Showing posts with label Bonnie Dumanis. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bonnie Dumanis. Show all posts
Monday, May 5, 2014
Prosecutor Confirms Records Sought By KPBS Exist In DA’s Office
See all posts regarding the Jason Moore/Bonnie Dumanis political prosecution issue.
Prosecutor Confirms Records Sought By KPBS Exist In DA’s Office
By Amita Sharma
KPBS
May 5, 2014
The office said it will decide by Monday whether to release records.
Records concerning a prosecution of Chula Vista officials are at the San Diego County District Attorney's Office after all.
A month ago, officials in the office of District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis said the records requested by KPBS did not exist.
KPBS asked the DA's Office in early March for records, including emails, about a call former Chula Vista Mayor Steve Padilla said he received from Dumanis in late 2005. Padilla said Dumanis asked him to appoint her aide to a vacant council seat.
A recent KPBS story noted that within weeks of Padilla's refusal, Dumanis began investigating the entire Chula Vista City Council without revealing her call to Padilla. In late March, the DA's Office told KPBS it did not possess records related to the request.
KPBS sent another Public Records Act request two weeks ago seeking the same records from Deputy District Attorney Patrick O'Toole. He oversaw the Chula Vista investigations. Within hours, O'Toole wrote that he had the records and sent them up the chain of command for consideration.
The DA's Office also told KPBS in March that records pertaining to the investigation are legally exempt from disclosure.
"To the extent your request is for 'records pertaining to or discussing the Padilla or Castaneda investigation, or any investigation pertaining to this,' these records are exempt from disclosure under the 'investigative files' exemption," wrote Deputy District Attorney Julie Reizen in a letter to KPBS.
Reizen also cited the "deliberative process" privilege.
But Peter Scheer, executive director of the California First Amendment Coalition, said neither of those exemptions apply to records such as emails discussing the call to Padilla, or how it might have affected subsequent investigations.
"The communications, the email communications that raised questions or doubts, were not part of the investigative file for the prosecution," Scheer said. "The deliberative process privilege is a much abused, very broad privilege. They have to justify a determination that the public interest in keeping it secret outweighs the public interest in making it public. There's no reason to keep it secret except to avoid embarrassment."
Scheer added that even if the records were legally exempt from disclosure, Dumanis could choose to release them.
The DA's Office said it will decide Monday whether to release the emails.
Saturday, September 17, 2011
Lawyers who commit fraud on behalf of clients should be disbarred
Usually lawyers get disbarred for simply stealing clients' funds. When this happens, usually only a few victims are harmed.
The more serious problem is unethical lawyers who harm the justice system by committing fraud ON BEHALF OF their clients. Justice is perverted; the system harms the innocent in case after case. Too many judges look the other way when lawyers commit frauds in the courtroom.
The story below discusses a case in which a lawyer who committed fraud on behalf of his client was disbarred. However, I suspect it was a powerful individual or organization that pushed for justice, not the judge involved.
The story below fails to mention San Diego District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis' position on the California State Bar Board of Governors. [See story at bottom of this post.]
Critics: DA should prosecute problem lawyers
The office says State Bar standards are different
After a trial late last year, the State Bar Court of California concluded that Carlsbad lawyer Patricia Gregory improperly withdrew more than $112,000 from client trust funds.
A judge recommended Gregory for disbarment in March, and the attorney is fighting the decision. She is not eligible to practice law while the review process runs its course.
Gregory has not been prosecuted, nor have several other attorneys who faced such findings from the bar. Critics say the District Attorney’s Office should act in such cases, but the staff says there are many complicating factors, such as different standards of proof and the need to set priorities.
Others who have not been prosecuted:
•Todd Smith, a Carlsbad attorney, wrote checks on a client trust fund for personal use. State Bar records do not specify how much Smith took from his client. He stipulated to the State Bar that he wrote checks on his attorney-client trust account for his own use multiple times.
•Former attorney Steven Weisenberg was disbarred in 2004 after the State Bar Court found that he sent papers that appeared to be a court order to a title company. Weisenberg “engaged in an elaborate and highly deceptive scheme in an effort to obtain for his clients the results they desired, and in doing so, he committed a serious act of fraud,” Judge Richard A. Honn wrote.
•San Diego lawyer Todd Hilts took more than $8,800 from one of his clients, according to State Bar records. “By misappropriating at least $8,848.69 belonging to (his clients), respondent committed an act involving moral turpitude, in willful violation” of state law, the bar court found...
The District Attorney’s Office rejects any suggestion that it shies away from prosecuting lawyers who commit crimes while performing legal work.
Damon Mosler, who oversees the division that prosecutes lawyers, police officers and public officials, said the standard of proof in State Bar Court is lower than in Superior Court. He said certain cases are better suited to a regulatory venue.
“If there is misconduct by lawyers in their capacities as lawyers, generally we rely on the State Bar to be the investigating agency,” he said...
Luwain Ng of Carmel Valley retained Gregory for divorce proceedings and is now suing her former lawyer.
“I tried to file a police report and they did not want to take a report,” Ng said. “They said ‘Take it directly to the district attorney.’ Then I got a letter saying this is a State Bar matter and they are not going to pursue it.”...
Denise Doll has been homeless off and on since she hired Gregory to perform various legal work in 2007.
She received a pair of settlements in cases Gregory handled and assumed the money was being held in the attorney-client trust fund...
Doll provided The Watchdog a voicemail left for her by prosecutor Jeff Dort, who said he was rejecting the case because he would need police reports, bank records and documents compiled by the bar before he could make a decision about prosecuting Gregory...
The State Bar refers a small number of cases to the District Attoney’s Office for prosecution -- perhaps two a year, Mosler said. A State Bar spokeswoman said the office does not track referrals to county prosecutors...
Five elected to bar board
California Bar Journal
August 2006
Five attorneys, including San Diego District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis, were elected to three-year terms on the State Bar’s Board of Governors.
The more serious problem is unethical lawyers who harm the justice system by committing fraud ON BEHALF OF their clients. Justice is perverted; the system harms the innocent in case after case. Too many judges look the other way when lawyers commit frauds in the courtroom.
The story below discusses a case in which a lawyer who committed fraud on behalf of his client was disbarred. However, I suspect it was a powerful individual or organization that pushed for justice, not the judge involved.
The story below fails to mention San Diego District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis' position on the California State Bar Board of Governors. [See story at bottom of this post.]
Critics: DA should prosecute problem lawyers
The office says State Bar standards are different
After a trial late last year, the State Bar Court of California concluded that Carlsbad lawyer Patricia Gregory improperly withdrew more than $112,000 from client trust funds.
A judge recommended Gregory for disbarment in March, and the attorney is fighting the decision. She is not eligible to practice law while the review process runs its course.
Gregory has not been prosecuted, nor have several other attorneys who faced such findings from the bar. Critics say the District Attorney’s Office should act in such cases, but the staff says there are many complicating factors, such as different standards of proof and the need to set priorities.
Others who have not been prosecuted:
•Todd Smith, a Carlsbad attorney, wrote checks on a client trust fund for personal use. State Bar records do not specify how much Smith took from his client. He stipulated to the State Bar that he wrote checks on his attorney-client trust account for his own use multiple times.
•Former attorney Steven Weisenberg was disbarred in 2004 after the State Bar Court found that he sent papers that appeared to be a court order to a title company. Weisenberg “engaged in an elaborate and highly deceptive scheme in an effort to obtain for his clients the results they desired, and in doing so, he committed a serious act of fraud,” Judge Richard A. Honn wrote.
•San Diego lawyer Todd Hilts took more than $8,800 from one of his clients, according to State Bar records. “By misappropriating at least $8,848.69 belonging to (his clients), respondent committed an act involving moral turpitude, in willful violation” of state law, the bar court found...
The District Attorney’s Office rejects any suggestion that it shies away from prosecuting lawyers who commit crimes while performing legal work.
Damon Mosler, who oversees the division that prosecutes lawyers, police officers and public officials, said the standard of proof in State Bar Court is lower than in Superior Court. He said certain cases are better suited to a regulatory venue.
“If there is misconduct by lawyers in their capacities as lawyers, generally we rely on the State Bar to be the investigating agency,” he said...
Luwain Ng of Carmel Valley retained Gregory for divorce proceedings and is now suing her former lawyer.
“I tried to file a police report and they did not want to take a report,” Ng said. “They said ‘Take it directly to the district attorney.’ Then I got a letter saying this is a State Bar matter and they are not going to pursue it.”...
Denise Doll has been homeless off and on since she hired Gregory to perform various legal work in 2007.
She received a pair of settlements in cases Gregory handled and assumed the money was being held in the attorney-client trust fund...
Doll provided The Watchdog a voicemail left for her by prosecutor Jeff Dort, who said he was rejecting the case because he would need police reports, bank records and documents compiled by the bar before he could make a decision about prosecuting Gregory...
The State Bar refers a small number of cases to the District Attoney’s Office for prosecution -- perhaps two a year, Mosler said. A State Bar spokeswoman said the office does not track referrals to county prosecutors...
Five elected to bar board
California Bar Journal
August 2006
Five attorneys, including San Diego District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis, were elected to three-year terms on the State Bar’s Board of Governors.
Friday, September 16, 2011
Cynthia Sommer's suit against Dumanis proceeds
Cynthia Sommer's suit against Dumanis proceeds
Aaron Burgin
SDUT
Sept. 1, 2011
The sample of U.S. Marine Sgt. Todd Sommer’s liver and kidney was full of arsenic, more arsenic than had ever been found in a human tissue sample before — by 1,250 percent, according to a court complaint.
It was a level that one Canadian toxicology expert said should have raised flags about whether the sample was contaminated.
Despite the improbability, and the medical examiner’s official finding that Sommer died of natural causes, San Diego County District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis mounted an unsuccessful murder prosecution of Sommer’s wife, Cynthia. The death was in 2002, but one aspect of the case remains.
A $20 million federal lawsuit filed by Cynthia Sommer says that Dumanis’ office should have known better, and that the prosecution amounted to misconduct and a violation of the woman’s civil rights.
Prosecutors proceeded because they believed that Sommer stood to gain from a $250,000 life insurance policy. They said that her behavior following his death — she got a breast augmentation, partied and slept with other men — bolstered their argument.
Dumanis says her office acted appropriately, that it dropped the prosecution once reasonable doubt was raised.
The Sommer lawsuit, filed in September 2009, has proceeded.
The suit originally named Naval Criminal Investigative Services officials and scientists with a federal laboratory that made the arsenic finding. A judge has dropped them from the suit, leaving Dumanis, County Medical Examiner Glenn Wagner and the federal government as defendants.
Also remaining as a defendant is Deputy District Attorney Laura Gunn, who once told the media, “This is the coldest homicide I’ve had, in terms of being absolutely coldblooded.”
Dumanis and Gunn lost a bid to dismiss the complaint against them in May 2010.
Dumanis, who is running for mayor of San Diego, could be in a federal courtroom as early as March for conferences and pretrial hearings in the case. A settlement conference and a pretrial conference are tentatively scheduled for March 14 and April 23, respectively. The election is June 5.
Dumanis, approached last week after an interview with The San Diego Union-Tribune editorial board, declined to comment.
“I’ve got counsel, and I am not supposed to talk about this,” she said.
Cynthia Sommer was convicted in 2007 of the first-degree murder of Todd Sommer five years earlier. She was granted a new trial after a judge ruled that her defense attorney made mistakes that deprived her of a fair trial.
She was released in 2008 after prosecutors dropped charges against her when new tests of arsenic-free tissue cast doubt on whether Todd Sommer was poisoned.
Cynthia Sommer’s lawsuit contains allegations that Dumanis’ office colluded with Naval investigators to wrongfully charge and prosecute Sommer.
At the heart of her attorney’s charges is the allegation that the parties knew the chief evidence was tainted. Those samples had extraordinarily high levels of arsenic — levels never seen in the history of reported arsenic testing, according to the complaint.
A former director of a lab in Quebec that determined there was no arsenic in the second samples called the original results “physiologically improbable,” and possibly contaminated.
“It is our position that, in spite of the evidence that was there that clearly suggested this was not a murder, the parties continued to maliciously pursue my client’s arrest and conviction,” said Robert Rosenthal, one of several attorneys representing Cynthia Sommer...
Aaron Burgin
SDUT
Sept. 1, 2011
The sample of U.S. Marine Sgt. Todd Sommer’s liver and kidney was full of arsenic, more arsenic than had ever been found in a human tissue sample before — by 1,250 percent, according to a court complaint.
It was a level that one Canadian toxicology expert said should have raised flags about whether the sample was contaminated.
Despite the improbability, and the medical examiner’s official finding that Sommer died of natural causes, San Diego County District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis mounted an unsuccessful murder prosecution of Sommer’s wife, Cynthia. The death was in 2002, but one aspect of the case remains.
A $20 million federal lawsuit filed by Cynthia Sommer says that Dumanis’ office should have known better, and that the prosecution amounted to misconduct and a violation of the woman’s civil rights.
Prosecutors proceeded because they believed that Sommer stood to gain from a $250,000 life insurance policy. They said that her behavior following his death — she got a breast augmentation, partied and slept with other men — bolstered their argument.
Dumanis says her office acted appropriately, that it dropped the prosecution once reasonable doubt was raised.
The Sommer lawsuit, filed in September 2009, has proceeded.
The suit originally named Naval Criminal Investigative Services officials and scientists with a federal laboratory that made the arsenic finding. A judge has dropped them from the suit, leaving Dumanis, County Medical Examiner Glenn Wagner and the federal government as defendants.
Also remaining as a defendant is Deputy District Attorney Laura Gunn, who once told the media, “This is the coldest homicide I’ve had, in terms of being absolutely coldblooded.”
Dumanis and Gunn lost a bid to dismiss the complaint against them in May 2010.
Dumanis, who is running for mayor of San Diego, could be in a federal courtroom as early as March for conferences and pretrial hearings in the case. A settlement conference and a pretrial conference are tentatively scheduled for March 14 and April 23, respectively. The election is June 5.
Dumanis, approached last week after an interview with The San Diego Union-Tribune editorial board, declined to comment.
“I’ve got counsel, and I am not supposed to talk about this,” she said.
Cynthia Sommer was convicted in 2007 of the first-degree murder of Todd Sommer five years earlier. She was granted a new trial after a judge ruled that her defense attorney made mistakes that deprived her of a fair trial.
She was released in 2008 after prosecutors dropped charges against her when new tests of arsenic-free tissue cast doubt on whether Todd Sommer was poisoned.
Cynthia Sommer’s lawsuit contains allegations that Dumanis’ office colluded with Naval investigators to wrongfully charge and prosecute Sommer.
At the heart of her attorney’s charges is the allegation that the parties knew the chief evidence was tainted. Those samples had extraordinarily high levels of arsenic — levels never seen in the history of reported arsenic testing, according to the complaint.
A former director of a lab in Quebec that determined there was no arsenic in the second samples called the original results “physiologically improbable,” and possibly contaminated.
“It is our position that, in spite of the evidence that was there that clearly suggested this was not a murder, the parties continued to maliciously pursue my client’s arrest and conviction,” said Robert Rosenthal, one of several attorneys representing Cynthia Sommer...
Thursday, January 20, 2011
Prosecutor's courtroom snark returns to haunt him
Note: San Diego District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis is on the board of the California Bar Association, which may help to explain why the bar fails to act in cases where prosecutorial misconduct is found.
Voice of San Diego asks, "Who's 'Pretty Pathetic'?"
A San Diego prosecutor got in the face of a burglary suspect during a trial, suggesting that he's "pretty pathetic" and "pretty despicable." And there was more. "According to a state appeals court in San Diego, the prosecutor also questioned the defense lawyer's integrity, suggested the attorney had coached Higgins, and described a defense psychiatrist as a hired gun who had 'attacked a victim in a rape trial,'" the San Francisco Chronicle reports.
All this sounds more "Law & Order" (or "L.A. Law" for you old school types) than real life. An appeal court is not amused: it's thrown out the guilty verdict and ordered a new trial.
Prosecutor's courtroom snark returns to haunt him
Bob Egelko
January 19 2011
SF Gate
When burglary defendant Raymond Higgins testified that he had been distraught at the time of the alleged crime because of the death of a close friend, prosecutor Christopher Lawson asked him whether it wasn't "pretty pathetic if you're using the memory of a dead 17-year-old kid as an excuse."
After the judge ruled the question improper, Higgins said he'd also been feeling guilty about not attending the funeral of his sister, who had committed suicide. "You agree that's pretty despicable if you were using that as an excuse," Lawson told him.
According to a state appeals court in San Diego, the prosecutor also questioned the defense lawyer's integrity, suggested the attorney had coached Higgins, and described a defense psychiatrist as a hired gun who had "attacked a victim in a rape trial."
Lawson used his cross-examinations to make speeches and "engaged in a pattern of misconduct that rendered the trial fundamentally unfair," the Fourth District Court of Appeal said in a ruling Thursday that overturned Higgins' conviction and granted him a new trial. He has been serving a five-year prison sentence.
The ruling comes in the wake of a report in October by the Northern California Innocence Project at Santa Clara University asserting that prosecutors in the state are seldom punished for unethical courtroom conduct. The project said it found 707 cases from 1997 to 2009 in which courts had found misconduct by prosecutors, but only six prosecutors who were disciplined by the State Bar. The bar, in response, said it would take another look at some of those cases.
Lawson, a deputy district attorney in San Diego County, was unavailable for comment. Steve Walker, a spokesman for the office, said prosecutors were reviewing the ruling.
Higgins, a businessman and Naval Academy graduate with no previous criminal record, was charged with burglary and assault for breaking into a neighbor's house in San Diego with two handguns in May 2008.
The neighbor had asked Higgins to keep an eye on her teenage son, who had gotten in trouble...
Voice of San Diego asks, "Who's 'Pretty Pathetic'?"
A San Diego prosecutor got in the face of a burglary suspect during a trial, suggesting that he's "pretty pathetic" and "pretty despicable." And there was more. "According to a state appeals court in San Diego, the prosecutor also questioned the defense lawyer's integrity, suggested the attorney had coached Higgins, and described a defense psychiatrist as a hired gun who had 'attacked a victim in a rape trial,'" the San Francisco Chronicle reports.
All this sounds more "Law & Order" (or "L.A. Law" for you old school types) than real life. An appeal court is not amused: it's thrown out the guilty verdict and ordered a new trial.
Prosecutor's courtroom snark returns to haunt him
Bob Egelko
January 19 2011
SF Gate
When burglary defendant Raymond Higgins testified that he had been distraught at the time of the alleged crime because of the death of a close friend, prosecutor Christopher Lawson asked him whether it wasn't "pretty pathetic if you're using the memory of a dead 17-year-old kid as an excuse."
After the judge ruled the question improper, Higgins said he'd also been feeling guilty about not attending the funeral of his sister, who had committed suicide. "You agree that's pretty despicable if you were using that as an excuse," Lawson told him.
According to a state appeals court in San Diego, the prosecutor also questioned the defense lawyer's integrity, suggested the attorney had coached Higgins, and described a defense psychiatrist as a hired gun who had "attacked a victim in a rape trial."
Lawson used his cross-examinations to make speeches and "engaged in a pattern of misconduct that rendered the trial fundamentally unfair," the Fourth District Court of Appeal said in a ruling Thursday that overturned Higgins' conviction and granted him a new trial. He has been serving a five-year prison sentence.
The ruling comes in the wake of a report in October by the Northern California Innocence Project at Santa Clara University asserting that prosecutors in the state are seldom punished for unethical courtroom conduct. The project said it found 707 cases from 1997 to 2009 in which courts had found misconduct by prosecutors, but only six prosecutors who were disciplined by the State Bar. The bar, in response, said it would take another look at some of those cases.
Lawson, a deputy district attorney in San Diego County, was unavailable for comment. Steve Walker, a spokesman for the office, said prosecutors were reviewing the ruling.
Higgins, a businessman and Naval Academy graduate with no previous criminal record, was charged with burglary and assault for breaking into a neighbor's house in San Diego with two handguns in May 2008.
The neighbor had asked Higgins to keep an eye on her teenage son, who had gotten in trouble...
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Why is Bonnie Dumanis prosecuting this case?
Joe Ryan, 52nd US Congressional District write-in candidate
By Joe Ryan 10/22/2008
As many of you reading this already know, I was arrested (actually kidnapped) at the 52nd district candidate's debate. If you get your information from Michele Clock of the Union-Tribune, then you don't know the truth. Here's some facts:
1. I was arrested after I walked onto the stage with the other three qualified candidate's for the 52nd district seat, announced my presence to the assembled voters, and I began to participate in the debate being held. I did not disrupt anything, I merely exercised my constitutional right right to be included in the debate.
2. The Union-Tribune deceived the public again. Michele Clock wrote, that Joe Ryan was protesting being excluded from a "public forum". While it's true that the debate was a public forum, Joe Ryan did not object to being excluded from the debate on that basis; rather Joe Ryan insisted that he had a constitutional right to be included in the debate, because the debate was being held at a government facility. When the government gets involved, they may not discriminate against one candidate in favor of another.
3. I was in contact with Grossmont College personnel throughout the day of the debate, trying to get them to acknowledge and follow the law, but they obfuscated, and played games all day; then they finally claimed (around 5pm) that the school had no control over the event whatsover. I informed Grossmont personnel about the existence of a legal advisory that had been issued by the Chancellor office of the California Community College system that indicated they were breaking the law, but they refused to acknowledge that a debate that only included candidates favored by the Chamber of Commerce, 'supported' any candidacy. Amazingly, Dana Quittner, secretary for the president of Grossmont college, insisted that my rights were completely fulfilled by the fcat that I could use the debate facility myself, on some alternative evening, sometime in the future.
4. I e-mailed every member of the Grossmont College Board about the problem I was having with the college staff, and only one responded (Tim Carruthers). Tim tried to be helpful. He contacted Dana Quittner for me, after Dana spent most of the day avoiding me. However, Dana Quittner did not respond in a good faith manner, and she boldly lied to me about activities Grossmont personnel had engaged in. Dana Quittner actually insisted that no resources or college personnel were involved in any way with the debate setup and preparation. That's so dishonest it's laughable! Grossmont employee, Henry Migala spent the whole day preparing the facility for the debate and making other debate arrangements; and he undoubtedly had help from many other Grossmont College district employees. Henry Migala was still hard at work at 8:00pm (supervising the arrest of Joe Ryan). Does Henry Migala work for free? Did the Chamber bring its own lighting system for the building? Who handled their debate facility application? The law says the college district may not use any resources to support partisan activity; so it's pretty obvious why Dana Quittner has to lie like a rug about the college districts role in the debate preparation. You would think you were dealing with a member of the San Diego media, but sadly, our government lies to us without shame too. Here's the pertinent text of the legal advisory that the chancelor's office sent to community college superintendents and presidents from an attorney working for the state (Steven Bruckman).
Use of District Resources for Partisan Purposes
The use of District resources to support or oppose ballot measures or candidates is restricted. The fundamental reason for the restriction is that public money may not be used for partisan activities. Put another way, resources that have been obtained for the district's support for all taxpayers must not be used "to take sides". Therefore, district employee time, equipment, supplies, or other public resources may not be used in advocating for either side of a ballot measure or to support or defeat any candidate. Legal Advisory 04-05, California Community Colleges chancellors' office.
By Joe Ryan 10/22/2008
As many of you reading this already know, I was arrested (actually kidnapped) at the 52nd district candidate's debate. If you get your information from Michele Clock of the Union-Tribune, then you don't know the truth. Here's some facts:
1. I was arrested after I walked onto the stage with the other three qualified candidate's for the 52nd district seat, announced my presence to the assembled voters, and I began to participate in the debate being held. I did not disrupt anything, I merely exercised my constitutional right right to be included in the debate.
2. The Union-Tribune deceived the public again. Michele Clock wrote, that Joe Ryan was protesting being excluded from a "public forum". While it's true that the debate was a public forum, Joe Ryan did not object to being excluded from the debate on that basis; rather Joe Ryan insisted that he had a constitutional right to be included in the debate, because the debate was being held at a government facility. When the government gets involved, they may not discriminate against one candidate in favor of another.
3. I was in contact with Grossmont College personnel throughout the day of the debate, trying to get them to acknowledge and follow the law, but they obfuscated, and played games all day; then they finally claimed (around 5pm) that the school had no control over the event whatsover. I informed Grossmont personnel about the existence of a legal advisory that had been issued by the Chancellor office of the California Community College system that indicated they were breaking the law, but they refused to acknowledge that a debate that only included candidates favored by the Chamber of Commerce, 'supported' any candidacy. Amazingly, Dana Quittner, secretary for the president of Grossmont college, insisted that my rights were completely fulfilled by the fcat that I could use the debate facility myself, on some alternative evening, sometime in the future.
4. I e-mailed every member of the Grossmont College Board about the problem I was having with the college staff, and only one responded (Tim Carruthers). Tim tried to be helpful. He contacted Dana Quittner for me, after Dana spent most of the day avoiding me. However, Dana Quittner did not respond in a good faith manner, and she boldly lied to me about activities Grossmont personnel had engaged in. Dana Quittner actually insisted that no resources or college personnel were involved in any way with the debate setup and preparation. That's so dishonest it's laughable! Grossmont employee, Henry Migala spent the whole day preparing the facility for the debate and making other debate arrangements; and he undoubtedly had help from many other Grossmont College district employees. Henry Migala was still hard at work at 8:00pm (supervising the arrest of Joe Ryan). Does Henry Migala work for free? Did the Chamber bring its own lighting system for the building? Who handled their debate facility application? The law says the college district may not use any resources to support partisan activity; so it's pretty obvious why Dana Quittner has to lie like a rug about the college districts role in the debate preparation. You would think you were dealing with a member of the San Diego media, but sadly, our government lies to us without shame too. Here's the pertinent text of the legal advisory that the chancelor's office sent to community college superintendents and presidents from an attorney working for the state (Steven Bruckman).
Use of District Resources for Partisan Purposes
The use of District resources to support or oppose ballot measures or candidates is restricted. The fundamental reason for the restriction is that public money may not be used for partisan activities. Put another way, resources that have been obtained for the district's support for all taxpayers must not be used "to take sides". Therefore, district employee time, equipment, supplies, or other public resources may not be used in advocating for either side of a ballot measure or to support or defeat any candidate. Legal Advisory 04-05, California Community Colleges chancellors' office.
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
Greg Cox fails to address question of how Steve Castaneda case was initiated, and the investigation of Cheryl Cox wasn't.
Bob Castaneda, the brother of Chula Vista Councilman Steve Castaneda, raised important questions about the two prosecutions carried out by the San Diego District Attorney's Public Integrity Unit.
Bonnie Dumanis appointed Peter O'Toole to bring in two political opponents of Chula Vista mayor Cheryl Cox for questioning. Both of them were charged with lying during these odd investigations. How did these investigations get initiated? Why were two men prosecuted for felony perjury even though the investigations uncovered no crimes?
Why has a complaint about Cheryl Cox and her agents been ignored by this "Public Integrity Unit"?
Supervisor Greg Cox has written a letter that does absolutely nothing to answer the questions that have been raised. Of course Cox protests that he has done nothing wrong. But how will he restore the credibility of the District Attorney's office? He makes no effort to do so.
Here is a comparison of the letters by Bob Castaneda and Greg Cox.
The question remains: was the PIU tipster a friend of Cheryl and Greg Cox?
The answer seems sort of obvious, doesn't it?
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Yes, Bonnie Dumanis. They're letting a convicted murderer go free.
In an effort to defend her prosecution of Cynthia Sommer, San Diego District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis wrote a few days ago:
"How could a convicted murderer suddenly walk out of jail a free woman?"
(See San Diego Union Tribune April 25, 2008 at http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/op-ed/20080425-9999-lz1e25dumanis.html)
Sounds scary, doesn't it? The implication seems to be that a dangerous person whom Bonnie got sentenced to life in prison is now prowling the streets, a danger to us all.
No. It's Bonnie herself that seems to be the danger. She's developed a bad habit of prosecuting people for crimes they didn't commit.
DNA Frees Man After 27 Years in Prison
By SCHUYLER DIXON,AP
2008-04-29
A Dallas man who spent more than 27 years in prison for a murder he didn't commit was freed Tuesday, after being incarcerated longer than any other wrongfully convicted U.S. inmate cleared by DNA testing.
James Lee Woodard stepped out of the courtroom and raised his arms to a throng of photographers. Supporters and other people gathered outside the court erupted in applause.
"No words can express what a tragic story yours is," state District Judge Mark Stoltz told Woodard at a brief hearing before his release.
Woodard, cleared of the 1980 murder of his girlfriend, became the 18th person in Dallas County to have his conviction cast aside. That's a figure unmatched by any county nationally, according to the Innocence Project, a New York-based legal center that specializes in overturning wrongful convictions.
"I thank God for the existence of the Innocence project," Woodard, 55, told the court. "Without that, I wouldn't be here today. I would be wasting away in prison."
Overall, 31 people have been formally exonerated through DNA testing in Texas, also a national high. That does not include Woodard and at least three others whose exonerations will not become official until Gov. Rick Perry grants pardons or the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals formally accepts the ruling of lower courts that have already recommended exoneration.
Woodard was sentenced to life in prison in July 1981 for the murder of a 21-year-old Dallas woman found sexually assaulted and strangled near the banks of the Trinity River.
He was convicted primarily on the basis of testimony from two eyewitnesses, said Natalie Roetzel, the executive director of the Innocence Project of Texas. One has since recanted in an affidavit. As for the other, "we don't believe her testimony was accurate," Roetzel said.
Like nearly all the exonorees, Woodard has maintained his innocence throughout his time in prison. But after filing six writs with an appeals court, plus two requests for DNA testing, his pleas of innocence became so repetitive and routine that "the courthouse doors were eventually closed to him and he was labeled a writ abuser," Roetzel said.
"On the first day he was arrested, he told the world he was innocent ... and nobody listened," Jeff Blackburn, chief counsel for the Innocence Project of Texas, said during Tuesday's hearing.
http://news.aol.com/story/_a/dna-frees-man-after-27-years-in-prison/20080429140609990001
"How could a convicted murderer suddenly walk out of jail a free woman?"
(See San Diego Union Tribune April 25, 2008 at http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/op-ed/20080425-9999-lz1e25dumanis.html)
Sounds scary, doesn't it? The implication seems to be that a dangerous person whom Bonnie got sentenced to life in prison is now prowling the streets, a danger to us all.
No. It's Bonnie herself that seems to be the danger. She's developed a bad habit of prosecuting people for crimes they didn't commit.
DNA Frees Man After 27 Years in Prison
By SCHUYLER DIXON,AP
2008-04-29
A Dallas man who spent more than 27 years in prison for a murder he didn't commit was freed Tuesday, after being incarcerated longer than any other wrongfully convicted U.S. inmate cleared by DNA testing.
James Lee Woodard stepped out of the courtroom and raised his arms to a throng of photographers. Supporters and other people gathered outside the court erupted in applause.
"No words can express what a tragic story yours is," state District Judge Mark Stoltz told Woodard at a brief hearing before his release.
Woodard, cleared of the 1980 murder of his girlfriend, became the 18th person in Dallas County to have his conviction cast aside. That's a figure unmatched by any county nationally, according to the Innocence Project, a New York-based legal center that specializes in overturning wrongful convictions.
"I thank God for the existence of the Innocence project," Woodard, 55, told the court. "Without that, I wouldn't be here today. I would be wasting away in prison."
Overall, 31 people have been formally exonerated through DNA testing in Texas, also a national high. That does not include Woodard and at least three others whose exonerations will not become official until Gov. Rick Perry grants pardons or the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals formally accepts the ruling of lower courts that have already recommended exoneration.
Woodard was sentenced to life in prison in July 1981 for the murder of a 21-year-old Dallas woman found sexually assaulted and strangled near the banks of the Trinity River.
He was convicted primarily on the basis of testimony from two eyewitnesses, said Natalie Roetzel, the executive director of the Innocence Project of Texas. One has since recanted in an affidavit. As for the other, "we don't believe her testimony was accurate," Roetzel said.
Like nearly all the exonorees, Woodard has maintained his innocence throughout his time in prison. But after filing six writs with an appeals court, plus two requests for DNA testing, his pleas of innocence became so repetitive and routine that "the courthouse doors were eventually closed to him and he was labeled a writ abuser," Roetzel said.
"On the first day he was arrested, he told the world he was innocent ... and nobody listened," Jeff Blackburn, chief counsel for the Innocence Project of Texas, said during Tuesday's hearing.
http://news.aol.com/story/_a/dna-frees-man-after-27-years-in-prison/20080429140609990001
Thursday, April 24, 2008
After prosecuting the innocent Cynthia Sommers, Bonnie Dumanis moves ahead in her apparent quest for the Mike Nifong award
I don't understand why Bonnie Dumanis isn't investigating where the arsenic in some tissue samples came from. Dumanis is more and more exhibiting a resemblance to Paul Pfingst (who prosecuted Stephanie Crowe's 15-year-old brother), Ed Miller (who prosecuted Dale Akiki) and Mike Nifong (who prosecuted the Duke LaCrosse players). It's one thing to make a mistake. It's another to keep prosecuting an innocent person just to gain political capital as your mistakes grow from simple errors into abuse of the justice system.
How about putting Patrick O'Toole charge of finding out who put the arsenic in some of the tissue samples? He should have some time available now that a jury has found Chula Vista councilman Steve Castaneda not guilty of Dumanis's politically-motivated charges of perjury during an investigation that found no crime.
From CNN.com
by Beth Karas, In Session correspondent
April 21, 2008
"When I interviewed Cindy Sommer at the Las Colinas Women’s Detention Facility here a week ago, neither one of us had any idea that she was spending her last days behind bars. She was a free woman four days later...
"...As I look back on the developments in her case from her conviction in January 2007 to her release last week, lessons come to mind from my years as a DA in Manhattan. A senior DA took me aside during my first year and told me to watch the old Western movie, “The Oxbow Incident,” which deeply moved him. In the movie, based on the book, three innocent men were lynched by a mob when law and order were abandoned.
"My colleague wanted me to understand the immense power of a prosecutor and the need to reign in a “rush to judgment” mentality. He emphasized that doing justice doesn’t always mean trying to secure a conviction but doing what’s right whether it’s lowering the charges or dismissing them outright.
"Sommer’s case may not have been a classic rush to judgment since there wasn’t even a criminal investigation until 15 months after Todd Sommer’s death. Moreover, Sommer wasn’t arrested until November 2005, more than three years after her husband’s death. Despite the holes in the prosecution’s case—the most glaring being no link between Sommer and arsenic—a jury of twelve San Diegans found her guilty. She was facing a sentence of life without parole.
"San Diego District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis says the system worked in Sommer’s case. When they recently found more tissue samples of her late husband, the D.A. sent them for testing at a private lab. The absence of arsenic in the tissues led to Sommer’s release last week. The most Dumanis will now say is that there is reasonable doubt. She won’t go as far as Roy Cooper in North Carolina when he declared the three former Duke lacrosse players innocent. But in the eyes of many who followed her case closely, Sommer has now been totally exonerated."
Click here for CNN link.
How about putting Patrick O'Toole charge of finding out who put the arsenic in some of the tissue samples? He should have some time available now that a jury has found Chula Vista councilman Steve Castaneda not guilty of Dumanis's politically-motivated charges of perjury during an investigation that found no crime.
From CNN.com
by Beth Karas, In Session correspondent
April 21, 2008
"When I interviewed Cindy Sommer at the Las Colinas Women’s Detention Facility here a week ago, neither one of us had any idea that she was spending her last days behind bars. She was a free woman four days later...
"...As I look back on the developments in her case from her conviction in January 2007 to her release last week, lessons come to mind from my years as a DA in Manhattan. A senior DA took me aside during my first year and told me to watch the old Western movie, “The Oxbow Incident,” which deeply moved him. In the movie, based on the book, three innocent men were lynched by a mob when law and order were abandoned.
"My colleague wanted me to understand the immense power of a prosecutor and the need to reign in a “rush to judgment” mentality. He emphasized that doing justice doesn’t always mean trying to secure a conviction but doing what’s right whether it’s lowering the charges or dismissing them outright.
"Sommer’s case may not have been a classic rush to judgment since there wasn’t even a criminal investigation until 15 months after Todd Sommer’s death. Moreover, Sommer wasn’t arrested until November 2005, more than three years after her husband’s death. Despite the holes in the prosecution’s case—the most glaring being no link between Sommer and arsenic—a jury of twelve San Diegans found her guilty. She was facing a sentence of life without parole.
"San Diego District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis says the system worked in Sommer’s case. When they recently found more tissue samples of her late husband, the D.A. sent them for testing at a private lab. The absence of arsenic in the tissues led to Sommer’s release last week. The most Dumanis will now say is that there is reasonable doubt. She won’t go as far as Roy Cooper in North Carolina when he declared the three former Duke lacrosse players innocent. But in the eyes of many who followed her case closely, Sommer has now been totally exonerated."
Click here for CNN link.
Sunday, April 13, 2008
Patrick O'Toole goes looking for a friend--and finds one!
Patrick O'Toole, head of the Public Integrity Unit in Bonnie Dumanis' San Diego District Attorney's office, has been having a hard week. He's been trying to convince a juror that when Steve Castaneda asked how much a condo would cost, that proved he intended to buy one. And that even though O'Toole didn't uncover wrongdoing during his lengthy investigation, Castaneda should be convicted of perjury FOR SAYING HE DIDN'T INTEND TO BUY A CONDO, WHICH HE, IN FACT, DID NOT BUY.
So you can see how O'Toole would be going around scouting up someone who would make him look professional.
O'Toole found Martin Garrick, R-Carlsbad, who agrees that O'Toole needs not one, but TWO, grand juries to help him find public officials who might say something he disagrees with during grand jury proceedings.
Martin Garrick is the sponsor of the two-criminal-grand-juries-for-San Diego bill, who apparently thinks that San Diego prosecutors have done such a fine job with the Public Integrity Unit and cases such as the indictment by a grand jury of the innocent 15-year-old brother of murder victim Stephanie Crowe, that we really should skip preliminary hearings more often.
After all, who needs a judge deciding if prosecutors should go to trial?
Garrick and O'Toole seem like petty, malicious versions of Don Quijote, tilting at people who oppose their favorite politicians.
They say a prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. Maybe Martin Garrick thinks there are too many ham sandwiches walking around free.
Or maybe he needs another grand jury to investigate Cheryl Cox?
So you can see how O'Toole would be going around scouting up someone who would make him look professional.
O'Toole found Martin Garrick, R-Carlsbad, who agrees that O'Toole needs not one, but TWO, grand juries to help him find public officials who might say something he disagrees with during grand jury proceedings.
Martin Garrick is the sponsor of the two-criminal-grand-juries-for-San Diego bill, who apparently thinks that San Diego prosecutors have done such a fine job with the Public Integrity Unit and cases such as the indictment by a grand jury of the innocent 15-year-old brother of murder victim Stephanie Crowe, that we really should skip preliminary hearings more often.
After all, who needs a judge deciding if prosecutors should go to trial?
Garrick and O'Toole seem like petty, malicious versions of Don Quijote, tilting at people who oppose their favorite politicians.
They say a prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. Maybe Martin Garrick thinks there are too many ham sandwiches walking around free.
Or maybe he needs another grand jury to investigate Cheryl Cox?
Monday, June 25, 2007
Why didn't Bonnie Dumanis ever find wrongdoing by Mayor Dick Murphy?
Voice of San Diego
April 8, 2005
Andrew Donohue wrote:
"As Distict Attorney Bonnie Dumanis embarks on her investigation of conflicts in city of San Diego politics, she might not need to look any further than her own office. Dumanis entered into a criminal investigation of City Hall and its pension board two weeks ago; what wasn't disclosed were her own personal ties to the man that ran City Hall at the time the possible misdeeds she's investigating occurred. John Kern, who until last week was Mayor Dick Murphy's chief of staff, ran Dumanis' judge campaigns as a political consultant in 1994 and 1998."
April 8, 2005
Andrew Donohue wrote:
"As Distict Attorney Bonnie Dumanis embarks on her investigation of conflicts in city of San Diego politics, she might not need to look any further than her own office. Dumanis entered into a criminal investigation of City Hall and its pension board two weeks ago; what wasn't disclosed were her own personal ties to the man that ran City Hall at the time the possible misdeeds she's investigating occurred. John Kern, who until last week was Mayor Dick Murphy's chief of staff, ran Dumanis' judge campaigns as a political consultant in 1994 and 1998."
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
Bonnie Dumanis and Mike Nifong: More alike than she wants to admit
I read San Diego District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis' opinion piece in the San Diego Union Tribune today.
After scanning four columns of print that read like a high school civics lesson, I realized that Bonnie had sidestepped the glaring truth and the most important lesson of the Nifong case: it is wrong to prosecute someone in order to get reelected.
Why didn't you address the real problem, Bonnie? Mike Nifong couldn't resist the temptation to go after three rich white privileged young men in order to get votes from his working-class district.
You don't need to answer that question, Bonnie. I know the answer. It's a very sensitive issue for you, since you've done exactly the same thing that Mike Nifong did. You prosecuted a young man, Jason Moore, who took two hours off work, simply because it would please your rich white constituency. Moore was targeted because he used those two hours to spy on a Cheryl Cox yacht party. Chula Vista City Councilman Steve Castaneda has revealed that your unit has also investigated him. It appears that you have allowed Cheryl Cox's supporters to dictate the list of targets that your "public integrity" unit investigates.
Perhaps someone ought to investigate your "public integrity" unit. The first thing they would find is Patrick O'Toole, a former US attorney who might very well run against you if you were to allow him to outflank you on your right. It looks like you gave him freedom to investigate anyone he wants, no matter how politically motivated the investigation is. You want to keep him happy so he doesn't run against you, don't you?
In your favor it must be said that you have decided to sacrifice just one young man to your political ambitions. You obviously know what you've done, Bonnie, or you wouldn't have so carefully avoided talking about the true reason for Mike Nifong's moral collapse: political ambition.
Voice of San Diego published a piece about the problem of politically-motivated prosecutions, such as the Dale Akiki case that cost District Attorney Ed Miller his job. Here a comment by Billy Bob Henry on that article:
"Ed Miller of course lost his job over the Aikiki scam, and he should have been disbarred. Nifong-if he was in CA-would not be disbarred. No prosecutor, that I can recall, no matter how unlawful an act they have committed, has ever been disbarred."
After scanning four columns of print that read like a high school civics lesson, I realized that Bonnie had sidestepped the glaring truth and the most important lesson of the Nifong case: it is wrong to prosecute someone in order to get reelected.
Why didn't you address the real problem, Bonnie? Mike Nifong couldn't resist the temptation to go after three rich white privileged young men in order to get votes from his working-class district.
You don't need to answer that question, Bonnie. I know the answer. It's a very sensitive issue for you, since you've done exactly the same thing that Mike Nifong did. You prosecuted a young man, Jason Moore, who took two hours off work, simply because it would please your rich white constituency. Moore was targeted because he used those two hours to spy on a Cheryl Cox yacht party. Chula Vista City Councilman Steve Castaneda has revealed that your unit has also investigated him. It appears that you have allowed Cheryl Cox's supporters to dictate the list of targets that your "public integrity" unit investigates.
Perhaps someone ought to investigate your "public integrity" unit. The first thing they would find is Patrick O'Toole, a former US attorney who might very well run against you if you were to allow him to outflank you on your right. It looks like you gave him freedom to investigate anyone he wants, no matter how politically motivated the investigation is. You want to keep him happy so he doesn't run against you, don't you?
In your favor it must be said that you have decided to sacrifice just one young man to your political ambitions. You obviously know what you've done, Bonnie, or you wouldn't have so carefully avoided talking about the true reason for Mike Nifong's moral collapse: political ambition.
Voice of San Diego published a piece about the problem of politically-motivated prosecutions, such as the Dale Akiki case that cost District Attorney Ed Miller his job. Here a comment by Billy Bob Henry on that article:
"Ed Miller of course lost his job over the Aikiki scam, and he should have been disbarred. Nifong-if he was in CA-would not be disbarred. No prosecutor, that I can recall, no matter how unlawful an act they have committed, has ever been disbarred."
Wednesday, June 6, 2007
Bonnie Dumanis supports the use of uncorroborated jailbird testimony
Why does this Voice of San Diego story not surprise me?
A wrongful conviction is better than no conviction at all, right, Bonnie?
Hushing the Jailbirds
by Will Carless
The San Jose Mercury News is reporting that legislation approved Thursday by the California Senate would limit prosecutors' ability to rely on testimony from prison inmates to obtain convictions.
Essentially, the Mercury News reports, the legislation would require prosecutors to corroborate testimony from inmates with an independent source who is not incarcerated. That’s motivated by the worry that inmates could be tempted to lie and help prosecutors in order to get themselves more lenient sentences.
In an e-mail, a spokesman for the San Diego District Attorney’s Office said the local DA "disapproves in principle" of the legislation. Here’s what the spokesman, Steve Walker, wrote:
The California District Attorney's Association (CDAA) has taken a "disapprove in principle" stance on SB609, a position that the San Diego District Attorney's Office agrees with.
Here’s an extract from the story:
Making it more difficult to convict using such testimony was recommended by the California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice, which has reviewed the causes of wrongful convictions.
The bill passed 25-10.
Friday, May 18 2007
A wrongful conviction is better than no conviction at all, right, Bonnie?
Hushing the Jailbirds
by Will Carless
The San Jose Mercury News is reporting that legislation approved Thursday by the California Senate would limit prosecutors' ability to rely on testimony from prison inmates to obtain convictions.
Essentially, the Mercury News reports, the legislation would require prosecutors to corroborate testimony from inmates with an independent source who is not incarcerated. That’s motivated by the worry that inmates could be tempted to lie and help prosecutors in order to get themselves more lenient sentences.
In an e-mail, a spokesman for the San Diego District Attorney’s Office said the local DA "disapproves in principle" of the legislation. Here’s what the spokesman, Steve Walker, wrote:
The California District Attorney's Association (CDAA) has taken a "disapprove in principle" stance on SB609, a position that the San Diego District Attorney's Office agrees with.
Here’s an extract from the story:
Making it more difficult to convict using such testimony was recommended by the California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice, which has reviewed the causes of wrongful convictions.
The bill passed 25-10.
Friday, May 18 2007
Is Bonnie Dumanis playing politics with our justice system?
Bonnie Dumanis
District Attorney
County of San Diego
Dear Ms. Dumanis:
Since you began prosecuting last month, on behalf of the Cheryl Cox campaign, allegations of perjury regarding a 2-hour-leave from work by a young man employed by the City of Chula Vista, it is long past time that you reconsider your hasty response to my complaint about felony obstruction of justice by Richard Werlin, agent for Cheryl Cox and the Chula Vista Elementary School District. Richard Werlin, of course, was not operating in a vacuum when he came up with the idea to commit crimes and cover them up. As soon as possible I will send you proof that CVESD attorneys Daniel Shinoff and Kelly Angell AKA Kelly Minnehan, and possibly others, were involved in directing Richard Werlin to obstruct justice.
If you look at my original complaint, you will see that it uses the language of California statute, almost WORD FOR WORD. Your response that my complaint did not involve criminal allegations is false on its face.
In addition, I have attached proof of perjury and subornation of perjury by Deborah Garvin, Michael Carlson and Sam Gross in San Diego County and San Diego County Superior Court. These crimes were committed to cover up criminal violations of Labor Code 432.7 and many other laws of the state of California by your very own Cheryl Cox and her fellow Chula Vista Elementary School District board members. Attorney Mark Bresee was CVESD's legal advisor duirng the original violations of law.
Since the crimes I have reported were accompanied by many instances of intimidation of witnesses and other actions that extend the statute of limitations, I believe that even the earliest incidents of obstruction of justice that occurred in 2002 are still prosecutable.
Yours truly,
Maura Larkins
District Attorney
County of San Diego
Dear Ms. Dumanis:
Since you began prosecuting last month, on behalf of the Cheryl Cox campaign, allegations of perjury regarding a 2-hour-leave from work by a young man employed by the City of Chula Vista, it is long past time that you reconsider your hasty response to my complaint about felony obstruction of justice by Richard Werlin, agent for Cheryl Cox and the Chula Vista Elementary School District. Richard Werlin, of course, was not operating in a vacuum when he came up with the idea to commit crimes and cover them up. As soon as possible I will send you proof that CVESD attorneys Daniel Shinoff and Kelly Angell AKA Kelly Minnehan, and possibly others, were involved in directing Richard Werlin to obstruct justice.
If you look at my original complaint, you will see that it uses the language of California statute, almost WORD FOR WORD. Your response that my complaint did not involve criminal allegations is false on its face.
In addition, I have attached proof of perjury and subornation of perjury by Deborah Garvin, Michael Carlson and Sam Gross in San Diego County and San Diego County Superior Court. These crimes were committed to cover up criminal violations of Labor Code 432.7 and many other laws of the state of California by your very own Cheryl Cox and her fellow Chula Vista Elementary School District board members. Attorney Mark Bresee was CVESD's legal advisor duirng the original violations of law.
Since the crimes I have reported were accompanied by many instances of intimidation of witnesses and other actions that extend the statute of limitations, I believe that even the earliest incidents of obstruction of justice that occurred in 2002 are still prosecutable.
Yours truly,
Maura Larkins
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)