refund paid to him, moved November 15 to December 15, 2022. He reported it to the Beverly Hills police by telephone on March 25, 2025. It was not the first: he has told the police and the District Attorney of a theft in 2015, about $450,000 moved to hidden accounts, which he now estimates at about $1.5 million.3

Halsey Minor · his complaint
“Plaintiff did not consent to, authorize, or know of the transfers.”4
Halsey Minor · his complaint
“Plaintiff is informed and believes that Shannon Minor initiated or directed each transfer.”4
Police · records answer, Oct 9, 2026
“Case submitted to the District Attorney's office on February 09, 2026 for 487(A) PC – Grand Theft, and subsequently rejected on March 19, 2026.”5

The laws he contends were broken, by code

  • Grand theftPenal Code §487(a)
  • Attempted murder, premeditatedPenal Code §§664(a), 187(a)
  • Extortion by written threatPenal Code §523
  • Computer intrusionPenal Code §502(c)
  • Evidence destructionPenal Code §135
  • Insurance fraudPenal Code §550
  • ConspiracyPenal Code §182

His characterizations, not legal determinations. The District Attorney's office answered one of them on October 22, 2026; that answer is not shown on this page.

One decision. Three descriptions of it from the District Attorney's office, in seven months.

The first says there is no case. The second gives two legal reasons. The third sets both aside and gives a reason never mentioned before. The letter lists what was reviewed: statements by him, Shannon Minor and one other person; bank records of two joint accounts; the premarital agreement. The phone is not on the list.

One decision, three descriptions

District Attorney's office · March 19, 2026, the day the case was rejected
“We are not in receipt of any letter however the case you refer to is not in our system. Maybe a different agency is prosecuting this case? I am sorry that we are unable to assist.”
District Attorney's office · September 8, 2026
“A case like this must be brought within 3 years. This occurred in 2022 and thus would have required being brought by 2025.” … “The laws on community property would also not support a filing of this case.”
District Attorney's office · Victor M. Rodriguez, Bureau Director · October 22, 2026
“Even assuming that (1) the case is not barred by the statute of limitations, and (2) the tax refund would be considered your separate property, I determined there was insufficient evidence to establish that the suspect acted with the criminal intent required to prove embezzlement or any other charge beyond a reasonable doubt. For that reason, I concur with the prior declination decision.”23
Police · the detective, March 11, 2026
“Yes. I already told you I submitted your case to the DA.”

March 19, 2026: told “not in our system”, and the case was rejected that same day. No one told him for nearly six months.6

Rejected for the very reasons he warned about

District Attorney's office · reason 1
“The case was beyond a statute of limitations.”
Halsey Minor · his warning, December 2, 2025
“Do not let it die on the vine.”

Wrong by law. Penal Code §801.5 gives four years, to November 15, 2026 at the earliest. On March 19, 2026, the case was within time.8

District Attorney's office · reason 2
“The laws on community property would also not support a filing of this case.”
Halsey Minor · his warning, November 5, 2025, one of five on the agreement
“First, we have a prenuptial agreement; you have clearly not read or had it explained to you.”7

Wrong by law. His premarital agreement made those funds his separate property, not community property.

Halsey Minor · his complaint
“Under Sections 7 and 12 of the premarital agreement, those funds were Plaintiff's separate property.”4
Police · Lieutenant Coulter, September 17, 2026
“The premarital agreement was documented in the file sent to the District Attorney's Office.”
District Attorney's office · Bureau Director · October 22, 2026
“Of relevance to your inquiry and complaints, I also reviewed a copy of the Pre-Nuptial Agreement between you and Shannon Minor. All these documents were part of the investigative file presented to the District Attorney's Office when prosecution was declined on March 19, 2026.”23
Halsey Minor · to the Bureau Director, October 22, 2026
“Money moved within days of arriving, the account closed within three months, and a year of written statements that it did not exist: that sequence is the evidence of intent, and it was in front of your office.”

He asked four times whether the deputy had the premarital agreement. No answer until October 22, 2026: it was in the file, the office's reviewer read it, and the office now sets the community-property reason aside, “Even assuming” the money was his.9

The fight, round by round.

Round 13 Their move. Answered as the law requires: 0 of 12 · answered late 1 · Fail 11 · overdue 0 · due today 0.

  • Round 2Oct 7The District Attorney's answer on renewing the evidence preservation requests to Google and Meta.Fail · 25 days
  • Round 3Oct 13The District Attorney's letter of the decision, and answers to his questions of September 21.Violation of Penal Code §11116.10Fail · 10 days
  • Round 4Oct 17The Records Bureau's answer to his October 7 additions.Violation of Gov. Code §7922.535(a)Fail · 15 days
  • Oct 18My Response · my two letters, copied to the Attorney General and the District Attorney.

    October 18, 2026, 8:38 a.m. · To the Records Bureau, Beverly Hills Police Department · Copied to the Attorney General's Public Inquiry Unit and the District Attorney

    Ms. Rivas,

    PD-2026-677 has not yet given me what the law requires the Department to give the victim. Five points, each with the law that requires it.

    1. The records your letter of 9 October says were attached. It says: "BHPD has identified records responsive to your 13-part amended request, which are attached herein as part of the City's initial production." The email carried the Marsy's Law pamphlet and the Policy Manual and no other record. Please send the records.

    2. The items still being searched.

    • On 9 October, items 2(b), 3(d), 5(a)–(d), 7, 8(e), 10, 11 and 13(b) were answered that the search continues, with no date.
    • The record of the quarantine and filter action, which you wrote on 25 September "will be added as part of your PD-2026-677 request," has no answer at all.
    • PD-2026-677 was received on 25 July. Government Code section 7922.535(a) requires a determination within 10 days and, for disclosable records, "the estimated date and time when the records will be made available."
    • Your notice of 25 September set 9 October, and section 7922.535(b) allows no extension beyond 14 days.

    Please give the determination and the date for each with your update of 23 October.

    3. [This point is not shown on this page.]

    4. The facts of the incident, owed to the victim. My request of 14 October, items (g) to (l), is made under Government Code section 7923.605(a), and your answer is due on 24 October. That section applies "Notwithstanding Section 7923.600," the section your letter of 9 October cited for the investigative records. Its exceptions are the safety of a witness and "the successful completion of the investigation or a related investigation." They do not reach a case in which the Department wrote to me on 30 September that "there is no further action that will be taken on your case," and in which the District Attorney's "evaluation was completed on 03/19/2026." Any withholding must state its ground for each item.

    5. Items (d) and (e) of 7 October.

    • Government Code section 7922.525(b): "Any reasonably segregable portion of a record shall be available for inspection by any person requesting the record after deletion of the portions that are exempted by law."
    • Penal Code section 832.7(c): "Notwithstanding subdivisions (a) and (b), a department or agency shall release to the complaining party a copy of the complaining party’s own statements at the time the complaint is filed."
    • POST wrote to me on 30 September that "Complaints received from the public will be forwarded to the employing agency for further investigation and disposition." Please send me my statements as the Department received them.

    Government Code section 7923.000 lets a requester ask the court to enforce these rights. Under section 7923.115(a), "the court shall award court costs and reasonable attorney’s fees to the requester" who prevails.

    I am copying the Attorney General's Public Inquiry Unit (PIU #1564601) and the District Attorney (ECER #719953).

    Halsey Minor

    [Contact details are not shown on this page.]

    October 18, 2026, 8:59 a.m. · To the Records Bureau, Beverly Hills Police Department · Copied to the Attorney General's Public Inquiry Unit and the District Attorney

    Ms. Rivas,

    One point from your email of 17 October that my letter this morning left out. You wrote that Policy 807 "was not included as part of the response for (f) since the policy is related to procedures for the seizure and storage of computer and digital evidence versus (f) asked for electronic devices delivered by a victim."

    Policy 807.1 also covers "the preservation and storage of digital evidence," and 807.4 provides that cell phones "must be handled with care to preserve evidence that may be on the device including messages, stored data and/or images." Neither excludes a device delivered by a victim. Policy 802 does not mention electronic or digital evidence at all.

    My telephone holds the evidence in case 2025-14983. Please state in writing, with your response of 24 October, which written procedure the Department applies to preserve the digital evidence on a telephone a victim delivers, or that there is none.

    I am copying the Attorney General's Public Inquiry Unit (PIU #1564601) and the District Attorney (ECER #719953).

    Halsey Minor

    [Contact details are not shown on this page.]

  • Round 5Oct 21The police on the extortion counts: which were presented, and whether the rest will go to the District Attorney by October 28.Fail · 8 days
  • Oct 24My Response · my one letter, copied to Professional Standards and the City Manager.

    October 25, 2026, 8:53 p.m. · To Lieutenant Coulter and Chief Subin, Beverly Hills Police Department · Copied to the Department's Professional Standards and the City Manager

    Lieutenant Coulter,

    You wrote today, twice, that the limitation period has run: "The statute of limitations has expired for any allegation of 523 PC."

    Section 523(a) makes sending a writing that carries a threat of the kind section 519 lists, with intent to extort, "punishable in the same manner as if such property or other consideration were actually obtained by means of such threat". Section 520 sets that punishment at "imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170 for two, three or four years", and for such an offense section 801 reads: prosecution "shall be commenced within three years after commission of the offense."

    The writings are dated 5, 12, 20 and 28 October and 4 November 2023. Three years after the writing of 28 October 2023 is 28 October 2026; after the writing of 4 November 2023, 4 November 2026.

    From which writing, and from which date, does the Department count?

    Halsey Minor

    [Contact details are not shown on this page.]

  • Oct 29My Response · my one letter, copied to Professional Standards and the City Manager.

    October 29, 2026, 4:43 p.m. · To Lieutenant Coulter and Chief Subin, Beverly Hills Police Department · Copied to the Department's Professional Standards and the City Manager

    Lieutenant Coulter,

    On 25 October I asked: "From which writing, and from which date, does the Department count?" The date I gave, 28 October, has passed with no answer.

    Penal Code section 801 reads: "prosecution for an offense punishable by imprisonment in the state prison or pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170 shall be commenced within three years after commission of the offense." The last of the writings is dated 4 November 2023. Three years after it is 4 November 2026.

    On 28 October the Records Bureau sent me the Department's Policy 600.5, which reads: "The investigation of a criminal case or efforts to seek prosecution should only be discontinued if one of the following applies". On 23 October the District Attorney's office wrote: "If a law enforcement agency later submits new or additional evidence, or evidence relating to a different potential offense, our office will review it and evaluate it for filing consideration."

    Two questions, each answerable in a line:

    1. From which writing, and from which date, does the Department count the period for Penal Code section 523?

    2. Which item of Policy 600.5 does the Department apply in discontinuing case 2025-14983?

    Halsey Minor

    [Contact details are not shown on this page.]

  • Round 6Oct 21The District Attorney's office on whether the extortion counts were before the deputy.Fail · 10 days
  • Oct 22The District Attorney's letter · the first written explanation of the decision, from a Bureau Director, nine days late: both reasons of September 8 set aside, a third given. And My Response, copied to the Attorney General, the District Attorney and the police.

    October 22, 2026, 3:11 p.m. · From Victor M. Rodriguez, Director, Bureau of Branch & Area Operations, Region 1, Office of the District Attorney, Los Angeles County · Subject: Suspect Shannon Minor, DA Case No. 46855335 · Re-sent at 3:17 p.m. after the first copy, to his Gmail address, was returned undelivered

    Good afternoon, Mr. Minor.

    I am a Bureau Director with the L.A. District Attorney's Office, and I conducted additional review of matters you raised regarding my office's decision to decline prosecution against your ex-wife, Shannon Minor. [A passage is not shown on this page.] Of relevance to your inquiry and complaints, I also reviewed a copy of the Pre-Nuptial Agreement between you and Shannon Minor. All these documents were part of the investigative file presented to the District Attorney's Office when prosecution was declined on March 19, 2026.

    Even assuming that (1) the case is not barred by the statute of limitations, and (2) the tax refund would be considered your separate property, I determined there was insufficient evidence to establish that the suspect acted with the criminal intent required to prove embezzlement or any other charge beyond a reasonable doubt. For that reason, I concur with the prior declination decision.

    [This passage is not shown on this page.]

    I understand that these conclusions may be frustrating, but criminal charges may only be filed when the evidence meets the legal standard required for prosecution. Based on the information available, that standard is not met.

    Victor M. Rodriguez, Director

    October 22, 2026, evening · To Victor M. Rodriguez, Office of the District Attorney · Copied to the Attorney General's Public Inquiry Unit, District Attorney Hochman, the District Attorney's office, Chief Subin and Lieutenant Coulter

    Mr. Rodriguez,

    Thank you for your letter of October 22. It is the first written explanation of the decision of March 19, 2026, and it rests on a ground your office had not raised before: intent. It sets aside the two reasons given on September 8, the statute of limitations and community property. I take your letter as confirming that the premarital agreement was in the file on March 19 and that you have read it.

    [A passage is not shown on this page.] Four things that go to intent are not on that list.

    1. [This point is not shown on this page.]

    2. [This point is not shown on this page.]

    3. The telephone. It holds her messages of September 2023: fifteen of September 12, each deleted by the sender within hours, and the nineteen of September 17, the last of them, at 10:20 that morning, demanding $50,000 a month. I have asked the Beverly Hills Police Department since September 26, 2026 for a written procedure to deliver it. The Department's answer, on October 7, was that it "has to be requested by means of a PRA request." No one has examined the telephone in the 1,136 days since those messages. A forensic examiner could extract its contents in a day.

    4. The preserved records. The Department's preservation request to Google of January 12, 2026 has run. On September 30, 2026 the Department wrote that "there is no further action that will be taken on your case." That day I asked your office to renew the requests to Google and Meta. No answer has come.

    One more fact for the file. [A passage is not shown on this page.] In thirteen months, the Department never interviewed me.

    Five questions, each answerable in a line:

    • (a) Was the telephone, or any extraction from it, among "the information available" to you?
    • (b) Were her written statements that there was no money, and the Vanguard accounts, among it?
    • (c) Will your office take custody of the telephone, have its contents extracted by a forensic examiner, and obtain the Google and Meta records by subpoena before October 28, 2026, when the extortion counts under Penal Code section 523 run out?
    • (d) Is your letter of October 22 the notice required by Penal Code section 11116.10, which I requested on September 13?
    • (e) Under article I, section 28(b)(6) of the California Constitution, I ask to confer with your office before any further decision. I have asked eight times since March 11, 2026.

    I will deliver the telephone, under a written procedure for its custody, at any time. I will come to Los Angeles at my own expense and answer questions for as long as anyone wants to ask them, recorded, on the record.

    Halsey Minor

    [Contact details are not shown on this page.]

  • Round 7Oct 23The Records Bureau's update on the parts of his records request still being searched.Violation of Gov. Code §7922.535(a)Fail · 9 days
  • Round 8Oct 23The records the Records Bureau said on October 9 were attached, and a date for each item still being searched.Violation of Gov. Code §7922.535(a), (b)Fail · 9 days
  • Round 9Oct 24The answer to his request for the facts of the incident.Violation of Gov. Code §7922.535(a)Fail · 8 days
  • Oct 25My Response · my one letter.

    October 25, 2026, 6:54 a.m. · To the Records Bureau, Beverly Hills Police Department

    Ms. Rivas,

    Thank you for the case report, the CAD log and the 911 audio, and for the letter on my request of 14 October.

    First, the statements of the parties. Your letter withholds the suspects' statements under Government Code section 7923.600, and their names and addresses on the ground of section 7923.610. My request was made under section 7923.605(a), which begins "Notwithstanding Section 7923.600" and requires disclosure to the victim of "the names and addresses of persons involved in" the incident and the "statements of the parties involved in the incident". Its only exceptions are "(1) The safety of a witness or other person involved in the investigation." and "(2) The successful completion of the investigation or a related investigation." The Department has written that "there is no further action that will be taken on your case." Please send the statements and the names, or state, for each, which of those two exceptions the Department relies on.

    Second, my own recorded statement. The case report says: "my conversation with Halsey was recorded using Officer Eudave's 04230 body camera as mine was not working at the time of the call." That recording is my statement as a party involved in the incident. Please send it, or state the ground for withholding it.

    Third, one line in the case report. It lists the offense as "503 PC-M". Please tell me what "-M" denotes in the Department's records system.

    Halsey Minor

    [Contact details are not shown on this page.]

  • Round 10Oct 24The written procedure that preserves the evidence on a telephone a victim delivers to the police.Answered Oct 28
  • Round 11Oct 28The parts of the records withheld on October 17 that can be released, and his own statements to the Department.Violation of Gov. Code §7922.535(a)Fail · 4 days
  • Round 12Oct 28The District Attorney's answers to his five questions on the October 22 review.Violation of Penal Code §11116.10 and Cal. Const. art. I, §28(b)(6)Fail · 9 days
  • Oct 25My Response · my one letter, copied to the Attorney General's Public Inquiry Unit.

    October 25, 2026, 7:38 a.m. · To Victor M. Rodriguez, District Attorney's Office · Copied to the Attorney General's Public Inquiry Unit

    Mr. Rodriguez,

    One question from my letter of 23 October, answerable in a line: is your letter of 22 October the notice required by Penal Code section 11116.10, which I requested on 13 September? A yes or a no is enough.

    Halsey Minor

    [Contact details are not shown on this page.]

  • Oct 29My Response · my one letter, copied to the Attorney General's Public Inquiry Unit.

    October 29, 2026, 4:43 p.m. · To Victor M. Rodriguez, District Attorney's Office · Copied to the Attorney General's Public Inquiry Unit

    Mr. Rodriguez,

    On 14 October I asked whether the counts under Penal Code section 523 were before the deputy who reviewed Electronic Charge Evaluation Request #719953 on 19 March 2026. Your messages of 22 and 23 October do not mention section 523. Were they?

    The last of the writings is dated 4 November 2023. Penal Code section 801 reads: prosecution "shall be commenced within three years after commission of the offense."

    My question of 25 October also stands: is your letter of 22 October the notice required by Penal Code section 11116.10?

    Halsey Minor

    [Contact details are not shown on this page.]

  • Oct 30My Response · my one letter, copied to the Attorney General's Public Inquiry Unit.

    October 31, 2026, 5:58 p.m. · To Victor M. Rodriguez, District Attorney's Office · Copied to the Attorney General's Public Inquiry Unit

    Mr. Rodriguez,

    Thank you. Two questions are still open, and each takes one line.

    1. Were the counts under Penal Code section 523 among the crimes evaluated on 19 March 2026? A yes or a no is enough.

    2. Penal Code section 11116.10(a) requires the prosecuting attorney, on the victim's request, to "inform the victim or witness by letter of such final disposition" within 30 days. Which writing, and of what date, is that letter?

    Halsey Minor

    [Contact details are not shown on this page.]

  • Round 13Oct 28The police on the extortion counts: from which writing, and from which date, the Department counts the time.Fail · 4 days
  • Round 14Nov 4The Records Bureau on the parties' statements and names, and the recording of his own statement.Violation of Gov. Code §7922.535(a)Fail · 4 days
  • Round 15Nov 4The police on the last extortion count: from which writing the time was counted, and whether it goes to the District Attorney by November 4.Due in 3 days
  • Round 16Nov 4The District Attorney's office on reviewing the last extortion count before November 4, on the writings and the telephone he can deliver.Due in 3 days
  • Nov 4The time to charge the last extortion count he reported runs out.163 days left
  • Round 17Nov 9The Records Bureau on its body-camera policy, any recordings of his calls with the Department, and recordings of the interviews.Violation of Gov. Code §7922.535(a)Due in 8 days
  • Round 18Nov 9Professional Standards on complaint PSU26-107: whether it has been decided, and when he will have the investigator's name.Violation of Penal Code §832.7(f)(1)Answered Oct 30
  • Round 19Nov 9The City on the Department's six missed dates: when each will be answered, and who in the City is responsible.Due in 8 days
  • Nov 15Through December 15: four years after the transfers, the earliest end under Penal Code §801.5.14 days left

18 requests still unanswered as the law requires

  1. Round 2The District AttorneyThe District Attorney's answer on renewing the evidence preservation requests to Google and Meta.Asked Sep 30 · due Oct 7Fail · 25 days
  2. Round 3The District AttorneyThe District Attorney's letter of the decision, and answers to his questions of September 21.Asked Sep 16 · due Oct 13Violation of Penal Code §11116.10Fail · 10 days
  3. Round 4The police and the CityThe Records Bureau's answer to his October 7 additions.Asked Oct 7 · due Oct 17Violation of Gov. Code §7922.535(a)Fail · 15 days
  4. Round 5The police and the CityThe police on the extortion counts: which were presented, and whether the rest will go to the District Attorney by October 28.Asked Oct 13 · due Oct 21Fail · 8 days
  5. Round 6The District AttorneyThe District Attorney's office on whether the extortion counts were before the deputy.Asked Oct 13 · due Oct 21Fail · 10 days
  6. Round 7The police and the CityThe Records Bureau's update on the parts of his records request still being searched.Asked Sep 13 · due Oct 23Violation of Gov. Code §7922.535(a)Fail · 9 days
  7. Round 7The police and the CityThe detective's outgoing email of April 1 to 9, 2025, with its headers, or the statement that there is none.Asked Sep 15 · due Oct 23Violation of Gov. Code §7922.535(a)Fail · 9 days
  8. Round 7The police and the CityAny report or case number the complaints of February 12 and 28, 2026 produced, or the statement that none exists.Asked Sep 30 · due Oct 23Fail · 9 days
  9. Round 8The police and the CityThe records the Records Bureau said on October 9 were attached, and a date for each item still being searched.Asked Oct 18 · due Oct 23Violation of Gov. Code §7922.535(a), (b)Fail · 9 days
  10. Round 9The police and the CityThe answer to his request for the facts of the incident.Asked Oct 14 · due Oct 24Violation of Gov. Code §7922.535(a)Fail · 8 days
  11. Round 11The police and the CityThe parts of the records withheld on October 17 that can be released, and his own statements to the Department.Asked Oct 18 · due Oct 28Violation of Gov. Code §7922.535(a)Fail · 4 days
  12. Round 12The District AttorneyThe District Attorney's answers to his five questions on the October 22 review.Asked Oct 22 · due Oct 28Violation of Penal Code §11116.10 and Cal. Const. art. I, §28(b)(6)Fail · 9 days
  13. Round 13The police and the CityThe police on the extortion counts: from which writing, and from which date, the Department counts the time.Asked Oct 24 · due Oct 28Fail · 4 days
  14. Round 14The police and the CityThe Records Bureau on the parties' statements and names, and the recording of his own statement.Asked Oct 25 · due Nov 4Violation of Gov. Code §7922.535(a)Fail · 4 days
  15. Round 15The police and the CityThe police on the last extortion count: from which writing the time was counted, and whether it goes to the District Attorney by November 4.Asked Oct 31 · due Nov 4Due in 3 days
  16. Round 16The District AttorneyThe District Attorney's office on reviewing the last extortion count before November 4, on the writings and the telephone he can deliver.Asked Oct 31 · due Nov 4Due in 3 days
  17. Round 17The police and the CityThe Records Bureau on its body-camera policy, any recordings of his calls with the Department, and recordings of the interviews.Asked Oct 29 · due Nov 9Violation of Gov. Code §7922.535(a)Due in 8 days
  18. Round 19The police and the CityThe City on the Department's six missed dates: when each will be answered, and who in the City is responsible.Asked Oct 30 · due Nov 9Due in 8 days

Before the rounds: six requests. Three got nothing. Three were answered late.

District Attorney 1

letter explaining the decision, on October 22, 2026: nine days after the 30 the law allows, when the victim asks.10

District Attorney 0 of 8

requests to be heard, a right in California's Constitution.11

No one conferred with him, before the decision or after it.

District Attorney 0 of 4

public records requests decided. 199 days since the first was due.12

City 0

decisions on his records request in the 24 days the law allows. The first came after 203 days.13

His request “was quarantined by the city emailing system.”

Police 1 of 13

requests to have Google save his email evidence that the police acted on, once, 104 days after the first.14

Later: “there is no further action that will be taken on your case.”

Police 0

replies from either police chief.15

He has no power to make any of them act. He has a ledger, a clock, and the law. This page is all three.

The laws he contends were broken, by code.18

  • Grand theftPenal Code §487(a)
  • Attempted murder, premeditatedPenal Code §§664(a), 187(a)
  • Extortion by written threatPenal Code §523
  • Computer intrusionPenal Code §502(c)
  • Evidence destructionPenal Code §135
  • Insurance fraudPenal Code §550
  • ConspiracyPenal Code §182

His characterizations, not legal determinations. The District Attorney's office answered one of them on October 22, 2026; that answer is not shown on this page.

THE MOST DISTURBING EVIDENCE OF ALL STILL SITS IN HIS HANDS.

He asked the police for a written procedure to take custody of the phone. The answer: “has to be requested by means of a PRA request”.19

The District Attorney's letter of October 22, 2026 lists what its reviewer read: statements, bank records, the premarital agreement. The phone is not on the list. “Based on the information available, that standard is not met.”23

  • 0times anyone has examined it, in the 1146 days since the messages of September 12, 2023, and the 36 days since he asked how to hand it over
His WhatsApp chat on September 12, 2023: fifteen messages in a row, from 8:47 to 9:11 pm, each one now reading This message was deleted.
September 12, 2023, while he was in critical condition in the hospital: fifteen messages to him, every one deleted by the sender.20
District Attorney Nathan Hochman · December 3, 2024
“District attorneys must have only two things as their North Stars: the facts and the law.”21

The facts are on this phone. No one has looked.

WORDS, OR POLITICS?

The police investigate. The District Attorney prosecutes. Take the phone.

Notes

Notes and sources
  1. California Attorney General, Public Inquiry Unit, file PIU #1564601, on Beverly Hills Police Department case 2025-14983. The California Constitution, article V, §13, gives the Attorney General the duty “to see that the laws of the State are uniformly and adequately enforced”, and “direct supervision over every district attorney”.
  2. Attorney General Rob Bonta, April 26, 2024, in his office's release for National Crime Victims' Rights Week (oag.ca.gov). The portrait is his official one, from the California Department of Justice.
  3. His messages to the detective of January 12 and 13, 2026, and to the District Attorney's office, the U.S. Attorney and the FBI of March 30 and April 6, 2026, one of them copied to the Attorney General's Public Inquiry Unit. They put its value at about $1.3 million; his estimate today is about $1.5 million.
  4. His civil complaint, filed August 7, 2026, paragraphs 17 to 19.
  5. The Beverly Hills Police Department's answer to his records request, October 9, 2026.
  6. He learned of the rejection on September 8, 2026. The District Attorney's office later explained: “The original case number that was provided was an incorrect number which resulted in a showing of the case not being in our system.” Its own number for the case, ECR #719953, first reached him on September 16, 2026. In his letter to the Attorney General he writes: “I do not say that either message to me was false.”
  7. His letter to the Attorney General of October 15, 2026 lists all thirteen warnings, with their dates and recipients. Five of his warnings named the premarital agreement: November 5, 6 and 19, December 2, 2025, and February 13, 2026. His lawyer had sent the police the agreement on March 27, 2025.
  8. Penal Code §801.5: prosecution “shall be commenced within four years after discovery of the commission of the offense, or within four years after the completion of the offense, whichever is later.” It applies to crimes described in §803(c), including those of which fraud or breach of a fiduciary obligation is a material element. He asked the District Attorney's office on September 16, 2026 and District Attorney Hochman on September 21. Only automatic receipts came back.
  9. Asked on September 16, 18 and 21, and October 13, 2026. Answered October 22, 2026: the agreement was in the file, and the office's reviewer read it.
  10. Penal Code §11116.10: on the victim's request, the prosecutor must, “within 30 days of the final disposition of the case, inform the victim or witness by letter”.
  11. California Constitution, article I, §28(b)(6): the victim's right “to reasonably confer with the prosecuting agency, upon request”. He asked twice before the decision and six times after, March 11 to April 17, 2026. In his words: “No one in the office conferred with me, before the decision or after it.”
  12. Government Code §7922.535(a): a decision “within 10 days from receipt of the request”. Asked April 6, April 27, May 4 and September 13, 2026.
  13. First request March 20, 2026; first decision October 9, 2026. The law allows 10 days, and at most 14 more with written notice (Government Code §7922.535). The quarantine message was the Records Bureau's first reply, on July 25, 2026, to his request of April 27. The City withholds the record of what was sent, under Government Code §7923.600.
  14. Thirteen requests, September 30, 2025 to January 9, 2026. The Department's records show one preservation request to Google, made January 12, 2026. Only a government agency can make that request (18 U.S.C. §2703(f)(1)). Lieutenant Coulter wrote the later words on September 30, 2026, when he asked that the request be renewed.
  15. He wrote to Chief Stainbrook from November 2025, and to Chief Subin from September 2026.
  16. Penal Code §523. On October 13 he asked the police whether they will present the extortion counts, and the District Attorney's office whether they were before the deputy. Also open: the police department's complaint PSU26-107, and POST's complaint PUBLIC-26-001329.
  17. His message of March 30, 2026 to the District Attorney's office, the U.S. Attorney and the FBI listed these by code; extortion is in his report to the Chief of Police of September 8, 2026. Section 664(a) is the provision for an attempt found willful, deliberate and premeditated.
  18. His request of September 26, 2026 to Professional Standards and Chief Subin: “A written procedure for taking custody of my telephone, so that I could deliver it.” Sergeant Leber answered on October 7. He made that records request the same day. On October 17 the Records Bureau answered it, pointing to the Department's Policy 802, Property and Evidence, and sending its Policy Manual.
  19. His screenshot, cropped to the date and the messages; nothing else is changed.
  20. Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office, news release of December 3, 2024, on his swearing-in (da.lacounty.gov).
  21. Every quotation on this page is word for word from the written record: his letter to the Attorney General and the messages it quotes, the District Attorney's office's message of September 8, 2026, his letter to District Attorney Hochman of September 21, 2026, his civil complaint, the Penal Code, the Attorney General's release, the District Attorney's office's letter of October 22, 2026 and his reply to it, and Halsey Minor's own statements of October 11 and 16, 2026.
  22. Victor M. Rodriguez, Director, Bureau of Branch & Area Operations, Region 1, Office of the District Attorney, Los Angeles County, to Halsey Minor, October 22, 2026, 3:11 p.m., under the subject “Suspect Shannon Minor, DA Case No. 46855335”; re-sent at 3:17 p.m. after the first copy, to his Gmail address, was returned undelivered. It is the first written explanation of the decision of March 19, 2026. He had asked for the letter on September 13 (Penal Code §11116.10: 30 days). The letter and his reply of the same evening are shown in full under October 22 in the list of deadlines.
  23. The Vanguard annual statement of December 31, 2024: four accounts in her sole name, $915,203.56. The Department has had those documents since October 2, 2025. He writes that the police never asked where the money came from.
  24. Estimated by the change in SPY, a fund that tracks the S&P 500, without dividends: $1,134,000 from its average close from November 15 to December 15, 2022 ($398.30), and $450,000 from its average monthly close in 2015 ($205.19), to its close on October 23, 2026 ($759.97). The closing prices are Twelve Data's daily and monthly closes for SPY. His own estimate for 2015, in his messages of January 2026, was about $1.5 million.
Every request and every answer, from his letter to the Attorney General

The District Attorney's office

  • To confer before any decision (California Constitution, article I, section 28(b)(6)). Asked on 11, 18, 20, 23, 29 and 30 March and on 6 and 17 April 2026. No one conferred with me.
  • The letter of the decision (Penal Code section 11116.10). Asked on 13 and 21 September and on 13 October 2026. No letter has come.
  • Its records (Public Records Act, ten days). Asked on 6 April, 27 April, 4 May and 13 September 2026. No determination.
  • Whether the deputy had my premarital agreement and considered it. Asked on 16, 18 and 21 September and on 13 October 2026. No answer, only an automatic receipt.

The City and its Police Department

  • Records (Public Records Act, ten days). Asked on 20 March, 6 April, 27 April, 4 May and 16 May, and on 13, 15 and 16 September 2026. The first determination on any of them came on 9 October 2026. Parts are still being searched.
  • The Internal Affairs case number. Asked on 18 and 20 March and on 6 April 2026. None was given.
  • Preservation of the evidence. Asked on 30 September, 6, 12 and 21 October, 3, 26 and 30 November, and 3 and 5 December 2025, and on 4, 5, 8 and 9 January 2026. The Department's records show one preservation request to Google, made on 12 January 2026. Asked for another on 30 September 2026, it answered: "there is no further action that will be taken on your case."
  • There is no message in my mail from Chief Stainbrook or Chief Subin, at any address.

Every request listed here from 20 March 2026 on was made after my case had already been rejected. Until 8 September, I did not know.

Update, October 22, 2026. The District Attorney's office sent a written explanation of the decision, nine days after the 30 days the law allows, and confirmed that the premarital agreement was in the file. Note 23.