"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)
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
Monday, May 9, 2011
Ristow's Attorney files on 05/06/2011 "NOTICE OF APPEAL" - huh?? Say Due Process is Dead!!
Quoting from the San Bernardino County Superior Court Access system on the Ristow v Mike A. Ramos civil rights trial:
"FRANK GAFKOWSKI, JUDGE [on the Motion for Reconsideration]
CLERK: ROBIN RYAN
COURT REPORTER GARY RAGLE GARY RAGLE
-
ATTORNEY JAMES V. REISS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER.
ATTORNEY BRANDON A. TAKAHASHI PRESENT FOR COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO.
ATTORNEY RICHARD MARCA PRESENT FOR DISTRICT ATTORNEY MICHAEL A. RAMOS.
-
PROCEEDINGS:
PREDISPOSITION HEARING HELD
-
MOTION
COPY OF COURTS TENTATIVE RULING GIVEN TO COUNSEL WHO ARE PERSONALLY PRESENT IN COURTROOM.
ACTION CAME ON FOR MOTION RE: FOR RECONSIDERATION BY PLAINTIFF.
CHERYL RISTOW'S MOTION TO FOR RECONSIDERATION BY PLAINTIFF IS HEARD.
CHERYL RISTOW'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION BY PLAINTIFF IS DENIED.
ARGUED BY COUNSEL AND SUBMITTED.
-
COURT FINDS:
THE COURT DENIES THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION ON THE GROUND THAT IT IS UNTIMELY HAVING BEEN
BROUGHT AFTER THE ENTRY OF JUDGMENT WHICH DIVESTED THE COURT OF THE ABILITY TO HEAR THE
MOTION.
-
THE COURT REFUSES TO RULE ON THE QUESTION OF WHETHER PLAINTIFFS APPEAL RIGHTS HAVE RUN ON
THE GROUND THAT THE ISSUE IS PROPERLY DECIDED BY THE COURT OF APPEAL AND IS NOT PROPERLY BEFORE
THIS COURT.
-
EVEN IF THE MOTION HAD BEEN TIMELY, THE COURT WOULD DENY THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION ON THE
GROUND THAT PLAINTIFF HAS FAILED TO SHOW THAT HER FAILURE TO PRESENT THE NEW FACTS TO THE COURT
OCCURRED DESPITE HER DILIGENCE GIVEN THAT COUNSEL HAD POSSESSION OF THESE FACTS ON MARCH
1, 2011-TWO DAYS BEFORE THE HEARING AND THE FACTS WERE THOSE THAT WERE PRESUMABLY WITHIN
PLAINTIFFS PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE BEFORE THAT DATE.
-
EVEN IF THE MOTION HAD BEEN TIMELY, THE COURT WOULD DENY THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION TO THE
EXTENT THAT IT IS BROUGHT BASED ON THE CLAIMED EX PARTE CONTACT ON THE GROUND THAT PLAINTIFFS
COUNSEL APPEARED AT THE HEARING AND WAS ABLE TO ARGUE THE MERITS OF HER OPPOSITION AND SO
SUFFERED NO PREJUDICE FROM ANY EARLIER ARGUMENT MADE BEFORE THE COURT REALIZED THAT SHE HAD
SOUGHT TO HAVE THE HEARING HEARD AT A LATER TIME.
-
COUNSEL STIPULATE TO THE NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT OF MARCH 3, 2011 WAS NOT FILED.
-
ATTACHED TENTATIVE RULING OF THE COURT IS ORDERED INCORPORATED INTO THE MINUTE ORDER AND REFERENCED
AS THOUGH FULLY SET FORTH HEREIN.
ACTION - COMPLETE
................................................................................
FRANK GAFKOWSKI, JUDGE [DEMURRER TO ONLY AMENDED COMPLAINT]
CLERK: JESSICA HAZEL
COURT REPORTER KATHY SELLERS KATHY SELLERS
COURT ATTENDANT ROBERT DELGADO
-
APPEARANCES:
ATTORNEY CHRISTINE BACHMAN PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER.
ATTORNEY EUGENE RAMIREZ AND BRANDON TAKAHASHI PRESENT FOR COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO.
ATTORNEY RICHARD MARCA PRESENT FOR DISTRICT ATTORNEY MICHAEL A RAMOS.
-
PROCEEDINGS:
PREDISPOSITION HEARING HELD
-
MOTION
COPY OF COURTS TENITIVE RULING GIVEN TO COUNSEL
DISTRICT ATTORNEY MICHAEL A. RAMOS'S MOTION TO DEMURRER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT IS HEARD.
ARGUED BY COUNSEL AND SUBMITTED.
-
COURT FINDS:
DEMURRER SUSTAINED.
WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND, GROUNDS OF -.
ATTACHED NOTICE OF COURTS RULING IS ORDERED INCORPORATED INTO THE MINUTE ORDER AND REFERENCED
AS THOUGH FULLY SET FORTH HEREIN.
ACTION - COMPLETE"
Blogger Bob's comments:
1. In civil rights cases, since when is the question of whether there are enough facts decided in a demurrer? Isn't that something reserved for summary judgment motions after some discovery (e.g. depositions or testimony under oath) is taken? Besides, since when does a civil rights plaintiff only get ONE chance to amend her complaint in this County? Wierd stuff. Preferential treatment for Ramos it seems.
2. What happened to the proposed judgment? Was it signed and filed the date of the demurrer hearing, five days later as the "Access" docket suggests or later??It seems the Court signed a proposed judgment and it got lost in the clerk's office. Who and when the notice of entry of judgment was filed and served is unclear--which typically are necessary events to pin down as those events trigger various statute of limitations and or filing periods;
3. If the demurrer was granted on March 3, 2011, certain State Rules of Court kick in; California Rules of Court 3.1312 requires the proposed judgment be sent by the prevailing party within 5 days of the ruling from the bench (3/3/2011) and THEN under that same rule, the losing party has five days to notify the prevailing party that prepared (and proposed) order is approved or not ...... If there are differences, the court needs to be told what they area and THEN the judge typically signs the judgment and THEN it is served, thereby triggering appeal periods.
4. Under California Rule of Court 3.1312, the steps in No. 3 above are mandatory --the Rule uses the word "must"--so why wasn't Ristow's due process rights protected? More Ramos love?
5. So Reiss does not feel too picked on, I had a similar wierd experience, but I went after that judge's mentor in an election. More Ramos love?
"FRANK GAFKOWSKI, JUDGE [on the Motion for Reconsideration]
CLERK: ROBIN RYAN
COURT REPORTER GARY RAGLE GARY RAGLE
-
ATTORNEY JAMES V. REISS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER.
ATTORNEY BRANDON A. TAKAHASHI PRESENT FOR COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO.
ATTORNEY RICHARD MARCA PRESENT FOR DISTRICT ATTORNEY MICHAEL A. RAMOS.
-
PROCEEDINGS:
PREDISPOSITION HEARING HELD
-
MOTION
COPY OF COURTS TENTATIVE RULING GIVEN TO COUNSEL WHO ARE PERSONALLY PRESENT IN COURTROOM.
ACTION CAME ON FOR MOTION RE: FOR RECONSIDERATION BY PLAINTIFF.
CHERYL RISTOW'S MOTION TO FOR RECONSIDERATION BY PLAINTIFF IS HEARD.
CHERYL RISTOW'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION BY PLAINTIFF IS DENIED.
ARGUED BY COUNSEL AND SUBMITTED.
-
COURT FINDS:
THE COURT DENIES THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION ON THE GROUND THAT IT IS UNTIMELY HAVING BEEN
BROUGHT AFTER THE ENTRY OF JUDGMENT WHICH DIVESTED THE COURT OF THE ABILITY TO HEAR THE
MOTION.
-
THE COURT REFUSES TO RULE ON THE QUESTION OF WHETHER PLAINTIFFS APPEAL RIGHTS HAVE RUN ON
THE GROUND THAT THE ISSUE IS PROPERLY DECIDED BY THE COURT OF APPEAL AND IS NOT PROPERLY BEFORE
THIS COURT.
-
EVEN IF THE MOTION HAD BEEN TIMELY, THE COURT WOULD DENY THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION ON THE
GROUND THAT PLAINTIFF HAS FAILED TO SHOW THAT HER FAILURE TO PRESENT THE NEW FACTS TO THE COURT
OCCURRED DESPITE HER DILIGENCE GIVEN THAT COUNSEL HAD POSSESSION OF THESE FACTS ON MARCH
1, 2011-TWO DAYS BEFORE THE HEARING AND THE FACTS WERE THOSE THAT WERE PRESUMABLY WITHIN
PLAINTIFFS PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE BEFORE THAT DATE.
-
EVEN IF THE MOTION HAD BEEN TIMELY, THE COURT WOULD DENY THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION TO THE
EXTENT THAT IT IS BROUGHT BASED ON THE CLAIMED EX PARTE CONTACT ON THE GROUND THAT PLAINTIFFS
COUNSEL APPEARED AT THE HEARING AND WAS ABLE TO ARGUE THE MERITS OF HER OPPOSITION AND SO
SUFFERED NO PREJUDICE FROM ANY EARLIER ARGUMENT MADE BEFORE THE COURT REALIZED THAT SHE HAD
SOUGHT TO HAVE THE HEARING HEARD AT A LATER TIME.
-
COUNSEL STIPULATE TO THE NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT OF MARCH 3, 2011 WAS NOT FILED.
-
ATTACHED TENTATIVE RULING OF THE COURT IS ORDERED INCORPORATED INTO THE MINUTE ORDER AND REFERENCED
AS THOUGH FULLY SET FORTH HEREIN.
ACTION - COMPLETE
................................................................................
FRANK GAFKOWSKI, JUDGE [DEMURRER TO ONLY AMENDED COMPLAINT]
CLERK: JESSICA HAZEL
COURT REPORTER KATHY SELLERS KATHY SELLERS
COURT ATTENDANT ROBERT DELGADO
-
APPEARANCES:
ATTORNEY CHRISTINE BACHMAN PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER.
ATTORNEY EUGENE RAMIREZ AND BRANDON TAKAHASHI PRESENT FOR COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO.
ATTORNEY RICHARD MARCA PRESENT FOR DISTRICT ATTORNEY MICHAEL A RAMOS.
-
PROCEEDINGS:
PREDISPOSITION HEARING HELD
-
MOTION
COPY OF COURTS TENITIVE RULING GIVEN TO COUNSEL
DISTRICT ATTORNEY MICHAEL A. RAMOS'S MOTION TO DEMURRER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT IS HEARD.
ARGUED BY COUNSEL AND SUBMITTED.
-
COURT FINDS:
DEMURRER SUSTAINED.
WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND, GROUNDS OF -.
ATTACHED NOTICE OF COURTS RULING IS ORDERED INCORPORATED INTO THE MINUTE ORDER AND REFERENCED
AS THOUGH FULLY SET FORTH HEREIN.
ACTION - COMPLETE"
Blogger Bob's comments:
1. In civil rights cases, since when is the question of whether there are enough facts decided in a demurrer? Isn't that something reserved for summary judgment motions after some discovery (e.g. depositions or testimony under oath) is taken? Besides, since when does a civil rights plaintiff only get ONE chance to amend her complaint in this County? Wierd stuff. Preferential treatment for Ramos it seems.
2. What happened to the proposed judgment? Was it signed and filed the date of the demurrer hearing, five days later as the "Access" docket suggests or later??It seems the Court signed a proposed judgment and it got lost in the clerk's office. Who and when the notice of entry of judgment was filed and served is unclear--which typically are necessary events to pin down as those events trigger various statute of limitations and or filing periods;
3. If the demurrer was granted on March 3, 2011, certain State Rules of Court kick in; California Rules of Court 3.1312 requires the proposed judgment be sent by the prevailing party within 5 days of the ruling from the bench (3/3/2011) and THEN under that same rule, the losing party has five days to notify the prevailing party that prepared (and proposed) order is approved or not ...... If there are differences, the court needs to be told what they area and THEN the judge typically signs the judgment and THEN it is served, thereby triggering appeal periods.
4. Under California Rule of Court 3.1312, the steps in No. 3 above are mandatory --the Rule uses the word "must"--so why wasn't Ristow's due process rights protected? More Ramos love?
5. So Reiss does not feel too picked on, I had a similar wierd experience, but I went after that judge's mentor in an election. More Ramos love?
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, May 3, 2011
Halstead Political Sign Prosecution Mercifully Over--Now We Need to Ask Ramos Why Did he Waste Staff on a $2.00 sign??
Larry ("Lawrence") Halstead, local (to Barstow) democratic political activist and former candidate for the Barstow City council, was cited in December of 2008 with petty theft for allegedly taking the then-Barstow Mayor Dale's $2.00 re-election sign and wooden stake out of the ground on election day. The "he done it" witness, a staunch Dale supporter allegedly saw Larry doing the deed by looking out of his/her rear view mirror a football field away. Putting aside the historical acrimony between now former Mayor Dale and Mr. Halstead (and Halstead's steadfast denials of doing the deed), the DA's office prosecuted Mr. Halstead for a little less than 2 1/2 years (13 scheduled pre-trials and 6 trial days) under PC 484A (the shoplifting statute). Result, while the jury was out, Mr. Halstead reports, the case "settled" on an infraction on a no contest basis (the loud public noise charge--funny that Judge apparently suggested that). If anyone wonders why there have been budget cuts to essential staff & related support at the DA's office, take a look at People v Halstead (MBA 8011856) and ask Mike Ramos why oh why was this even filed? Good news--Larry picked up 3 more friends on Facebook (3 of the jurors in his case). Bad news, the case probably cost the taxpayers $20,000 in court & DA staff time.
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 15, 2011
Ristow Case Status......dismissed WITHOUT prejudice on the Court's own motion?
On 4/27/2011 8:30 AM DEPT.M4 (where the Ristow case against Mike Ramos and the County of San Bernardino has been shipped--following it seems JUDGE FRANK GAFKOWSKI's reassignment) an EX-PARTE MOTION RE:DETERMINATION THAT JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT BE ENTERED & a MOTION RE:FOR RECONSIDERATION BY PLAINTIFF (of the Ristow case's dismissal) is being heard (as well as apparently Defendants'MOTION RE:CORRECT JUDGMENT BY DEFT CO. OF SAN BERNARDINO). I am curious, is the clerk's entry "ON COURT'S MOTION, CASE ORDERED DISMISSED AS TO DEFENDANT COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, DISTRICT ATTORNEY MICHAEL A. RAMOS WITHOUT PREJUDICE" correct?
.
That would suggest another court might be jurisdictionally better/proper or the action is in some way premature/plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies (except the issue of exhausting administrative remedies is typically handled by a noticed motion from one of the parties and not the court sua sponte, unless there is a jurisdictional issue).
.
Also dismissing the case without prejudice, implies it can be refiled and contrary to the Mike Ramos press release, there has been no decision on the merits.
.
Why else would the court dismiss without prejudice?
.
This is sounding stranger by the moment. Unless it was jurisdictional, what in the world is the judge on his own motion doing?
.
Too bad the case did not stay in Dept 37 for Vander Feer to take a look at.
.
.
That would suggest another court might be jurisdictionally better/proper or the action is in some way premature/plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies (except the issue of exhausting administrative remedies is typically handled by a noticed motion from one of the parties and not the court sua sponte, unless there is a jurisdictional issue).
.
Also dismissing the case without prejudice, implies it can be refiled and contrary to the Mike Ramos press release, there has been no decision on the merits.
.
Why else would the court dismiss without prejudice?
.
This is sounding stranger by the moment. Unless it was jurisdictional, what in the world is the judge on his own motion doing?
.
Too bad the case did not stay in Dept 37 for Vander Feer to take a look at.
.
Thursday, April 14, 2011
Nibs says.......
Nibs, a reliable source in San Bernardino County, who has been close to the Daily Press (and less frequently the San Bernardino Sun), has watched people who claim no bone in the fight, do a lot of growling and scurrying with their tails between their legs. With the 22nd coming up, it will be interesting to see who will get away.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)