....."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??
No comments:
Post a Comment