Gail Fry, a Staff Writer for the Alpenhorn News (San Bernardino County) reported on another scandal possibly in the works involving the Adelanto Charter Academy.
The Alpenhorn News indicated that convicted former San Bernardino County Supervisor and Assessor Bill Postmus and former Assembly Candidate and Hesperia Unified School District Trustee Anthony Riley are people somehow allegedly involved. What is it this time? [the Alpenhorn News reports they/someone allegedly received money from the Adelanto Charter Academy without performing services to earn it?--move over Rex, your cellmates are on the way?].
The Alpenhorn News also says that "implicated in the developing scandal are San Bernardino County Supervisor Brad Mitzelfelt’s Field Representative Jessie Flores, Adam Aleman, Charles Steven Cox, and John Dino DeFazio, two of these individuals currently facing criminal charges while a third already pled guilty in another case. All of these individuals are shown in supporting documentation as tied to contracts with the Adelanto Charter Academy ("ACA"), a charter school authorized by the Adelanto School District"... ACA contracted services with Professional Charter Management, Inc., a California corporation in exchange for 15 percent of ACA’s revenue and Educational Development, Inc., an Arizona corporation in exchange for 5 percent of ACA’s revenue. Professional Charter Management, Inc. dissolved December 18, 2010, with its chief executive officer being Mitzelfeldt’s Field Representative Jessie Flores, its chief financial officer John Dino De Fazio and Kari Murdock as its agent for service of process according to records at the California Secretary of State."
Blogger Bob's comments:
.
(1) The choice of the word "revenue" is nothing less than self incrimination--schools don't generate "revenue"--they spend state tax money--that the State money dedicated to our kids is referred to as "revenue" is insulting;
.
(2) Before we get too excited about another San Bernardino Charter School being used to conduit money to personal, non-educational use, what has happened to the prosecution involving the last Charter School in this County? (and the money lost)??
.
(3) Aren't there statute of limitations problems (is the DA's office on this?? State AG?? or ??)
.
If Educational Development, Inc. dissolved in April 2008 [putting aside the fact that they may have taken money notwithstanding the fact they weren't authorized to take money--e.g. transact business], aren't we at the end of the three year statute for felony prosecutions?
.
(4) When will these charter schools quit being used to bleed our public school dollars for private agendas is what I want to know?
.
The school board members (and their superintendents) are not doing their due diligence cutting checks to suspended companies (if that is what is happening). Isn't there also a defalcation of duty involved? Discretionary immunity may only go so far (as Rex Guttierrez now knows), putting aside the conflict of interest involved by theses school board members getting the support of the machine politicians benefiting from these payments.
.
(5) Recovery idea: Don't the school district buy a public official liability insurance for these board members? If there has been a breach of duty or a violation of a statute, isn't that a covered claim?
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Friday, April 15, 2011
Ristow Case Status......dismissed WITHOUT prejudice on the Court's own motion?
On 4/27/2011 8:30 AM DEPT.M4 (where the Ristow case against Mike Ramos and the County of San Bernardino has been shipped--following it seems JUDGE FRANK GAFKOWSKI's reassignment) an EX-PARTE MOTION RE:DETERMINATION THAT JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT BE ENTERED & a MOTION RE:FOR RECONSIDERATION BY PLAINTIFF (of the Ristow case's dismissal) is being heard (as well as apparently Defendants'MOTION RE:CORRECT JUDGMENT BY DEFT CO. OF SAN BERNARDINO). I am curious, is the clerk's entry "ON COURT'S MOTION, CASE ORDERED DISMISSED AS TO DEFENDANT COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, DISTRICT ATTORNEY MICHAEL A. RAMOS WITHOUT PREJUDICE" correct?
.
That would suggest another court might be jurisdictionally better/proper or the action is in some way premature/plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies (except the issue of exhausting administrative remedies is typically handled by a noticed motion from one of the parties and not the court sua sponte, unless there is a jurisdictional issue).
.
Also dismissing the case without prejudice, implies it can be refiled and contrary to the Mike Ramos press release, there has been no decision on the merits.
.
Why else would the court dismiss without prejudice?
.
This is sounding stranger by the moment. Unless it was jurisdictional, what in the world is the judge on his own motion doing?
.
Too bad the case did not stay in Dept 37 for Vander Feer to take a look at.
.
.
That would suggest another court might be jurisdictionally better/proper or the action is in some way premature/plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies (except the issue of exhausting administrative remedies is typically handled by a noticed motion from one of the parties and not the court sua sponte, unless there is a jurisdictional issue).
.
Also dismissing the case without prejudice, implies it can be refiled and contrary to the Mike Ramos press release, there has been no decision on the merits.
.
Why else would the court dismiss without prejudice?
.
This is sounding stranger by the moment. Unless it was jurisdictional, what in the world is the judge on his own motion doing?
.
Too bad the case did not stay in Dept 37 for Vander Feer to take a look at.
.
Thursday, April 14, 2011
Nibs says.......
Nibs, a reliable source in San Bernardino County, who has been close to the Daily Press (and less frequently the San Bernardino Sun), has watched people who claim no bone in the fight, do a lot of growling and scurrying with their tails between their legs. With the 22nd coming up, it will be interesting to see who will get away.
Friday, April 1, 2011
My oh my - what the #@&* is going on in San Bernardino County
In today's Sun Newspaper (excerpted for context):
"A defense attorney said Thursday that San Bernardino County prosecutors may be seeking to dismiss criminal charges against former Assistant Assessor Jim Erwin in a corruption probe and pushing for a Grand Jury indictment instead.
Investigators from the District Attorney's Office on Thursday served subpoenas to county supervisors Josie Gonzales, Neil Derry, Gary Ovitt and Brad Mitzelfelt, requesting that they appear before a criminal Grand Jury this month to testify. Steve Hauer, Derry's deputy chief of staff, also received a subpoena.
On Tuesday, prosecutors sent letters to at least four uncharged co-conspirators in the probe requesting that they present any evidence they feel will help them in their defense by April 21, officials said.
Prosecutors allege the county's $102 million legal settlement with Rancho Cucamonga developer Colonies Partners LP in November 2006 was tainted by a web of conspiracy, bribery and extortion.
Rajan Maline, Erwin's attorney, said Thursday that Erwin, Colonies co-managing partner Jeff Burum, and Mark Kirk, Ovitt's former chief of staff, received the letters from prosecutors this week.
Former Supervisor Paul Biane said Thursday that he also received the letter Tuesday.
"By them convening the Grand Jury, it appears they may be trying to go by way of indictment so they won't have to have a preliminary hearing," Maline said Thursday.
In a preliminary hearing, prosecutors present evidence by way of testimony stating the facts of the case, and a judge determines if enough evidence has been presented to warrant a trial.
Erwin, who faces multiple felony counts including conspiracy to commit a crime, bribery, forgery and perjury, is scheduled to appear in San Bernardino Superior Court on April 25 for a preliminary hearing. His co-defendant, former San Bernardino County Assessor Bill Postmus, pleaded guilty Tuesday to criminal charges related to the case as part of a plea bargain with prosecutors.
Postmus has agreed to testify against defendants at future trials and cooperate with investigators in exchange for reduced charges.
Susan Mickey, a spokeswoman for the District Attorney's Office, declined to comment Thursday.
Ric Grenell, a spokesman for Burum, also declined to comment.
Prosecutors believe the defendants and uncharged co-conspirators orchestrated a settlement on Colonies' behalf in exchange for political favors and cash bribes in excess of $400,000, which were funneled into political-action committees operated by the three supervisors who voted in favor of the settlement - Biane, Ovitt and Postmus - or their staff members.
Colonies officials have denied all allegations, and maintain the settlement was fair and validated by two Superior Court judges and a retired state Supreme Court justice who served as a mediator during settlement hearings in 2006.
Biane maintains the settlement was just and that he remained engaged with county attorneys throughout the settlement negotiations.
"I don't believe I've done anything wrong. I believe I did everything by the book," Biane said Thursday.
Maline believes prosecutors may be trying to avert a preliminary hearing by issuing an indictment, which would warrant the dismissal of the existing charges and allow prosecutors to go straight to trial.
Maline doesn't believe prosecutors have any evidence of a criminal conspiracy.
"It's unfortunate they don't want to go forward with the preliminary hearing, but sooner or later you will have to produce some evidence," Maline said. "To this date, there is no evidence that shows us Mr. Erwin was involved in any conspiracy."
..
Blogger Bob's comment: This opens up a number of questions:
.
(1) Does the DA's office believe that Postmus, Aleman and Guttierrez would survive an aggressive preliminary hearing cross examination and trial (and be consistent);
(2) What if the Grand Jury does not find sufficient evidence to charge Erwin--if so, what may that say about the motivation for Ramos' action against Erwin?...and if the grand jury does find some basis upon which to pursue Erwin, will the State AG come in to try and bailout/save the otherwise any blown statute of limitations?
(3) Is the uncharged unnamed (but fully known) co-conspirator approach even constitutional?? If you describe the person and conduct, they are not unknown, so has the felony statute has run on those folks (like it did on some of the counts against Erwin)?
(4) Why has it taken 4 1/2 years for this follow-up, unless the delay was part of a conspiracy to give the "unnamed" (but known) defendants a statute of limitations-based your-off-the-hook ticket?
"A defense attorney said Thursday that San Bernardino County prosecutors may be seeking to dismiss criminal charges against former Assistant Assessor Jim Erwin in a corruption probe and pushing for a Grand Jury indictment instead.
Investigators from the District Attorney's Office on Thursday served subpoenas to county supervisors Josie Gonzales, Neil Derry, Gary Ovitt and Brad Mitzelfelt, requesting that they appear before a criminal Grand Jury this month to testify. Steve Hauer, Derry's deputy chief of staff, also received a subpoena.
On Tuesday, prosecutors sent letters to at least four uncharged co-conspirators in the probe requesting that they present any evidence they feel will help them in their defense by April 21, officials said.
Prosecutors allege the county's $102 million legal settlement with Rancho Cucamonga developer Colonies Partners LP in November 2006 was tainted by a web of conspiracy, bribery and extortion.
Rajan Maline, Erwin's attorney, said Thursday that Erwin, Colonies co-managing partner Jeff Burum, and Mark Kirk, Ovitt's former chief of staff, received the letters from prosecutors this week.
Former Supervisor Paul Biane said Thursday that he also received the letter Tuesday.
"By them convening the Grand Jury, it appears they may be trying to go by way of indictment so they won't have to have a preliminary hearing," Maline said Thursday.
In a preliminary hearing, prosecutors present evidence by way of testimony stating the facts of the case, and a judge determines if enough evidence has been presented to warrant a trial.
Erwin, who faces multiple felony counts including conspiracy to commit a crime, bribery, forgery and perjury, is scheduled to appear in San Bernardino Superior Court on April 25 for a preliminary hearing. His co-defendant, former San Bernardino County Assessor Bill Postmus, pleaded guilty Tuesday to criminal charges related to the case as part of a plea bargain with prosecutors.
Postmus has agreed to testify against defendants at future trials and cooperate with investigators in exchange for reduced charges.
Susan Mickey, a spokeswoman for the District Attorney's Office, declined to comment Thursday.
Ric Grenell, a spokesman for Burum, also declined to comment.
Prosecutors believe the defendants and uncharged co-conspirators orchestrated a settlement on Colonies' behalf in exchange for political favors and cash bribes in excess of $400,000, which were funneled into political-action committees operated by the three supervisors who voted in favor of the settlement - Biane, Ovitt and Postmus - or their staff members.
Colonies officials have denied all allegations, and maintain the settlement was fair and validated by two Superior Court judges and a retired state Supreme Court justice who served as a mediator during settlement hearings in 2006.
Biane maintains the settlement was just and that he remained engaged with county attorneys throughout the settlement negotiations.
"I don't believe I've done anything wrong. I believe I did everything by the book," Biane said Thursday.
Maline believes prosecutors may be trying to avert a preliminary hearing by issuing an indictment, which would warrant the dismissal of the existing charges and allow prosecutors to go straight to trial.
Maline doesn't believe prosecutors have any evidence of a criminal conspiracy.
"It's unfortunate they don't want to go forward with the preliminary hearing, but sooner or later you will have to produce some evidence," Maline said. "To this date, there is no evidence that shows us Mr. Erwin was involved in any conspiracy."
..
Blogger Bob's comment: This opens up a number of questions:
.
(1) Does the DA's office believe that Postmus, Aleman and Guttierrez would survive an aggressive preliminary hearing cross examination and trial (and be consistent);
(2) What if the Grand Jury does not find sufficient evidence to charge Erwin--if so, what may that say about the motivation for Ramos' action against Erwin?...and if the grand jury does find some basis upon which to pursue Erwin, will the State AG come in to try and bailout/save the otherwise any blown statute of limitations?
(3) Is the uncharged unnamed (but fully known) co-conspirator approach even constitutional?? If you describe the person and conduct, they are not unknown, so has the felony statute has run on those folks (like it did on some of the counts against Erwin)?
(4) Why has it taken 4 1/2 years for this follow-up, unless the delay was part of a conspiracy to give the "unnamed" (but known) defendants a statute of limitations-based your-off-the-hook ticket?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)