MULTIPLE GRAND JURIES...WE WOULD NOT NEED IF THE DA WAS DOING HIS JOB [& LIKE THEY ARE GOING TO HAPPEN ANYWAY!]

First, putting aside the argument that we wouldn't need two more grand juries if the DA was doing his job back in 2003-2006 while the County was getting fleeced, I can't believe why Biane was not asked what was he doing talking to a grand juror? In what context? As a witness of interest, what in the world is he doing talking with a grand juror? Didn't Stout (the former DA) get in trouble talking indirectly with a grand juror (in fact Ramos made a campaign issue of it)? Second, there is a loophole in this proposal--if the presiding judge, putting aside his or her political leanings and whether he/she was an ally of the supervisors in power and whether that might have an impact, would have to determine the need for the extra grand jury as well as the budget for same--it won't happen in the current budget environment where keeping court houses open and staff in place is the biggest challenge (and priority) for the foreseeable future--in other words, its another flashy proposal that will go no where even if passed folks. Mitzelfelt and Biane look like they have nothing to hide, yet what they (and Assemblyman Cook) propose does not change the risk equation for them--clever. Bob Conaway