The federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act provides criminal and civil penalties for wrongfully accessing a computer to do harmful things [maybe some of the hard drive damage done by some of Postmus' assessor buds triggers liability under this law??]
.
While the CFAA has been used by companies against departing company employees who improperly delete, alter or take information, the CFAA also can apply when companies access competitors' websites to for competitive benefit in violation of websites' terms of service, creating fictitious profiles to snoop about what people are doing online or wrongfully access people's paid online subscription services [wonder if this may include Mitzelfelt's accessing county records to generate a label list for his political mailers while a sitting county supervisor?].
.
CFAA §1030(g) provides for a civil remedy and requires a $5,000 loss. In addition to compensatory damages, the injured plaintiff can seek injunctive relief or other equitable relief. The statute appears short (losses within one year of the action's filing)
.
A "loss" counting toward the $5,000 threshold under CFAA is not stolen intellectual property, regardless of its value, nor are privacy invasions and/or personally identifiable information, regardless of how valuable. The "damage" must be a "cost"
to the victim like the costs to investigate, respond or remedy the damage the violation caused to the data or computer, any interruption of service, any fees a computer forensics firm charges to secure the violated computer or to investigate the damage caused to the computer and restore lost or damaged data.
.
A nice link and more detailed treatment of the statute and tactics is found at http://www.law.com/jsp/cc/PubArticleCC.jsp?id=1202537182389&rss=cc as is the email address of the attorney in Texas who wrote the infomative article.
.
Definitely a "thinking-out-of-the-box" tool.
Showing posts with label Brad Mitzelfelt. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Brad Mitzelfelt. Show all posts
Friday, January 13, 2012
Friday, November 11, 2011
WHY ISN'T RAMOS INVESTIGATING NURSERY PRODUCTS & the COUNTY OFFICIALS INVOLVED??
.
Nursery Products (the proponent of the sludge-to-agricultural-grade-composting operation) argues in a declaration filed in Case No. BCVBS 09950 they cannot pay their legal obligations to the Center for Biological Diversity [an attorney fee judgment (reduced to a settlement agreement) arising from the CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) litigation involving the sludge to agricultural grade compost operation they want to put upwind from Hinkley and Barstow].
.
There is apparently a judgment debtor exam scheduled--that should be interesting!!
.
The issues as Blogger Bob sees it ???
.
1. Why did the County approve this apparently undercapitalized operation dealing with waste products? [if there is a spill or a release of contaminants, they don't have apparently the money, so did they lie in their application to the county, not that Mitzelfelt who told the Sun he wanted to find Nursery Products a location in Hinkley after they got booted out of Adelanto, would care??]
.
2. Who is paying for their lawyers to constantly fight this? [since paying legal fees is not what their business lender (reference to a "Small Business Association" loan)can pay--who are the shadowy characters behind this? Isn't it illegal to use surrogates in the permit application process where public health and safety issues are involved and financial capacity is a major issue??
.
3. Who is really behind this sludge dumping operation? Someone has to have paid for the multiple sets of lawyers hired and if the HelpHinkley.org and Center for Biological Diversity lawyers' fees were roughly $400,000 for one set of lawyers, who is paying Nursery Products' three sets of lawyers (fees could be in the millions)??
.
4. Who on the Board of Supervisors has taken campaign contributions from Meberg, Nursery Products or their lawyers in exchange for their votes (Supervisor Rutherford voted to approve Nursery Products' conditional use permit admitting she had not read the application package or the oppositions to it, so maybe she is just stupid and thinks its ok to require sludge to composting operations to be covered and biofiltered in her part of the court, but not for the High Desert)?
.
5. If Nursery Products can't pay their legal bills now, is it a stretch to imagine they can ever run this right!
Nursery Products (the proponent of the sludge-to-agricultural-grade-composting operation) argues in a declaration filed in Case No. BCVBS 09950 they cannot pay their legal obligations to the Center for Biological Diversity [an attorney fee judgment (reduced to a settlement agreement) arising from the CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) litigation involving the sludge to agricultural grade compost operation they want to put upwind from Hinkley and Barstow].
.
There is apparently a judgment debtor exam scheduled--that should be interesting!!
.
The issues as Blogger Bob sees it ???
.
1. Why did the County approve this apparently undercapitalized operation dealing with waste products? [if there is a spill or a release of contaminants, they don't have apparently the money, so did they lie in their application to the county, not that Mitzelfelt who told the Sun he wanted to find Nursery Products a location in Hinkley after they got booted out of Adelanto, would care??]
.
2. Who is paying for their lawyers to constantly fight this? [since paying legal fees is not what their business lender (reference to a "Small Business Association" loan)can pay--who are the shadowy characters behind this? Isn't it illegal to use surrogates in the permit application process where public health and safety issues are involved and financial capacity is a major issue??
.
3. Who is really behind this sludge dumping operation? Someone has to have paid for the multiple sets of lawyers hired and if the HelpHinkley.org and Center for Biological Diversity lawyers' fees were roughly $400,000 for one set of lawyers, who is paying Nursery Products' three sets of lawyers (fees could be in the millions)??
.
4. Who on the Board of Supervisors has taken campaign contributions from Meberg, Nursery Products or their lawyers in exchange for their votes (Supervisor Rutherford voted to approve Nursery Products' conditional use permit admitting she had not read the application package or the oppositions to it, so maybe she is just stupid and thinks its ok to require sludge to composting operations to be covered and biofiltered in her part of the court, but not for the High Desert)?
.
5. If Nursery Products can't pay their legal bills now, is it a stretch to imagine they can ever run this right!
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
WHY BRAD MITZELFELT HAS NO BUSINESS BEING A SUPERVISOR FOR the 1st DISTRICT of SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
"On October 12th, 2011, 16-year-old Armando Ramirez was cleaning out a tunnel at Community Recycling and Resource Recovery, Inc., a large scale waste facility in Lamont, California when he collapsed, suddenly overcome by hydrogen sulfide. Hydrogen sulfide is a toxic gas that attacks the central nervous system and is produced when facilities improperly compost organic waste. Armando's 22-year-old brother, Eladio attempted to rescue Armando but was overcome by the fumes himself.
Armando died before he reached the hospital. Eladio was pronounced brain-dead and died two days later after being removed from life support. Family members reported that the brothers were not provided with any safety protection other than a flimsy painter's mask and rubber boots.
Since opening in 1993, Community Resource and Recycling has repeatedly been fined and cited for violating local and state regulations. Local residents and state politicians are now asking the County to close the facility.
Please join us in protecting this community and sign the petition on Change.org
http://www.change.org/petitions/kern-..."
Blogger Bob's comments: You say so what? Well, this very type of facility was approved by the County of San Bernardino for construction in the High Desert, by a company with a history of complaints in its Adelanto operation (which was shut down). The project would be illegal if it were built in the South Coast Air Quality Management District, which four of the other County Supervisorial Districts are principally covered by, so what does Brad the Toad do, he finds a place in the High Desert for one of his and his former boss' (Postmus) contributors.
Armando died before he reached the hospital. Eladio was pronounced brain-dead and died two days later after being removed from life support. Family members reported that the brothers were not provided with any safety protection other than a flimsy painter's mask and rubber boots.
Since opening in 1993, Community Resource and Recycling has repeatedly been fined and cited for violating local and state regulations. Local residents and state politicians are now asking the County to close the facility.
Please join us in protecting this community and sign the petition on Change.org
http://www.change.org/petitions/kern-..."
Blogger Bob's comments: You say so what? Well, this very type of facility was approved by the County of San Bernardino for construction in the High Desert, by a company with a history of complaints in its Adelanto operation (which was shut down). The project would be illegal if it were built in the South Coast Air Quality Management District, which four of the other County Supervisorial Districts are principally covered by, so what does Brad the Toad do, he finds a place in the High Desert for one of his and his former boss' (Postmus) contributors.
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
Nursery Products,Brad Mitzelfelt,Gary Ovitt and Janice Rutherford Screw the High Desert Again!! Environmental Justice be Damned!!
After the Court Ordered the County of San Bernardino to vacate and set aside all approvals made on July 13, 2010 for the Nursery Products Composting Facility located in the unincorporated areas of Hinkley including: (1) certification of the environmental impact report and supplemental environmental impact report, (2) the approval of the conditional use permit, (3) the adoption of the findings, (4) approval of the statement of overriding considerations, and (5) the approval of the Mitigation and Reporting program, Vice-Chairman (Vice seems to be a fit don't you think?) Brad Mitzelfelt (who pushed the Nursery Products project when he was Chief of Staff to now-disgraced Bill Postmus and does not live in the High Desert but in the remote mountains of Wrightwood), 4th District Supervisor Gary C. Ovitt (who has a covered/enclosed sludge to compost project in his district but did not think the high desert deserved one!)and 2nd District Supervisor Janice Rutherford (after admitting she knew little about the project) voted to vacate items (1)-(5), then re-approved (1)-(5) AND simultaneously denied HelpHinkley.org's appeal (remarkable not only in the fact the appeal is ruled on at the same time as a decision is made to reinstate the decisions the court ordered be vacated [items (1)-(5)], but HelpHinkley.org had not filed an appeal--the time for it had not even started to run!)
.
First, to most people, appeals have to be made AFTER a decision is made--nor at the same time, otherwise, why have an appeal?Also, usually a party has to file an appeal. HelpHinkley.org hadn't.
Second, that is not the worst of it. After taking evidence and testimony yesterday, Supervisor Mitzelfelt said "he would not consider any of the testimony and materials submitted that day (of the hearing)"-So why have a hearing? Why invite the public to speak? What was the appeal considering record-wise? Just the supplemental report of the applicant, HelpHinkley.org? Where is the fairness in that?
.
Third, Supervisors Mitzelfelt, Ovitt and Rutherford further ignored the complaints that (i) the time to act had run, raising a jurisdictional question for the Board (the Board of Supervisors had until September 9, 2011 to comply with the Court's order -yesterdays hearing was 2 weeks late), (ii) Mitzelfelt had a conflict of interest voting on the project as an appellate "judge" as he had promised Nursery Products he'd locate a site in Hinkley after they were chased out of Adelanto, (iii) the notice of the hearing was defective under the California Environmental Quality Act and County Codes and (iv) the County failed to provide a comment period on the water assessment report prepared by Nursery Products that they claimed answered the Court's and the Mojave Water Agency's concerns. All concerns expressed, but never addressed.
.
Fourth, Nursery Products and the County used a "Centro Sub Basin" analysis to claim there was enough water--the basin they referred to was not the Harper-West Hinkley area, but the area which encompassed all of Barstow, Newberry, Daggett, Yermo and points in between. This is worst sort of deception by our leaders and Nursery Products especially since the recharge from the Mojave to Harper Lake was estimated by the Mojave Water Agency to be only 22 acre feet per year (through the Water Valley-Red Hill corridor).
.
The last court order in this ongoing CEQA battle was in significant part in response to a Mojave Water Agency comment letter saying there was insufficient evidence to show that a 900-1,000 gallon per day estimate water use was going to be adequate for an eight employee operation (with up to another 80 incoming drivers per day), covering 80 acres (the area authorized for composting operations) which would take, six days per week up to 1,100 tons of sludge (per day) in the specific area of this project, not the entire Mojave River BELOW Hinkley and there was no evidence the area could support that type of use, assuming it was true.
.
Despite a record being presented that was factual & documentary in the shortened and inadequate time given (which undermined Nursery Product's contentions), the crowd was called "emotional".
.
When the issue of environmental justice was again raised (e.g. the sludge-to-compost operation in Ovitt's District is covered and the West Valley of San Bernardino, which is in the South Coast Basin Air Quality Management District, requires these facilities be covered), it was ignored (again!)
.
I know the grand jury is busy, but this sure is the type of abusive governmental behavior someone should be looking at!
.
First, to most people, appeals have to be made AFTER a decision is made--nor at the same time, otherwise, why have an appeal?Also, usually a party has to file an appeal. HelpHinkley.org hadn't.
Second, that is not the worst of it. After taking evidence and testimony yesterday, Supervisor Mitzelfelt said "he would not consider any of the testimony and materials submitted that day (of the hearing)"-So why have a hearing? Why invite the public to speak? What was the appeal considering record-wise? Just the supplemental report of the applicant, HelpHinkley.org? Where is the fairness in that?
.
Third, Supervisors Mitzelfelt, Ovitt and Rutherford further ignored the complaints that (i) the time to act had run, raising a jurisdictional question for the Board (the Board of Supervisors had until September 9, 2011 to comply with the Court's order -yesterdays hearing was 2 weeks late), (ii) Mitzelfelt had a conflict of interest voting on the project as an appellate "judge" as he had promised Nursery Products he'd locate a site in Hinkley after they were chased out of Adelanto, (iii) the notice of the hearing was defective under the California Environmental Quality Act and County Codes and (iv) the County failed to provide a comment period on the water assessment report prepared by Nursery Products that they claimed answered the Court's and the Mojave Water Agency's concerns. All concerns expressed, but never addressed.
.
Fourth, Nursery Products and the County used a "Centro Sub Basin" analysis to claim there was enough water--the basin they referred to was not the Harper-West Hinkley area, but the area which encompassed all of Barstow, Newberry, Daggett, Yermo and points in between. This is worst sort of deception by our leaders and Nursery Products especially since the recharge from the Mojave to Harper Lake was estimated by the Mojave Water Agency to be only 22 acre feet per year (through the Water Valley-Red Hill corridor).
.
The last court order in this ongoing CEQA battle was in significant part in response to a Mojave Water Agency comment letter saying there was insufficient evidence to show that a 900-1,000 gallon per day estimate water use was going to be adequate for an eight employee operation (with up to another 80 incoming drivers per day), covering 80 acres (the area authorized for composting operations) which would take, six days per week up to 1,100 tons of sludge (per day) in the specific area of this project, not the entire Mojave River BELOW Hinkley and there was no evidence the area could support that type of use, assuming it was true.
.
Despite a record being presented that was factual & documentary in the shortened and inadequate time given (which undermined Nursery Product's contentions), the crowd was called "emotional".
.
When the issue of environmental justice was again raised (e.g. the sludge-to-compost operation in Ovitt's District is covered and the West Valley of San Bernardino, which is in the South Coast Basin Air Quality Management District, requires these facilities be covered), it was ignored (again!)
.
I know the grand jury is busy, but this sure is the type of abusive governmental behavior someone should be looking at!
Sunday, August 21, 2011
Brad Mitzelfelt Stoned? Sick?
At the Barstow Harvey House 100th Anniversary Celebration yesterday, it was reported by an informed source that 1st District Supervisor Brad Mitzelfelt while making a speech at the Harvey House Celebration, was wearing dark sunglasses, was shaking and nervously reading his speech from note cards [just another bad day in the 1st District?].
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
Spanky's, LLC, Wonderful Memories Child Care Center Inc, Greater High Desert Investments, LLC & Educational Development, Inc -- Mitzelfelt funnels?
(1) Educational Development, Inc with a corporate address of 14653 Airbase Road, Mountain Home, Idaho, lists in Articles of Incorporation filed that John Dino Defazio is "the Incorporator" & the "registered agent"; if its the same guy that has been indicted in San Bernardino County (and a Postmus ally), what is a real estate broker with alleged ties to charter schools in San Bernardino County doing creating an educational business in Idaho?? What money was funding that corporation? What money did it spend? Who did it go to?
(2) Spanky's, LLC (with a mailing address on the Idaho Secretary of State website of 12127 Mall Blvd, Suite A, Victorville and a physical office address of 101 Convention Center Drive, Las Vegas) was started February 2, 2007 & lists a Jessie Flores as the "registered agent" in Idaho with an address of 14653 Airbase Road, Mountain Home, Idaho; if it is the same Jessie Flores that was Postmus' staffer (and later Mitzelfelt's field rep), what was the purpose of this enterprise? Was any of his possible ownership interest disclosed on his FPPC 700 forms?
(3) Wonderful Memories Child Care Center, Inc (with a principal office address on the Idaho Secretary of State website of 930 South 4th Street, Las Vegas, Nevada), shows Jessie Flores as the registered agent at a Mountain Home, Idaho address--incorporation date 7/23/2004. The Jessie Flores is reported as the corporation's director, president & treasurer. If it is the same Jessie Flores that was Postmus' staffer (and later Mitzelfelt's field rep), what was the purpose of this enterprise? Was any of his possible ownership interest disclosed on his FPPC 700 form(s)? Why would a staffer, covering the biggest district in the County, have time for these side treks to Idaho to set up companies suggesting child care services were to be provided? Speaking of time, whose time and money went into this organizational venture ? What was the business of this Investment enterprise? Who was involved? How was it capitalized? What did it spend and on what?
(4) Greater High Desert Investments, LLC was created August 11, 2008 with its initial address of 930 South 4th #150, Las Vegas; the initial registered agent was a William Flores. Also listed as a member or manager of the LLC is the same William Flores; the principle office of the LLC--you guessed it ,Airbase Road, Mountain Home, Idaho; any relationship or involvement of the Jessie Flores working/who worked for Bill Postmus & Mitzelfelt? What was the business of this investment enterprise? Who was involved? How was it capitalized? What did it spend and on what?
(2) Spanky's, LLC (with a mailing address on the Idaho Secretary of State website of 12127 Mall Blvd, Suite A, Victorville and a physical office address of 101 Convention Center Drive, Las Vegas) was started February 2, 2007 & lists a Jessie Flores as the "registered agent" in Idaho with an address of 14653 Airbase Road, Mountain Home, Idaho; if it is the same Jessie Flores that was Postmus' staffer (and later Mitzelfelt's field rep), what was the purpose of this enterprise? Was any of his possible ownership interest disclosed on his FPPC 700 forms?
(3) Wonderful Memories Child Care Center, Inc (with a principal office address on the Idaho Secretary of State website of 930 South 4th Street, Las Vegas, Nevada), shows Jessie Flores as the registered agent at a Mountain Home, Idaho address--incorporation date 7/23/2004. The Jessie Flores is reported as the corporation's director, president & treasurer. If it is the same Jessie Flores that was Postmus' staffer (and later Mitzelfelt's field rep), what was the purpose of this enterprise? Was any of his possible ownership interest disclosed on his FPPC 700 form(s)? Why would a staffer, covering the biggest district in the County, have time for these side treks to Idaho to set up companies suggesting child care services were to be provided? Speaking of time, whose time and money went into this organizational venture ? What was the business of this Investment enterprise? Who was involved? How was it capitalized? What did it spend and on what?
(4) Greater High Desert Investments, LLC was created August 11, 2008 with its initial address of 930 South 4th #150, Las Vegas; the initial registered agent was a William Flores. Also listed as a member or manager of the LLC is the same William Flores; the principle office of the LLC--you guessed it ,Airbase Road, Mountain Home, Idaho; any relationship or involvement of the Jessie Flores working/who worked for Bill Postmus & Mitzelfelt? What was the business of this investment enterprise? Who was involved? How was it capitalized? What did it spend and on what?
Friday, June 24, 2011
Brad Mitzelfelt @ the Helm -- Does Anyone Smell a Long Term & Coordinated Land Grab in the Making??
Some food for thought for our million dollar man, Brad Mitzelfelt:
1. Litigation between VVEDA [Victor Valley Economic Authority--a interim step to what was rumored to be Terry Caldwell's & Jim Cox's dream of creating a supercity for the High Desert, which absorbed Adelanto, Hesperia, Phelan & Apple Valley under Victorville's leadership's control] & Adelanto; the litigation between VVEDA & Adelanto ends after an election changes the council mix to a pro-Victorville cadre, the water consultant for the Adelanto side in the Adelanto v VVEDA lawsuit (the former 3rd in command in the US EPA) mysteriously dies in his home before the case was to come to trial and the new Adelanto City leadership appoint an attorney to replace the attorney battling for Adelanto; the newly elected Adelanto City team appears to cave on the VVEDA litigation over the base/water rights despite Air Force records showing the U.S. Government considered Adelanto to be the owner of the water rights under the former Air Force base footprint (and in fact paid them for the water used!); shortly thereafter, Hesperia & Apple Valley pull out of VVEDA; Victorville develops the base, gives access to water for the power plant, makes plans for a power plant, gives water rights to a bottling plant(& the beat goes on).
P.S.
(A) Brad Mitzelfelt mentioned in the most recent County Supervisorial District Redistricting Workshop on June 17, 2011, that the Victor Valley should stay together because of the serious dialogue "about becoming one city"--mmh...revival or a continued battle plan??
(B) I served on an George AFB closure committee in the early 1990s where there were reports of all sorts of dangerous chemicals in the water from engine degreasing, JP-4 fuel additives, etc. I was inexplicably dropped off the Committee when I raised concerns about whether the plume was being properly characterized, the extent of the plume, where it was leaking into, what type of contaminants were involved (benzenes) & about low level radioactive waste (from medical equipment) tossed into the rip rap below the golf course potentially presenting a threat to the Mojave River; bad news about the water is not what Victorville wanted to hear;
2. MWA (the Mojave Water Agency, with an elected board that is far too developer & realtor friendly in this blogger's opinion) snatches up the pumping rights in a lawsuit against everyone using more than 10 acre feet a year along the Mojave River, whether or not the farmers & ranchers on the river could afford $75,000 to $100,000 in legal costs defending their water rights against being taken by MWA restrictions being imposed (which most could not afford); MWA takes control of pumping rights, implements ramp down penalties to family owned ranches and farms that did not plant until market prices changed and by that effectively seized historically owned water rights without compensation;
3. Victorville attempts to annex land along the Mojave via LAFCO, which Mitzelfelt serves on;
4. Victorville & Mitzelfelt push for the land swap with CEMEX for barren land to the North of the river which will involve, in order for there to be development, water from the Mojave basin
5. Adelanto's Re-Zones barren desert within its zone (which does not have enough water to develop)
6. San Bernardino County Flood Control does not repair the damage caused by runaway waters in their channels in the Oro Grande area, but instead is looking at getting a FEMA grant to buy everyone out and move them; Brad is pushing for the FEMA grant?
..
Common demon-inator. Brad Mitzelfelt (who sits on all the key boards, panels and commissions). What super Mensch(-es) does he serve? No one has ever done an in depth investigation into Brad Mitzelfelt's masters. Mitzelfelt is slick--in the middle of corruption & conflict of interest investigations, his wife gets reportedly a $80k/yr county job (she has now "quit"), he spent discretionary funds for political photo shoots for years (thankfully that just ended by a vote of the board), he muffles/chills potential critics (reporters) in the media by hiring them to serve on his field staff at salaries 2 to 3 times more than what they were getting paid working for their former employers, he was Postmus' chief of staff during all his tweeking & hospitalizations & aided in the cover-ups of the real Postmus. During the Colonies settlement process, who do you think ran the office and lobbied the other two members of the Board & their staff, yet Kirk gets prosecuted & Brad Mitzelfelt doesn't? Maybe its time for the mainstream media to ask the hard questions and quit lobbing soft pitches. Besides, what's with the bowl cut?
1. Litigation between VVEDA [Victor Valley Economic Authority--a interim step to what was rumored to be Terry Caldwell's & Jim Cox's dream of creating a supercity for the High Desert, which absorbed Adelanto, Hesperia, Phelan & Apple Valley under Victorville's leadership's control] & Adelanto; the litigation between VVEDA & Adelanto ends after an election changes the council mix to a pro-Victorville cadre, the water consultant for the Adelanto side in the Adelanto v VVEDA lawsuit (the former 3rd in command in the US EPA) mysteriously dies in his home before the case was to come to trial and the new Adelanto City leadership appoint an attorney to replace the attorney battling for Adelanto; the newly elected Adelanto City team appears to cave on the VVEDA litigation over the base/water rights despite Air Force records showing the U.S. Government considered Adelanto to be the owner of the water rights under the former Air Force base footprint (and in fact paid them for the water used!); shortly thereafter, Hesperia & Apple Valley pull out of VVEDA; Victorville develops the base, gives access to water for the power plant, makes plans for a power plant, gives water rights to a bottling plant(& the beat goes on).
P.S.
(A) Brad Mitzelfelt mentioned in the most recent County Supervisorial District Redistricting Workshop on June 17, 2011, that the Victor Valley should stay together because of the serious dialogue "about becoming one city"--mmh...revival or a continued battle plan??
(B) I served on an George AFB closure committee in the early 1990s where there were reports of all sorts of dangerous chemicals in the water from engine degreasing, JP-4 fuel additives, etc. I was inexplicably dropped off the Committee when I raised concerns about whether the plume was being properly characterized, the extent of the plume, where it was leaking into, what type of contaminants were involved (benzenes) & about low level radioactive waste (from medical equipment) tossed into the rip rap below the golf course potentially presenting a threat to the Mojave River; bad news about the water is not what Victorville wanted to hear;
2. MWA (the Mojave Water Agency, with an elected board that is far too developer & realtor friendly in this blogger's opinion) snatches up the pumping rights in a lawsuit against everyone using more than 10 acre feet a year along the Mojave River, whether or not the farmers & ranchers on the river could afford $75,000 to $100,000 in legal costs defending their water rights against being taken by MWA restrictions being imposed (which most could not afford); MWA takes control of pumping rights, implements ramp down penalties to family owned ranches and farms that did not plant until market prices changed and by that effectively seized historically owned water rights without compensation;
3. Victorville attempts to annex land along the Mojave via LAFCO, which Mitzelfelt serves on;
4. Victorville & Mitzelfelt push for the land swap with CEMEX for barren land to the North of the river which will involve, in order for there to be development, water from the Mojave basin
5. Adelanto's Re-Zones barren desert within its zone (which does not have enough water to develop)
6. San Bernardino County Flood Control does not repair the damage caused by runaway waters in their channels in the Oro Grande area, but instead is looking at getting a FEMA grant to buy everyone out and move them; Brad is pushing for the FEMA grant?
..
Common demon-inator. Brad Mitzelfelt (who sits on all the key boards, panels and commissions). What super Mensch(-es) does he serve? No one has ever done an in depth investigation into Brad Mitzelfelt's masters. Mitzelfelt is slick--in the middle of corruption & conflict of interest investigations, his wife gets reportedly a $80k/yr county job (she has now "quit"), he spent discretionary funds for political photo shoots for years (thankfully that just ended by a vote of the board), he muffles/chills potential critics (reporters) in the media by hiring them to serve on his field staff at salaries 2 to 3 times more than what they were getting paid working for their former employers, he was Postmus' chief of staff during all his tweeking & hospitalizations & aided in the cover-ups of the real Postmus. During the Colonies settlement process, who do you think ran the office and lobbied the other two members of the Board & their staff, yet Kirk gets prosecuted & Brad Mitzelfelt doesn't? Maybe its time for the mainstream media to ask the hard questions and quit lobbing soft pitches. Besides, what's with the bowl cut?
Monday, May 9, 2011
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.....
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Oh Where Oh Where has Mike Ramos gone? Another Charter School Disaster on his Watch?
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?
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?
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, January 31, 2011
Mitzelfelt,a public official, threatens to sue people for spreading rumors about his wife?? Huh?? Did Brad Just Get Hot Sticked or What??
According to the January 28, 2011 edition of the San Bernardino Sentinel [SBCSentinel@yahoo.com] in an article entitled "Supervisor Mitzelfelt Denies Nepotism Accusation":
..
“In January of 2007, the board of supervisors appointed a new supervisor to the board [i.e., Brad Mitzelfelt]. The spouse of the supervisor was introduced into employment within the supervisor’s district in August of 2007. I believe this contract that was approved violated the [California] Government Code 1090 to 1099, as the supervisor, by the hiring of a spouse, illegally obtained monetary compensation in the form of her salary due to this hiring.” Government Code section 1090 prohibits an elected official from participating in a decision in which he or she has a financial interest. Winkler further charged that Megan Blaney-Mitzelfelt’s hiring by the county, while Brad Mitzelfelt is in office, constituted an “unfair hiring practice under the laws of California, an equal opportunity employer.” In response to Winkler’s assertions, which were made during the public comment portion of the meeting, Brad Mitzelfelt said, “I had nothing to do with my wife getting her job. I’d suggest you get your news from more credible sources. I also want to put you on notice that anyone who spreads rumors about my wife will be sued by me.”
..
Blogger Bob's comments:
(1) Mrs. Mitzelfelt (who by the way appears to be a nice lady and I will assume for now is qualified for the position) was introduced early on in Brad's campaign as the horse loving spouse that stood (I just had one of his old campaign flyers in my hands--wierd timing) next to Brad; it would have been interesting to have known she worked for the Sun, in front of which Brad was going for an endorsement!
(2) I find Brad's perception of legal rights challenged at best (maybe that's from all those super-lawyers he's voted to hire)--since when does a public official have legal standing to sue for his wife's alleged defamation?? The plain and simple fact, is that he does not have that right--she might, depending on what is said, where and when assuming the Anti-SLAPP statute(s) do(es) not apply, but Mitzelfelt as a former media rep for the USMC and former chief of staff for a first district supervisor, knows that, so what can this little outburst be really reflective of? Surely Brad knows that the appearance of impropriety in these charged times can be everything, esp if it its a soft job. Heck didn't someone just get convicted (Rex Gutierrez) for having a job (that his former boss,also a first district supervisor) that he did not do much work at?
(3) Besides, unless Megan did not live at Mitzelfelt's house and used another name, don't ya think County HR knew who she was? Who would risk a career ender by not hiring Brad's wifey?
(4) As for the hiring and whether it was illegal or an unfair labor practice, it will be what it is, if the DA's office gets off its duff and scrutinzes this (opps-- I forgot, this is the same DA's office that endorsed Brad and visa versa);
(5) We know the union and or any personnel commission did not file an unfair labor practice when Mrs. M. was hired-- with the county being so broke, a number of wage hikes were not only approved by the Board of Supervisors shortly after Brad got in, but pushed through by Brad as its newest Chair--so was wifey's job (assuming for the sake of argument it was a challengable hire from a personnel commission and or unfair labor practice standpoint) grievance-proofed by the global deal he made sure was approved?
..
Where's Jeff Wright when you need to shake things up?
..
“In January of 2007, the board of supervisors appointed a new supervisor to the board [i.e., Brad Mitzelfelt]. The spouse of the supervisor was introduced into employment within the supervisor’s district in August of 2007. I believe this contract that was approved violated the [California] Government Code 1090 to 1099, as the supervisor, by the hiring of a spouse, illegally obtained monetary compensation in the form of her salary due to this hiring.” Government Code section 1090 prohibits an elected official from participating in a decision in which he or she has a financial interest. Winkler further charged that Megan Blaney-Mitzelfelt’s hiring by the county, while Brad Mitzelfelt is in office, constituted an “unfair hiring practice under the laws of California, an equal opportunity employer.” In response to Winkler’s assertions, which were made during the public comment portion of the meeting, Brad Mitzelfelt said, “I had nothing to do with my wife getting her job. I’d suggest you get your news from more credible sources. I also want to put you on notice that anyone who spreads rumors about my wife will be sued by me.”
..
Blogger Bob's comments:
(1) Mrs. Mitzelfelt (who by the way appears to be a nice lady and I will assume for now is qualified for the position) was introduced early on in Brad's campaign as the horse loving spouse that stood (I just had one of his old campaign flyers in my hands--wierd timing) next to Brad; it would have been interesting to have known she worked for the Sun, in front of which Brad was going for an endorsement!
(2) I find Brad's perception of legal rights challenged at best (maybe that's from all those super-lawyers he's voted to hire)--since when does a public official have legal standing to sue for his wife's alleged defamation?? The plain and simple fact, is that he does not have that right--she might, depending on what is said, where and when assuming the Anti-SLAPP statute(s) do(es) not apply, but Mitzelfelt as a former media rep for the USMC and former chief of staff for a first district supervisor, knows that, so what can this little outburst be really reflective of? Surely Brad knows that the appearance of impropriety in these charged times can be everything, esp if it its a soft job. Heck didn't someone just get convicted (Rex Gutierrez) for having a job (that his former boss,also a first district supervisor) that he did not do much work at?
(3) Besides, unless Megan did not live at Mitzelfelt's house and used another name, don't ya think County HR knew who she was? Who would risk a career ender by not hiring Brad's wifey?
(4) As for the hiring and whether it was illegal or an unfair labor practice, it will be what it is, if the DA's office gets off its duff and scrutinzes this (opps-- I forgot, this is the same DA's office that endorsed Brad and visa versa);
(5) We know the union and or any personnel commission did not file an unfair labor practice when Mrs. M. was hired-- with the county being so broke, a number of wage hikes were not only approved by the Board of Supervisors shortly after Brad got in, but pushed through by Brad as its newest Chair--so was wifey's job (assuming for the sake of argument it was a challengable hire from a personnel commission and or unfair labor practice standpoint) grievance-proofed by the global deal he made sure was approved?
..
Where's Jeff Wright when you need to shake things up?
Monday, October 18, 2010
What the Rex Gutierrez Corruption Re-Trial Shows...[Updated Post Trial--after "Wow!"].
Defense witnesses due today in Gutierrez trial - Topix
Jury finds Rex Gutierrez guilty on all counts - Topix
http://www.topix.net/forum/source/san-bernardino-county-sun/TB8VOKRV1A41G6QGU/p3#lastPost
Blogger Bob's Comments:
(1) Being expected to "work" 80 hours per pay period (which apparently Gutierrez was meeting or exceeding standards in at least 9 categories in the first 6 months of his employment)is not the same as having to "account" (could 60 hours have been ok in one week and 20 hours in the next? accounting to whom? & how?) for the time; besides, as the movie the "FIRM" showed us, billable time to some can be done if you think about a client's case in a shower or on the golf course (no suggestion is being made that either were done folks--just an example); that "tweak" on reality (no pun intended or person intended) seems to almost have taken life in San Bernardino if what the prosecution is arguing is true; the fact Gutierrez received a positive review, worked in his car, at home and was never docked pay-wise for that manner of time use, will make the prosecution's cross examination of Gutierrez crucial (assuming they have any impeachment evidence); update post-conviction--Wow! Moral of the story is don't have political connections before being hired to a new position at the County and make sure, you document every minute of time you spend because you may face a prosecution team that reconstructs your job to fit the testimony of a former co-worker-&-convicted-felon who has an axe to grind and or incentive to finger you!
(2) One thing that I am not clear on is how specific was the job description for the job Rex Gutierrez was hired for or was it a general job descriptions for the class of work in place already? If the job description was general, wouldn't that pretty much leave up to Gutierrez and his boss Postmus to determine WHAT was considered 80 hours of work in a 15 day period, how, where & where it could be done? (and then "reported" to?).Wow! Sounds like the jury allowed the prosecution to fill in the blanks on the job description/function or Gutierrez's testimony/account was utterly incredible!
Update comment (10/20/2010) If what the Press Enterprise reports on October 20, 2010 is correct ["the only task in the job description was meeting with the city managers of the county's 24 cities"], then in a 22 month job, even with pre-travel research, preparation and staff consultation, that left a lot of time to do oral reports/briefings/?, which of course begs the question of whether there was anyone in the office to meet with/brief given the allegations that everyone was out doing their political things for Postmus or immersed in their own jobs (there were a few people still there after Williamson got the boot)--but with that said, I have never been too impressed with some County employee's ability to get things done efficiently--that Rex had the gift of gab may be an understatement. The allegation he worked in his car reminds me of the "work" in a car allegedly done by another county employee with a subordinate. Wow! Since Ramos has no job description posted on the County website, I can't wait to see how he fits in his "Ristow" time & expense!
(3) Doesn't this really get back to the failure of the BOS to (and Mike Ramos to send a memo inquiring why new people were being hired that the incumbent assessor said were not needed) require Postmus to give a (a) justification for the job, (b) a statement of purpose for the proposed job,(c) what the "work" would be that was expected, (d) "where" (if on-site/ off-site), (e) was it to be supervised and if so by whom and with what criteria and (f) THEN, having the BOS vote on it as a reasoned and intelligent body of elected legislators? (maybe that is where the breakdown happens--not having people with the integrity & backbone to question and where appropriate say no). The likely reason none of that was done? (i) Mitzelfelt was covering for his oft time under-the-influence and/or hospitalized boss (for his alleged meth addiction) and was jockeying to be appointed by the Board as Postmus' replacement (once Postmus was elected to the assessor's office) and (ii) everyone else was afraid to cross Postmus on the BOS due to his fundraising prowess the power of his political machine and endorsement. Wow! With such a loose job being approved, when do we prosecute the County Board for rank stupidity for going along with Postmess?
Update comment (10/20/2010) When the Board of Supervisors approves a vague job which on its face can't justify a 80 hour per pay period compensation (based on the job description), isn't performance of that job consistent with that minimal accountability, while wasteful, a waste presumptively approved? Wow! Is the County going to pass a rule about not approving vague job descriptions where the workload does not conceivably justify the position?
(4) Is Gutierrez being prosecuted because Postmus orchestrated a high paying job, with few if any stated requirements for its performance that significantly benefited a developer? With that as a criterion for prosecution, there are a lot of people at risk of being indicted;
Wow! Who is next Mikey?
(5) All the above as an aside, we still do not have any county rules in place to prevent this from happening again--do we?? Nah
(6) If the trial degenerates into a fight over personnel management interpretation of the workplace rules and arguing the positive job review Gutierrz got should be ignored (because Ramos let the statute run on the major felony counts), the prosecution team is in trouble, unless they have specific instances they can point to of personal time use on the clock and that the job did not allow for "making up of" by working at home or in a car while slurping a frapachino or emailing on one's county phone etc. What it sounds like is the prosecution is nitpicking over County Human Resources/Personnel rules and or policies and how a field employee gets the day's work done in a new job never before in existence (and therefore is a job with perhaps few if any guidelines on how it should be done) which leaves one with the impression that the prosecution is fighting civil/administrative law issues in a criminal action? Wow! Ramos found a way to criminalize slackards with political connections.
.
(7) The question that needs to be answered is what is Gutierrez's criminal conduct? (as opposed to simply being a friend of a politically powerful contributor of the boss hired to do a full time job but allegedly trying to scoot by on a less than 100% effort--something people hired for jobs in all industries do from time to time but are not criminally charged for)?
Wow! The precedent is mixed---a vendor for the assessor's office does not get prosecuted in exchange for "cooperation" and "restitution" so lets see what Gutierrez's deal is!
.
(8) Something I thought of that really bothers me--is this another Ramos prosecution of a actual or potential political opponent? Gutierrez ran for Congress and did fairly well as I recall--as someone that fought a tough (close) campaign for Congress and someone with name recognition that can raise money (and with Ramos desperately looking to run for Congress himself in two to four years), is this prosecution of Gutirrez being used to take out a potential contender for a Republican nomination for a Congressional seat carved out in the upcoming reapportionment? Let's hope not. Wow! One down for 2012!
.
Thursday, September 23, 2010
(1) What was Mitzelfelt doing a no-no at 7:22 pm? (2) Will Ramos be alone? (3) AG Candidate Harris in SB
An observer noted that Brad Mitzelfelt and a certain staff member were talking about a real estate deal at 7:22 pm at the Outpost Cafe yesterday (7/22/2010)--that certain person has been known to walk through developer's plans at the County and is reputed to have an active real estate license. Does anyone remember the quote of Mitzelfelt in the Sun (that he now denies) that after Adelanto tossed out Nursery Products, that "we will find Nursery Products another place, like maybe in Hinkley"? Is Mitzelfelt still using county resources to favor curry with his developer buds? If this was legit county business, why wasn't it done during County time at the county's office's (and there are several of them just minutes away).
...
Some sources are unproven but have some indicia of the likelihood of being reliable--one source suggested that one of the ongoing investigations is looking at some aspect of the management tier under Mike Ramos and that when its all said and done, Mike Ramos will be walking away with some others close to him--and potential replacements are supposedly being evaluated/considered as I write this.
...
One of the AG candidates (Kamala Harris) is coming down here for a town hall meeting on Saturday at 4 pm at the Inghram Community Center (2050 N. Mount Vernon Avenue, San Bernardino CA 92411)--apparently Steve Cooley, her republican opponent was invited, but no word on whether he will show. Few state wide candidates have come down here as of late. That Harris would show is interesting.
...
Bell was this week--will San Bernardino County be next?
...
Some sources are unproven but have some indicia of the likelihood of being reliable--one source suggested that one of the ongoing investigations is looking at some aspect of the management tier under Mike Ramos and that when its all said and done, Mike Ramos will be walking away with some others close to him--and potential replacements are supposedly being evaluated/considered as I write this.
...
One of the AG candidates (Kamala Harris) is coming down here for a town hall meeting on Saturday at 4 pm at the Inghram Community Center (2050 N. Mount Vernon Avenue, San Bernardino CA 92411)--apparently Steve Cooley, her republican opponent was invited, but no word on whether he will show. Few state wide candidates have come down here as of late. That Harris would show is interesting.
...
Bell was this week--will San Bernardino County be next?
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
MULTIPLE GRAND JURIES...WE WOULD NOT NEED IF THE DA WAS DOING HIS JOB [& LIKE THEY ARE GOING TO HAPPEN ANYWAY!]
First, putting aside the argument that we wouldn't need two more grand juries if the DA was doing his job back in 2003-2006 while the County was getting fleeced, I can't believe why Biane was not asked what was he doing talking to a grand juror? In what context? As a witness of interest, what in the world is he doing talking with a grand juror? Didn't Stout (the former DA) get in trouble talking indirectly with a grand juror (in fact Ramos made a campaign issue of it)? Second, there is a loophole in this proposal--if the presiding judge, putting aside his or her political leanings and whether he/she was an ally of the supervisors in power and whether that might have an impact, would have to determine the need for the extra grand jury as well as the budget for same--it won't happen in the current budget environment where keeping court houses open and staff in place is the biggest challenge (and priority) for the foreseeable future--in other words, its another flashy proposal that will go no where even if passed folks. Mitzelfelt and Biane look like they have nothing to hide, yet what they (and Assemblyman Cook) propose does not change the risk equation for them--clever. Bob Conaway
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS WAGGING THE RAMOS??
PRESS RELEASE - FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE (March 24, 2010)
BOB CONAWAY's PRESS RELEASE - FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE -- RAMOS's NEEDS TO QUIT RUNNING TO THE AG's OFFICE FOR HELP ON WHAT HE SHOULD KNOW HIS OPTIONS ARE IN THE COLONIES CASE & GET THE RECORDS
(1) Evidence Code §956 takes the privilege away where the attorney's services were sought "to enable or aide anyone"(client or third person) in the commission of a crime OR fraud" People v Clark(1990) 50 C3d583,621--remarkably one case even says the "client's mere attempt to defraud or perpetrate a crime by seeking to enlist counsel's services is enough to defeat the attorney client privilege" BP Alaska Exploration, Inc v Superior Court(1988( 199 CA3d 1240,1262-1263; (2) wasn't Jim Brulte a part of the negotiation team at mediation? He certainly was not a party to the settlement process and he did not represent anyone as a lawyer--if he was there, the privilege was waived to the extent of communications he heard and or participated in; (3) there is no mediation privilege--only a law stating the parties can agree to mediation confidentiality. California Evidence Code Section 1119 protects two kinds of evidence from discovery and admissibility. First, anything that was said or any admission that was made for the purpose of, in the course of, or pursuant to a mediation or a “mediation consultation” is protected. Second, any “writing” (as defined in Section 250) “that is prepared for the purpose of, in the course of, or pursuant to, a mediation or a mediation consultation” is also protected. Evidence such as photographs, written statements, and consultants’ reports can be very persuasive in mediation, and Section 250 defines the term “writings” in such a way as to include all of those things. (See Rojas v. Superior Court (2004) 33 Cal. 4th 407.). Offering a bribe or a performance (or discussing such a bribe or performance--e.g. contributing money to campaigns) is outside the matters before the mediator.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)