In the San Bernardino Sun July 29, 2011 article entitled Judge to continue review of stay in SB County lawsuit [by Sandra Emerson Staff Writer] posted: 07/29/2011 04:37:30 PM PDT [See http://www.sbsun.com/sbcountywatch/ci_18579654] the County DA's office is recommending the San Bernardino County Flood Control District lawsuit be stayed ["Both cases (the civil recovery & criminal)have received a significant amount of publicity in San Bernardino County and it could be highly prejudicial to the prosecution or the defense if such finding were made in advance of the trial in the criminal case," Hackleman said. Hackleman said there is also concern that findings in the civil case could become the subject of the criminal proceedings. Discovery in the civil case will overlap with the criminal case, including but not limited to the depositions of some or all of the criminal defendants and material witnesses"]
.
Blogger Bob's comments:
(1) Why should the indemnity case be stayed? Are the criminal defendants charged but not convicted asking for a stay? Nope.
(2) If the case has merit, pursue it and get the money back. What is Janice Rutherford worried about (a competent prosecution team in the civil case finding her out)?
(3) If it doesn't have merit dismiss it.
(4) I think an OSC re dismissal is what some federal judges might do (I know this is a state court case, but San Diego has been progressive in case calender management).
(5) Frankly with a different burden of proof in civil cases, the County might get some money back now and not have to wait for the ever foot-dragging persona of the DA's public integrity unit to get out of its own way.
(6)I think the DA is maybe worried that their star witnesses, when vetted in front of a San Diego County jury, will not be credible (heck many are felons, some with histories of drug addiction and some with public statements denying any wrongdoing--some might call that uncharged perjury), which may weaken their chances on any of the remaining criminal prosecutions.
(7) Shouldn't the $20 million in taxpayer's money for legal fees come to some fruition now? Given the obvious problem the DA's office is getting these cases to disposition (the State AG's office has brought people in to help), you'd think, if the cases against the charged defendants had merit, they'd welcome the help of the lawyers prosecuting the civil case.
Showing posts with label Mark Kirk. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mark Kirk. Show all posts
Tuesday, August 9, 2011
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Local 'clown' faces three years for threatening to rape Bell city clerk & a milktoast grand jury report
ET Snell gets in trouble again, but with that said, he was another person who asked questions about this County's corrupted leadership. In expanding his reach to the embattled City of Bell, despite risks to his health/disability,he ran across a city clerk that enraged him/her him and words were allegedly spoken that somehow did not pass 1st amendment muster [See article @: Local 'clown' faces three years for threatening to rape Bell city clerk | threatening, clown, three - High Desert News].
.
Heh, did anyone read the grand jury report that just came out? If you read the report you'd never know that this county has developed as one of the worst pay-to-play environments in the country, a county with top elected officials indicted (and in some instances convicted) and what was even more remarkable, is no discussion about recommended steps to catch future missteps before they mature into District Attorney fodder.
.
On the 300 page transcript that was not given to two of the four defendants assuming it was not "copied" despite it being proscribed by the Government Code (See July 5, 2011 Press Enterprise article @ http://www.pe.com/localnews/stories/PE_News_Local_D_colonies02.3f3acba.html, relating that the failure to deliver a 300 page volume of transcript caused a delay in arraignment from July 8, 2011 to August 19, 2011), has anyone ever heard of a court reporter scanning onto PDF format the transcript and emailing it? Does the reasoning sound a tad bit pretextual to anyone except me? August 19, 2011 to appear and plead?
.
Heh, did anyone read the grand jury report that just came out? If you read the report you'd never know that this county has developed as one of the worst pay-to-play environments in the country, a county with top elected officials indicted (and in some instances convicted) and what was even more remarkable, is no discussion about recommended steps to catch future missteps before they mature into District Attorney fodder.
.
On the 300 page transcript that was not given to two of the four defendants assuming it was not "copied" despite it being proscribed by the Government Code (See July 5, 2011 Press Enterprise article @ http://www.pe.com/localnews/stories/PE_News_Local_D_colonies02.3f3acba.html, relating that the failure to deliver a 300 page volume of transcript caused a delay in arraignment from July 8, 2011 to August 19, 2011), has anyone ever heard of a court reporter scanning onto PDF format the transcript and emailing it? Does the reasoning sound a tad bit pretextual to anyone except me? August 19, 2011 to appear and plead?
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?
Monday, March 28, 2011
Postmus Pleads Guilty to 15 Counts--DA Finds Way to Muzzle Postmus?
An effective strategy to muffling Postmus relating his alleged inside information on some of the DA's office's misconduct/malicious motives is to chase off private defense counsel with aggressive litigation tactics, leave the defendant with counsel he may not have full confidence in to try the case (and even if he did, not the resources to fight a protracted battle) and force him to plead guilty to 15 counts with no sentencing on any of the charges [http://www.pe.com/localnews/stories/postmus29.22d084feb.html] so if the DA does not like what Postmus testifies to, the DA recommends to the judge ringing Postmus up for a max sentence?--Isn't that rather like burying testimony you don't want to come out and buying what you do want to come out? Isn't that censoring content? Who is the gatekeeper on Postmus' memory? Isn't that also bomb-proofing yourself against the potential damage from a material witness' testimony against you? Certainly Postmus painted a target on himself over the years and made moral judgment errors, but he made a mistake. When he did what he did, he wasn't the elected DA. Heh--imagine the Colonies' defense--"the County's prosecution against us was only possible after they found three convicted felons who were willing to lie again (this time against us)". Wow
Sunday, April 4, 2010
RAMOS SLEEPING AT THE HELM OR COVERING HIS BUDDIES
When news of additional corruption in San Bernardino County breaks almost every day (and the source of the information is from some source OTHER than the San Bernardino County District Attorney's Office and Mike Ramos), you have to believe something is wrong with the so-called protector of our rights and safety (Ramos)! Yesterday, we hear the San Bernardino County Health Department, who was criticized by the County Grand jury in 2008-2009, is now being investigated by the DOJ, not Ramos. Now we hear of Uffer's pre-lawsuit claim (Uffer the former CEO of the County fired by the current Board of Supervisors) where in 180 pages he details at least three no-bid contracts and how that happened, ten purchase orders for the marketing of Chino airport awarded without bidding on the grounds there wasn't time totaling more than $800,000, Ovitt's Chief of Staff (Mark Kirk) pushing Uffer to hire two firms employing Ovitt's friend Steve PonTell, the hiring of Friends of Bill Postmus(none of which qualified for the positions they were hired into) and Postmus (then the board chairman), who insisted that his personal attorney act as interim county counsel (like no conflict of interest there--egad, no telling how much confidential data was leaked out for the profit and benefit of bidders, developers and permit applicants). This county leadership team is messed up. Help on June 8 is possible with your vote. Keep Ramos in and be a laughing stock or change to someone who has been hollering about the corruption for years!!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)