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.

Jeffrey Burum, Paul Biane, Jim Erwin, 48 & Mark Kirk Indictments

"I will tell you, this is a historical day," Ramos said
.
Blogger Bob's comment: What he did not add: now that I [Ramos] got the Ristow case dismissed.
.
"{Ramos said] I am pleased that the matter will now move to the arena of the courtroom, where we intend to prove our case and finally see justice done. I hope this sends a strong message that corruption will no longer be tolerated in San Bernardino County."
.
Blogger Bob's comment:Fighting Burum will be interesting--he won't fold and hand the DA's office "convictions" through plea deals like they got from Postmus and Aleman, caused by the lack of money to hire & keep paying lawyers.
.
Burum's attorney, John Vandevelde, said "Jeff Burum has been smeared by innuendos for two years," he said. "Today's indictment means Jeff will finally have his day in court where the truth will show there was never a bribe of anyone or illegal conduct of any kind"
.
Blogger Bob's comment: First, ah shucks, no bribe or illegal conduct evidence will be part of Burum's defense--come on, tease us with something. Second, it will be interesting to see how a confidential settlement arrived at thru a legally sanctioned mediation process, approved by the Board of Supervisors with access to all sorts of legal counsel, will be unraveled
.
Senior Assistant Attorney General Gary Schons called the indictment a "signal event" for the county. "We won't rest until we follow all the evidence to wear it leads," Schons said. "When public officials act corruptly, every Californian is their victim," Attorney General Kamala D. Harris said. "Let the San Bernardino indictments send a strong message that we will never tolerate this sort of abuse of the public trust."
.
Blogger Bob's comment: Sexual liasons with County employees though is ok, plea deals with attempted murderers offering no jail time is ok, repeatedly filing false/misleading FPPC statements/disclosure forms is ok? Double standards for Mikey I guess.
.
Ovitt released the following statement about Kirk, his former chief of staff (Kirk who faces felony charges of bribery, improper influence, conflict of interest, misappropriation of public funds, fraudulent tax return, perjury and filing a false instrument): "I am saddened about what has occurred today involving Mark Kirk," Ovitt said. "I have known Mark for eight years, I've worked with him during that period of time. He is a person of great intelligence and integrity. Although I don't know the specifics of the charges, and can't comment on the particulars, I know Mark to be a consumate professional, loving father and family man, and all around good person of high morals and character."
.
Blogger Bob's comment: In the 8 years Ovitt knew and worked with this guy he [Ovitt] had no clue he was abusing my office's power. Yeah right! How does Ovitt think he got his campaign money?
.
Senior Assistant Attorney General Gary Schons called the indictment a "signal event" for the county. He said more work is still ahead in the ongoing investigation and "We won't rest until we follow all the evidence to where it leads."
.
Blogger Bob's comment: Wow--who is going to sever the Siamese twins first (Harris & Ramos)

Postmus Pleads Guilty to 15 Counts--DA Finds Way to Muzzle Postmus?

An effective strategy to muffling Postmus relating his alleged inside information on some of the DA's office's misconduct/malicious motives is to chase off private defense counsel with aggressive litigation tactics, leave the defendant with counsel he may not have full confidence in to try the case (and even if he did, not the resources to fight a protracted battle) and force him to plead guilty to 15 counts with no sentencing on any of the charges [http://www.pe.com/localnews/stories/postmus29.22d084feb.html] so if the DA does not like what Postmus testifies to, the DA recommends to the judge ringing Postmus up for a max sentence?--Isn't that rather like burying testimony you don't want to come out and buying what you do want to come out? Isn't that censoring content? Who is the gatekeeper on Postmus' memory? Isn't that also bomb-proofing yourself against the potential damage from a material witness' testimony against you? Certainly Postmus painted a target on himself over the years and made moral judgment errors, but he made a mistake. When he did what he did, he wasn't the elected DA. Heh--imagine the Colonies' defense--"the County's prosecution against us was only possible after they found three convicted felons who were willing to lie again (this time against us)". Wow

RAMOS GETS HIT WITH DONATED MAILER--ANYONE SEEN IT??

At "http://iepolitics.com/2010/05/25/iepolitics-is-assemlyman-bill-emmerson-r-somewhere-in-california-turning-against-district-attorney-mike-ramos/" there is an interesting reference:
.
"Bill Emmerson’s civil attorney (who defended Emmerson in a legal matter regarding a court challenge to Emmerson’s new Riverside County residency) is Jim Lacy. Lacy, who in addition to being an lawyer is also a prominent political slate mail vendor, just donated a mailing that blasted supposed deficiencies of DA Mike Ramos". (P.S. I'd love to see it)
.
Interesting and the beat goes on.
.
FYI, I thought the Doe might have been Mitzelfelt, as he was a chief of staff, ran the show while Postmus was in his drug stupors and or rehab stints and when Mitzelfelt was appointed to the Board of Supervisors he seemlessly moved into not just the position, but the Chairman of the Board (and the rest of the Board rolled over to that power grab)--I know my two cents worth is contra to the opinion of the people tracking this but this is after all a blog!
.
As for the DA's office, why the drama--if Biane's and or his assistant did something, name them and get it over. If not, there has to be a better reason than we did not get to this yet--several careers are in the balance. The games have got to stop.

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.

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

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.

Mike, go get the records!

Mike Ramos' threats, intimidation and bias-Chapter VI

The Sun put its article announcing my candidacy in the sports section--everyone else got the typical placement. When someone runs for office because they believe they can make a difference, it's not a game, unless I guess you are Joe Nelson and the Sun.

By the way, did you see hachet job by Ramos' campaign consultant carried by the Sun in the article on March 12th: "Ellis said Stout's allegations are like the pot calling the kettle black, alluding to a 2002 controversy Stout had been ensnared in. Stout and two of his top lieutenants were accused of leaking confidential information related to an investigation into former Supervisor Jerry Eaves to Ed Scott, Eaves' political opponent in the 2000 election. Transcripts of conversations between Scott and two of Stout's top managers were made public in 2002, when Stout was running against Ramos for District Attorney. Stout withdrew from the race after Ramos outperformed him in the primary. Dennis Stout made the right decision for his family and his career not to run against Mike Ramos, Ellis said"--First, is Ramos' campaign manager admitting his boss is guilty of the same type of wrongdoing (BINGO--need to pin that one down Joe, rather than let Ellis babble); Second, I guess I can expect my run against Ramos will trigger a smear campaign like what Stout experienced--not an unlikely outcome when Ellis and Ramos have Joe Nelson of the Sun and the public employee union in their back pocket. Who would have thought organized labor could countenance such intimidation and in-you-face bias. Stout, who isn't running and has no bone in this fight stated he couldn't "threaten the contributors of my opponents with criminal investigations" or "arrest people who are presumed to be innocent under our laws." That Stout's fear of Ramos' net may not be imagined is the piece to investigate. Serve the public Joe. Investigate the dude laying down the threats!! Bob Conaway