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!
Showing posts with label Josie Gonzales. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Josie Gonzales. Show all posts
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
Boeing, Boeing Gone is Josie Gonzales' & Pat Morris' Credibility?
On July 12, 2011, the San Bernardino Sun in part reported:
"Members of the San Bernardino International Airport Authority - a joint powers authority composed of the county of San Bernardino and the cities of San Bernardino, Colton, Loma Linda and Highland - said they will file a formal response by Aug. 30 to try and undo the damage from what they called a "hit piece."
.
"The consequence is that we will wear this like an ugly, wet suit wherever we go," said Josie Gonzales, chairwoman for the county Board of Supervisors, and member of the SBIAA board. The Grand Jury report said the SBIAA has engaged in questionable practices in regard to its finances, construction management and how it awards developer contracts.
.
The civil Grand Jury commissioned an audit of the airport following complaints it received two years ago of irregularities occurring at the former Norton Air Force Base.
.
The audit raised questions about the SBIAA's oversight of spending, rising costs of projects, and its relationship with Scot Spencer, a convicted felon who has served time in federal prison for bankruptcy fraud and has been banned from the aviation industry.
.
The U.S. Department of Transportation fined Spencer $1 million and banned him from the aviation industry, but the fine remains unpaid.
.
Still, the airport authority has entered into multiple contracts with Spencer.
...
Airport officials said they are concerned that the report will harm efforts to land a commercial airline, as well as bring business to the surrounding area.
Mayor Pat Morris, who is the SBIAA's board president, said the implications of the report are profound, and the alleged errors in it will be addressed in the coming weeks."There are some real damning factual errors in here that have to be be unmasked..." Morris said.
.
He said the airport authority will address the Grand Jury report issue by issue at its upcoming meetings, leading up to its written response.
.
"It's going to have to be done in public in the interest of being transparent and in the interest of having the public take a look at how we actually have intended and will continue to intend to run the business of SBIA," Gonzales said.
.
Morris said the SBIAA received the Grand Jury report 48 hours before it was published, and that airport officials were not given time to address factual errors in the document, as had allegedly been promised.
.
Officials also said that the auditors ignored vital information that the SBIAA offered them for their report.
.
"A lot of the fundamental things they are saying in here we do not agree with," Rogers said.
.
Those include how the airport has awarded contracts for work, and how it purchased equipment for projects.
.
As for Spencer's involvement, Gonzales said the SBIAA intends to seek outside legal opinion on the matter.
.
"My own due diligence says this is not an issue," said Tim Sabo, the attorney for the airport board.
.
Rogers said Boeing Co., which tests its jets at the airport, wouldn't do business there if it had concerns about Spencer, who has led development of the airport since 2003.
.
"They trust him," Rogers said. ... [Read more: http://www.sbsun.com/news/ci_"]
.
Blogger Bob's comment: That Boeing, who has its own history of allegedly buying politicians, "trust(s) [Spencer]", a convicted felon, probably is not big news, but Mayor (and former Judge) Morris & Board of Supervisor Chair Josie Gonzales knowingly do business with those that trust such a convicted felon [Spencer] is probably the biggest news. Also, if the U.S. Department of Transportation has fined Spencer $1 million (which remains unpaid), banned him from the aviation industry and the San Bernardino International Airport Authority is signing contracts with Spencer, no wonder they can't bring regularly scheduled commercial flights to the airport!
"Members of the San Bernardino International Airport Authority - a joint powers authority composed of the county of San Bernardino and the cities of San Bernardino, Colton, Loma Linda and Highland - said they will file a formal response by Aug. 30 to try and undo the damage from what they called a "hit piece."
.
"The consequence is that we will wear this like an ugly, wet suit wherever we go," said Josie Gonzales, chairwoman for the county Board of Supervisors, and member of the SBIAA board. The Grand Jury report said the SBIAA has engaged in questionable practices in regard to its finances, construction management and how it awards developer contracts.
.
The civil Grand Jury commissioned an audit of the airport following complaints it received two years ago of irregularities occurring at the former Norton Air Force Base.
.
The audit raised questions about the SBIAA's oversight of spending, rising costs of projects, and its relationship with Scot Spencer, a convicted felon who has served time in federal prison for bankruptcy fraud and has been banned from the aviation industry.
.
The U.S. Department of Transportation fined Spencer $1 million and banned him from the aviation industry, but the fine remains unpaid.
.
Still, the airport authority has entered into multiple contracts with Spencer.
...
Airport officials said they are concerned that the report will harm efforts to land a commercial airline, as well as bring business to the surrounding area.
Mayor Pat Morris, who is the SBIAA's board president, said the implications of the report are profound, and the alleged errors in it will be addressed in the coming weeks."There are some real damning factual errors in here that have to be be unmasked..." Morris said.
.
He said the airport authority will address the Grand Jury report issue by issue at its upcoming meetings, leading up to its written response.
.
"It's going to have to be done in public in the interest of being transparent and in the interest of having the public take a look at how we actually have intended and will continue to intend to run the business of SBIA," Gonzales said.
.
Morris said the SBIAA received the Grand Jury report 48 hours before it was published, and that airport officials were not given time to address factual errors in the document, as had allegedly been promised.
.
Officials also said that the auditors ignored vital information that the SBIAA offered them for their report.
.
"A lot of the fundamental things they are saying in here we do not agree with," Rogers said.
.
Those include how the airport has awarded contracts for work, and how it purchased equipment for projects.
.
As for Spencer's involvement, Gonzales said the SBIAA intends to seek outside legal opinion on the matter.
.
"My own due diligence says this is not an issue," said Tim Sabo, the attorney for the airport board.
.
Rogers said Boeing Co., which tests its jets at the airport, wouldn't do business there if it had concerns about Spencer, who has led development of the airport since 2003.
.
"They trust him," Rogers said. ... [Read more: http://www.sbsun.com/news/ci_"]
.
Blogger Bob's comment: That Boeing, who has its own history of allegedly buying politicians, "trust(s) [Spencer]", a convicted felon, probably is not big news, but Mayor (and former Judge) Morris & Board of Supervisor Chair Josie Gonzales knowingly do business with those that trust such a convicted felon [Spencer] is probably the biggest news. Also, if the U.S. Department of Transportation has fined Spencer $1 million (which remains unpaid), banned him from the aviation industry and the San Bernardino International Airport Authority is signing contracts with Spencer, no wonder they can't bring regularly scheduled commercial flights to the airport!
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, June 28, 2010
THE LIE IS FINAL....BAD VOTE COUNTING/TABULATION/ AVERAGING/PROJECTING WINNERS WITH 40% of VOTE COUNT ONLY IN NOTWITHSTANDING
Registrar certifies election results
Posted: 06/27/2010 08:31:33 PM PDT
Updated: 06/27/2010 09:16:14 PM PDT
The San Bernardino County Registrar of Voters has certified the results of the June 8 primary election.
Other counties have yet to certify their election results, so final and official results are not available in all races, but results for county races are now final.
Voters can call for a recount but must do so by 5 p.m. Tuesday. A ballot recount is done at the expense of the person making the request. For information about requesting a recount, call 909-387-8300 or visit www.sbcrov.com.
At least one candidate, district attorney hopeful Robert Conaway, has said he wants a recount. He said he believes the county registrar's computer system was either hacked or tilted.
He requested that District Attorney Michael A. Ramos ask the county Superior Court to order a recount.
Registrar Kari Verjil said Conaway is free to request a recount but that the county's vote-counting procedures are aboveboard.
VOTE 2010
PRIMARY RESULTS
The following are highlights of final results from the June 8 primary election. The winners of each race appear in bold, with an asterisk indicating the incumbent(s) in that race.
San Bernardino County
District attorney
Ramos* 54.0%
Guzman 19.2%
Conaway 26.8%
Sheriff/coroner
Schrader 21.5%
Averbeck 11.6%
Hoops* 66.9%
Superintendent of schools
Thomas* 60.1%
Ramirez-Dean 17.2%
Delgado 22.1%
Assessor/recorder
Draeger* 73.4%
Palazzo 26.6%
Auditor/controller
Mason 29.1%
Walker* 70.9%
Superior Court, Office 11
Hosking 66.0%
Lemkau* 34.0%
Superior Court, Office 29
Stull 57.5%
Montgomery 42.5%
Central committees
61st District Democratic
Boudreaux 11.7%
Sanders 15.2%
Wall 10.6%
Weilein 9.8%
Avila 12.1%
Rangel-Ortega 11.1%
Crowe 5.8%
Curry 11.8%
Kelly 11.9%
62nd District Democratic
Baca 15.1%
Navarro 10.2%
J. Sandoval 5.6%
M. Sandoval 4.8%
Zambrano 4.8%
Velasquez 4.4%
Alvarez 6.3%
Garcia 6.7%
Givens 6.9%
Chavez 7.3%
V. Marquez 5.4%
C. Marquez 5.8%
Montes 4.5%
P. Mengler 7.5%
J. Mengler 5.4%
........................................................................................................................................................................
P.S.
(1) Complaints have not been responded to by either County Board of Supervisors, Secretary of State, Attorney General, Sheriff's Office, District Attorney or Grand Jury--in fact no explanation was provided of why a computer that is supposed to be doing an ongoing count and tabulate was declaring winners with roughly 40% of the vote in and why the percentage of change for county wide races stayed the same (plus or minus 1% over the course of the night)--wow!!
(2) To throw down the gauntlet of pay for your own recount is the height of institutional arrogance; only a wealthy man can pay for a recount and they know I was a grass rooter (less than $5,000 raised and spent and I came within 4 percentage points of being in a runoff against a well-funded political hammer); contributors (and other candidates) were scared away by Ramos and his backers (one of which just put a gun to his chest in Vegas) from the gitgo; conservatives that agreed there were irregularities are scared by the establishment "republicans" (Jerry Lewis, Brad Mitzelfelt, Gary Miller, Biane, Ovitt, Josie Gonzales, Joe Baca)
(3) Rufus will someday get a quote from this blogger right--the request was made to the County Grand Jury and the Board of Supervisors to direct Mike Ramos to Petition the Superior Court for a manual recount; I requested nothing of the DA and the basis of the request was the California (state) Election Code. Nothing will change in this county with such shoddy and reprehensible newspaper reporting. Who needs a political consultant when you have the San Bernardino Suc?
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
It ain't over for the citizens of San Bernardino County
With the polls being monitored by the feds in Riverside County, incumbent DA Pacheco loses. Mmh--coincidence? If you want a comparison, consider this--in the Ramos-Conaway-Guzman race for DA in San Bernardino, as groups of precincts were reported throughout the night, the percentage of spread never changed more than 1 percent--what is the likelihood that the vote-by-mail (VBM) percentages would also be the percentage spread throughout the night for all the precincts reporting in-person-at-the-polls voting in a demographically diverse county such as ours? Historically in the rest of the state, the republican incumbents lose ground at the polls and when they win, it is because of the margin built up with the banked-up VBM votes. In the Ramos-Conaway-Guzman race against Ramos, the incalculable damage from two elected democrats (Baca & Gonzales) endorsing the republican incumbent may have been a factor (heh Joe and Josie, is it true the only reason you endorsed Ramos is because he was hispanic??), the slate mailers to democrats listing Ramos with democrats endorsed state-wide confused democratic voters (I had supporters calling expressing confusion even though they knew I was the candidate endorsed by the Democratic Party Central Committee in San Bernardino County) and the slate mailers to republicans listing him with state-wide endorsed republicans (when he was not endorsed by the County Republican Central Committee) may have been factors as was the inexplicable under performance of Guzman (he dropped 5 percentage points from his 2000 election run against Ramos, a differential that meant the difference between a June 8 win for Ramos and a run-off between Ramos and Conaway--maybe the result of the "Um" lawsuit filed by an alleged long time ally of Ramos??). The election of 2010 will go down as the fruits of another example of Ramos' willingness to deceive or deliberately mislead public for votes--you know the guy we call our top cop--wow--am I the only person bothered by that personality streak?? The saddest part of the effort, is that the campaign was loaded with substantive issues about case backlogs, poor conviction rates, the DA's office being over budget, and questions about misuse of power for political purposes, the death penalty policies in light of budgetary problems facing the County--the press consistently recapped this contest as being about Ramos' alleged affairs--the result, the press narrowed the campaign dialogue to what Ramos quickly denied (the improper sexual contact with County workers, a conclusion facilitated by a report the current Board of Supervisors paid $140,000 of taxpayer money to prepare in advance of the election--hmm, should that $140,000 be reported as a campaign contribution to Ramos?) and by that, sterilized the race, denied voters the dialogue they were entitled to hear and gave Ramos the election. I did my part to create the dialogue. I could not overcome the headwinds of corruption, media bias, potential ethnic bias and abuse leading up to June 8, 2010. Stay tuned. It ain't over (the election is, but regrettably, not the corrupt leadership nor the effort to hold accountable those running amuk).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)