Mark Kirk, 36, director, governmental relations, county Office of Legislative Affairs; former chief of staff for Supervisor Gary Ovitt, listens to testimony during an arraignment hearing in a San Bernardino Superior Courtroom August 19, 2011. (File photo)
By Joe Nelson | jnelson@scng.com | San Bernardino Sun
Published: July 30, 2018 at 5:19 pm | Updated: July 31, 2018 at 7:17 am
Vindicated public corruption figure Mark Kirk on Monday sued San Bernardino County and District Attorney Mike Ramos in federal court for $40 million, alleging malicious prosecution in perhaps the biggest and most expensive prosecutorial fiasco in county history.
The 43-year-old Oak Hills resident alleges in his lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Riverside, that he was the victim of a “retaliatory campaign” following a $102 million settlement between the county and Rancho Cucamonga investor group Colonies Partners LP in November 2006. The settlement, in Colonies’ favor, ended nearly five years of heated litigation over flood control improvements at Colonies’ 434-acre residential and commercial developments in Upland, Colonies at San Antonio and Colonies Crossroads, respectively.
The lawsuit also names as defendants retired Deputy District Attorney R. Lewis Cope; Supervising Deputy Attorney General Melissa Mandel; district attorney investigators Hollis “Bud” Randles and Robert Schreiber; former Assistant Assessor Adam Aleman; county Supervisor Josie Gonzales; Gov. Jerry Brown, the former attorney general of California; and former Assistant Attorney General Gary Schons.
Seven months after the settlement, Colonies Partners contributed $100,000 to a political action committee founded by Kirk, Alliance for Ethical Government. Prosecutors allege the contribution, as well as four other contributions totaling $300,000 that Colonies contributed to other PACs, were bribes or payments for helping deliver or facilitate the historic settlement for Colonies Partners.
The former defendants — Kirk, Rancho Cucamonga developer Jeff Burum, former Assistant Assessor Jim Erwin, and former county Supervisor Paul Biane — maintained the contributions were above board and in good faith.
“The goal of these PAC contributions was to support pro-development politicians and candidates for political office who root out corrupt elements of the county that had plagued the Colonies civil litigation,” according to the lawsuit.
Those affiliated with the other PACs that received contributions from Colonies were former Board of Supervisors Chairman Bill Postmus, Biane, and Erwin, who served as a go-between for Burum, a co-managing partner at Colonies Partners, and the county during the settlement negotiations in 2006.
Kirk served as chief of staff for former county Supervisor Gary Ovitt, who along with Postmus and Biane comprised the majority vote on the Board of Supervisors that approved the Colonies settlement in November 2006.
Prosecutors from the District Attorney’s and state Attorney General’s offices alleged the PACs were shams, used as vehicles to funnel the alleged bribes, which the defendants denied, maintaining they were above board, transparent and documented properly.
The lawsuit says the contribution to the Alliance for Ethical Government was made in May 2017, approximately seven months after the settlement had been reached in the Colonies lawsuit. “Mr. Kirk was the founder and the executive director of the AEG and the PAC was formed to pursue ethical government in the county and to make lawful political contributions to candidates who would serve the citizens in an ethical and honorable manner,” the suit states.
The Colonies case spanned nine years from the onset of the investigation to its culmination in September 2017 with all charges dropped against defendant Jim Erwin after his jury announced it was hopelessly deadlocked. A month prior, in August 2017, a separate jury acquitted Kirk, Burum and Biane after less than a day of deliberating.
The trial proved disastrous for prosecutors, with witnesses flubbing their testimony or being uncooperative. Jurors were sharply critical, saying prosecutors did not meet their burden of proof and put the onus on them to review thousands of investigative reports and documents and piece the case together themselves.
To read expanded article, click here.
It is a significant tragedy what has happened to these gentlemen, and their families at the hands of a politically motivated, and morally corrupt DA. I must say moreover, there are others…those in the recent past that were prosecuted for political purposes who could not afford to fight the long battle, or the risk-reward of battling “trumped up-stacked charges” was ill advised. They too have been handed a very unfair and unjust fate at the hands of a marginalized DA Ramos.
And last I am reminded of a line from a John Mayer song, “if you own the information, you can bend it all you want.” Shame on the equally marginalized local print media, specifically newspapers such as the Daily Bulletin, Sun and others such as editors, Brossart, Pine and Lambert who have spent years twisting the truth, distorting the facts to present a false narrative as they seek to finding meaning to their lives at the hands of others’ lives and reputations. And to make matters worse, these “DA Ramos-type souls” now monetize their previous roles by spinning a PR-marketing story for others, including Cities…. Oh how the World turns, only GOD and all of them can reconcile their actions.
Well said.
You know that the Sun, and Bulletin are owned and managed by the same dirtbags, right? Pine.
This is one of Mark’s several lawsuits? Of course, this “highly knowledgable” political manipulator is worth, what, millions of dollars a year for a settlement? The picture of Mr. Kirk looks innocent enough for me. A prior article in The Sun painted a picture of Mr. Kirk as being a truly responsible church-going, family man. I am sure he is all of those things. I am equally sure of the political manipulation of the Republican Central Committee, of which Mr. Kirk was a part, in hiding the loss of committee funds by then Supervisor Postmus. If I recall correctly, part of the PAC money went to Mr. Kirk’s campaign for the Hesperia City Council, the total of which was around $200,000? $200,000 to run a campaign for Hesperia City Council? That amount of money was intended to intimidate other candidates who had little or no money into withdrawing from the election. Yes, Mr. Kirk lost. I understand that there are various opinions about Mr. Kirk’s character but unfortunately, anyone reading the recent articles about him would believe that he is Angelic!
Al this is your third or forth swipe at Kirk in as many months.
From where I sit it seems you are suggesting Kirk should NOT be entitled to damages for what he endured for 7 years at the hands of Mike Ramos because YOU have a problem with his character.
You also suggest he embezzled $200k in order to run for Hesperia City Council.
I’d ask you why didn’t you give what evidence you had of that to Mike Ramos?
Something you and a few others around here need to understand is Kirk could be a twice convicted felon who did prison time would be entitled to damages if the judicial system did what they did to him with that status.
What part of that do you politicos NOT understand?
Did you not see the various therioes the DA tried to use that failed miserably in this case?
I can only assume Kirk is a tolerant man with those who try and bust his chops as often as you.
I’ve played this silly game with anonymous ball busters since day one of this blog. Their success rate to date is ZERO in accomplishing anything.
Your accusatory speech is not protected if you can’t back it up beyond a theory or hearsay from other sources.
I’am amazed at how little you have spoken about the ineptness of County officials and the millions they spent on this trial and the millions they are going to lose.
If I was Kirks Lawyer I think I’d subpoena you for deposition and make you prove your allegations.
@5 Al gets it Ken, you don’t, you are just a “follow the herd” type devoid of critical thinking.
@6 if Al got it he wouldn’t be making the same statement over and over.
Devoid of critical thinking?
Well why don’t you outline for us how your awesome thinking skills have impacted local issues?
I’ll give Al serious Kudos for using his real name.
And your excuse would be what?
Follow the herd? Seems the herd just unseated a seriously corrupt DA.
You are just another shit talker who has to hide and think they are awesome.
Finger waive to YOU!
Holts, a real he man
BTW #6 critical thinkers who know the game don’t sit back and throw rocks, they get things done.
In Al’s case when accusing one of criminal misdeeds gathers his information, evidence and takes it to those who can do something about it, IF that concerned to the degree they always talk about it.
Obviously you don’t fit into that category.
If I followed the herd I wouldn’t have gotten fired from my job at SBSD. All I had to do to avoid that was ALWAYS bend over and say YES.
I’am confident someday soon I’ll catch a shit talkin cheer leader in the open.
That’s your problem in a nutshell, you are too angry and unstable,
@10 same answer as always. If that were true your pals would have done something about it.
You shouldn’t worry about such things being the brave person you are. Better yet all those you know who have your back.
It’s entertaining watching losers (people who lost election after election) criticize people that were obviously wrongfully prosecuted for political vendettas. It’s all coming out now, and will be coming out in a flood since the most corrupt DA in American history, Mike Ramos, will no longer be there to cover up this cesspool after January.
It will be really interesting watching Mike Ramos’ buddies in the Mexican Mafia and the San Manuel Tribe have to finally answer for their murderous mayhem. It will be even more fun watching Ramos explain bribery in front of his own criminal grand jury! Cheers!
Sheriff McMahon will be in a deep depression come January when his crime buddy is no more.
Its hard to see how somebody who associated himself with the likes of Bill Postmus and Brad Mitzelfish and Anthony Reiley and Gary Ovitts and ends up getting singed thinks hes owed $40 million. The Cplonies said it had a hole in the ground worth how much? $300 million? But they were good sports about it and took just $102 million. That was really big of them, only getting $102 million for their hole in the ground.
Postus voted to give the Colonies the $102 million So did Paul Biane. So did Ovitts. So then the Colonies gave Bill Postmus who voted for it $100k through his phony PAC and then gave Paul Biane $100,000 through his chief of staffs PAC, a guy named Brown and then gave Ovitts $100,000 through this fella here and his phony PAC. But those weren’t bribes! Nosiree! So now the county owes this fella here $40 million. You betcha!
#14 I bet you voted for Mike Ramos. He thinks just like you. Did I tell you he lost the case and the election?
Postmus belongs in prison.
Ramos and his band of thugs should be in prison. Lying bastards.
Anonymous # 14:
Your comment reminds me of some prior comments from Mike Ramos supporters who were banned from this site, as it exhibits both poor grammar and a limited grasp of the facts of The Colonies case.
At least you didn’t call it a “whole” in the ground as one Mike Ramos supporter did!
14 should be asking his buddy Ramos why he couldn’t prove all that? All those lawyers and cops from three different agencies and none got it right. Lmao. Then Ramos whines like the bitch that he is he’s being treated badly by a developer who is out spending him. Oh and the unethical defense lawyer who has no experience running the DA’s office.
I was at every day of the criminal trial, from January 4, 2017 until they let Mr. Erwin go in September. I was there on days when some of the defense attorneys and some of the prosecutors weren’t there. I was there on days when some of the defendants weren’t there. I was there on two days in the summer when Mr. Kirk wasn’t there. I heard and took notes on the testimony of every witness. The only persons there more than I was was Judge Michael Smith and one of the bailiffs. I’m not an authority, mind you. But I was there.
For me, this all becomes problematic when someone starts throwing numbers like $40 million around. Let us assume that what Mr. Kirk alleges is true: That he was not engaged in any illegal activity and that he was unfairly prosecuted. I think the county’s defense attorneys will seek to contradict that. Nevertheless, let’s assume they are wrong and Mr. Kirk and his lawyer are right. Let us even assume that he can somehow establish to the satisfaction of a jury that he did nothing ethically iffy or wrong or in any way questionable in setting up a PAC in the immediate aftermath of the $102 million settlement and that there was nothing questionable, or illegal or foolish about taking the $100,000 that he did from the Colonies Partners so soon after the Colonies Partners banked that $102 million, even though Mr. Kirk, on April 21, 2009 in an interview-turned-into-interrogation with district attorney’s office investigators Hollis Randles and Maury Weiss himself said, and I quote, “I understand it doesn’t look good.” Again, let us assume that it can be established that the San Bernardino County District Attorney’s office/California Attorney General’s Office went beyond the pale and put Mr. Kirk undeservedly through the wringer and that he lost his job with the county and put him to the expense of hiring an attorney to clear his good name and keep himself from getting convicted and they put him through the bother of going to trial. How much money is that worth?
I want to do some calculation. Maybe someone is better at figures than I am, though I doubt it. I would apply this math: Mr. Kirk was 36 when he was indicted. That means he had perhaps as much as 14 years left in his career as a public official or maybe as much as 24 more years as a public official. He was not necessarily entitled to work as a public official for 24 more years: nevertheless, he might have done so. He was making roughly $120,000 as chief of staff, with $60,000 in benefits, putting him at $180,000 per year, roughly, in total compensation. I think he was bumped up to $130,000 a year when he left the chief of staff position and went to work as the director of government relations the year before his indictment, which was the position he held when he was indicted and then suspended without pay in May 2011. That put him at $190,000 per year. So, let’s round that up to $200,000 per year. Okay, so far so good, I think, though some may say I’m off a bit here. But, as they say, close enough for government work. So, let us bump that $200,000 up to $225,000 to equate to what Mr. Kirk might have averaged per year for the 24 years going forward from 2011. Now let’s multiply by 24 [24 years X $225,000 per year = $5.4 million]. Lest anyone accuse me of poor math or underestimating Mr. Kirk’s earning potential, let’s double that to be fair to Mr. Kirk. Call it $10.8 million. And hell, to be doubly sure, let’s double it again: $21.6 million. And let’s say Mr. Kirk spent $1 million on his criminal defense and he will need to venture another $1 million on his civil suit. That totals $23.6 million.
Somehow, on my ledger, $23.6 million does not equate to $40 million. I think that Mr. Kirk is asking for $16.4 million too much, again, assuming he can establish his case.
There is another consideration here: Go to the courthouse sometime, especially in the morning Monday through Thursday. It is like a huge mill. People are being run through the place like clockwork. Nearly all of them are overwhelmed by the system and plead guilty. How many of them were or are, as Mr. Kirk claims he was and was able to show at trial, not guilty? Truly not guilty? How many of these people are having their lives ruined by the proceedings at the courthouse? What do we owe them? Do we owe each of them $16.4 million for the horror we have subjected them to? Let us even say we only owe them each, on average, half of what we owe Mr. Kirk. Let’s cut that in half, to $5.4 million for each innocent we have railroaded. I asked Grover Merritt, the 2014 candidate for district attorney, what his estimate was on the innocent rate among those who just fold at arraignment. He said he figured one out of 8 people being charged were actually innocent. Grover would know: He’s been one of the guys railroading people in this county since the 1980s. I’ll take his word for it. In San Bernardino County yearly, over ten thousand are convicted for minor to major crimes, most without ever going to trial. If 12.5 percent of those convicted of major crimes in this county are in fact innocent, there is not enough money in the public treasury to make those who have been victimized by our prosecutorial/judicial process whole again. To undo the damage to these innocents, as Mr. Kirk would have us to for him in his case, would absolutely bankrupt out county government.
If Mr. Kirk and his attorney, Mr. Scalisi, are truly interested in reforming a dysfunctional court system that unfairly prosecuted him, I think what they should do is put their energy toward representing all of the innocent people now being charged with crimes in San Bernardino County and putting the court through its paces just like they did in Mr. Kirk’s case. That would be a true blow for justice.
This goes way beyond lost earnings. Many other areas to consider. Calculate potential punitive damages Mark.
Okay, and how about the real and punitive damages that should be applied to every other person in this county who has been wrongfully prosecuted and wrongfully convicted? Do they deserve $40 million, too? What would you say to them? They got their day in court? If Mr. Kirk is talented enough to be chief of staff to a supervisor and county intergovernmental officer for the entire county, he is talented enough to bounce back. He has been exonerated and should now be able to go back to work for the county. Maybe Curt Hagman will hire him as chief of staff or he can go back to being intergovernmental officer. Is Mr. Kirk the only person who was ever wrongfully accused and prosecuted? To his credit, he put the system to the test and he won. These others run through the court mill who did not have the wherewithal he had just got convicted or caved under the pressure. Those are the ones whose cases call out for punitive damages, not someone who was a creature of the system, lived by the system, profited by the system, was prosecuted by the system and ultimately was vindicated by the system. Mr. Kirk demonstrated that the system he believed in worked. When Mr. Kirk was riding high and was Mr. Ovitt’s chief of staff, I don’t recall him asking for the county to review all of the prosecutions going on at the courthouse to see if anyone was wrongfully accused or wrongfully convicted. He was part of the pro-law enforcement establishment. I don’t really know, but my guess is that at that time he would have scoffed at people complaining they were being railroaded. If someone is charged with garden variety lawn decoration stealing and goes to court and beats the rap, is he owed something for what he was put through? Some would say the accused lawn decoration thief got his day in court and that’s all he deserved. Some would say Mr. Kirk got his day in court and that’s all we owe him. I am not saying that. But let us be realistic. $40 million? If we have to hand out $40 million to everyone who is put on trial and is not convicted or if we have to hand out just $1 million to everyone who is put on trial and is not convicted there will be no money left in the public till.
@22 Mark might you be just a touch premature on all this hype on a money figure contained in a lawsuit?
I guess Kirks Lawyer could have simply put down the amount of damages to be determined at trial?
We can only hope that the wrongful convictions of the past will be NO more or be greatly reduced now that Mike Ramos will be out of office Jan 2019.
I think the County already knows they are on the hook for some serious damages between 6 plaintiffs in this case.
Mike Ramos pursued his criminal case as he saw fit and played it out for 7 years enjoying the public hype he raised among the unknowing ones. You watched it and reported on it.
Now the Colonies Plaintiffs are in the position to do the same. The County can challenge it as they see fit.
Legally speaking as the system is set up I think you’d be shocked at what these Plaintiffs are entitled to by a jury award.
@20 Mark, the defense attorneys for the county are precluded from retrying any aspect of the criminal trial. They cannot use accusations made by prosecutors to mitigate damages, because a jury has already acquitted. All the county can do is claim they (and the prosecutors) did not engage in unlawful activity in an effort to railroad innocent persons, and are therefore not liable for damage. But every aspect of the criminal case, from prosecutors lying to the Judge, to misconduct by county counsel, to withholding exculpatory evidence from the Grand Jury will now be brought to the full attention of a Jury in Los Angeles County.
Oh, and yes, it is going to be very easy to prove misconduct and even fraud against the county.
I think Mark forgets how inept and corrupt some of the private practice lawyers are in this county.
Today someone came to my door for a candidate endorsed by Kamala Harris. I really enjoyed telling her that Kamala Harris endorsed a Republican(not her party) that is an accused womanizer DA, that prosecuted people for political purposes, and has now been voted out. And I made sure to say Kamala did it with a big hug! This “me too” fraud needs to go. Hopefully she is next. These men deserve compensation for the years of their lives this cost them. Hopefully this comes back to haunt her.