Does the Colonies Case Decision Recognize Key Players like DA Mike Ramos might be if not a Material Witness, a potential Co-conspirator??

One of the many articles written by the local press [See: http://www.highdesert.com/articles/return-44292-vvdailypress-san-bribery.html -- article on the Colonies case], shows how the watchdog role of the press [See http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lionel-rolfe/whats-wrong-with-todays-j_b_4516013.html?utm_hp_ref=los-angeles&ir=Los+Angeles for recent discussion] is a dead concept in this County and part of the reason we have local government in San Bernardino County running out of control--no one is asking the tough questions.
.
With federal racketeering charges timely added to the complaint (which is not the first time I have referenced that additional approach), the appeal would have likely been unnecessary in the Colonies corruption case and golly gee, had "conspiracy" after the bribe been pled by the DA's office (re alleged cover up efforts), the Supreme Court would likely not have had to step in.
.

What the Court in People v Biane, et al (the Colonies corruption case) said [and the following appears to be the trigger analysis]:  "[h]ere, as in Calhoun,supra, 46 Cal.2d at page 30,the indictment alleges that Burum and Erwin participated in a conspiracy that was more elaborate than the mere agreement that a particular bribe be accepted, but involved and depended on the conduct of numerous parties to ensure that at least three supervisors be influenced to approve the $102 million litigation settlement".

What makes this realization so key, is that Mike Ramos has been accused of using his office's powers and or his influence to intimidate/coerce public figures in the County, which is what he is accusing Burum (a former ally of DA Mike Ramos) of doing [e.g. people thinking about running against Mike Ramos like former DA Dennis Stout backing out and stating on the record in 2010 that his clients were being threatened if he (Stout) ran and more recently, there are the allegations of Frank Guzman, who ran against Ramos in 2010 who had to face a frivolous lawsuit (filed by allegedly an ally of Mike Ramos) roughly a month before the June 2010 election (an action tossed out by the court "after" the election), going after Supervisor Neil Derry for a failure to disclose payments in a campaign report on the eve of an election challenge by a long time supporter and friend, San Manuel tribal leader James Ramos, while Mike Ramos skated on his failure to report payments to his ex-wife--just to name a few].
.

Through all of the bribery acts, who is a constant figure throughout and is STILL in office?
.