Does Anyone in this County Care About Our Election Laws???-- COUNTY REDISTRICTING OFF TO A BAD (maybe illegal) START

WHAT THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS SAID THEY'D BE DOING: The County's Press Release said that the Board of Supervisors will conduct its first redistricting workshop Tuesday, May 24, at 10 am, in the Covington Chambers of the County Government Center. ... On Tuesday the board will receive a presentation on the current population situation, consider a proposed set of redistricting criteria (not vote on them), discuss next steps, and hear comments from the public."
WHAT THEY DID: Pass a "RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING CRITERIA FOR THE 2011 COUNTY REDISTRICTING"
Of Interest: At the back table, the Resolution was not available to this attendee (even though the attendance was sparse and appeared to be mostly County or County-affiliated employees). One of the few members of the public present said he thought it was supposed to be a workshop and saw nothing which indicated an action item, and incredibly, our newest supervisor (Rutherford) made what I would call a belittling verbal smack down of that citizen's complaint (I guess Janice did not do to that demeanor class yet). Frankly, the guy from Yuciapa was absolutely right. I read the press release and saw nothing indicating a resolution was going to be on the agenda. If it was posted on even the door I do not recall.
PROBLEM: On the criterion list (and at the meeting) the County Supervisors gave lip service to the Federal Voting Rights Act and the various criteria California law requires, but they salted the process with protection of their seats by inserting as No. 6 "Each new district shall preserve the corresponding existing district's population and territory to the degree possible given the total criteria".
IMPRESSION:
1. The Supervisors insert, with MANDATORY language (the words "shall preserve the existing territory") a term/phrase that protects not the voters in a district but a "territory"-- the very language chosen shows what is wrong with the system--the incumbents view it as their "territory" & make a mandatory criteria the protection of their turf;
2. The discussion of the other terms was frustrated by the unavailability of the resolution or any staff reports to support the criterion chosen before the vote (I was handed the resolution AFTER the vote and frankly when I got up to speak, did not know a resolution was going to be voted on--I thought it was a workshop like stated in the press release);
3. The discussion misses inclusion of Prop 11's requirement that communities of interest be created which are defined by Prop 11 as "a contiguous population which share common social and economic interests that should be included within a single district for purposes of its effective and fair representation."
4. What criteria No. 3, adopted by the board speaks of, is a "contiguous territory", not population as Prop 11 requires--there's that its my territory stuff again;
5. NO WHERE in the criterion adopted by the County Board does it refer to "population sharing common social and economic interests"!--opps
BAD START--MAYBE EVEN AN UNLAWFUL ONE!

30,000 PRISONERS RELEASED--A LESSON THAT CAN BE USED TO BUILD A FOCUSED & EFFICIENT POLICY FOR DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S STATEWIDE!!!

We might not be facing the Court-ordered release of 30,000 inmates if fewer people committing non-violent crimes were prosecuted in cases where a misdemeanor charge was an alternative (and as a result prison time would not be mandatory) and fines, classes, restitution, tracking devices and community service could be substituted "sentencing". It's called know your DA and their policies and let's try and keep prison for dangerous folks. Also, in these budget crunch times, think of the money we'd also save @ $50,000 to $60,000 per inmate and maybe even reduced prosecution costs per violator.

Why the Statute of Limitations Notice Inquiry Facts Should Concern Mike Ramos (& the AG)

.
On the day the Colonies Settlement settlement was reached (Nov. 28, 2006),

(1) The Board of Supervisors (Ovitt, Postmus & Biane) did an 11th-hour switch on the terms of the settlement agreement, so they could avert a four-vote requirement by the board to approve the settlement.
.
Blogger Bob's comment:
.
(a) Why wasn't the change in procedure properly agendized and public comment taken? and since the vote was 3-2, didn't the DA's office have some clue that the ONLY WAY IT PASSED IS WITH PROCEDURAL IRREGULARITIES BEING DONE??
(b) A procedural manuver to dilute the voting requirement for approval of the settlement could not, under these circumstances, been legal and at minimum might have raised some due process concerns. Why? Ovitt, Postmus and Biane KNEW the fourth vote could not be secured, so by doing the procedural sidestep, they got approved a settlement that would not have otherwise gone through. Why didn't this stink up the place?
(c) More problematic, didn't this put someone on notice that the legal steps required for a record huge settlement were being ignored and that might not have been done unless there was something to hide? Doesn't such unlawful conduct put someone on notice that this deal was bad? Oh yeah I forgot, Ramos and Postmus were still political allies at that time so why look?
.
(2) Changes in the settlement agreement included the purging of a land swap between the county and Colonies for surplus county flood-control property.
.
Blogger Bob's comment:
.
(a) Why wasn't the reduction of land/interest in land being being "bought" agendized and voted on after full public comment?
(b) Since when did Ovitt, Postmus and Biane have the right to give away land the County was buying/securing an interest in?
.
Wow, nothing like selling out the government you were supposed to be protecting. That's like pulling an 8 cylinder engine out of sports car and replacing it with a 6 cylinder before delivery.
.
Why wasn't this fraud something that could be judicially noticed?
.
(3) Three exhibits that were supposed to be attached to the settlement agreement were left blank. They included a legal description of the flood basin property the county was to retain, the deed for the property and a stipulation for judgment.
.
Blogger Bob's comment:
.
Again an incomplete agreement--so what was Postmus, Ovitt and Biane voting on?...and again, isn't that omission something that could have put the DA's office on notice with all the hoopla over the deal especially since the clerk of the board made it public record after it was voted on--a record that could be judicially noticed? Maybe if the final sale agreement was presented at a public meeting, Mr. Bob Nelson at the Board might have questioned the missing documents--oh yeah, I forgot, the Sheriff's Office and the BOS are looking for excuses to arrest him.
.
(4) The settlement agreement called for the deed to the basin to be recorded by the county before the county wired an initial $22 million to Colonies. The $22 million was wired to the developer the day after the settlement, but the deed was not recorded until April 6, 2007, more than four months after the settlement.
.
Blogger Bob's comment:
.
(a) First, why were we wiring money? Why could't a certified bank check have worked that could be exchanged for the proper documents through an escrow process?
(b) Wiring money to the developer without a proper settlement agreement, recorded deed and a rigged voting stunk up the County. How ripe does the trash have to get for Mike Ramos to have seen something was very, very wrong. These opps matters (and the ignored time running problems) were seen by many people in this county and that is why it was such an issue in the campaign(s).
.
SanBAG's argument: "We see no complete agreement no effort to comply with the first required steps of the agreement," according to SanBAG's legal brief. "Everything is rushed, even if it means violation of the agreement."
[Read more: http://www.sbsun.com/news/ci_17808474#ixzz1MYSHqsQk]
.
Blogger Bob's comment: You'd think the DA's office would have been able to look at a huge real estate deal and notice missing Exhibits to it & land unilaterally taken out of the deal, notice procedural gamesmanship was done to dilute BOS voting requirements & deny the public an opportunity to comment. Since when is a wire transfer of tens of millions with no deed recorded ok. That is the stuff that creates a duty to inquire.

Tad Honeycutt , C. Steven Cox & the California Charter Academy Case(s)--Why haven't these cases gone to trial Mikey??

After the Riverside Press-Enterprise article ran ("Audit: Schools Misued Millions" on June 23, 2005), it took the District Attorney Mike Ramos' office until September 4, 2007 to file an indictment vs Tadd Honeycutt (who allegedly charged improperly $295,565 against the school budget for things like Jet Skis, custom wheels for a vehicle,a fishing trip and a guitar store spree and $752,813 for his private businesses) and C. Steven Cox (who allegedly charged for federal income tax payments, Disney merchandise, a Disney resort health spa, TV shopping network purchases, rock concert tickets, employee award banquets to the tune of $707,000). Total damages--$23,000,000 per the initial report. Both cases do not have trial dates yet despite it being four years post indictment in September.
..
Blogger Bob's comments:
(1) What makes this so incredible, is that the audit data was given to Ramos almost 6 years ago;
(2) Why weren't these folks prosecuted--well take a look at the players. Honeycutt & Cox were big contributors to Ramos and or his buds. Postmus & JoAnn Almond were on the Charter School Board or the administrative company that Cox set up and one of the biggest recipients of the Charter School's largess was Former Republican Assemblyman Keith Olberg to the tune of $375,000 which Olberg "did little work to justify" (so why wasn't he prosecuted like Rex Guttierrez who was in a do-little-type job also);
(3) In a 2007 audit report that concluded "it would be fair to say that some of us were startled by the degree of...misuse of public funds, and the lack of accountability and fiscal oversight"--obviously the DA's office was not as offended, has let the defendants out on their OR, the public does not even have a trial date nor any accounting of what has been recovered (or even any plea agreements)
(4) I guess kids & school districts being ripped off is no big priority for this DA

Jeffrey Burum, Paul Biane, Jim Erwin, 48 & Mark Kirk Indictments

"I will tell you, this is a historical day," Ramos said
.
Blogger Bob's comment: What he did not add: now that I [Ramos] got the Ristow case dismissed.
.
"{Ramos said] I am pleased that the matter will now move to the arena of the courtroom, where we intend to prove our case and finally see justice done. I hope this sends a strong message that corruption will no longer be tolerated in San Bernardino County."
.
Blogger Bob's comment:Fighting Burum will be interesting--he won't fold and hand the DA's office "convictions" through plea deals like they got from Postmus and Aleman, caused by the lack of money to hire & keep paying lawyers.
.
Burum's attorney, John Vandevelde, said "Jeff Burum has been smeared by innuendos for two years," he said. "Today's indictment means Jeff will finally have his day in court where the truth will show there was never a bribe of anyone or illegal conduct of any kind"
.
Blogger Bob's comment: First, ah shucks, no bribe or illegal conduct evidence will be part of Burum's defense--come on, tease us with something. Second, it will be interesting to see how a confidential settlement arrived at thru a legally sanctioned mediation process, approved by the Board of Supervisors with access to all sorts of legal counsel, will be unraveled
.
Senior Assistant Attorney General Gary Schons called the indictment a "signal event" for the county. "We won't rest until we follow all the evidence to wear it leads," Schons said. "When public officials act corruptly, every Californian is their victim," Attorney General Kamala D. Harris said. "Let the San Bernardino indictments send a strong message that we will never tolerate this sort of abuse of the public trust."
.
Blogger Bob's comment: Sexual liasons with County employees though is ok, plea deals with attempted murderers offering no jail time is ok, repeatedly filing false/misleading FPPC statements/disclosure forms is ok? Double standards for Mikey I guess.
.
Ovitt released the following statement about Kirk, his former chief of staff (Kirk who faces felony charges of bribery, improper influence, conflict of interest, misappropriation of public funds, fraudulent tax return, perjury and filing a false instrument): "I am saddened about what has occurred today involving Mark Kirk," Ovitt said. "I have known Mark for eight years, I've worked with him during that period of time. He is a person of great intelligence and integrity. Although I don't know the specifics of the charges, and can't comment on the particulars, I know Mark to be a consumate professional, loving father and family man, and all around good person of high morals and character."
.
Blogger Bob's comment: In the 8 years Ovitt knew and worked with this guy he [Ovitt] had no clue he was abusing my office's power. Yeah right! How does Ovitt think he got his campaign money?
.
Senior Assistant Attorney General Gary Schons called the indictment a "signal event" for the county. He said more work is still ahead in the ongoing investigation and "We won't rest until we follow all the evidence to where it leads."
.
Blogger Bob's comment: Wow--who is going to sever the Siamese twins first (Harris & Ramos)

Ristow's Attorney files on 05/06/2011 "NOTICE OF APPEAL" - huh?? Say Due Process is Dead!!

Quoting from the San Bernardino County Superior Court Access system on the Ristow v Mike A. Ramos civil rights trial:

"FRANK GAFKOWSKI, JUDGE [on the Motion for Reconsideration]
CLERK: ROBIN RYAN
COURT REPORTER GARY RAGLE GARY RAGLE
-
ATTORNEY JAMES V. REISS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER.
ATTORNEY BRANDON A. TAKAHASHI PRESENT FOR COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO.
ATTORNEY RICHARD MARCA PRESENT FOR DISTRICT ATTORNEY MICHAEL A. RAMOS.
-
PROCEEDINGS:
PREDISPOSITION HEARING HELD
-
MOTION
COPY OF COURTS TENTATIVE RULING GIVEN TO COUNSEL WHO ARE PERSONALLY PRESENT IN COURTROOM.
ACTION CAME ON FOR MOTION RE: FOR RECONSIDERATION BY PLAINTIFF.
CHERYL RISTOW'S MOTION TO FOR RECONSIDERATION BY PLAINTIFF IS HEARD.
CHERYL RISTOW'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION BY PLAINTIFF IS DENIED.
ARGUED BY COUNSEL AND SUBMITTED.
-
COURT FINDS:
THE COURT DENIES THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION ON THE GROUND THAT IT IS UNTIMELY HAVING BEEN
BROUGHT AFTER THE ENTRY OF JUDGMENT WHICH DIVESTED THE COURT OF THE ABILITY TO HEAR THE
MOTION.
-
THE COURT REFUSES TO RULE ON THE QUESTION OF WHETHER PLAINTIFFS APPEAL RIGHTS HAVE RUN ON
THE GROUND THAT THE ISSUE IS PROPERLY DECIDED BY THE COURT OF APPEAL AND IS NOT PROPERLY BEFORE
THIS COURT.
-
EVEN IF THE MOTION HAD BEEN TIMELY, THE COURT WOULD DENY THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION ON THE
GROUND THAT PLAINTIFF HAS FAILED TO SHOW THAT HER FAILURE TO PRESENT THE NEW FACTS TO THE COURT
OCCURRED DESPITE HER DILIGENCE GIVEN THAT COUNSEL HAD POSSESSION OF THESE FACTS ON MARCH
1, 2011-TWO DAYS BEFORE THE HEARING AND THE FACTS WERE THOSE THAT WERE PRESUMABLY WITHIN
PLAINTIFFS PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE BEFORE THAT DATE.
-
EVEN IF THE MOTION HAD BEEN TIMELY, THE COURT WOULD DENY THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION TO THE
EXTENT THAT IT IS BROUGHT BASED ON THE CLAIMED EX PARTE CONTACT ON THE GROUND THAT PLAINTIFFS
COUNSEL APPEARED AT THE HEARING AND WAS ABLE TO ARGUE THE MERITS OF HER OPPOSITION AND SO
SUFFERED NO PREJUDICE FROM ANY EARLIER ARGUMENT MADE BEFORE THE COURT REALIZED THAT SHE HAD
SOUGHT TO HAVE THE HEARING HEARD AT A LATER TIME.
-
COUNSEL STIPULATE TO THE NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT OF MARCH 3, 2011 WAS NOT FILED.
-
ATTACHED TENTATIVE RULING OF THE COURT IS ORDERED INCORPORATED INTO THE MINUTE ORDER AND REFERENCED
AS THOUGH FULLY SET FORTH HEREIN.
ACTION - COMPLETE

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

FRANK GAFKOWSKI, JUDGE [DEMURRER TO ONLY AMENDED COMPLAINT]
CLERK: JESSICA HAZEL
COURT REPORTER KATHY SELLERS KATHY SELLERS
COURT ATTENDANT ROBERT DELGADO
-
APPEARANCES:
ATTORNEY CHRISTINE BACHMAN PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER.
ATTORNEY EUGENE RAMIREZ AND BRANDON TAKAHASHI PRESENT FOR COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO.
ATTORNEY RICHARD MARCA PRESENT FOR DISTRICT ATTORNEY MICHAEL A RAMOS.
-
PROCEEDINGS:
PREDISPOSITION HEARING HELD
-
MOTION
COPY OF COURTS TENITIVE RULING GIVEN TO COUNSEL
DISTRICT ATTORNEY MICHAEL A. RAMOS'S MOTION TO DEMURRER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT IS HEARD.
ARGUED BY COUNSEL AND SUBMITTED.
-
COURT FINDS:
DEMURRER SUSTAINED.
WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND, GROUNDS OF -.
ATTACHED NOTICE OF COURTS RULING IS ORDERED INCORPORATED INTO THE MINUTE ORDER AND REFERENCED
AS THOUGH FULLY SET FORTH HEREIN.
ACTION - COMPLETE"

Blogger Bob's comments:

1. In civil rights cases, since when is the question of whether there are enough facts decided in a demurrer? Isn't that something reserved for summary judgment motions after some discovery (e.g. depositions or testimony under oath) is taken? Besides, since when does a civil rights plaintiff only get ONE chance to amend her complaint in this County? Wierd stuff. Preferential treatment for Ramos it seems.

2. What happened to the proposed judgment? Was it signed and filed the date of the demurrer hearing, five days later as the "Access" docket suggests or later??It seems the Court signed a proposed judgment and it got lost in the clerk's office. Who and when the notice of entry of judgment was filed and served is unclear--which typically are necessary events to pin down as those events trigger various statute of limitations and or filing periods;

3. If the demurrer was granted on March 3, 2011, certain State Rules of Court kick in; California Rules of Court 3.1312 requires the proposed judgment be sent by the prevailing party within 5 days of the ruling from the bench (3/3/2011) and THEN under that same rule, the losing party has five days to notify the prevailing party that prepared (and proposed) order is approved or not ...... If there are differences, the court needs to be told what they area and THEN the judge typically signs the judgment and THEN it is served, thereby triggering appeal periods.

4. Under California Rule of Court 3.1312, the steps in No. 3 above are mandatory --the Rule uses the word "must"--so why wasn't Ristow's due process rights protected? More Ramos love?

5. So Reiss does not feel too picked on, I had a similar wierd experience, but I went after that judge's mentor in an election. More Ramos love?

Cabrialas Gets Slammed for Potential Conflict of Interest--Why Wasn't Mitzelfelt??

In the world of what is and is not a conflict of interest, I am forever learning that being a protected and sacred cow appears to be the key. Victorville Mayor Pro Tem Rudy Cabriallas gets criticized by the Fair Political Practices Commission for his wife allegedly taking something akin to a commission for contracts apparently awarded to Hispanic Chamber of Commerce members that Rudy Cabriallas' vote had something to do with (whether true or not is for smarter people than I to figure out). Rex Guttierrez gets a do-little job at the Assessor's Office courtesy of Postmus and allegedly some developers and he goes to jail after two trials. Adam Aleman gets work-on-politics-on-taxpayer-money job courtesy of Postmus and he gets charged, pleads guilty and may yet face jail. Brad Mitzelfelt's wife gets a do-little-because-development-is-pretty-dead-right-now-for-a-high-figure-salary job involving real estate issues (wasn't her background, like Zook & Watson the newspaper business?) and no one seems to care (admittedly she did quit it eventually but didn't Rex also quit). Brad Mitzelfelt's boss, Postmus, is up to his gills in "guilty pleas" on abuses of public office. Why is Brad Mitzelfelt while chief of staff at the supervisor's office and the person to whom Aleman & Guttierrez reported at various points in time, living such a charmed (and uncharged) existence? Does anyone think that Postmus, who was a meth user, had the focus to run the machine all the time--esp during his hospitalizations? Mitzelfelt and two ex-deputy deputy sheriffs (on staff as field reps) didn't know of the illegal activities?? Yeah right.....

Halstead Political Sign Prosecution Mercifully Over--Now We Need to Ask Ramos Why Did he Waste Staff on a $2.00 sign??

Larry ("Lawrence") Halstead, local (to Barstow) democratic political activist and former candidate for the Barstow City council, was cited in December of 2008 with petty theft for allegedly taking the then-Barstow Mayor Dale's $2.00 re-election sign and wooden stake out of the ground on election day. The "he done it" witness, a staunch Dale supporter allegedly saw Larry doing the deed by looking out of his/her rear view mirror a football field away. Putting aside the historical acrimony between now former Mayor Dale and Mr. Halstead (and Halstead's steadfast denials of doing the deed), the DA's office prosecuted Mr. Halstead for a little less than 2 1/2 years (13 scheduled pre-trials and 6 trial days) under PC 484A (the shoplifting statute). Result, while the jury was out, Mr. Halstead reports, the case "settled" on an infraction on a no contest basis (the loud public noise charge--funny that Judge apparently suggested that). If anyone wonders why there have been budget cuts to essential staff & related support at the DA's office, take a look at People v Halstead (MBA 8011856) and ask Mike Ramos why oh why was this even filed? Good news--Larry picked up 3 more friends on Facebook (3 of the jurors in his case). Bad news, the case probably cost the taxpayers $20,000 in court & DA staff time.