Why is the San Bernardin County DA's Office Trying to Stall Recovery in the Flood Control Case?

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.

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?

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.

WHY ISN'T RAMOS PROTECTING HIS WITNESSES??

Matt Brown, Paul Biane's Chief of Staff (Paul Biane being on the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors and one of the people that voted for the Colonies settlement), who supposedly is cooperating in an investigation relating to the Colonies case (corruption allegations) is stressed out because he was not prepared and protected. While witnesses need to be advised of what to expect and how to minimize needless confrontation and stress, why isn't the DA's office communicating with Biane's counsel telling his client to quit the sniping and making threatening comments toward what may be a material witness--as a potential defense attorney in a criminal action, the last thing you want is testimony against your client of pre-indictment attempts to scare off material witnesses. Get your people on the phone Ramos so just maybe, Brown can serve our county. Between Uffer and Brown, it is clear you are not taking the necessary steps to protect material witnesses. The failure to do so will chill or deter other people from coming forward--which is something if you know and allow, one has to ask if you are competent to do the job, or that is the precise result you want--an investigation that gets stunted.