Tuesday, August 31, 2010

Ramos brags about his gang injunction--I have a secret Mike...every major agency in California recognized other steps were needed!!!


Mike (Ramos)--here are the facts, not the smoke and mirror press releases [ & campaign hype]

Source: http://www.montereyherald.com/

"War on gangs: Drug case strategies work where RICO tactics failed

SWITCH-UP SUCCEEDS
By JULIA REYNOLDS
Herald Salinas Bureau


Last winter, an eclectic mix of law enforcement officers began meeting in command posts around Northern California.

Their mission was so secret even fellow cops weren't allowed to know what they were up to.

The cadres of local police, state narcotics officers and federal agents were plotting how to systematically bring down entire regiments of one of the West's most infamous gangs.

Four months later, hundreds of officers in SWAT attire began a string of early-morning takedowns, arresting hundreds of leaders and members of the Nuestra Familia, beginning in Salinas with Operation Knockout, followed by Operation Crimson Tide in the Sacramento area and Operation Tapout in the Central Valley.

"Salinas is the hub of all of this," said Special Agent Supervisor Mike Hudson of the state's Bureau of Narcotic Enforcement. He worked on the Crimson Tide investigation.

"It's not a coincidence that Salinas came, and then us, and then Tapout."

Now, in what many see as a historic offensive, at least five large-scale conspiracy cases against the Nuestra Familia and its alleged drug-dealing operations are simultaneously under way in California courts. This strategic shift is not only new, it's unique to the West.

Disparate agencies have banded together to apply drug-cop surveillance methods and use a mix of federal and state narcotics and firearms laws they hope will disrupt the gang's economic engines. Some aspects of the approach have already been used to fight smaller gangs, such as Stockton's Loc Town Crips and the Merced Gangster Crips.

But the Nuestra Familia cases are striking, both in their scale and the military precision of their timing. They span a wide geographic range across the gang's stronghold — Northern California's agricultural counties — and this year culminated in near-simultaneous takedowns of large local regiments.

"This is an unprecedented response to a problem that's never been addressed systematically before," said California's "gang czar" Paul Seave, director of the Governor's Office of Gang and Youth Violence Policy.

Hudson agrees. "This is the way to investigate organized criminal gangs around the state," he said. "You take a regiment down and a vacuum is created. That void is quickly filled if you haven't disrupted the other regions."

Gang crimes decreased

From January to June, Hudson led the investigation of the gang's Sacramento, Yuba and Sutter counties regiment, a case that "kind of merged" with the Operation Knockout team's work in Salinas.

Crimson Tide ended with 41 arrests, which included two alleged regiment commanders, and murder charges in four cold cases.

Gang crimes in the area were reduced almost immediately, Hudson said. "I just know that we've made a huge impact up here."

In Salinas, too, a period of relative calm followed the April 22 Operation Knockout arrests, although violence flared again in the summer. More than 40 people were charged in state and federal courts, including Martin "Cyclone" Montoya, who, last year, was considered Nuestra Familia's Salinas regiment boss.

The most recent takedown, called Operation Tapout, took place five days after Crimson Tide, with Salinas police traveling to Earlimart to help in the arrests of 24 more alleged gang associates, including the man officers have for years described as a rising Nuestra Familia kingpin, Shawn "Bubbles" Cameron of Hanford.

Salinas Police Chief Louis Fetherolf said those sweeps were just the beginning.

"The public is going to continue to read about more suppression efforts throughout this year," he said.

Layers of organization

California law enforcement has carved out this strategy in response to problems that are unique to the region.

"We have more street gang violence in California than in any other place in the country," Seave said. "The gang presence has grown in the last 20 years. Now, we find gang violence and murders in places we never would have expected."

Contrary to popular belief, he said, most of these gangs are not highly organized, though they commit a great deal of violence. But another layer of organized gangs keeps a close connection to the state's prisons.

Among gang cops, there's a common belief that East Coast policymakers are out of touch with these realities in the West.

For example, the most recent National Gang Threat Assessment from the Justice Department doesn't even list Nuestra Familia as a prison gang — but does list the far less active Black Guerilla Family, whose numbers total only 100 to 300.

In contrast, state investigators believe Nuestra Familia has an estimated 2,000 members who cycle in and out of prison — and its street-level Norteño gang soldiers number tens of thousands more. Police have linked the Nuestra Familia to more than 1,000 murders during the four decades it has been in existence.

And perhaps more than any state, California's street gang activity is tied to policies regulated by these prison gang "parent companies."

"We are now coming to understand the extent to which prison gangs are affecting life outside the prisons," Seave said.

Gangs in the Central Valley are responding to policies set by leaders in state and federal prisons, he said.

In addition to those differences, Western courts have developed tighter privacy standards that can affect how gang surveillance is handled.

"Even if there's a national strategy, here on the West Coast, we have different rules," said Jason Hitt, a federal prosecutor in Sacramento.

Narcotics approach

The West's new approach in the gang wars began to take shape in 2006, when investigations of Nuestra Familia and Norteño gang members from Salinas, Castroville and Watsonville morphed into two large FBI and DEA wiretap cases, known as Operation Valley Star and Operation Dictator.

That same year, the Bureau of Narcotic Enforcement launched GSET, its acronym for the state Department of Justice's Gang Suppression Enforcement Teams.

"It was, basically, we're going to use the same investigation techniques we use on drug dealers, and we're going to use them against gang members," Hudson said.

The teams behind Valley Star and GSET both chose to rely heavily on the tricks of the trade of narcotics officers: set up surveillance to prove a conspiracy, arrange for informants to buy or sell drugs, and get it all on tape. Then, coordinate a massive, all-at-once takedown.

Hitt, who is prosecuting the Valley Star investigation, said drug-based cases are easier to prove in court than the feds' preferred tool against organized crime: the RICO statutes (Racketeering-Influenced and Corrupt Organizations), passed in 1970 to prosecute the Mafia.

Proving a RICO case means showing a racketeering enterprise has a pattern of criminal activity over time. The list of requirements can be daunting.

Proving a drug conspiracy, Hitt said, is far simpler.

"The tactic itself is extremely powerful," even with prison gangs such as the Nuestra Familia, he said. "From Valley Star, the thinking was that the drugs are the profit center on the outside for the guys on the inside."

With wiretap and live recordings, prosecutors can prove a drug-dealing conspiracy without relying on witnesses — and under federal drug laws, they still get stiff prison terms, he said.

For the past several years at Department of Justice headquarters in Washington — known to insiders as "Main Justice" — experts have been training prosecutors to use RICO in gang cases.

But Main Justice, Hitt said, doesn't always grasp that under privacy standards upheld by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, just getting approval for electronic surveillance is tougher in California.

"Our rules are so different," he said. "Our wiretap affidavits are 100 pages. In the Southern District in New York, they're 30."

And California gangs have been quick to respond to RICO: Gang members have studied the law and adapted their language and methods to avoid qualifying as a racketeering enterprise.

After the FBI's 2000 Operation Black Widow targeted the gang's top leaders, the Nuestra Familia "made some changes to deal with future RICO prosecutions," Hitt said.

"But they're still dealing dope."

Early segregation

Another new and important aspect of the 2010 takedowns is that Bureau of Narcotic Enforcement agents worked hand-in-hand with the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to have defendants validated as prison gang members before their arrests.

In the past, Hudson said, convicted Nuestra Familia members would go into main prison yards where they could recruit soldiers and order crimes for months before their gang alliances were documented. Under the new pre-validation system, they can be separated from regular inmates immediately.

"BNE got it right on this one," he said.

While the operations add up to the government's largest offensive ever against the Nuestra Familia, few have ventured to predict what the aftermath of the concentrated takedowns might be.

"If you disrupt a gang, you interrupt the gang's ability to commit violence and intimidation," Seave said. "But if we do nothing more, the gang will come back."

He would like to amp up the Ceasefire strategy his office is applying in Salinas and several Central Valley cities. Ceasefire aims intense law enforcement suppression at gang members who continue to commit violence, but offers help to those who decide to stop the shooting.

"We know that we can't arrest our way out of the gang problem," he said. "The next step will be to adapt carrot-and-stick strategies like Ceasefire to prison gangs inside and outside the prison."

Meanwhile, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has hinted at more takedowns to come.

After the Operation Knockout sweeps in Salinas he said, "This is not done yet."

Julia Reynolds can be reached at 648-1187 or jreynolds@montereyherald.com.


The war on gangs


Five major cases are now under way in California federal and state courts targeting the Nuestra Familia's regiments and their alleged drug operations. The cases represent an unprecedented level of collaboration between local, state and federal agencies to fight West Coast gangs.

Case updates

Operation Valley Star:
· In Eastern District Federal Court, Sacramento: Two dozen people were arrested in this 2007 takedown, including Larry Amaro and Mario Diaz, two Monterey County men believed to be running the Nuestra Familia's statewide operations at the time. Several defendants have been convicted or pleaded guilty. Amaro is among the first main group scheduled to start trial in Sacramento in three weeks.

Operation Dictator:
· In Eastern District Federal Court, Fresno: This operation led to the arrest of eight, including Bakersfield resident Fidel Ramon Castro, who still awaits trial on narcotics charges after his co-defendants entered guilty pleas. The case involved drug deliveries to Nuestra Familia associates in Salinas, payments made to traffickers in Mexico, and Castro's alleged attempted takeover of a Bakersfield medical marijuana dispensary.

Operation Knockout:
· In Northern District Federal Court, San Jose: After months of investigation following a 2009 law enforcement summit in Salinas, more than 40 Salinas-area residents were arrested in this April takedown, including Martin "Cyclone" Montoya, considered the gang's one-time regiment leader in Salinas. Montoya and nine others are awaiting a trial date in a San Jose federal court, while others have been arraigned in Monterey County.

Operation Crimson Tide:
· In Sacramento County Court, Sacramento: This six-month methamphetamine investigation spanned six counties and ended with 41 arrests, including the alleged Nuestra Familia regiment commander for the greater Sacramento area, Robert Juan Salazar, and his acting replacement, Cesar Noe Villa. Six defendants, including Salazar, also are charged with murder in connection with several once-cold cases.

Operation Tapout:
· In Eastern District Federal Court, Fresno: Salinas police assisted in this Central Valley operation that resulted in the arrest of 24 suspects, including Shawn "Bubbles" Cameron of Hanford, long named by investigators as the Nuestra Familia leader for the Hanford-Fresno area. Cameron and others in the case face potential life sentences. No trial date has been set in Fresno's federal court.

Source: Federal and state court records, California Department of Justice"

Blogger Bob's comment: (1) Great article by the Monterey Herald, (2) great enforcement work in Northern & Central California & (3) while Mike Ramos, our San Bernardino County District Attorney talks about his gang injunction in his push to get re-elected, Mike Ramos neglected to tell anyone, the gang injunctions are not doing it--every major agency to the North has taken it to the next level. No wonder nearly 40% of the gang related felony filings end up with acquittals on Mike Ramo's watch when the standard conviction rate averages 90%!!

Monday, August 23, 2010

Oh where oh where did the evidence go.........

Re-post of Inland Politics blog:

August 9, 2010 – 10:30 pm [http://inlandpolitics.com/blog/2010/08/09/inlandpolitics-brown-pressuring-ramos-on-colonies-case/]

"Everyone has to admit.

The February 10, 2010 fanfare press conference held by California Attorney General Jerry Brown and San Bernardino County District Attorney Mike Ramos had all the bells and whistles for a main stream media press conference designed to unveil a major conspiracy case during a reelection campaign cycle for both men.

Recently, Brown has shown no shyness to embellishing situations for political advantage.

Now it seems things are changing.

Forget embellishing. Now it’s win at all cost.

San Bernardino County insiders are now reporting that Brown is pressuring Ramos to produce the goods on what Brown publicly described back in February as the worst case of corruption in California history.

Ramos roped Brown into his so-called major conspiracy investigation, and now he’s tied to it like a ball and chain.

Yes, Brown has now quietly made it known he wants Ramos’ investigators to produce evidence to charge five so-called “John Does” in what is commonly know as the Colonies conspiracy case.

Now the same investigators that started this whole fiasco are under the gun. The pressure is being described as intense.

Brown and Ramos leveled charges against former Assessor and county supervisor Bill Postmus and Assistant Assessor Jim Erwin last February 10th in a full court press, in what many believe was a politically-driven escapade, for the sole purpose of helping both win their respective elections. In the same press conference, Brown and Ramos hammered away at people who insiders say Brown insisted be labeled as “John Does 1-5″.

Trouble recently emerged with a key witness, who is at the center of the case. Witness credibility being the key factor. A major problem here.

One of the John Does, Jeff Burum was slated to be Republican Meg Whitman’s state fundraising chair. Obviously Brown’s actions nixed that scenario.

Ramos narrowly won reelection in June, and Brown now faces Whitman in a showdown for Governor in November.

Coincidence? You be the judge.

Now Brown, who has limited resources compared to his opponent, wants the ammo to make a mid-September media splash in his campaign.

How you ask? Charge the five “John Does”.

It’s becoming increasingly apparent based on developments in Bell, California that Brown is using his elected office of Attorney General to pander to voters.

Now he appears willing to resort to any means necessary, even if individual rights get trampled on.

Highly-placed confidential sources within the District Attorney’s office report that the Federal Bureau of Investigation and United States Attorney are actively reviewing several matters in San Bernardino County, including Ramos. They are reportedly back-tracking on investigations involving Ramos’ Public Integrity Unit in an effort to ferret out fiction from reality.

It’s time to look at everything".

Blogger Bob's comment: Did Ramos exaggerate? Oversell? Is there a reason the County was awash with detectives & investigation teams over the weekend? Why are we messing with Does 1-5? Isn't that a tacit admission they (to quote a song) "ain't got no"? Could this have been a well-planned Republican ruse to draw Brown into an investigation that could prove embarrassing and a way for Ramos to prove once and for all to his republican detractors, that he truly has crossed the deceit threshold and earned, by setting up Brown, broad spectrum support from all republican groups in his planned run for Congress in 2012?

Sunday, August 22, 2010

Sun's Coverage is the typical soft pitch...but here it is

"Ristow files suit against Ramos

Woman alleges affair, retaliation

A woman has sued San Bernardino County District Attorney Michael A. Ramos, alleging sexual harassment, retaliation, and assault and battery.

Cheryl Ristow, a former investigative technician at the District Attorney's Office, filed the lawsuit Monday in San Bernardino Superior Court. She says she had an 18-month relationship with Ramos that included sex acts in his office, in his county-issued car in San Bernardino parking lots and at the UCLA Conference Center in Lake Arrowhead, where she says she met Ramos during a conference in September 2003.

The lawsuit also claims that when news of the alleged affair was about to be made public in a newspaper article in May 2009, Ramos and some of his employees retaliated against Ristow,

Michael A. Ramos
The San Bernardino County district attorney has been sued by a woman alleging sexual harassment, retaliation, and assault and battery.
including reprimanding her for dress-code violations.

"After the aforementioned incidents, the hostile working environment became too intolerable for plaintiff, and she has been unable to return to work," according to the lawsuit.

Ristow's claims spurred a six-month investigation by the county Human Resources Department. An outside law firm that conducted the investigation cleared Ramos of wrongdoing.

Ramos categorically denied Ristow's allegations and said the previous investigation questioned Ristow's credibility more than his and that she appeared to have an agenda.

"Her previous charges were thoroughly investigated by an independent law firm who repeatedly questioned her credibility," Ramos said in a statement Monday. "Having failed in those charges, she now presents even greater falsehoods."

Ristow claims to have had at least 20 sexual encounters with Ramos and more than 50 phone conversations, 15 of which included sex talk.

The assault-and-battery allegation stems from an incident Ristow says happened in Ramos' office on Oct. 7, 2005. Ramos, according to the lawsuit, "grabbed and fondled" Ristow without her consent.

Ristow filed a claim with the county in January seeking $1.5 million in damages. The county rejected the claim Feb. 10.

"In my entire career in public service, I have never before been the subject of such charges," Ramos said in his statement.

Ramos believes Ristow's allegations are encouraged by people at the focus of a corruption probe by the District Attorney's and state Attorney General's offices into the county's $102 million legal settlement with developer Colonies Partners LP in November 2006. Prosecutors say the settlement was tainted by bribery and extortion, allegations both the county and the developer deny.

The county and Colonies Partners maintain that the settlement was legitimate and potentially saved county taxpayers up to $300 million.

"These allegations began only after I filed the first criminal charges resulting from

Read more: http://www.sbsun.com/news/ci_15723918#ixzz0xJvBJn2N"

Blogger Bob's Comment: Is Ramos making the same statement Postmus is?? ....that this is a political conspiracy against him.....maybe Postmus and Ramos share the same delusional hemlock brew

Sunday, August 15, 2010

Ristow sues Ramos for retaliation after on-the-job sex ended for $1.538 million & Yablonsky sues Ramos for $5,000,000 for unlawful use of his name

.....In the San Bernardino Sentinel last Friday (August 13, 2010) the following article appeared on Ramos:
....."A woman who worked for seven years as an evidence technician in the San Bernardino County District Attorney’s Office has sued her boss, district attorney Michael A. Ramos, alleging he retaliated against her after information about their 18-month long affair became public.
.....In her $1.538 million lawsuit, Cheryl Barnes Ristow claims she was subjected to sexual harassment, retaliation, and sexual assault and battery by the district attorney.
.....In the court filing, she delineates details of their affair, which she says lasted from September 2003 until March 2005, including sex acts within a hotel room, in his office and inside a county issued vehicle in public view during daylight hours.

......Ristow maintains in the suit that more than four years after her affair with Ramos had concluded, just as a public account of Ramos’ womanizing was about to be published, Ramos instructed her to remain quiet about their relationship and deny that it had taken place. Shortly thereafter, his employees began a pattern of retaliation against her, she said, including citing her for dress-code violations, which entailed a nose ring and uncovered tattoos, that heretofore had been openly tolerated.
.....Ristow, who was put on leave from her position in the summer of 2009, filed a complaint with the county’s human resources department, and later filed a claim against the county over the matter.
.....The county, at a cost of $140,000 commissioned a study of Ristow’s complaint from the Santa Monica-based law firm of Curiale, Hirschfeld and Kraemer. The report issued by Curiale, Hirschfeld and Kraemer shied away from an examination of whether there had actually been a sexual relationship between Ramos and Ristow, instead examining whether Ramos and his underlings had grounds, based upon Ristow’s performance or lack thereof, comportment on the job and adherence to office regulations to discipline her and whether the action taken against her constituted improper retaliation. That report concluded that Ristow had deviated from office dress and performance standards and that her suspension from her position and the action by department members leading up to it did not constitute retaliation.
.....Ramos cited the Curiale, Hirschfeld and Kraemer report in denying the validity of Ristow’s suit and the allegations contained therein.
.....The suit, which was filed by Rancho Cucamonga-based attorney Jim Reiss, however, references specific dates and times upon which and locations where sexual encounters between Ramos and Ristow occurred.
.....According to the suit, their sexual relationship initiated the day they met, on September 15, 2003 at a conference held at the Lake Arrowhead Resort.Moreover, the suit specifically cites three other sexual encounters between the two. One, on October 13, 2003, took place at Ramos’ office at 316 North Mountain View Avenue in the city of San Bernardino between 11:30 a.m. until 2 p.m., according to the suit. Another two encounters took place on December 3, 2003 and December 21, 2003, during which, according to the wording of the suit, the “plaintiff and defendant, district attorney Ramos, engaged in consensual oral sex while parked in a vehicle located in a Mervyn’s department store parking lot located in the city of San Bernardino. Said sexual intercourse took place in a vehicle issued to defendant, district attorney Ramos by [the] county of San Bernardino.” Those encounters, according to Ristow, took place in broad daylight, between the hours of 1:30 p.m. and 2 p.m. and 1 p.m. and 2 p.m., respectively.
.....And, according to the suit, “On or about February 11, 2005, plaintiff and defendant, district attorney Ramos engaged in consensual sexual acts while parked in the parking lot of a Starbucks located in the city of San Bernardino.” That encounter also took place in Ramos’ county issued vehicle between 1 p.m. and 2 p.m.
.....The suit and its attendant documents further assert cell phone records show that throughout the duration of their affair, Ristow and Ramos were in phone contact over 50 times. Those included, according to Ristow’s declaration filed in conjunction with the suit, “at least fifteen (15) phone sex sessions, many of which took place during regular business hours and/or employment related events wherein both Mr. Ramos and I were employed in our respective positions and being paid by the county of San Bernardino.”
.....Ramos suggested Ristow is being supported and encouraged in her claims against him by criminals and public figures who have been the focus of his prosecutorial efforts".

........................................................................................................................................................................

Case CIVDS1010909 - RISTOW -V- COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, ET AL


02/04/2011 8:30 AM DEPT. S32 CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE - Minutes


11/12/2010 8:30 AM DEPT. S32 OSC RE: SERVICE COMPLETION - Minutes


08/09/2010 SUMMONS ISSUED ON COMPLAINT (UNLIMITED) FILED 08/09/2010 OF CHERYL RISTOW - ORIGINAL FILED IN COURT FILE. Not Applicable

08/09/2010 CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET FILED. Not Applicable

08/09/2010 CASE ASSIGNED FOR ALL PURPOSES TO DEPARTMENT S32


08/09/2010 COMPLAINT AND PARTY INFORMATION ENTERED Not Applicable
...................................................................................................................................................................

News flash folks....... in a political campaign flyer sent out by Ramos through his campaign committee with the title "IT's NEVER A 'COLD CASE'", Mike Ramos is quoted as saying:" A case is never cold to the family of a murder victim. That's why I have worked with the Sheriff to start the Cold Case Unit. Using DNA evidence, we have filed murder charges in 19 cold cases. Twenty five years after the crime, Rita Cobb's family will have closure."-- next to the quote is a 8" x 5" color picture of John Henry Yablonski--the only trouble folks, is Yablonky has not been tried yet and has pled not guilty. The Court docket on the civil right case filed(Case No. CIVDS1010254) is as follows:

Case CIVDS1010254 - YABLONSKY -V- RAMOS

01/28/2011 8:30 AM DEPT. S35 CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE - Minutes


10/29/2010 8:30 AM DEPT. S35 OSC RE: SERVICE COMPLETION - Minutes


10/28/2010 8:30 AM DEPT. S35 OSC RE: SERVICE COMPLETION VACATED

07/30/2010 VACATE OSCSV HEARING SCHEDULED FOR 10/28/10 AT 08:30 IN DEPARTMENT S35. Not Applicable

07/30/2010 NOTICE OF RESETTING HEARING DATE SENT. Not Applicable

07/28/2010 SUMMONS ISSUED ON COMPLAINT (UNLIMITED) FILED 07/28/2010 OF JOHN YABLONSKY - ORIGINAL FILED IN COURT FILE. Not Applicable

07/28/2010 CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET FILED. Not Applicable

07/28/2010 FILING FEE WAIVED ON JOHN HENRY YABLONSKY FOR FILING FEE IN THE AMOUNT OF $355.00. Not Applicable

07/28/2010 REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF COURT FEES AND COSTS FILED BY JOHN HENRY YABLONSKY IS GRANTED GRANTED

07/28/2010 REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF COURT FEES & COSTS FILED BY JOHN HENRY YABLONSKY.


07/28/2010 CASE ASSIGNED FOR ALL PURPOSES TO DEPARTMENT S35


07/28/2010 COMPLAINT AND PARTY INFORMATION ENTERED Not Applicable

................................................................................................................................................................

Blogger Bob's comments on Ristow & Yablonsky suits:

.....(1)The allegations in Yablonsky are, if the copy I received is correct, handwritten on a judicial council form with a cause of action for "negligence"--hopefully the court reviewing this will look pass the form of the pleading and recognize it as probably a 42 USC § 1983 case & false light type case and not summarily dismiss it. For Ramos to have used his police power for personal political gain at the expense of a citizen the law presumes innocent until proven guilty seems like prosecutorial abuse;
.....(2) To deflect the heat he was anticipating with Ristow, has Ramos ramped up the list of charges against Guttierrez & Postmus to try and deflect media attention from his own problems?
.....(3) The added charge in Guttierrez is a felony conspiracy count (?) in the Rex Guttierrez case that does not seem to go anywhere on what is pled and the likely facts the DA has to use--is the point here that Ramos' special unit realized its case was a bit thin and need more? or should it have been included in the initial case and we could have avoided the expense of a re-trial?
.....(4) With Ramos tacking on on a intoxicated in public charge on Postmus, the question that has to be asked is why now? Rumor has it he's been under the influence at every other appearance.
.....(5) Where's the print media on Yablonsky's $5,000,000 civil rights lawsuit against Mike Ramos or the media on the $1.538 million lawsuit against Mike Ramos by Cheryl Ristow?? It kinda goes back to what I have said all along--the media is little more than the lap dog of Mike Ramos.
.....(6) I hope the San Bernardino County personnel commission folks take a look at the Ristow suit--the use of company time and property for sex violates county policy--right folks?? And there is no statute of limitations of initiating personnel actions based on same?? Correct??

Thursday, August 5, 2010

All's Not Well (?) # 6

iePolitics.com reports:

"Additional information regarding the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) probe into the San Bernardino County corruption scandal has been trickling into iePolitics. It appears there are two general areas the Bureau is concentrating on: all investigations conducted by District Attorney Mike Ramos’ Public Integrity Unit (PIU) and the Superior Court bench.

Based upon questions being asked by agents, this investigation is wide-ranging. iePolitics has been told that questions are being asked regarding various real estate deals; destruction of records by former Third District Supervisor Dennis Hansberger; disparity in handling the various FPPC complaints by Ramos against Penrod, Erwin, Biane, Devereaux, and others; the difference in the way in which 1099 charges against Jim Miller and Bea Cortes were handled; the POST scandal; possibly several of the issues at ARMC (regarding Supervisors Biane and Gonzales); and much more.

From what we are being told, the FBI is looking at each investigation the PIU has been involved in and tracing it back to its inception. It would appear that part of the investigation is meant to uncover selective prosecution and use of the district attorney’s prosecutorial powers for political purposes. It is believed that the attorney general’s involvement is also being reviewed.

As stated in previous articles, we know that solid evidence of at least one felony committed by Ramos was provided to the FBI several months ago; however, it is not known what crime was alleged. Furthermore, evidence of witness tampering and intimidation personally committed by Ramos may be made public as early as today.

As much as we here at iePolitics enjoy watching Ramos squirm as the tables have been turned on him, of much greater concern and satisfaction is the scrutiny the Superior Court bench is now receiving from the federal government. Clearly, all judges have a great deal of discretion in the decisions they make. However, from the first moment a Superior Court judge became involved in the corruption scandal, there have been highly suspect decisions and rulings.

Search warrants were issued based solely on the testimony of a convicted perjurer who agreed to cooperate to gain a lesser sentence. Excessively high bails were set for white collar crimes that far exceed what is set for violent offenders who are a flight risk. And one judge had a personal relationship with the Ramos’ personal attorney. This scandal has been fraught with questionable rulings from the bench.

Additionally, we have witnessed two examples where the district attorney and attorney general have attempted to thwart attorney/client privilege. First, a search warrant was signed and served on the attorney of one of the defendants, something this is almost unheard of. And more recently, the bullying by the Attorney General’s office to force all parties involved in the Colonies decision to waive attorney/client privilege has reached new heights with threats being made by the Attorney General’s office.

But perhaps the most egregious examples of prosecutorial misconduct and judicial incompetence or payoff involve the two sets of charges against former Assistant Assessor Jim Erwin. There are sections of the law that clearly show Erwin did NOT have to report the trip or watch, but the district attorney charged him anyway. The craziest and most far-fetched charges are the conspiracy and bribery allegations.

We realize the average person reading this article does not understand the law well enough to know that certain elements must be present to allege both conspiracy and bribery. While Erwin was still in custody we asked a retired prosecutor to review the charges against Erwin and give us his opinion. He was shocked that a judge would sign an arrest warrant based on the allegations made as the elements of the crime were not present. That has been the opinion of every attorney we know of who has actually spent the time to read the entire complaint.

And that begs this question: Why would a judge sign these search warrants and arrest warrants? Certainly, they should know as well as anyone what the elements of each crime are.

As we have written about before here at iePolitics, the close personal relationship between Ramos and members of the San Bernardino County Superior Court bench is a concern. It is not only a concern to the corruption scandal defendants, but to all who enter the courthouse in search of justice. Now we have the FBI observing San Bernardino County justice first hand. And if they do a thorough job, it will benefit every citizen in this county.

Be it corrupt prosecutors, politicians or judges, they all need to go down and be punished for the havoc they have wreaked on our county. We welcome this investigation and look forward to their findings."

Comment by blogger Bob: That my clients may be getting retaliated against because I couldn't stand what Ramos represented and I ran against Ramos to try and get him to clean it up or get replaced, is the saddest part of this. I personally hope any compromised members of the bench are not given a free ride--hell, most of the people on the bench are hand picked and or approved by Ramos during the Governor's review of judicial applications; I have felt more squeezing on things that I routinely have won. In the last 6 months, I have lost more substantive motions in civil cases than I have over the last twenty (oh my, its been almost 25 now that I think of it) years practicing in both state and federal court--I am not doing a poorer job. Its been ugly.

All's Not Well (?) # 5

(1) San Bernardino County Grand Jury sends letter dated July 30, 2010 (not sent until August 3, 2010 per the postal meter) saying in relevant part: "[i]t has been determined that your complaint is not within the jurisdiction if the Grand Jury and no further action will be taken at this time. No further correspondence will be sent to you by this Grand Jury."

Comment on (1) Interesting comment by the Foreman (who signed the July 30, 2010 letter to this blogger) when the statute (Election Code 15640 et seq) specifically says the grand jury of the county has the power to petition the court for a manual recount; also of interest is the changed reference to "no further correspondence will be sent to you by "this Grand Jury" (someone else looking)?

(2) California Department of Justice State Public Inquiry Unit sends a letter to this blogger dated June 22, 2010 (mailed June 25, 2010) says in relevant part "the Secretary of State's Office has primary responsibility to investigate cases of alleged criminal misconduct and to determine if a violation has occurred."

Comment on (2) Passing the buck (sorta); the Secretary of State was sent a copy at the same time as was the Attorney General/DOJ and to date nothing has been said to this blogger; I won't hold my breath--the last time I reported irregularities [previously in re the Sequoia counters], without checking with observers that documented jambing, multiple ballot feeds, refeeds without resetting or adjusting for the partially counted ballots, the Secretary of State gave the County of San Bernardino her blessing that all was well and ok. Also the date of mailing was done so that the letter would not be received until AFTER the registrar would certify the election!!

(3) San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors - has never acknowledged receipt of the complaint, much less advise re any action and or disposition

Comment on (3) Actually maybe there was a bit of retaliation by the Board of Supervisors; I live next to a County Senior Center that we give some support to, attend lunches or breakfasts at, etc; the Hinkley Senior Center recently "lost" their "meal" contract over a technicality (that Mitzelfelt forgave the Pinion Hills Senior Center for) and are being forced to accept Barstow's Senior Center's meal service, which has taken away the independence and autonomy of the senior center, the related ability to fully service its area seniors with local people and have the added benefits resulting therefrom; also a playground was forced upon the senior center's land; input was given, after other locations where most of the children live in the service area were proposed by numerous community leaders, but was illogically rejected. The County was asked to place its playground to the North of the Senior Center building so as to not disrupt the senior center's operations; a vote was taken and all center members supported locating the playground to the north end, if it must be put on senior center property at all; the plans came back from the county and they want to locate the playground guess where--to the South end of the senior center, which will interfere with the center's operations and be guess what, is also next to my fenced parcel where I live---nothing like moving to the country for peace and quiet and having a playground located next door to you. I of course voiced my objection to placing the playground there before the plans were drawn (when the seniors all voted to put it on the North end)--I guess that was as good as assuring it would be placed on the South end. That the County appears to want to retaliate against this blogger for making a complaint, well, you get the picture.

Wednesday, August 4, 2010

All's Not Well (?) # 4

San Bernardino County Grand Jury prepares a letter (sent to this blogger) acknowledging they received my complaint (about the election counts and the software) and said they will look into it the next session of the Grand Jury (which starts in July??) when they have time, then dates their letter June 18, 2010 (within the time the grand jury had to direct the DA to file papers to order a recount or some other appropriate remedy) but holds and mails the letter on July 27, 2010. What's up doc?