Sunday, November 13, 2011 – 02:30 p.m.

San Bernardino County is set to award a new $655,200 three-year lobbying contract to Sacramento-based Platinum Advisors this Tuesday.

The steered contract also includes two one-year options as contained in the current agreement.

In September, the county issued a rigid request for proposal limiting the number of qualified respondents, thus handing the new deal to Platinum.

Out of hundreds of lobbying firms registered to do business in California, only three responded.

What’s comical, is that in addition to Platinum’s bid, Forte LLP and Chabot Strategies LLC also responded.

Chabot is owned by former Assembly candidate Paul Chabot.

Even more interesting is the fact that official records show neither Chabot or Forte is listed as a registered lobbyist in California.

So in essence Platinum had no competition.

Thursday, August 11, 2011 – 10:30 a.m.

Why is the truth a secret?

Justice is supposed to be about seeking the truth.

But in the Colonies criminal case, it sure doesn’t seem that way.

A story titled ‘Attorney: Case sabotaged’, published in the Thursday edition of The Sun, depicts a deplorable stance.

The prosecution in the criminal case against defendants Jeffrey Burum, Jim Erwin, Mark Kirk and Paul Biane wanted the proceedings involving a civil lawsuit filed by the County of San Bernardino against San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG), California Department of Transportation (CalTRANS) and the City of Upland stayed until their case is concluded.

San Bernardino County is seeking to recover a portion of the $102 million settlement with Colonies Partners L.P.

The aforementioned defendants are accused of criminal misconduct related to the 2006 settlement.

San Diego County Superior Court Judge Jay Bloom, who has ruled the lawsuit has merit, disagreed and ordered the case to trial in April.

Everyone seems flustered that the civil case may develop exculpatory evidence helpful to the defense in the criminal case.

Curiously, the law firm of Best, Best & Krieger, the lawyers representing SANBAG, seem mysteriously vocal on the issue.

An amazing position to take to say the least.

The former head of the San Bernardino County Safety Employees Benefit Association (SEBA), who abruptly resigned as president earlier this year and retired last month to accept a position as head of security for Casino Morongo, has apparently returned to county service.

Sources say the Morongo Band of Mission Indians withdrew its offer of employment forcing William Abernathie to rescind his retirement and return to active employment with the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department.

The reason for the Morongo Tribal Governments decision has not been confirmed. But enquiring minds want to know.

Tuesday, July 5, 2011 – 08:00 p.m.

It seems San Bernardino County’s former chief counsel, who county supervisors forced to leave last year, still hasn’t quite departed from government service.

Sources report that former county counsel Ruth Stringer still resides quietly on active payroll.

Even though she retired in December 2010.

Stringer is said to be burning approximately 2,000 or more hours of banked leave time. In the process she reportedly will accrue an additional 212 hours of leave to be cashed out or burned.

It’s another five weeks of compensation, but who’s counting.

Not to mention a total compensation package of roughly $350,000 for the year of burning the banked time.

Also, Stringer will also increase her pension formula by an additional 2.6% of her earnable compensation forever, which is equal to an increase of roughly $7,000 per year to her pension.

No wonder the legislature is out to stop abuses such as this one.

Tuesday, July 5, 2011 – 08:10 a.m.

Well it’s official!

William Abernathie, former president of the San Bernardino County Safety Employees Benefit Association (SEBA) has officially retired effective June 30, 2011.

Abernathie, who served six years as president, abruptly resigned earlier this year after pledging to finish the remainder of his current term, which will expire this November.

SEBA is now engulfed in a myriad of internal legal and contract language issues.

Sources say Abernathie has been hired as the Director of Security for Casino Morongo.

Rutherford

Monday, January 10, 2011 – 08.55 p.m.

In last year’s race for San Bernardino County’s Second District, then-Fontana City Councilmember Janice Rutherford beat a 16-year political incumbent by focusing on issues while refraining from personal attacks.

For instance, local political blogs were full of gossip about her opponent’s alleged shortcomings, Rutherford refused to join the fray and kept an issues-based campaign.

Rightly, Janice Rutherford shy-ed away from that crap and focused on serious matters – restoring the local economy, bringing back jobs, and fiscal restraint.

But one issue stood out among all others: restoring ethics and trust in county government.

In an interview with Cassie MacDuff, June 11, 2010, Rutherford stated her support for either an ethics commission or an independent ethics commissioner to enforce proper behavior (and punishment) of wayward county elected officials.

Furthermore, here are samplings of quotes from her campaign materials:

* “The county is mired in investigations and corruption…we need to end corruption and get the county moving again.” – Janice Rutherford Television ad

* Janice Rutherford “will clean-up county government and crack down on corruption” – Janice Rutherford door-hangar

*”I’ll work hard to restore trust in county government” – Janice Rutherford statement in a campaign mailer

All relevant, all good points. And exactly what San Bernardino County needs.

But the election for change did not end in November 2010. Tomorrow’s vote for board chair will set a defining tone for at least the next two years.

This blog has already highlighted why an elevation of Supervisor Josie Gonzales to board chair is not in the best interest of a county aiming to move beyond a shady ethical past.

Just for starters, Gonzales has opposed the establishment of an ethics commission (such as the one Rutherford supports) and appears to be named on a federal search warrant investigating shifty practices at government health facilities.

Supervisor Janice Rutherford should follow the course she set during last year’s tough fought election and support the reform movement of Supervisors Brad Mitzelfelt and Neil Derry for BOS chair and vice-chair respectively.

The campaign to clean up county government did not end with the ouster of one county supe last November. The fight continues tomorrow.

Easy decision. Board Chair Brad Mitzelfelt and Vice Chair Neil Derry.

“Let’s start now.”

District Attorney Mike Ramos

Sunday, December 5, 2010 – 01:30 p.m.

Last week another round of perjury for San Bernardino County District Attorney Mike Ramos.

Last week another list of excuses and deflections by his biggest defender.

The editorial board of The Sun seems to be on its heels over the latest screw-up by Ramos, but rushed to his defense none-the-less.

Last week the California Fair Political Practices Commission announced it intended to fine Ramos and his campaign treasurer, San Bernardino-based certified public accountant Marvin Reiter, for nine errors on Ramos’ campaign finance disclosure.

Most of the some $9,000 in omissions were credit card charges related to hotels and bars.

The lastest episode comes on the heels of Ramos being caught for failing to disclose a $10,000 payment he made to his wife from his campaign funds in 2009 for alleged campaign work.

A practice which is now banned under state law.

Both Ramos and Reiter have admitted to the latest offense.

There is circumstantial evidence to believe Ramos turned to his campaign credit card as a source to supplement his income in the second half of 2009 after his county-issued government credit card use fell under the scrutiny from at least one county supervisor and a reporter for The Sun.

The investigation into questionable activities by reporter Joe Nelson was quashed by editor Frank Pine as not being newsworthy.

In their latest defense of Ramos, a Sun editorial makes a comparison of Ramos’ conduct to that of Jim Erwin, former chief of staff to county supervisor Neil Derry.

Ramos gave the go ahead to charge Erwin for what Ramos alleges were intentional and deliberate omissions from his statement of economic interest under penalty of perjury. Something the Sun says is much different than Ramos’ violations, even though Ramos’s two incidents involves the same form and declaration under penalty of perjury.

The only visible difference being that Ramos says his omissions were all just accidents, mistakes, and just innocent oversight.

Ramos may have a very difficult year ahead for himself.

He’s likely to be called as a witness in the Erwin case and also has a potential of having to appear at a deposition in a lawsuit filed by one of his many former mistresses.

The attorney for the plaintiff in the case has sworn declarations from five other former mistresses of Ramos. Ramos has publicly denied carrying out extramartial affairs with any women, including his own employees.

Ramos is also dogged with allegations of looking the other way for friends and political benefactors.

The Sun has definitely ball and chained themselves to Ramos. But sources inside the newspaper do say the media outlet is starting to grow weary of Ramos and his unethical behavior.

It’ll be interesting to see how long the paper can cover for San Bernardino County’s illustrious DA.

Monday, November 29, 2010 – 11:00 p.m.
Last Updated: November 30, 2010 – 06:45 a.m.

Well…well….well…….

San Bernardino County District Attorney Mike Ramos caught again by state regulators.

After getting fined $200 earlier this year by the State of California Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) for failing to properly disclose $10,000 he paid to his wife from campaign funds, Ramos is about to get smacked again.

This time the proposed fine is $2,500 against both Ramos and his campaign committee treasurer. A significantly stiffer penalty, and one highly irregular for a sitting District Attorney.

But Ramos’ own ethical lapses know no bounds.

It seems San Bernardino County’s illustrious “Do as I say, not as I do” DA intentionally failed to itemize a 2009 campaign-funded credit card charging frenzy on his finance disclosure reports.

Statements prepared, audited and approved by Ramos’ treasurer, San Bernardino-based certified public accountant Marvin Reiter.

Based upon a complaint filed last spring by Sharon Gilbert of iePolitics.com, the FPPC investigated Ramos and Reiter for glaring irregularities involving some $13,000 in credit card charges for the period July 1, 2009 through December 31, 2009.

The report clearly indicated that all of Ramos’ charges were under $100 each and therefore itemization was not required.

However, the FPPC disagreed and found some $8,619 in charges were improperly reported and intentionally not itemized as required by law.

Of the un-itemized charges in question, a whopping $6,239.26 was paid for hotel accommodations and room service to three hotel chains, and an additional $149.08 was paid for booze tabs at the Tartan Restaurant in Redlands, California.

Sources say the Redlands locale is a well-known Ramos watering hole.

The disclosure statement in question was signed by both Ramos and Reiter under penalty of perjury. But of course this new episode was just an innocent oversight.

Maybe those credit card bills were mistakenly generated in Cantonese.

However, it doesn’t appear likely that Ramos’ will prosecute himself, nor will outgoing Attorney General Jerry Brown, who at this point would find no political benefit from doing so.

Ramos, who’s probably hiding under a rock or maybe in a hotel room, sent Orange County-based political hack David Ellis out to handle this mess.

Ellis’ whole effort was to point out the FPPC has not found Ramos’ expenditures to be inappropriate.

Hmm! What a profound statement coming from a source such as Ellis. Sounds more like damage control in the works.

Well maybe someone should ask the FPPC commissioners to take a look before they meet next week.

Even better, maybe Ramos should make his credit card statements and receipts available to not only the public, but his donors who forked over the money for his escapades.

It would be interesting to see who else participated in those hotel stays and what those other 40-plus individual credit card charges of $100 or less entailed.

Last year, county supervisors declined to re-appoint Reiter to the Board of Trustees of the county’s pension fund. A position Reiter and his ilk have continued to lobby for his return.

Especially Ellis, who’s trying to hang on to a no-bid contract he has with the pension fund.

A scenario that is unlikely in the cards after this new stunt.

Saturday, October 30, 2010 – 1030 p.m.

Did Fridays preliminary hearing involving former San Bernardino County Assessor Bill Postmus and Taxpayer Advocate Gregory Eyler really take an unexpected turn?

Well according to people in the courtroom, maybe not.

District Attorney staff entering the courtroom before the hearing reportedly looked unhappy and stressed. Something you wouldn’t expect after securing a high-profile conviction just two days earlier.

Smiles should have been in order.

Senior District Attorney Investigator Hollis “Bud” Randles spent roughly four and one-half hours on the witness stand being cross-examined by defense attorneys over the District Attorneys public integrity units handling of key witness Adam Aleman.

Aleman, a former assistant assessor and convicted felon is at the core of the prosecutions cases against Postmus, Eyler, and former Assistant Assessor Jim Erwin.

Aleman has plead no-contest to four felony counts related to falsifying evidence and lying to a county grand jury. He is cooperating with county and state prosecutors in an effort to gain a lighter misdemeanor sentence.

However, what has now come into question is the District Attorney’s handling of various aspects of the investigation.

Some issues arising in Fridays hearing include;

In the afternoon, during what ended up being approximately twenty minutes of legal wrangling between Judge Michael Smith and attorneys for both sides, the proceedings became so heated that Smith had to tell Deputy District Attorney Lewis Cope to sit down more than once. Cope actually walked up to Randles while he was on the witness stand and started whispering in his ear.

The heated dislogue was over a line of questioning which exposed the first evidence of investigatory and prosecutorial misconduct.

Defense Attorney Stephen Levine forced an admission by Randles that Aleman, acting as an agent of the District Attorney, wore an electronic recording device for the purpose of taping Postmus after he was already represented by legal counsel. After numerous objections to questions from Levine by Cope, Smith ordered Randles to answer questions related to the Aleman recordings. Recordings which have not been turned over to the counsel for any of the defendants.

Smith indicated such actions may be misconduct and could result in the dismissal of some or all of the charges. The judge ordered all evidence related to the secret recordings be produced on Monday morning.

Under cross-examination by Eyler defense attorney Stanley Hodge, Randles also conceded he had basically embellished his testimony to increase its impact on the court, while he was under direct examination by Cope.

Hodge went even further and started asking a series of questions of Randles to lay the foundation for a federal civil rights action

Courtroom discussion regarding grand jury testimony, to be officially released on Monday, indicates Postmus was charged with felony perjury for what prosecutors alleged was for failing to disclose on his statement of economic interest a $12,000 check he received from business partner John Defazio.

However, the check recovered by investigators was un-cashed and made payable to Postmus’ father, William K. Postmus. A charge was still filed nevertheless.

During questioning regarding one of Postmus’ charges of grand theft for allegedly failing to properly reimburse the county for air fare to a political event in Texas, Randles indicated the full amount wasn’t reimbursed. When asked by Levine as to how much money wasn’t reimbursed? Randles said “ten cents.” At this point Levine took a dime from his trouser pocket and slid it across the table to Cope.

Snickering and chuckling in the courtroom was in order.

Postmus and Eyler are charged with several felony counts related to alleged malfeasance during Postmus’ tenure as county assessor.

Other witnesses to be heard include Assistant County Human Resources Director Bob Windle.

The hearing is scheduled to resume Monday morning with Randles back on the witness stand.

Friday, October 15, 2010 – 9:10 a.m.

We here at InlandPolitics.com couldn’t help but notice the two local newspapers didn’t report on yesterdays events at the trial of former Assessor employee and Rancho Cucamonga city councilman Rex Gutierrez.

Gutierrez is charged with three felonies alleging time card fraud during his employment under former Assessor Bill Postmus.

Yesterday, defense attorney Jim Reiss made significant inroads on his cross examination of District Attorney investigator Skyler Beaty.

Among the highlights:

Beaty told jurors; he only presented an analysis of eight percent of Gutierrez’s total time that he worked at the Assessors office; that much of his testimony was based on assumptions; that Gutierrez was paid for eighty hours per pay period and took no personal or family time.

Beaty also said the Verizon phone records presented were unreliable.

In addition, Beaty testified he developed his own specific methodology and criteria based upon experience he received, and had never received specific training prior to completing his analysis.  Beaty said he made his own assumptions, never used any accounting books or personnel manuals.  Beaty told Reiss and the jury, “Tools I used involved county policy and other county tools”.

Reiss asked Beatty if he found that exempt employees need to work from 8-5?  His answer, ”No”.

Beaty said all his findings were his own work product and he had no help from anyone. He agreed to Gutierrez being an exempt at-will employee, and that Gutierrez’ supervisor authorized all his schedules.

Reiss ended his cross examination with a very valid point.

Based on Beaty’s experience, and it being his very first paper trail audit, and was a prior police officer and narcotics detective, had never had any prior financial crimes experience.

The defense presentation begins Monday morning.

Ellis

Thursday, October 7, 2010 – 08:30 p.m.

Sources are telling InlandPolitics.com that the Orange County-based political consultant to San Bernardino County District Attorney Mike Ramos may have put his clients in violation of state campaign finance laws.

David Ellis, owner of Delta Partners, LLC and the David Ellis Group, is alleged to have put many of his clients in violation of what is known as the ‘sub-vendor rule’ in years prior to 2010.

Campaign committees are required to disclose any payment made to sub-vendors, who receive work outsourced by primary consultants and vendors.

Not until this year did Ellis have his clients, including a major local union, report all vendors receiving payments through his primary mail-house, Bieber Communications a.k.a Bieber McCraken.

Until 2010, Ellis reportedly received kick-backs on Bieber invoices of approximately 15-20% of printing costs charged to his clients. A practice believed to hide Ellis’ involvement in various political campaigns.

Any payments to sub-vendors in an amount greater than $500 are to be itemized on a clients campaign disclosure reports.

This requirement appears to not have been met by any of Ellis’ clients until this year.

Contracts between Ellis and or his related entities, and the San Bernardino County Employees Retirement Association (SBCERA) have recently fallen under the scrutiny of county supervisors.

Sources are saying Ellis may have received special consideration in the alleged no-bid contracts.

It’s unknown if a complaint has been made to state regulators.

Developing…..

Ramos

Friday, October 1, 2010 – 7:40 p.m.

Next Tuesday the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors will retain an outside law firm to defend District Attorney Mike Ramos.

Ramos and the county were served with a summons and complaint by plaintiff Cheryl Ristow in mid-September.

Ristow, a former mistress of the District Attorney, alleges Ramos and his management staff retaliated against her for refusing to keep quiet, when news of the affair was disclosed in a local newspaper.

The affair is alleged to have occurred during the period 2003 to 2005.

Item #19 on the meeting agenda consent calendar sets in place a retainer with the firm of Gresham, Savage, Nolan & Tilden at an hourly rate of $275.00 per hour without a cap.

Interestingly, in an unusal twist, Ramos was given the luxury of handpicking his personal law firm in lieu of the county making the selection on his behalf.

Gresham has been a regular campaign contributor to Ramos, who has paid the firm several thousand dollars from his campaign committee bank account for unknown legal work.

Aleman

Thursday, September 30, 2010 – 09:00 p.m.

It’s showtime in the re-trial of former Assessor employee and Rancho Cucamonga City Councilman Rex Gutierrez.

Gutierrez, who is charged with three felonies related to alleged time card fraud during his employment under former San Bernardino County Assessor Bill Postmus, now faces his main accuser.

That person? Former Assistant Assessor and key prosecution witness Adam Aleman.

Late Thursday afternoon Aleman took the witness stand for the prosecution.

Aleman, a convicted felon, is the central witness in all the alleged corruption cases being prosecuted by Attorney General Jerry Brown and District Attorney Mike Ramos.

Brown made his San Bernardino County prosecutions, which as of late have suffered significant evidentiary setbacks, a centerpiece of his campaign by way of a February 10, 2010 televised press conference.

Almost all the juror’s in Gutierrez’s first trial found Aleman’s and his testimony to be not credible.

Aleman has pleaded “no contest” to two felony counts of Destroying Altering Public Records, one county of felony Vandalism, and one felony count of Preparing a False Claim.

Also hanging over Aleman’s head is five additional felony counts subject to dismissal in exchange for his truthful testimony.

The additional charges are three felony counts of Preparing False Evidence, one felony count of Offering False Evidence to a Grand Jury, and one felony count of Destroying and Altering Documents presented to a Grand Jury.

Testimony continues Monday morning.

Friday, September 10, 2010 – 08:15 a.m.

Remember John Hueston?

Hueston is the high-profile Democratic Party heavyweight Orange County lawyer who convinced the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors to hire him for a mission to pursue civil litigation against former County Assessor Bill Postmus and several of Postmus’ former office aides.

In convincing the board of supes to contract for his services, John Hueston presented himself as the federal prosecutor who five years ago secured convictions in jury trials against executives related to the collapse of merchant energy generator Enron.

Among John Hueston’s supposed achievements was the multiple-count conviction on federal fraud charges of former Enron CEO Jeffrey Skilling.

With a resume – at least on paper -like that, it is no wonder that in announcing the selection of John Hueston to pursue civil action against Bill Postmus and others, the board heralded Hueston’s hiring. Here is a press statement from Chair Gary Ovitt celebrating John Hueston’s assignment to prepare a lawsuit against Bill Postmus:

“The county is fortunate to have a former federal prosecutor with such a vast amount of experience investigating…Assessor Bill ostmus…The County is confident that Mr. Hueston will provide the board with the best information possible so that if the board prceeds with removal (of Postmus), the board’s case will be solid and withstand any potential legal challenge.”

“Withstand any legal challenge”? Yes, that most certainly would be important in the appointment of a special counsel. However, this summer, the US Supreme Court, in an opinion authored by Ruth Ginsburg, the Supreme Court unanimously nullified Skilling’s honest services fraud conviction.

That would be the fraud conviction “won” by supposed super-lawyer John Hueston.

Indeed, legal analysts an court observers believe that each of John Hueston’s 19-count conviction will be overturned as a direct result of Hueston’s inability to properly apply federal law in securing convictions.

One such observer, Houston-based litigator Tom Kirkendall stated “the government’s case against Skilling continues to look shaky in other respects. Largely overshadowed by the Supreme Court’s decision is the fact that the Fifth Circuit’s previous opinion invited Skilling to file a motion for new trial in the District Court based on issues of prosecutorial misconduct that Skilling raised after discovering the evidence after the trial. Specifically, the Fifth Circuit was particularly concerned about the failure of the Enron Task Force to comply with federal rules requiring the disclosure of exculpatory evidence to the defense from the Task Force’s pre-trial interviews with main Skilling accuser and admitted felon, former Enron CFO Andrew Fastow.”

This is with whom the Board of Supervisors entered into an agreement.

This season’s stunning developments regarding the work of John Hueston mean that Hueston failed as a prosecutor in his former assignment, and his claim to be a lawman who busted Enron is now a fantasy, as it is all but certain that Hueston’s prized collar is about to be set free.

Locally, now that it’s a given that John Hueston’s signature criminal case has now failed “to withstand” a court challenge at the highest level, it appears the hundreds of thousands of dollars spent for John Hueston to compile an unproven incendiary “report” that unfairly blasted the offices of Supervisors Paul Biane, Brad Mitzelfelt and Neil Derry in an attempt to smear those associated with Bill Postmus is an absolute waste of county money.

The lawsuit based upon John Hueston’s now-questionable “report” is nothing more than a document built upon the reputation of a lawyer whose proudest achievement is now unraveling before our eyes. If his case against Enron is collapsing – as it is – how can San Bernardino County trust this Orange County interloper, who is being tasked with pursuing litigation against several former county officials and their own highly-regarded attorneys?

With the US Supreme Court’s ruling, San Bernardino County government cannot trust John Hueston to successfully litigate anything.

In the coming days, this blog will detail more about John Hueston’s Enron criminal case problems, as well as the more important detail as to how San Bernardino County’s Board of Supervisors can sever their relationship with him and how they can recoup money expended to him.

John Hueston is sounding more and more like a snake oil salesman from the days of yore who thought he could dribble into a remote town or rural outpost and hoodwink the locals into spening their fortunes on a miracle elixir.

John Hueston is not the attorney he says he is, and it is time for the County to take action to prevent him from ripping off our taxpayers any further.

Ramos with Attorney General Jerry Brown

Sunday, August 29, 2010 – 11:50 pm

San Bernardino County District Attorney Mike Ramos, the architect of a corruption probe against various current and former San Bernardino County officials, has now become the recipient of criticism from senior republicans.

One elected official is even is asserting that prosecutions brought by Ramos may in fact be politically motivated.

U.S. Representative Jerry Lewis (R-Redlands) and incoming minority leader, State Senator Bob Dutton (R-Rancho Cucamonga), in recent interviews published in Monday’s Press-Enterprise “Political Notebook” render some ominous criticism of Ramos.

The following is an excerpt from the column related to Ramos.

Inland Rep. Jerry Lewis, R-Redlands, said last week that the ongoing corruption scandals in San Bernardino County have not affected his work in Washington.

“At the same time, we have to put the highest priority on ending that” culture of corruption in San Bernardino County, Lewis said during a meeting with reporters and editors at The Press-Enterprise.

When asked about who he thought were local leaders with a bright future in elected politics, Lewis said he was concerned about an inflow of quality people.

He cited San Bernardino County District Attorney Mike Ramos, whose office is prosecuting former county assessor Bill Postmus and others, as someone who has done a good job and has a high-profile platform as district attorney.

But without providing specifics, Lewis said Ramos, who has publicly expressed interest in running for Congress, has “stubbed his toe” a bit in recent months.

Another top county Republican also has weighed in on the ongoing corruption probe. Senate Republican leader-elect Bob Dutton said recently he thought there were some “political motivations” in the inquiry, without mentioning Ramos.

“I think there are some people using the process for political gain,” Dutton said.

Ramos has consistently denied that he has political motivations in prosecuting Postmus and other former county officials.

It’s becoming common knowledge that Ramos has rough waters ahead.

Ramos has hoodwinked Attorney General Jerry Brown into backing his politically motivated prosecutions of Former Assessor Bill Postmus and Jim Erwin, former Assistant Assessor and Chief of Staff to Third District Supervisor Neil Derry, on concocted charges alleging crimes related to a $102 million settlement between the County of San Bernardino and Colonies Partners.

A prosecution, which county insiders are now indicating is in trouble.

In addition, Ramos faces a civil action from a former mistress, Cheryl Ristow, a former Ramos employee, who alleges she was retaliated against for refusing to lie at Ramos’ request, in an effort to conceal an 18-month long affair between 2003 and 2005.

Reliable sources say that five additional District Attorney employees, of which at least two are prosecutors, have came forward under sworn declaration to Ristow’s attorney admitting affairs with Ramos.

Some of the women allegedly support Ristow’s claim that an affair did in fact occur.

Ramos has complicated matters for himself by publicly and categorically denying any relationships with other women.

A situation involving a District Attorney, if proven to have lied to the public, spells resignation.

Apparently the powers to be sense blood in the water with Ramos.

The clock is running on a problematic situation.

Democratic gubernatorial candidate and attorney general Jerry Brown evaporated from the air waves yesterday after Los Angeles County District Attorney Steve Cooley arrived on the scene to set the record straight regarding his office’s investigation into the City of Bell salary and pension scandal.

Brown has went quiet on the Bell episode in the the media circuit since Cooley gave interviews to newspaper and radio stations starting Monday.

In an interview yesterday on the Tim Conway Jr. Show, aired on Los Angeles-based radio station KFI-AM 640, Cooley told Conway his office had already interviewed Bell officials back in March of this year. Cooley also said his office had primary jurisdiction on the criminal investigation and had not requested help from Brown’s office, but that both agencies were in communication.

Cooley said the Attorney General appeared to be pursuing a “civil” investigation path.

Over the past week, Brown, in an effort to counter opponent Meg Whitman’s media barrage, has been burning a public trail of “righteous indignation” over the Bell matter.

Amazing!

Democratic gubernatorial candidate Jerry Brown is apparently becoming a little sensitive to criticisms he is using his official capacity of Attorney General as a campaign platform.

In a Los Angeles Times story yesterday, Brown defended his investigation into pay practices in the City of Bell, deflecting allegations by the Meg Whitman campaign, that his actions were a campaign stunt.

Maybe someone should ask Los Angeles County District Attorney Steve Cooley. The man with the tire tracks across his back.

The Bell issue is clearly within the jurisdiction of the Los Angeles County District Attorney. In fact, the district attorney’s Public Integrity Division was already investigating the Bell matter when Brown rolled into town.

The California Department of Justice, Brown’s former office , has a long-standing policy to only enter local investigations when either requested by the local District Attorney or a conflict is declared.

Has anyone heard of any request for assistance from Cooley?

If Cooley has asked, it will be news to everyone.

It would appear Brown ran Cooley over with his campaign bus and he’s going to ride this investigation for all he can get. After all it’s free press.

It didn’t take long for Brown to engage either. From self-initiating a live impromptu call-in to Los Angeles radio station KFI’s John and Ken Show to holding press conferences, Brown was on the move. A call where Brown’s purpose was to announce his new Bell investigation.

However, hosts John Kobylt and Ken Chiampou stole some of the Brown thunder. They wanted to discuss illegal immigration.

Now Brown has parlayed the fiasco onto local and network television.

When you listen to Brown’s nauseating interviews you get the picture. Comments like “We’re gonna get to the bottom of this.”, We’ve issued subpoena’s for records, and they’ve got forty-eight hours to respond.”, and “This is an outrage.”, bring the word pandering to mind.

Here’s a dose of classic Brown press conference verbiage from another Times story published online yesterday:

“These outrageous pay practices are an insult to the hard-working people of Bell and have provoked righteous indignation in California and even across the country,” Brown said. “I’m determined to get to the bottom of these exorbitant payouts and protect the state’s pension system against such abuses, and today’s subpoenas are an important step in that process.”

Expect Brown to make reference to lethal injection as punishment for the Bell officials.

If the Bell incident had been discovered two years ago would Brown be as outraged?

I doubt it.

Brown

Thursday, July 22, 2010 – 08:38 pm

Listeners to the KFI AM-640 John and Ken show were treated to a surprise unannounced five minute call-in from California Attorney General Jerry Brown this evening.

Brown wanted to talk about his new investigation into the City of Bell salary scandal. However, John Kobylt and Ken Chiampou wanted to talk about illegal immigration.

Prior to Brown’s call-in John and Ken had adopted Calbuzz’s nickname for Brown, a.k.a “Krusty”.

Before getting to the Bell matter, the talk show hosts made Brown reiterate some of his positions on illegal immigration, which were: 1.) Illegal immigrants should be allowed to attend public colleges and universities, and access public services; 2.) Sanctuary cities should be legalized; and 3.) Driver’s licenses should however not be issued to illegal immigrants.

Some of which I’m sure made John and Ken simmer a little.

Brown then proclaimed a new investigation into the Bell financial fiasco involving the salaries and retirement benefits of the city manager, assistant city manager, police chief, and four of the five members of the city council.

Brown said his office was going to get to the bottom of the situation and hang everyone from the rafters.

I guess Brown hadn’t heard the breaking news out of the Los Angeles District Attorney’s office.

What news you ask?

Information was just published in a Los Angeles Times story this afternoon quoted David Demerjian, head of the DA’s Public Integrity Division, who indicated that due to the voter-approved conversion of Bell from a general law to a charter form of government, the state laws limiting government compensation did not apply.

Demerjian said “Becoming a charter city certainly would give them the opportunity not to comply with that statute.”

Expect Brown to trumpet this “free campaign press” through the weekend headlines.

The Bell officials may even be treated to a civil lawsuit by September, courtesy of the Brown campaign.

San Bernardino County officials have taken a new approach at inquiries into costs associated with civil litigation related to alleged time card fraud in the Assessors operation under Bill Postmus.

The new approach? We’re not going to tell you.

Yes, that’s right. An official request for an updated legal cost figure was met with the following response. The cost of taxpayer-sponsored litigation is now confidential!

Is the county becoming a little touchy over this boondoggle? It sure appears like it. County supervisors already have egg on their faces regarding the lawsuit against five defendants and their respective attorneys. It seems the county’s legal costs are now set to blow past the $1 million mark with little or no chance of recovery of anything.

So the supes have decided to adopt standard county operating procedure. Hide it.

Sources describe the litigation and skyrocketing costs as a political problem for county supervisors. On one hand, if the litigation is ended because of no likelihood of recovery during bad budget times, the supes worry they will look weak fighting corruption. While on the other hand, blowing millions on a loser case, will look fiscally irresponsible come election time.

On another note, in routine court proceedings this week attorney John Hueston of the law firm of Irell and Manella, who represents the county in the matter, appeared in court. Hueston is being described by several people in the courtroom has having what is described as an angry demeanor.

Yes, apparently the U.S. Supreme Court putting the torch to his banner claim-to-fame legal case must have him fairly upset.

Although, I would be too.

Hueston was the lead Assistant U.S. Attorney prosecuting defendants in the Enron fraud case. Last month, the Supreme Court of the United States scuttled the case and convictions, due to a misapplication by prosecutors of what is known as the “Honest Services” statute.

The big question is whether or not Hueston will take the case off his resume and reduce the $495 per hour rate he’s charging the county.

Sources tell InlandPolitics.com that Matt Brown, chief of staff for county supervisor Paul Biane has been offered a position with Auditor-Controller-Treasurer-Tax Collector Larry Walker.

But it seems Brown is balking at taking the job.

It seems the alleged cooperating witness for the District Attorney wants his lawyer Sanford Kassel paid. Can you say pathetic?

So let’s recap what’s happened here.

Brown gives testimony and interviews to law enforcement. Presumably testimony his boss, supervisor Paul Biane, may not particularly care for.

Brown inexplicably comes out of the wood-work with attorney Kassel. The same attorney retained by dismissed county administrative officer Mark Uffer.

Brown claims he is being threatened and intimidated by persons in and outside of county government.

Brown is placed on paid administrative leave pending an investigation into his allegations.

Brown wants new position away from Biane.

Brown wants lawyer bill paid by county.

Can you say Priceless?????

So much for getting led by the nose by Uffer.

What happens if Biane isn’t reelected? Does Brown go out the door as if he were chief of staff. Brown always made it clear he wanted to stay employed by the county when Biane left. Now it looks like Brown’s manevering to get his way.

It’ll be interesting to see if he retains his same compensation package.

One things for certain. Larry Walker must be thrilled…….

Next week the attorney for Rex Gutierrez is expected to begin presenting his defense to what is now being reported as a bored-looking jury.

The big question is who from the county government center will get a subpoena slapped in their hand?

For that matter will anyone unexpectedly get added and called as rebuttal witnesses? Questions may arise regarding other exempt employees actually screwing off while getting paid.

Stay tuned…

You can usually tell a newspaper and their agenda when you contrast and compare stories by two reporters for two different newspapers, who are sitting in the same room.

The two newspapers in this case? The San Bernardino Sun/Inland Valley Daily Bulletin and the Riverside Press Enterprise.

The subject? The corruption trial of former Assessor employee and Rancho Cucamonga Councilman Rex Gutierrez.

The reporters? Joe Nelson for The Sun and Richard K. De Atley for the Press Enterprise.

The story titles? In The Sun newspaper it was “Testimony links official, builder” and in the Press Enterprise it is “Councilman hired as favor to developer, witness says”.

De Atley attempted to at least present a somewhat balanced story. Nelson must have been somewhere else othe than the courtroom.

Adam Aleman, key witness in all the county corruption cases filed by District Attorney Michael Ramos, is a convicted Felon under California law and is cooperating as a part of a plea arrangement in exchange for immunity from further charges and a lesser sentence. De Atley reconciles this point in his story. With Nelson, you can forget it.

De Atley also pointed out Aleman testified that his own hiring as Assistant Assessor was a “joke”. Nelson, must have been on a break at the time.

The only point covered in both stories seems to be discussion over a memo drafted by former Communications Officer Ted Lehrer and given to former Assessor Bill Postmus listing talking points related to Gutierrez’s performance.

One point missed by both reporters? When asked by Attorney Jim Reiss if he (Aleman) had ever referred to Developer Jeff Burum as ‘The Big Fish” in any conversations about the District Attorney wanting to get the “Big Fish”, Aleman denied ever using the term.

A few hours later Lehrer testified that Aleman routinely used the term to describe Burum.

Observers in the courtroom also say Aleman testified that he had met with investigators more than one hundred times. An amazing number of meetings for any prosecution case.

It would be interesting to see all those interviews and statements.

Aleman’s vagueness in his responses to defense questioning is also puzzling especially when contrasted with his knowledge of exact dates and times when questioned by the prosecution.

Another red flag.

Nelson seems more intent on driving home the “alleged” ties between Burum, Postmus, and Gutierrez “allegedly” used to secure and maintain Gutierrez’s employment, even if it is coming from a credibility-challenged witness.

A witness who routinely communicates with Nelson.

Sources tell InlandPolitics.com that Nelson and his editor have been repeatedly challenged over significant reporting inaccuarcies and ommissions in order to taint various subjects related to the county corruption probe.

It seems like nothings changed.

Yesterday’s pre-trial court hearing in the case against Rancho Cucamonga City Councilman and former Assessor’s employee Rex Gutierrez was interesting to say the least.

Between Friday and Monday’s proceedings you would have thought it was two different cases.

Friday’s hearing was to determine readiness for trial and whether or not developer Jeff Burum would take the stand.

On Friday Superior Court Judge Duke Rouse set the trial process in motion and denied a Motion to Quash a subpoena issued to Burum. Rouse also told prosecutors he didn’t see any evidence in the preliminary hearing transcripts or in a Motion to Allow Hearsay Testimony of Co-Conspirator Adam Aleman that met the threshold of proof as to any conspiracy between Burum, former Assessor Bill Postmus, and Gutierrez to effect Gutierrez’s hiring with the understanding Gutierrez would perform no work for the county, but instead do Burum’s bidding in Rancho Cucamonga business.

The prosecution made it clear to Rouse that Burum was going to be a witness in the case. Burum’s attorney John Vandevelde made it clear that dependent upon the questions being asked of Burum he would likely invoke his fifth amendment rights since he was once again being targeted.

This seemed to be a significant change in the prosecution’s theory of simple time-card fraud. Something that is never prosecuted and usually handled through discipline.

Now the case is about an uncharged conspiracy!

Rouse set an evidentiary hearing for Monday and requested Burum be in attendance in order to establish whether or not he could testify if called.

In Monday’s proceeding the temperature increased somewhat.

The prosecution now opposed any move to determine Burum’s availability as a witness stating for the record that it was uncertain whether he would be called as a witness and that the court was premature in making any determination as to Burum’s status as a witness until he was actually called as a witness by the prosecution.

In other words the prosecution wants to force Burum to the witness stand, inquire about anything they want including the Colonies matter, and force him to take the fifth in front of the jury, thus tainting Gutierrez’s defense.

Gutierrez’s defense attorney Jim Reiss said this to Rouse who seemed to get it. Rouse determined he would suspend the trial and hold a hearing outside of the jury in the event Burum was called by prosecutors.

In the matter of a prosecution Motion to Admit Hearsay Testimony of Adam Aleman regarding his conversations with Bill Postmus, the dialogue became more interesting.

If you will recall, Aleman was charged with various counts to include falsifying records he gave to the Grand Jury and vandalism of government property. He has subsequently plead guilty to four felony counts, which may be reduced to misdemeanors at sentencing, in exchange for his cooperation as a witness. So for the time being Aleman is a convicted felon under California law.

The prosecution verbally gave additional facts as their offer of proof. Facts they said would be established during the course of the trial in order for the court to grant the motion to admit hearsay statements Aleman says were made to him.

Reiss countered by saying the whole case was a farce and that Adam Aleman “is a convicted felon who is trying to save his own skin”. Reiss further said that Aleman was the linchpin of the entire case. Reiss also asked the court when had it become a crime to recommend someone for a job.

Rouse told the prosecution their was no evidence in the record or proffered in court, that convinced him there was a conspiracy in Gutierrez’s hiring.

Rouse denied the motion without prejudice, meaning the prosecution can try again during trial.

Trials are suppose to be about justice and getting at the truth. Since when is it necessary to concoct schemes in order to embarrass witnesses and unduly harm defendants?

Jury selection commences tomorrow with likely testimony starting Monday morning.

Biane

The cost of San Bernardino County Supervisor Paul Biane’s legal representation has blown past the $100,00 mark.

Campaign finance records filed by Biane last week reveal payments of $17,820.60 to the Los Angeles-based law firm of Corbin, Athey & Fitzgerald LLP. The additional payments puts the total paid to the firm at approximately $81,000.00.

Records also indicate Biane paid $23,030.65 to the Kaufmann Legal Group.

Kaufmann, also based in Los Angeles specializes in Political Reform Act and campaign finance matters.

Corbin, Fitzegerald & Athey advertises itself as a premier boutique firm. Of this law firms many specialties, the one most relevant here seems to be election fraud and political corruption.

In total Biane has spent approximately $104,000 to date.

A local San Bernardino Certified Public Accountant probably regrets hooking his wagon to District Attorney Michael Ramos.

CPA Marvin Reiter signed on as Ramos’ official campaign treasurer and now suffers the potential consequences of his decision.

Ramos has proven that once you tie your destiny to his wishes, you either go along or pay a price. This time it’s Reiter who’s on the hook.

As published at iepolitics.com and on this blog, Sharon Gilbert filed a complaint against Ramos with the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) over a month ago. That complaint alleged Ramos used campaign funds for personal use.

What triggered the complaint is the fact that Reiter listed just under $13,000.00 in credit card charges by Ramos on his FPPC Form 460 Campaign Finance Disclosure Statement for the period 07/01/2009 through 12/31/2009. The statement indicated all charges by Ramos were each under the $100.00 threshold, which would avoid the requirement for individual itemization.

Signing under penalty of perjury, Ramos and Reiter reported Ramos as having made in excess of 130 individual credit card transactions related to a campaign or governmental related activity; that all charges in questions were incurred on only two separate bills during the period; and each charge was less than $100.00.

A highly dubious assertion to say the least. The complaint further alleges the evidence makes a strong “prima facie” case that Ramos may have used campaign funds for personal use and intentionally charged below the $100 threshold to avoid detection.

The initial response by the FPPC to Gilbert’s complaint was in the form of a letter stating the commission would contact Ramos and Reiter for information.

A second letter from the commission to Gilbert dated May 18, 2010 announced the commencement of an investigation.

Reiter recently concluded several years of service as a member of the San Bernardino County Board of Retirement, otherwise known as the San Bernardino County Employees’ Retirement Association (SBCERA). Reiter was not reappointed by county supervisors.

Another Ramos confidant, David Ellis owner of Orange County-based Delta Partners LLC and The David Ellis Group, has ties to SBCERA by way of a consulting arrangement.

Ellis has a $60,000 no-bid contract to provide consulting and marketing services to the pension fund.

One things for certain.

San Bernardino County doesn’t want any bad news made public. And when it does go public by way of internal leaks, the course of action is to downplay or deny.

The current situation at San Bernardino County-owned and operated Arrowhead Regional Medical Center (ARMC) is a prime example.

When allegations alleging a breakdown in quality of care began surfacing several months, hospital and county officials denied any problems existed. This was until outside investigations surfaced that found critical breakdowns in medical care and other areas.

Medicare and MediCal have threatened to terminate reimbursements to the facility. A threat that doesn’t materialize until after at least two prior warnings.

I can’t find any public disclosures of any prior warnings to the facility.

In many cases medical facilities that fall under federal and state scrutiny to the level of ARMC require drastic management restructuring.

Other recent fiasco’s still percolating involve white-washing an investigative report involving District Attorney Michael Ramos related to alleged retaliation and harassment of a former mistress of Ramos. Back-up material in possession of county lawyers related to the investigation reportedly conflicts with the publicly disclosed findings is being hidden. Under current legal case law the material in question is public record.

On another front, a management problem resulting in a multi-million dollar loss in the county’s Land Use Services Department has yet to be fully and publicly accounted for. Is it $6 million?, $10 million?, or $12 million? No one can seem to tell the truth in the matter, nor can a plausible explanation be given. The resulting deficit has led to dozens of layoffs and blame apparently being placed on a “low-level” supervisor.

The former Land Use director is privately making it clear that her departure was forced, and she was screwed over.

All of this and other breakdowns occurred under the administration of former County Administrative Officer Mark Uffer.

Uffer was terminated last year by county supervisors and has threatened to file litigation against the county and others, who he alleges dismissed him for “alleged” whistle blowing, even though no one knew what he was doing at the time.

The material that Uffer has so far publicly produced amounts to nothing more than cocktail napkin notes, innuendo, gossip, speculation, and rumors. It’ll be interesting to see how he accomplishes his legal goals without shooting himself in the head as being a willing participant in whatever he alleges. Based upon his own documentation, he clearly didn’t see a problem with much of anything until Neil Derry had become supervisor-elect. Then Uffer, apparently viewed his days as being numbered, and started ‘keeping book” on everyone.

It appears Uffer viewed Derry and his incoming incoming Chief of Staff Jim Erwin as a threat.

With Uffer’s affinity for Jack Daniel’s Single Barrel, it’s surprising he remembered anything.

Now we have Matt Brown, Chief of Staff to Second District Supervisor Paul Biane jumping on the Uffer litigation bandwagon. Brown is a witness in the ongoing corruption investigation being conducted by Ramos, and has alleged he has been the focus of threats and intimidation from sources internal and external to the county, due to his cooperation.

Brown had made it known to many that he wanted to stay in San Bernardino County government and retire there. Brown had worked it out with Uffer that he would stay in the county administration, if and when Biane left his elected post.

But Uffer’s dismissal blew that plan up. The safety-net for Brown was now gone. Brown had already thrown his boss under the bus with the DA prior to Uffer’s demise. So Brown’s situation became problematic. Eventually his actions and statements, true nor not, would be known to the public as well as Biane.

Brown will certainly have his share of stories to tell, along with those of Uffer.

Interestingly, Brown’s spouse Jessica was the County Administrative Office budget analyst assigned to oversee the Land Use Services Department as the aforementioned multi-million dollar budget meltdown grew in size. Uffer walled her off from the financial problem and kept her out of the lime-light.

Matt Brown is also being represented by San Bernardino attorney Sanford Kassel.

Interestingly, Kassel also represents Uffer.

Kassel has stated publicly that he is coordinating with the District Attorney, any cooperation by Mr. Brown in an internal investigation being conducted by county human resources. That investigation is focused solely on Brown’s allegations of threats and intimidation directed at him. Kassel’s reasoning is Brown was admonished not to discuss his grand jury testimony or statements to investigators.

So what does that have to do with the instant situation?

Why would Brown’s other testimony and statements be relevant to him giving information related to being harassed and intimidated after-the-fact?

After all, he’s not going to be asked what he said to officials, but what others said to him.

Additionally, why would the District Attorney be involved in coordinating a witnesses activity with a civil attorney, whose only purpose would be to represent Brown in a civil action against the county seeking monetary damages?

Why would a District Attorney assist in a civil matter?

If there’s intimidation involving a witness in a criminal case, then file a criminal complaint.

Sources say the District Attorney’s office is pissed at Kassel for publicly exposing their office in his clients civil strategy. A highly inappropriate stance for the DA to place themselves in.

Another interesting question; Why would Brown publicize his Kassel-composed complaint and the fact he carbon copied it to the DA during Biane’s contested reelection campaign?

There’s definitely more San Bernardino County cover-up and dirt disclosures forthcoming………

The small efforts deployed against San Bernardino County District Attorney Michael Ramos might be somewhat comical, but that’s about it.

The two term incumbent DA is on a sure path to reelection in a little more than two weeks. The two attorneys in the race, Frank Guzman and Bob Conaway, lack ability to raise the necessary funding for a successful candidacy.

Ramos effectively dissuaded any serious contenders from coming forward and challenge him.

It’s interesting though that someone appears to be taking a few lightweight shots at Ramos. Anyone with decent political skills is well aware that it’s money down the drain. Plus Ramos’ knack for retaliation is well known. So someone apparently wants a bulls-eye on their forehead.

Last Friday a soft hit against the DA showed up in a voter guide sponsored by conservative republican activist Lew Uhler and his Orange County -based National Tax Limitation Committee.

A move to have little effect. I actually missed it until someone pointed it out.

Now this week we have been treated to anti-Ramos signs which have been cropping up all of the West Valley region of the county. Signs that make light of Ramos’ womanizing tendencies.

The voter guide slot appears to have been done at the committee’s behest, and not funded by an outside source.

However the origin of the signs remains a mystery.

There is no identifying source on the signs as required by state law.

I’ve made several inquiries in an effort to learn the who put up the signs, but everyone is asking the same question, including developer Jeff Burum.

One plausible explanation being presented is Ramos’ own consultant, Orange County-based David Ellis. Ellis could be orchestrating the activity as a means to an end.

First and foremost, if Ellis can convince Ramos his reelection isn’t completely secure, Ramos will spend more of his war-chest, thus generating more direct mail, and most importantly more dough for Ellis.

And everyone who knows Ellis knows his three best friends in the universe are Franklin, Grant, and Jackson.

Secondly, what better way to project that Ramos is under attack from his political enemies. The concept could garner a small crumb of sympathy on one hand, and paint a picture to other interested agencies that his political prosecutions are really legitimate and the phony attack is from his targets.

Interesting to say the least……

(Click image to enlarge)

www.iepolitics.com

Obviously, Deputy McGruff has failed at his assignment.  We need the big guns.  Time to call on the National Guard.  We hear these signs are all over the west end.  We need to line the streets with militiamen and tanks to be sure we are all safe from these dreaded signs.

Like, umm, where can I get one to go with my Frank Guzman sign?

Finally! One of the alleged corruption cases is on the radar screen. Really it is!

The case calendar of Rancho Cucamonga City Councilman Rex Gutierrez now has a trial approaching.

Gutierrez is charged with grand theft and other crimes related to alleged time card fraud during his tenure at the Assessor’s office.

The case is scheduled for a Pre-Trial Hearing Conference in Superior Court next Tuesday, when various motions will be taken up by the court. The matter then proceeds to a Readiness Calendar confirmation on May 28th and Jury Trial on June 1st.

Gutierrez’ last day to commence trial is June 11th plus 10 days. If no trial commences by June 21st the case is dismissed.

Sources say prosecutors have been trying to get the defense to agree to yet another continuance in the case that would involve Gutierrez giving a statutory waiver and extension of time for trial.

However, Gutierrez has refused any further waiver of time.

Since any trial on this case would go well past San Bernardino County District Attorney Mike Ramos’ reelection primary, and Ramos is expected to win easily, it’s unclear as to why prosecutors are working to drag the case out.

Ramos

Words can speak volumes about motivation.

On February 18, 2010 after arriving back back at LAX/Ontario International Airport from a trip to Sacramento, San Bernardino County District Attorney Mike Ramos was elated after receiving a text message on his cell phone telling him the the Petition for Review filed by Defendant Jim Erwin was denied by the California State Supreme Court.

Ramos excitedly said “I’ve got Jim Erwin right where I want him. In Court.”

It will be interesting to hear the excuse for this mistake.

Anyone who believes Ramos has pure motives for his activities might want to think again.

The words “unclean hands” comes to mind.

North Carolina experienced Michael B. Nifong. California has Michael A. Ramos.

The utterance by Ramos occurred just eight days after the announcement of charges against Erwin and former Assessor Bill Postmus. Ramos also inflicted damage on five individuals who are so-called John Doe’s or uncharged co-conspirators.

More sauce for the goose.