12 Responses to this post

1. Observer of Facts on February 8th, 2012 9:51 am

   It seems appropriate that this lawsuit was filed at approximately the 2 years anniversary of the Mike Ramos and Jerry Brown press conference announcing “the most appalling corruption case in decades, certainly in the history of San Bernardino County and maybe California itself.” Hey Mike and Jerry, how’s that prosecution going?

   In this case, Mr. Briggs will no doubt fire up a lot of people, given his use of language such as “right the wrong” and rescind the “illegal” deal that “screw[ed] the taxpayers.”

   Of course, those people don’t remember (or, if their knowledge was based on Sun and Daily Bulletin articles, were deceived) that the settlement only settled the amount of money the county had to pay The Colonies. In a previous trial in the Superior Court, liability was imposed on the county for their actions against The Colonies.

   So, let’s “right the wrong” and rescind the settlement, and go back to the point where The County owes The Colonies an undetermined amount that could exceed $300 Million.

   Have the plaintiffs in this silly lawsuit thought about that? I suspect not.

2. Repairman on February 8th, 2012 11:59 am

   Observer of Facts;
   Instead of asking Mike and Jerry how the prosecution is going, maybe you should ask the F.B.I. how it is going.

3. Observer of Facts on February 8th, 2012 12:31 pm

   Repairman:

   The FBI is taking a low profile these days. They must be busy trying to figure out how they are going to explain away their actions in the search of Jeff Burum’s office.

4. Repairman on February 8th, 2012 1:21 pm

   Observer of Facts:
   Your probably right, nothing to worry about.

5. Anonymous on February 8th, 2012 2:34 pm

   Here is the problem:

   Government Code Section 1092 provides that every contract made
   in violation of section 1090 may be avoided by any party
   except the official with the conflict of interest. Despite
   the wording of the section “may be avoided,” the AG’s office
   points out that “case law has historically interpreted
   contracts made in violation of section 1090 to be void, not
   merely voidable. (Thomson v.Call, supra, 38 Cal.3d 633; People
   ex rel. State of Cal. v. Drinkhouse (1970) 4 Cal.App.3d 931.)
   However, in Marin Healthcare District v. Sutter (2002) 103
   Cal.App.4th 861, the court refused to void a contract where
   the legal action challenging the contract did not come within
   an applicable statute of limitations. Thus, the Marin
   decision appears to have the effect of making such contracts
   voidable and not void from the inception. (The court failed to
   indicate which statute of limitations applies to section 1090
   violations.)” (Emphasis added)
   ===========
   No slam dunk here…

6. Little Stevie Wonder on February 8th, 2012 4:30 pm

   So Observer, with your logic (or lack thereof) the public isn’t due $102M gift-o-funds, so what about the $300M for a fraudulent claim?

   Sorry JB and DR… u can’t observe the facts, and still have it both ways.

7. Observer of Facts on February 8th, 2012 7:27 pm

   LittleStevieWonder:

   Here are the “facts:” The Colonies sued the county, and won. All that was left to be determined was how much money the county was going to have to pay The Colonies. That amount could have exceeded $300 million, but The Colonies agreed to accept $102 million.

   I assume that this is the “gift-o-funds” you refer to. That’s one interpretation; another is that the winner of a lawsuit agreed to accept reduced damages in a settlement. If there was a “gift,” it seems like The Colonies were the one who gave it, giving the county a 66% discount.

   If the settlement is rescinded, it does not make the county’s obligation to The Colonies go away. On the contrary, the county could have to pay the Colonies far more than the amount of the settlement. This seems like a simple concept to me; am I missing something?

8. Sharon on February 8th, 2012 9:58 pm

   OOF, based on what LSW wrote on my blog, this lawsuit was brought by his group of aluminum foil whack job gadflies that see a conspiracy under every rock. That would explain why there is so little information on these groups who are suing. I only hope the attorney required a retainer and didn’t take this on contingency. He will be out a lot of money otherwise.

   No matter what one thinks of the players on either side or the amount of the agreement, the fact still remains the county lost the case in a court trial. The judge has not plead guilty to a 1099 violation.

9. Little Stevie Wonder on February 8th, 2012 10:41 pm

   Even a blind man can see (hey Sharon, my tinfoil hat fell down over my eyes) it’s a friendly between the Colonies, County, Upland and SanBAG, represented by BB&K in the indemnity action.

   Don’t forget, the indemnity action was started way before the Settlement occurred in 2007 and the legal services fraud, including the fees for CalTrans, Upland and SanBAG total more than $10M. But that’s nothing compared to the $20M that County Counsel has spent so far. You tell me Sharon, how much do you think DA Mikey’s SELECTED PROSTITUTION in this case has cost the County general fund? Maybe you should put in a public records request and find out just how much money your employer is squandering by diverting public opinion away from the facts.

10. Observer of Facts on February 9th, 2012 7:04 am

    Sharon:

    You and I know that the county lost in court, but many others still seem to not understand that fact. Of course, the local media is not helping.

    Check out today’s Sun and Daily Bulletin article, where Bill Postmus admits that the $100,000 PAC contribution was not a bribe, and that he did not even find out that the Colonies wanted to make the contribution until 2 or 3 months after the settlement.

    The article contains the same tired and misleading language about how the “county’s landmark settlement … ended more than four years of litigation.” They continue to mislead readers by implying that this settlement took place before the trial, as most settlements do.

11. Anonymous on February 9th, 2012 8:12 am

    To catch a thief? The constitution is clear and so is the Supreme Court in Stogner vs Calif., Ex Post Facto Clause forbids revival of a previously time-barred prosecution.

    And so too will be this claim.

    1090 is 1,3 or 4 yr. statute of limitations depending on the offense prior to 2008. 4 Yr. being the catch all. In January 2008 the new law went into effect:

    In 2007, the Legislature amended section 1092 to provide that legal challenges to contracts made in violation of section 1090 must be commenced within four years after the plaintiff has discovered, or in the exercise of reasonable care should have discovered, the violation. (§ 1092, subd. (b).) Thus, although a contract made in violation of section 1090 is void and disgorgement of the contract proceeds is automatic, the passage of time can render such a contract immune from challenge. (Brandenburg v. Eureka Redevelopment Agency (2007)152 Cal.App.4th 1350.)

    The constitution imo bars tolling past 4 yrs….period, unless the offense was committed after 2008.

12. Anonymous on February 10th, 2012 10:01 pm

    KEEP ON WRITTING WONDER… YOURE MAKING ME LOOK GOOD…. HEY YOU NEED SCHAURES NUMBER YET????? IT MIGHT BE TIME….

Leave a comment