Bruce Cutler Smack Down
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bOk_TWMQjY
Note: Kelley Lynch worked for Phil Spector in 1988-1989. Apparently Diane Ogden lied about this.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Baca Blatantly Attempts To Influence Phil Spector Jurors
Clearly in anticipation of exposure and liability in the Phil Spector set-up.
LA COUNTY SHERIFF BACA BLATANTLY TRIES TO INFLUENCE PHIL SPECTOR JURY
Opinion, by BlogonautLos Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca, who is up for re-election next year and plans to run, has issued statements that could blatantly effect murder defendant and renowned music producer Phillip Spector's right to receive a fair trial.In the context of an interview ostensibly sought by Baca on the subject of jail overcrowding, Baca told the press that “wealthy people in general” should not be afforded bail pending trial (BEFORE THEY ARE FOUND GUILTY OR INNOCENT) on murder charges. Then, SINGLING OUT Phillip Spector, Baca said:
“The violent offenders, they should all stay in jail on a pretrial status And not be given the ability to roam around because they've got money," Baca said, singling out record producer Phil Spector who is free on $1 million bail while his murder retrial takes place. "He's one of the most dangerous guys that had never been caught fooling around with guns. ... Phil Spector should have no bail."This is an outrageous attempt by Sheriff Baca to interfere with the Spector jury and certainly puts the trial judge’s prior gag order—directed SOLELY at Phillip Spector’s wife—into perspective as the clear and convincing evidence of bias that the order plainly appeared to be.The fact that the same trial judge has not similarly enjoined public officials aligned with law enforcement from speaking out in a manner calculated to prejudice the Spector jury speaks volumes about the lack of fairness in this case.See: LA sheriff may free 4,000 inmates due to budget
UPDATE:According to blogger Sprocket, Sheriff Baca’s prejudicial press statements about Phillip Spector were brought to the attention of the trial court during yesterday’s session and Judge Fidler refused to impose a gag order on the Sheriff, stating: "I don't have any authority over Sheriff Baca. [...] (He's a separate entity.) I have no authority over (the) sheriff." Interesting response, since Judge Fidler imposed a gag order on Phillip Spector’s wife Rachel Spector for talking to the press during the first trial. I guess the Court feels that a man’s wife is not a “separate entity”.
Posted by Blogonaut at 1:23 PM
http://blogonaut-blogonaut.blogspot.com/2009/02/la-county-sheriff-baca-blatantly-tries.html
LA COUNTY SHERIFF BACA BLATANTLY TRIES TO INFLUENCE PHIL SPECTOR JURY
Opinion, by BlogonautLos Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca, who is up for re-election next year and plans to run, has issued statements that could blatantly effect murder defendant and renowned music producer Phillip Spector's right to receive a fair trial.In the context of an interview ostensibly sought by Baca on the subject of jail overcrowding, Baca told the press that “wealthy people in general” should not be afforded bail pending trial (BEFORE THEY ARE FOUND GUILTY OR INNOCENT) on murder charges. Then, SINGLING OUT Phillip Spector, Baca said:
“The violent offenders, they should all stay in jail on a pretrial status And not be given the ability to roam around because they've got money," Baca said, singling out record producer Phil Spector who is free on $1 million bail while his murder retrial takes place. "He's one of the most dangerous guys that had never been caught fooling around with guns. ... Phil Spector should have no bail."This is an outrageous attempt by Sheriff Baca to interfere with the Spector jury and certainly puts the trial judge’s prior gag order—directed SOLELY at Phillip Spector’s wife—into perspective as the clear and convincing evidence of bias that the order plainly appeared to be.The fact that the same trial judge has not similarly enjoined public officials aligned with law enforcement from speaking out in a manner calculated to prejudice the Spector jury speaks volumes about the lack of fairness in this case.See: LA sheriff may free 4,000 inmates due to budget
UPDATE:According to blogger Sprocket, Sheriff Baca’s prejudicial press statements about Phillip Spector were brought to the attention of the trial court during yesterday’s session and Judge Fidler refused to impose a gag order on the Sheriff, stating: "I don't have any authority over Sheriff Baca. [...] (He's a separate entity.) I have no authority over (the) sheriff." Interesting response, since Judge Fidler imposed a gag order on Phillip Spector’s wife Rachel Spector for talking to the press during the first trial. I guess the Court feels that a man’s wife is not a “separate entity”.
Posted by Blogonaut at 1:23 PM
http://blogonaut-blogonaut.blogspot.com/2009/02/la-county-sheriff-baca-blatantly-tries.html
Investigate and Prosecute Steve Cooley and Gang
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinionla/la-oew-weinberg1-2009apr01,0,2006526.story
From the Los Angeles Times
Blowback
Science and the Spector prosecution
A Times editorial on the credibility of defense experts wrongly assumes that scientists working for the other side operate without bias.By Doron Weinberg and Susan Matross3:20 PM PDT, March 31, 2009The Times' March 29 editorial, "Spector — and expert witnesses — on trial," in which you raise questions about the credibility of expert witnesses retained by criminal defendants, and particularly Phil Spector, is disturbing not only because its timing suggests an intention to influence public opinion while the Spector jury is deliberating, but more importantly because it betrays a misunderstanding of the real workings of the justice system. It also inexplicably ignores the findings reached by the National Academy of Sciences, the nation's most prestigious scientific organization, in a study of the dismal quality of work produced by crime labs throughout the United States -- a study on which The Times reported in February.To begin, crime labs are organized and directed by law enforcement agencies, and the "experts," or scientists, they employ are paid law enforcement agents. The result, as the study found, is that scientific objectivity is routinely sacrificed to the perceived needs of law enforcement. The study supplies several hundred -- and the Spector case more than a dozen -- examples of crime lab scientists tailoring their findings, or even fabricating them, to fit the theories of police officers and prosecutors.Yet juries are routinely convinced -- as apparently is The Times -- that these scientists are simply public servants doing their jobs without bias.But the bias is pervasive. As the Spector record reveals, from the moment police officers and their scientist experts arrived at the scene, they alone determined what evidence was significant and what was not, what evidence should be tested and what should not, and what evidence should be seized and what should not. The seized evidence was then tested, retested, analyzed and reanalyzed in the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department crime labs for 18 months.As the prosecution "expert" witnesses admitted at trial, no expense was spared: Every test, experiment or analysis that was proposed was undertaken. The prosecution's DNA expert alone spent more than 800 hours in his efforts. The sheriff's chief criminalist could not estimate how many hours or public dollars she had spent, because no one had required her to keep any records, but she proudly asserted that she had spent months just on the examination of every square inch of clothing seized as evidence.The L.A. County coroner admitted that in addition to undertaking every conceivable test and analysis, his office held meetings involving doctors, criminalists, sheriff's crime lab personnel, sheriff's investigators and representatives of the Los Angeles County district attorney's office to determine whether the death of Lana Clarkson could be declared a homicide even though the medical evidence could not support that determination.Nonetheless, in September 2004, more than 19 months after the death, Spector was indicted. At that point, for the first time, Spector and his representatives were given access to the prosecution's "scientific evidence."What is it that The Times suggests he should have done at that point? Is it your suggestion that law enforcement's scientific evidence is nonpartisan and should not be challenged? Is that what the presumption of innocence directs? If not, what alternative does a defendant who maintains his innocence in the face of arguably partisan forensic evidence have? The only choice is to find independent forensic experts to challenge that evidence.Unlike the prosecution, a defendant retains experts and pays for their time and effort. But as soon as he or she does that, prosecutors such as those in the Spector trial, abetted by your editorial writers, discount those witnesses for the fact alone that they have been paid.It is true that one of Spector's experts received about $181,000 for his work over four years and two trials. But there can be no doubt that several times this amount in public funds was spent just on the work and support of the prosecution's chief criminalist.A fair, objective, evenhanded approach to this issue should not have identified retained defense experts as the problem. One doesn't have to be a member of the Spector defense team, as we are, to recognize that.
Attorney Doron Weinberg and trial consultant Susan Matross are members of Phil Spector's criminal defense team.
I
Monday, March 30, 2009
Los Angeles Times Ignores Bill Pavelic's Allegations - Further Targets Phillip's Experts
Comments Submitted for Review:
I think the Los Angeles Times ought to investigate Bill Pavelic's allegations. I see Jackson is finally asking the question I've been asking: how do you turn a suicide into a homicide? You cannot. The witnesses for the state are also less qualified than Dr. Lee, Dr. Baden, and any other witnesses that may have been set up.
The District Attorney seems to have hired guns: in this instance - Jackson and Do.
http://www.guiltyofincompetence.com/viewtopic.php?t=98&view=previous&sid=c891725fe65976badec1df274e3d5d1b
Comments will be accepted throughout the day Monday.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-witness30-2009mar30,0,7983947.story
I think the Los Angeles Times ought to investigate Bill Pavelic's allegations. I see Jackson is finally asking the question I've been asking: how do you turn a suicide into a homicide? You cannot. The witnesses for the state are also less qualified than Dr. Lee, Dr. Baden, and any other witnesses that may have been set up.
The District Attorney seems to have hired guns: in this instance - Jackson and Do.
http://www.guiltyofincompetence.com/viewtopic.php?t=98&view=previous&sid=c891725fe65976badec1df274e3d5d1b
Comments will be accepted throughout the day Monday.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-witness30-2009mar30,0,7983947.story
How Do You Turn A Suicide Into A Snuff Movie? Hire Alan Jackson
Los Angeles Times Ignores Bill Pavelic's Allegations that he, Dr. Lee, and Dr. Baden Were Set Up - By LAPD's Grotesque Burglary/Homicide Unit ... Opts to Undermine the Experts Further (they are not lying; it's partisanship - "states" the Lost Angeles Times):
Editorial
Spector -- and expert witnesses -- on trial
Because money often changes hands for their testimony, such witnesses don't have much credibility. There may be better ways to get at the truth.
March 30, 2009
» Discuss Article
At Phil Spector's murder trial last week, Deputy Dist. Atty. Alan Jackson flatly dismissed the testimony of a series of experts for the defense, calling them "pay-to-say" witnesses who received more than $400,000 in return for doing just what was expected of them. "How does a homicide become a suicide? You write a big, fat check," Jackson told jurors. "If you can't change the science, you buy the scientist."That's a standard argument in courtrooms across America. One side brings in expert witnesses to explain something complicated or technical; the other side shoots them down by attacking their credibility.
It's a cynical tactic, but it works because, unfortunately, it's basically true. Expert witnesses don't have much credibility. Generally they have been carefully selected by sophisticated lawyers who know exactly what they're looking for. The experts (primarily doctors, but also bloodstain specialists and ballistics whizzes as well as all sorts of other scientists and scholars) are then prepped by the lawyers so that the bulk of their testimony is worked out even before the trial starts. Finally, they're paid -- in the Spector case, one witness received what Jackson called a "horse-choking $181,000" -- by the very lawyers who hope to get a particular answer out of them and who, in many cases, they hope to work for again in the future. We're not saying these witnesses are liars; most, no doubt, tell the truth as they believe it to be. But they are, by the very nature of the system, partisan. The more reasonable, measured or objective an expert is, the less desirable he is to those who do the hiring. As the famed litigator Melvin Belli once said: "If I got myself an impartial witness, I'd think I was wasting my money." The result is that when two hired experts go up against one another, it's often the best performer who wins -- if, that is, the judge and jurors don't dismiss the whole exercise out of hand. This is not a recent glitch in the legal system. In 1848, in his "Treatise on the Law of Evidence," Judge John Pitt Taylor noted that "skilled witnesses" were less credible than any other kind because their views could be "made to correspond with the wishes and interests of the parties who call them." (For what it's worth, he also singled out enslaved people, women and foreigners for skepticism.) In 1923, the jurist John Henry Wigmore wrote that "professional men of honorable instincts and high scientific standards look upon the witness box as a Golgotha, and disclaim all respect for the law's methods of investigation."
Still, it doesn't have to work this way. Many countries have opted for entirely different approaches. In Germany, for instance, only the judge may select expert witnesses. Australia is experimenting with a system known as "hot tubbing," in which the experts are chosen by the two sides but are then required to testify at the same time -- so they can discuss the case and ask each other questions. The British have recently adopted a system in which both sides must agree on a single expert. If they can't come up with a mutually acceptable person, the judge decides for them. This not only cuts costs but creates incentives to find experts who are moderate and credible -- rather than well-paid showboats. Our own system isn't likely to change soon, mostly because the powerful trial lawyers lobby has little interest in reforming it. But the Spector trial arguments suggested, yet again, that we'd be better off with an approach that seeks truth rather than one that encourages partisanship and devalues expertise.
Editorial
Spector -- and expert witnesses -- on trial
Because money often changes hands for their testimony, such witnesses don't have much credibility. There may be better ways to get at the truth.
March 30, 2009
» Discuss Article
At Phil Spector's murder trial last week, Deputy Dist. Atty. Alan Jackson flatly dismissed the testimony of a series of experts for the defense, calling them "pay-to-say" witnesses who received more than $400,000 in return for doing just what was expected of them. "How does a homicide become a suicide? You write a big, fat check," Jackson told jurors. "If you can't change the science, you buy the scientist."That's a standard argument in courtrooms across America. One side brings in expert witnesses to explain something complicated or technical; the other side shoots them down by attacking their credibility.
It's a cynical tactic, but it works because, unfortunately, it's basically true. Expert witnesses don't have much credibility. Generally they have been carefully selected by sophisticated lawyers who know exactly what they're looking for. The experts (primarily doctors, but also bloodstain specialists and ballistics whizzes as well as all sorts of other scientists and scholars) are then prepped by the lawyers so that the bulk of their testimony is worked out even before the trial starts. Finally, they're paid -- in the Spector case, one witness received what Jackson called a "horse-choking $181,000" -- by the very lawyers who hope to get a particular answer out of them and who, in many cases, they hope to work for again in the future. We're not saying these witnesses are liars; most, no doubt, tell the truth as they believe it to be. But they are, by the very nature of the system, partisan. The more reasonable, measured or objective an expert is, the less desirable he is to those who do the hiring. As the famed litigator Melvin Belli once said: "If I got myself an impartial witness, I'd think I was wasting my money." The result is that when two hired experts go up against one another, it's often the best performer who wins -- if, that is, the judge and jurors don't dismiss the whole exercise out of hand. This is not a recent glitch in the legal system. In 1848, in his "Treatise on the Law of Evidence," Judge John Pitt Taylor noted that "skilled witnesses" were less credible than any other kind because their views could be "made to correspond with the wishes and interests of the parties who call them." (For what it's worth, he also singled out enslaved people, women and foreigners for skepticism.) In 1923, the jurist John Henry Wigmore wrote that "professional men of honorable instincts and high scientific standards look upon the witness box as a Golgotha, and disclaim all respect for the law's methods of investigation."
Still, it doesn't have to work this way. Many countries have opted for entirely different approaches. In Germany, for instance, only the judge may select expert witnesses. Australia is experimenting with a system known as "hot tubbing," in which the experts are chosen by the two sides but are then required to testify at the same time -- so they can discuss the case and ask each other questions. The British have recently adopted a system in which both sides must agree on a single expert. If they can't come up with a mutually acceptable person, the judge decides for them. This not only cuts costs but creates incentives to find experts who are moderate and credible -- rather than well-paid showboats. Our own system isn't likely to change soon, mostly because the powerful trial lawyers lobby has little interest in reforming it. But the Spector trial arguments suggested, yet again, that we'd be better off with an approach that seeks truth rather than one that encourages partisanship and devalues expertise.
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Melvyn Klein
201 Ocean Avenue, Apartment 1005P
Santa Monica, California 90402
Telephone: 310-458-8823
marmel@lafn.org
DISCLAIMER
Nothing expressed in these pages is to be construed as anything more than the views, beliefs, and opinions of the site owner, however firmly held. It is left to readers to assess the plausibility of the assertions found here using their own intuition and good sense, together with whatever information they might have from other sources.
SUBJECT MATTER AND ORGANIZATION
The material on the site is organized in three sections. An Overview page introduces each section.
The first section supplies evidence of misconduct by officers of Ocean Towers Housing Corporation as documented in a series of letters to the Board, to shareholders, and to outside parties, who were in one way or another involved in what took transpired at Ocean Towers, primarily in the 2004-2006 time frame.
A second section documents the response to Criminal Justice officials Those primarily concerned with the response of Santa Monica City officials to extensive violations of law at Ocean Towers, or the response of Criminal Justice officials once clear evidence of crimes by officers of Ocean Towers were uncovered, can focus on the two new sections.
Doing so will avoid a good deal of the tedium that could come with reading through the entire spectrum of Ocean Towers issues discussed on the site.Links to the new sections can be found below (highlighted by this same yellow background).
http://uncoop.com/main.aspx
201 Ocean Avenue, Apartment 1005P
Santa Monica, California 90402
Telephone: 310-458-8823
marmel@lafn.org
DISCLAIMER
Nothing expressed in these pages is to be construed as anything more than the views, beliefs, and opinions of the site owner, however firmly held. It is left to readers to assess the plausibility of the assertions found here using their own intuition and good sense, together with whatever information they might have from other sources.
SUBJECT MATTER AND ORGANIZATION
The material on the site is organized in three sections. An Overview page introduces each section.
The first section supplies evidence of misconduct by officers of Ocean Towers Housing Corporation as documented in a series of letters to the Board, to shareholders, and to outside parties, who were in one way or another involved in what took transpired at Ocean Towers, primarily in the 2004-2006 time frame.
A second section documents the response to Criminal Justice officials Those primarily concerned with the response of Santa Monica City officials to extensive violations of law at Ocean Towers, or the response of Criminal Justice officials once clear evidence of crimes by officers of Ocean Towers were uncovered, can focus on the two new sections.
Doing so will avoid a good deal of the tedium that could come with reading through the entire spectrum of Ocean Towers issues discussed on the site.Links to the new sections can be found below (highlighted by this same yellow background).
http://uncoop.com/main.aspx
Cooley Gives Bhandari A Run For His Money
http://karmapa-issue.org/politics/bhandari.htm
The role of N.B. Bhandari in the controversy
IIIIIIIII Date: August 14, 2005
(excerpt from "Setting the Records Straight#2" which was published here earlier) ...What Rights Did Situ and Gyaltsab Rinpoches Have Over Rumtek?
To answer this question, it is necessary to understand something about the legal structure of Tibetan monastic administrations.
Traditionally, each high lama has his or her own labrang , or administration, to govern the monasteries and other properties under his control. The Karmapas have had their own labrang which has always been separate from the labrangs of other high lamas. Situ Rinpoche led the Palpung Labrang while Gyaltsab led his own Chogong Labrang, named respectively after each rinpoche's traditional monastic seat.
Under the Tibetan system, lamas from one labrang had no administrative authority in another administration. Thus, the two rinpoches, Situ and Gyaltsab, would never have been able to legally gain control of Rumtek Mona stery, which was part of the Karmapa Labrang rather than part of either of their own administrations.
So the only way open to lamas to take property from an outside labrang would be, simply put, to conduct a kind of coup d'état there. They found a powerful ally in the Sikkim state government of NB Bhandari.
Why Did the Sikkim State Government Assist the Rumtek Take-over?
We believe that Situ and Gyaltsab Rinpoches secured the assistance of Chief Minister Bhandari's government by making two large contributions to his party totaling $2.5 million.
We believe that an initial payment of $1 million was made to Bhandari before his police went into Rumtek. While we lack direct evidence, the indirect evidence for a large advance payment seems very strong. The Indian Constitution established India as a secular state and prohibits government officials from interfering in religious affairs. So, we have to wonder, why would Bhandari violate the Constitution and assist Situ Rinpoche's group in seizing Rumtek? We can come up with no other explanation than that Situ Rinpoche bribed Bhandari to do this.
However, we do have direct evidence that another payment was made by Situ Rinpoche's group to Chief Minister Bhandari after Rumtek was seized by Situ Rinpoche's group in 1993. This payment was delivered by the Taiwanese millionaire Chen Lu An, a follower of Situ Rinpoche. The payment was for $1.5 million. This donation has been documented by newspapers and government investigators in both Gangtok and New Delhi . The ensuing scandal led to investigations by the New Delhi government against Bhandari that helped bring about Bhandari's ouster in 1995.
How Could a Whole State Government Be Bought?
It is an understatement, as Terhune says, to call Chief Minister Bhandari “a controversial figure.” History shows that the Sikkim government during the Bhandari years, from 1979-1995, was perhaps the most corrupt in India . Through a combination of payoffs and intimidation, the chief minister ran Sikkim as his own private fiefdom.
Throughout Sikkim , stories of those bold enough to risk Bhandari's wrath during this period abound. First, there was the opposition leader, Madan Tamang, who dared to circulate pamphlets accusing Bhandari of corruption and womanizing. In response, Mandan was arrested and died in custody. His body was later found in bushes alongside the Rongpo River . Shortly after this, a reporter in Siliguri, RK Baid, published a story detailing some recent examples of corruption in Bhandari's administration. After this, Bhandari sent undercover police into the neighboring state of West Bengal —outside of their legal jurisdiction—to kidnap Baid and bring him to Gangtok. There he was held in prison and tortured. Afterwards, he was offered an amount of money said to be as high as five million rupees to sign a statement denying that he was kidnapped or mistreated. This reporter later opened a hotel in Siliguri using this hush money. Finally, Hamelal Bhandari (no relation to the chief minister), an attorney in Gangtok, took it upon himself to circulate posters again criticizing the chief minister's actions. In responses, he was abducted by party bullies, taken to prison, tortured, and then thrown naked off a truck the next day onto the main street of Gangtok. He was lucky to escape with his life.
Such was the atmosphere of open corruption and intimidation in the state in the eighties, that these heinous acts and many others were well known to the Sikkim public. Yet, all were afraid to take any action since they knew that the police were his personal enforcers and any action in the courts would be punished.
Against this background the elections of 1989 took place. Bhandari's systematic campaign of intimidation had so terrified the opposition that no other candidates stood against his party—something quite unusual in a democracy as lively as India 's. Sikkim is one of India 's smallest states, with a population of only 400,000, and the couple hundred opposition leaders who might have run for office were easy to intimidate. As a result, Bhandari's party won all 32 seats in the Sikkim parliament, giving him a third term in office with unprecedented power over all branches of government, including of course, the judiciary. All of these events are a matter of public record in Sikkim.
Why Didn't the Karmapa Charitable Trust File Its Case Sooner?
Though Situ and Gyaltsab Rinpoches' group seized Rumtek with Chief Minister Bhandari's help in 1993, the Karmapa Charitable Trust did not successfully file its first case against them until 1997, a full five years later. Why the delay?
Even before Bhandari's rule ended, there were those who were bold enough to file cases against his new friends Situ and Gyaltsab Rinpoches. Karma Gunbo, a former member of the Sikkim parliament and a devoted student of the late Sixteenth Karmapa, filed a case in Gangtok District Court in 1993 against Situ Rinpoche for forging his Karmapa-prediction letter. Once Chief Minister Bhandari was informed of this, he arrested Karma Gunbo's family, including wife and children, and held them in prison for two weeks during which they were subjected to physical and psychological torture.
Meanwhile, perhaps to ensure that they would not make trouble for Situ and Gyaltsab Rinpoches, Bhandari initiated an intimidation campaign against all the trustees of the Karmapa Charitable Trust. He expelled from Sikkim the two members who were not Indian citizens, Shamar Rinpoche and Topga Rinpoche. And against the two trustees who were residents of Sikkim , TS Gyaltsen and JD Densapa, both formerly high officials in the state government, Bhandari sent thugs to stone their houses and cars.
Chief Minister Bhandari's campaign of intimidation against the trustees was successful. JD Densapa in particular became so afraid to file a case in Gangtok that he attempted instead to file the case at the High Court in New Delhi in 1994 on behalf of the monastic community of Rumtek led by Ngedon Tenzin. The High Court responded that since this was a civil case, it should be submitted in the local state court, in Sikkim (the case was not in fact dismissed as Terhune stated in her book). Filing in Sikkim of course was out of the question while Chief Minister Bhandari remained in office.
How Could a Case Be Filed in 1997?
June 1992 was the beginning of the end for Bhandari. While Bhandari began interfering in Rumtek's affairs, PK Chamling, one of Bhandari's ministers, began to plan a campaign to replace the chief minister. He publicly accused Bhandari of corruption and began to refer to him as a “dictator.” In response, Bhandari arrested Chamling's assistants and tortured them in prison. Fortunately, Chamling himself escaped and went into hiding.
At this time, Shamar Rinpoche's secretary, Khedrub Gyatso, met with Chamling to offer his support, presenting a loan to assist with Chamling's election campaign, and requesting Chamling's future assistance in regaining Rumtek for the Karmapa Charitable Trust. Chamling, however, had quite a different character than Bhandari. He responded that he was not in a position to remove Situ and Gyaltsab's monks, but that he would guarantee that the Karmapa Charitable Trust would receive a fair hearing in the courts.
“Once Bhandari is defeated, then the courts in Sikkim will be approachable,” Chamling said. “You should then file a case in the court. My duty is to defeat Bhandari--to end his dictatorial rule and return democracy to Sikkim --let you file your case in Sikkim and then pay you back the money you have loaned me. This is my job for now. I will not remove Situ Rinpoche's monks from Rumtek—that would be illegal, and I am determined to abide by the law.”
Chamling began working with the New Delhi government to put pressure on Bhandari for his cooperation with the Taiwanese millionaire Chen Lu An and for shady dealings with the Chinese government. Pressure continued to mount and the central government asked more and more questions that Bhandari could not answer. By August 1995 things had gotten so bad for Bhandari that he was forced to resign in disgrace. This was an event of such import to the Karmapa controversy that devout Buddhists in Sikkim said at the time that Karmapa's protectors must have inspired Chamling to conceive his coup.
But still the Karmapa Charitable Trust could not file its case because its trustee JD Densapa was afraid that Bhandari's party would return and exact revenge. Tired of waiting, in August of 1996, the legitimate monks of Rumtek held a hunger strike to call on the state government to restore them to their monastery. New Chief Minister Chamling invited 40 senior lamas to his residence for a conference. There he suggested that there was “no point in sleeping on the road” and continuing their protest. The government could not legally remove the monks of Situ and Gyaltsab Rinpoches from Rumtek. Instead, their only remedy was to request a court order to return them to their monastery.
...
K. Wangchuk Secretary of the International Karma Kagyu Buddhist Organization
The role of N.B. Bhandari in the controversy
IIIIIIIII Date: August 14, 2005
(excerpt from "Setting the Records Straight#2" which was published here earlier) ...What Rights Did Situ and Gyaltsab Rinpoches Have Over Rumtek?
To answer this question, it is necessary to understand something about the legal structure of Tibetan monastic administrations.
Traditionally, each high lama has his or her own labrang , or administration, to govern the monasteries and other properties under his control. The Karmapas have had their own labrang which has always been separate from the labrangs of other high lamas. Situ Rinpoche led the Palpung Labrang while Gyaltsab led his own Chogong Labrang, named respectively after each rinpoche's traditional monastic seat.
Under the Tibetan system, lamas from one labrang had no administrative authority in another administration. Thus, the two rinpoches, Situ and Gyaltsab, would never have been able to legally gain control of Rumtek Mona stery, which was part of the Karmapa Labrang rather than part of either of their own administrations.
So the only way open to lamas to take property from an outside labrang would be, simply put, to conduct a kind of coup d'état there. They found a powerful ally in the Sikkim state government of NB Bhandari.
Why Did the Sikkim State Government Assist the Rumtek Take-over?
We believe that Situ and Gyaltsab Rinpoches secured the assistance of Chief Minister Bhandari's government by making two large contributions to his party totaling $2.5 million.
We believe that an initial payment of $1 million was made to Bhandari before his police went into Rumtek. While we lack direct evidence, the indirect evidence for a large advance payment seems very strong. The Indian Constitution established India as a secular state and prohibits government officials from interfering in religious affairs. So, we have to wonder, why would Bhandari violate the Constitution and assist Situ Rinpoche's group in seizing Rumtek? We can come up with no other explanation than that Situ Rinpoche bribed Bhandari to do this.
However, we do have direct evidence that another payment was made by Situ Rinpoche's group to Chief Minister Bhandari after Rumtek was seized by Situ Rinpoche's group in 1993. This payment was delivered by the Taiwanese millionaire Chen Lu An, a follower of Situ Rinpoche. The payment was for $1.5 million. This donation has been documented by newspapers and government investigators in both Gangtok and New Delhi . The ensuing scandal led to investigations by the New Delhi government against Bhandari that helped bring about Bhandari's ouster in 1995.
How Could a Whole State Government Be Bought?
It is an understatement, as Terhune says, to call Chief Minister Bhandari “a controversial figure.” History shows that the Sikkim government during the Bhandari years, from 1979-1995, was perhaps the most corrupt in India . Through a combination of payoffs and intimidation, the chief minister ran Sikkim as his own private fiefdom.
Throughout Sikkim , stories of those bold enough to risk Bhandari's wrath during this period abound. First, there was the opposition leader, Madan Tamang, who dared to circulate pamphlets accusing Bhandari of corruption and womanizing. In response, Mandan was arrested and died in custody. His body was later found in bushes alongside the Rongpo River . Shortly after this, a reporter in Siliguri, RK Baid, published a story detailing some recent examples of corruption in Bhandari's administration. After this, Bhandari sent undercover police into the neighboring state of West Bengal —outside of their legal jurisdiction—to kidnap Baid and bring him to Gangtok. There he was held in prison and tortured. Afterwards, he was offered an amount of money said to be as high as five million rupees to sign a statement denying that he was kidnapped or mistreated. This reporter later opened a hotel in Siliguri using this hush money. Finally, Hamelal Bhandari (no relation to the chief minister), an attorney in Gangtok, took it upon himself to circulate posters again criticizing the chief minister's actions. In responses, he was abducted by party bullies, taken to prison, tortured, and then thrown naked off a truck the next day onto the main street of Gangtok. He was lucky to escape with his life.
Such was the atmosphere of open corruption and intimidation in the state in the eighties, that these heinous acts and many others were well known to the Sikkim public. Yet, all were afraid to take any action since they knew that the police were his personal enforcers and any action in the courts would be punished.
Against this background the elections of 1989 took place. Bhandari's systematic campaign of intimidation had so terrified the opposition that no other candidates stood against his party—something quite unusual in a democracy as lively as India 's. Sikkim is one of India 's smallest states, with a population of only 400,000, and the couple hundred opposition leaders who might have run for office were easy to intimidate. As a result, Bhandari's party won all 32 seats in the Sikkim parliament, giving him a third term in office with unprecedented power over all branches of government, including of course, the judiciary. All of these events are a matter of public record in Sikkim.
Why Didn't the Karmapa Charitable Trust File Its Case Sooner?
Though Situ and Gyaltsab Rinpoches' group seized Rumtek with Chief Minister Bhandari's help in 1993, the Karmapa Charitable Trust did not successfully file its first case against them until 1997, a full five years later. Why the delay?
Even before Bhandari's rule ended, there were those who were bold enough to file cases against his new friends Situ and Gyaltsab Rinpoches. Karma Gunbo, a former member of the Sikkim parliament and a devoted student of the late Sixteenth Karmapa, filed a case in Gangtok District Court in 1993 against Situ Rinpoche for forging his Karmapa-prediction letter. Once Chief Minister Bhandari was informed of this, he arrested Karma Gunbo's family, including wife and children, and held them in prison for two weeks during which they were subjected to physical and psychological torture.
Meanwhile, perhaps to ensure that they would not make trouble for Situ and Gyaltsab Rinpoches, Bhandari initiated an intimidation campaign against all the trustees of the Karmapa Charitable Trust. He expelled from Sikkim the two members who were not Indian citizens, Shamar Rinpoche and Topga Rinpoche. And against the two trustees who were residents of Sikkim , TS Gyaltsen and JD Densapa, both formerly high officials in the state government, Bhandari sent thugs to stone their houses and cars.
Chief Minister Bhandari's campaign of intimidation against the trustees was successful. JD Densapa in particular became so afraid to file a case in Gangtok that he attempted instead to file the case at the High Court in New Delhi in 1994 on behalf of the monastic community of Rumtek led by Ngedon Tenzin. The High Court responded that since this was a civil case, it should be submitted in the local state court, in Sikkim (the case was not in fact dismissed as Terhune stated in her book). Filing in Sikkim of course was out of the question while Chief Minister Bhandari remained in office.
How Could a Case Be Filed in 1997?
June 1992 was the beginning of the end for Bhandari. While Bhandari began interfering in Rumtek's affairs, PK Chamling, one of Bhandari's ministers, began to plan a campaign to replace the chief minister. He publicly accused Bhandari of corruption and began to refer to him as a “dictator.” In response, Bhandari arrested Chamling's assistants and tortured them in prison. Fortunately, Chamling himself escaped and went into hiding.
At this time, Shamar Rinpoche's secretary, Khedrub Gyatso, met with Chamling to offer his support, presenting a loan to assist with Chamling's election campaign, and requesting Chamling's future assistance in regaining Rumtek for the Karmapa Charitable Trust. Chamling, however, had quite a different character than Bhandari. He responded that he was not in a position to remove Situ and Gyaltsab's monks, but that he would guarantee that the Karmapa Charitable Trust would receive a fair hearing in the courts.
“Once Bhandari is defeated, then the courts in Sikkim will be approachable,” Chamling said. “You should then file a case in the court. My duty is to defeat Bhandari--to end his dictatorial rule and return democracy to Sikkim --let you file your case in Sikkim and then pay you back the money you have loaned me. This is my job for now. I will not remove Situ Rinpoche's monks from Rumtek—that would be illegal, and I am determined to abide by the law.”
Chamling began working with the New Delhi government to put pressure on Bhandari for his cooperation with the Taiwanese millionaire Chen Lu An and for shady dealings with the Chinese government. Pressure continued to mount and the central government asked more and more questions that Bhandari could not answer. By August 1995 things had gotten so bad for Bhandari that he was forced to resign in disgrace. This was an event of such import to the Karmapa controversy that devout Buddhists in Sikkim said at the time that Karmapa's protectors must have inspired Chamling to conceive his coup.
But still the Karmapa Charitable Trust could not file its case because its trustee JD Densapa was afraid that Bhandari's party would return and exact revenge. Tired of waiting, in August of 1996, the legitimate monks of Rumtek held a hunger strike to call on the state government to restore them to their monastery. New Chief Minister Chamling invited 40 senior lamas to his residence for a conference. There he suggested that there was “no point in sleeping on the road” and continuing their protest. The government could not legally remove the monks of Situ and Gyaltsab Rinpoches from Rumtek. Instead, their only remedy was to request a court order to return them to their monastery.
...
K. Wangchuk Secretary of the International Karma Kagyu Buddhist Organization
Phil Spector Set Up
PHIL SHOULD BE VERY APPRECIATIVE OF YOUR TENACIOUS WORK IN HIS MATTER. HIS PROLIFIC PERSONALITY, NO MATTER HOW TASTELESS TO SOME , SHOULD NOT BE USED AS A VEHICLE TO CONVICT AN INNOCENT MAN. I AM CONVINCED IF HE WAS NOT PHIL SPECTOR THIS CASE WOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN FILED.
RESPECTFULLY,
BILL PAVELIC
www.billpavelic.com
RESPECTFULLY,
BILL PAVELIC
www.billpavelic.com
Los Angeles District Attorney - Pattern of Abuse of Power
On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 5:35 PM, wrote:
JUST A NOTE,I WORKED ON THE SWEDISH WOMAN'S CASE AND IT IT ONE OF THE MOST DISGUSTING EXAMPLES OF ABUSE OF POWER THAT THAT THE LOS ANGELES DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE HAS ENGAGED IN. HERE CASE IS EVEN MORE PROFOUND THAN PHIL SPECTOR'S MATTER.BEST,BILL PAVELIC
JUST A NOTE,I WORKED ON THE SWEDISH WOMAN'S CASE AND IT IT ONE OF THE MOST DISGUSTING EXAMPLES OF ABUSE OF POWER THAT THAT THE LOS ANGELES DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE HAS ENGAGED IN. HERE CASE IS EVEN MORE PROFOUND THAN PHIL SPECTOR'S MATTER.BEST,BILL PAVELIC
Cooley Waves The Magic Wand Of Corruption - Killer King
Thursday, August 02, 2007
2 prosecutors had sought hospital probe - Senior officials denied the 2005 request for a grand jury inquiry into two deaths at troubled King/Drew, saying no crime had been alleged.
By Charles Ornstein August 02, 2007 in print edition B-1
Two Los Angeles County prosecutors unsuccessfully sought a grand jury investigation in 2005 into deaths at Martin Luther King Jr./Drew Medical Center, igniting a behind-the-scenes debate about whether alleged misconduct merited a wide-ranging criminal investigation.
The prosecutors' recommendation, which was outlined in a confidential April 8, 2005, memo, grew out of frustration with the slow pace of their inquiry into two patient deaths. In particular, they cited trouble obtaining hospital records and the county coroner's removal of autopsy findings that suggested substandard care by King/Drew nurses.
The memo, which was recently obtained by The Times, went on to propose a broad look by a grand jury at the King/Drew deaths, possible cover-ups of misconduct at the hospital and whether the coroner was properly examining deaths involving medical wrongdoing.
Senior officials in the county district attorney's office said they rejected the request because no specific crime had been alleged and problems at the troubled hospital were best addressed by county leaders.
Two years later, strong feelings persist on both sides of the debate. The senior prosecutor behind the recommendation said he wonders how many lives might have been saved at King/Drew had the district attorney acted aggressively.
"I did say that this could come back to haunt us," said Jeffrey Jonas, a 38-year veteran in the D.A.'s office who was then head deputy over specialized prosecutions. "I did say that this isn't the last we're going to hear about Martin Luther King. And sure enough it's been an ongoing thing."
King/Drew, now known as King-Harbor, faces possible closure because of continued lapses, including a recent high-profile death in the emergency room.
Jonas' views were heatedly disputed Wednesday by top district attorney officials.
"To think that the D.A.'s office can put on a cape and wave a magic wand and make MLK OK is absurd," said Richard Doyle, bureau director for specialized prosecutions, one of two officials who rejected the grand jury request. "We are here to prosecute crime that we can prove. That's our job. We're not here to cure the social ills created by other people."
And even when crimes may have been committed, he said, his office generally relies on other law-enforcement agencies to investigate first.
Criminal grand juries, which are generally impaneled for one month, have the power to subpoena documents, listen to witnesses and hand up indictments.
The district attorney's office began a preliminary inquiry into two deaths at King/Drew in January 2005 in response to a written request by county Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky.
"These two incidents cry out for a review of whether any of the involved personnel bear criminal responsibility for their conduct," the supervisor wrote at the time.
In both cases, nurses were alleged either to have ignored patients' heart monitors or failed to ensure that they were audible.
The D.A.'s office assigned the matter to a deputy prosecutor, Vesna Maras, who was then handling medical-legal matters. Working with state regulators, she accumulated thousands of pages of records.
In an interview, she said she determined that a broader investigation was needed to understand what was happening.
"The situation is sad at that hospital, and it's sad that that standard of care is somehow acceptable -- because it isn't to me," Maras said. "It really bothered me."
Among other hurdles, Maras wrote in the 2005 memo, county Chief Medical Examiner-Coroner Dr. Lakshmanan Sathyavagiswaran ordered the removal of part of an autopsy report on a patient who died at King/Drew on Nov. 18, 2004.
Sathyavagiswaran and his office did not return repeated calls and e-mails seeking comment.
According to Maras' memo, deputy medical examiner Dr. Louis Pena had found that "there was a failure to provide the most basic nursing or medical care" to a 47-year-old patient who died. But the coroner deleted that opinion and ruled the manner of death "undetermined." (The memo refers to the patient as Jane Doe; her name was Sandra Sagastume.)
Pena had told Maras that "he was having trouble dealing with the working conditions at the coroner's office and did not want to challenge Lakshmanan constantly because of 'political ramifications,' " Maras wrote.
"Pena stated that other deputy medical examiners and coroner investigators also felt that they could not contradict Lakshmanan and expressed concern regarding his managerial style within the context of their ethical responsibilities."
Maras wrote that during an earlier meeting, the coroner "firmly pronounced that it is 'not his job' to analyze whether or not 'quality of care' issues contribute to a death."
When asked to explain his reasoning, "his attempt to answer this question was nothing short of surreal," Maras wrote.
Later, Maras wrote, "Lakshmanan's demeanor during our tempestuous 'dialogue' could best be described as dictatorial. He clearly stated that he was free to overrule the opinion of any deputy medical examiner and had the final say
Summarizing her concerns, Maras wrote, "It is not possible, in my opinion, to do an honest evaluation of those cases without simultaneously examining the coroner's conduct."
Doyle said he did not believe that the coroner's office did anything wrong. Defining cause of death is the coroner's job, he said, not the district attorney's.
"That's his call," Doyle said. "There's nothing that even smells faintly of a crime there. That is a purely procedural thing that is so far out of our expertise and has nothing of a crime written on it."
In an unusual turn of events, the memo surfaced this week during the trial of Phil Spector, the music producer who is accused of murdering a woman in his Alhambra home in February 2003. Prosecutors gave Spector's defense team a redacted copy of the memo because Pena was the deputy medical examiner who performed the autopsy of Lana Clarkson and testified about it in court. The judge in the trial, Larry Paul Fidler, said the document was irrelevant and could not be raised.
Doyle said he made the decision to reject the grand jury recommendation with special operations assistant D.A. Curt Hazell. Dist. Atty. Steve Cooley did not participate in the decision, but did not raise any objections. Doyle said decisions not to bring a case before a grand jury are fairly common.
Jonas, who now oversees the major fraud division, said he was told at the time by a senior official in the district attorney's office: "We don't want another Belmont."
Cooley closed a lengthy investigation into the handling of potential safety problems at the Belmont Learning Complex in 2003 without filing any criminal charges even though he had criticized his predecessor for what he called a "whitewash" of the problems.
Doyle said the reference to Belmont, if it occurred, did not have political overtones.
"We can't go getting into something that we don't have a focus on, that there isn't a goal and a target, that's just going to eat up valuable grand jury time with no result," he said.
After rejecting a grand jury probe, the district attorney's office continued to investigate the conduct of two nurses who cared for the two patients who died at King/Drew in 2004. Maras and a new supervisor, Dan Murphy, ultimately decided not to file criminal charges because the documentary evidence was insufficient and no witnesses were available, Murphy said.
Murphy, the current head deputy for specialized litigation, said the district attorney's office should not have to clean up King/Drew's messes. That responsibility rests elsewhere, he said.
"I don't know how the people that are responsible for governing this county can sit there and can have watched that place fester and erupt and boil over time after time after time after time after time and still be afraid because of, I guess, politics to do what needs to be done."
--
charles.ornstein@latimes.com
2 prosecutors had sought hospital probe - Senior officials denied the 2005 request for a grand jury inquiry into two deaths at troubled King/Drew, saying no crime had been alleged.
By Charles Ornstein August 02, 2007 in print edition B-1
Two Los Angeles County prosecutors unsuccessfully sought a grand jury investigation in 2005 into deaths at Martin Luther King Jr./Drew Medical Center, igniting a behind-the-scenes debate about whether alleged misconduct merited a wide-ranging criminal investigation.
The prosecutors' recommendation, which was outlined in a confidential April 8, 2005, memo, grew out of frustration with the slow pace of their inquiry into two patient deaths. In particular, they cited trouble obtaining hospital records and the county coroner's removal of autopsy findings that suggested substandard care by King/Drew nurses.
The memo, which was recently obtained by The Times, went on to propose a broad look by a grand jury at the King/Drew deaths, possible cover-ups of misconduct at the hospital and whether the coroner was properly examining deaths involving medical wrongdoing.
Senior officials in the county district attorney's office said they rejected the request because no specific crime had been alleged and problems at the troubled hospital were best addressed by county leaders.
Two years later, strong feelings persist on both sides of the debate. The senior prosecutor behind the recommendation said he wonders how many lives might have been saved at King/Drew had the district attorney acted aggressively.
"I did say that this could come back to haunt us," said Jeffrey Jonas, a 38-year veteran in the D.A.'s office who was then head deputy over specialized prosecutions. "I did say that this isn't the last we're going to hear about Martin Luther King. And sure enough it's been an ongoing thing."
King/Drew, now known as King-Harbor, faces possible closure because of continued lapses, including a recent high-profile death in the emergency room.
Jonas' views were heatedly disputed Wednesday by top district attorney officials.
"To think that the D.A.'s office can put on a cape and wave a magic wand and make MLK OK is absurd," said Richard Doyle, bureau director for specialized prosecutions, one of two officials who rejected the grand jury request. "We are here to prosecute crime that we can prove. That's our job. We're not here to cure the social ills created by other people."
And even when crimes may have been committed, he said, his office generally relies on other law-enforcement agencies to investigate first.
Criminal grand juries, which are generally impaneled for one month, have the power to subpoena documents, listen to witnesses and hand up indictments.
The district attorney's office began a preliminary inquiry into two deaths at King/Drew in January 2005 in response to a written request by county Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky.
"These two incidents cry out for a review of whether any of the involved personnel bear criminal responsibility for their conduct," the supervisor wrote at the time.
In both cases, nurses were alleged either to have ignored patients' heart monitors or failed to ensure that they were audible.
The D.A.'s office assigned the matter to a deputy prosecutor, Vesna Maras, who was then handling medical-legal matters. Working with state regulators, she accumulated thousands of pages of records.
In an interview, she said she determined that a broader investigation was needed to understand what was happening.
"The situation is sad at that hospital, and it's sad that that standard of care is somehow acceptable -- because it isn't to me," Maras said. "It really bothered me."
Among other hurdles, Maras wrote in the 2005 memo, county Chief Medical Examiner-Coroner Dr. Lakshmanan Sathyavagiswaran ordered the removal of part of an autopsy report on a patient who died at King/Drew on Nov. 18, 2004.
Sathyavagiswaran and his office did not return repeated calls and e-mails seeking comment.
According to Maras' memo, deputy medical examiner Dr. Louis Pena had found that "there was a failure to provide the most basic nursing or medical care" to a 47-year-old patient who died. But the coroner deleted that opinion and ruled the manner of death "undetermined." (The memo refers to the patient as Jane Doe; her name was Sandra Sagastume.)
Pena had told Maras that "he was having trouble dealing with the working conditions at the coroner's office and did not want to challenge Lakshmanan constantly because of 'political ramifications,' " Maras wrote.
"Pena stated that other deputy medical examiners and coroner investigators also felt that they could not contradict Lakshmanan and expressed concern regarding his managerial style within the context of their ethical responsibilities."
Maras wrote that during an earlier meeting, the coroner "firmly pronounced that it is 'not his job' to analyze whether or not 'quality of care' issues contribute to a death."
When asked to explain his reasoning, "his attempt to answer this question was nothing short of surreal," Maras wrote.
Later, Maras wrote, "Lakshmanan's demeanor during our tempestuous 'dialogue' could best be described as dictatorial. He clearly stated that he was free to overrule the opinion of any deputy medical examiner and had the final say
Summarizing her concerns, Maras wrote, "It is not possible, in my opinion, to do an honest evaluation of those cases without simultaneously examining the coroner's conduct."
Doyle said he did not believe that the coroner's office did anything wrong. Defining cause of death is the coroner's job, he said, not the district attorney's.
"That's his call," Doyle said. "There's nothing that even smells faintly of a crime there. That is a purely procedural thing that is so far out of our expertise and has nothing of a crime written on it."
In an unusual turn of events, the memo surfaced this week during the trial of Phil Spector, the music producer who is accused of murdering a woman in his Alhambra home in February 2003. Prosecutors gave Spector's defense team a redacted copy of the memo because Pena was the deputy medical examiner who performed the autopsy of Lana Clarkson and testified about it in court. The judge in the trial, Larry Paul Fidler, said the document was irrelevant and could not be raised.
Doyle said he made the decision to reject the grand jury recommendation with special operations assistant D.A. Curt Hazell. Dist. Atty. Steve Cooley did not participate in the decision, but did not raise any objections. Doyle said decisions not to bring a case before a grand jury are fairly common.
Jonas, who now oversees the major fraud division, said he was told at the time by a senior official in the district attorney's office: "We don't want another Belmont."
Cooley closed a lengthy investigation into the handling of potential safety problems at the Belmont Learning Complex in 2003 without filing any criminal charges even though he had criticized his predecessor for what he called a "whitewash" of the problems.
Doyle said the reference to Belmont, if it occurred, did not have political overtones.
"We can't go getting into something that we don't have a focus on, that there isn't a goal and a target, that's just going to eat up valuable grand jury time with no result," he said.
After rejecting a grand jury probe, the district attorney's office continued to investigate the conduct of two nurses who cared for the two patients who died at King/Drew in 2004. Maras and a new supervisor, Dan Murphy, ultimately decided not to file criminal charges because the documentary evidence was insufficient and no witnesses were available, Murphy said.
Murphy, the current head deputy for specialized litigation, said the district attorney's office should not have to clean up King/Drew's messes. That responsibility rests elsewhere, he said.
"I don't know how the people that are responsible for governing this county can sit there and can have watched that place fester and erupt and boil over time after time after time after time after time and still be afraid because of, I guess, politics to do what needs to be done."
--
charles.ornstein@latimes.com
Cooley's Soft On Crime
Friday, December 09, 2005
Police Are Rarely Prosecuted Unless Case Is Bulletproof
By Andrew Blankstein December 09, 2005 in print edition B-2
The fatal shooting by a Los Angeles police officer of 13-year-old car-theft suspect Devin Brown is the latest in a string of controversial law enforcement cases that Los Angeles County prosecutors have declined to prosecute.
Of 442 officer-involved shootings reviewed since January 2001, Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. Steve Cooley has not brought a single criminal case. And only three of 314 alleged excessive-force cases examined in the same period spurred criminal charges, according to office spokeswoman Jane Robison.
Critics say Cooley and other district attorneys have undermined public confidence by shying away from prosecuting officers who cross the line.
"It's true you can't always second-guess police officers, but when you don't file any cases it doesn't promote confidence in the justice system," said Ramona Ripston, executive director of the ACLU of Southern California.
But experts say broad legal protections, as well as the public's admiration, make prosecuting law enforcement officers extremely difficult. Police are allowed to use deadly force if they reasonably think their lives are in danger, a factor Cooley's office cited in deciding against charges for Los Angeles Police Department Officer Steve Garcia in Brown's shooting in South Los Angeles earlier this year.
The few criminal cases prosecutors have unleashed against police met with near or total defeat.
Rioting followed a Simi Valley jury's 1992 acquittal of four LAPD officers in the beating of motorist Rodney King. A second jury eventually convicted two of the officers in federal court of violating King's civil rights.
Cooley earlier this year dropped charges against an Inglewood police officer after two juries deadlocked on excessive-force charges for slamming a teenager against the trunk of his patrol car.
"It's an easy out for them, but it happens to be true," said Laurie Levenson, a Loyola Law School professor and former federal prosecutor. "Who's going to want to be a police officer if every action can be second-guessed and land you in jail? These are controversial cases, and people are disturbed by use of force, but it doesn't make it criminal."
The last Los Angeles police officer convicted of criminal charges was Ronald Orosco, who pleaded guilty to shooting an unarmed motorist in 2000 during a dispute over a traffic citation. Orosco was sentenced to five years in state prison.
Some of the other cases considered by Los Angeles prosecutors include:
* Stanley Miller: In a case that drew comparisons to the King beating, television news helicopters captured footage of Officer John J. Hatfield pummeling African American car-theft suspect Miller along the bank of Compton Creek. The incident occurred June 23, 2004, at the end of a 21-mile car chase.
After Miller raised his arms in apparent surrender, several officers tackled him. Hatfield then delivered 11 blows with his metal flashlight and kneed him several times.
Prosecutors declined to press charges, citing insufficient evidence that Hatfield acted without "lawful necessity." In evaluating the incident, prosecutors said several officers believed that Miller had a gun. Prosecutors also said Miller's injuries were not serious.
Then-Mayor James K. Hahn and activists were critical of the decision. LAPD Chief William J. Bratton announced that the department would phase out large metal flashlights. Hatfield eventually was fired.
* Donovan Jackson: On July 6, 2002, Inglewood police Officers Bijan Darvish and Jeremy Morse asked 16-year-old Jackson to sit in a squad car outside a gas station convenience store while officers issued his father a ticket for expired tags. When Jackson, who was developmentally disabled, failed to comply, Morse was captured on video wrestling the teen to the ground, handcuffing him, punching him in the face and slamming his body onto the trunk of a patrol car. Morse said he resorted to force after Jackson grabbed his testicles.
The incident sparked a nationwide outcry and claims of police brutality, as well as criticism from then-U.S. Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft. Morse, who is white, was indicted by a grand jury on a state charge of assault under the color of authority. After two separate juries deadlocked on the charge, Cooley's office dropped the case
A civil jury later awarded the Inglewood officers $2.4 million, finding that they had been unfairly disciplined by the Inglewood Police Department. The Jackson family settled its federal civil rights lawsuit against the city.
* Anthony Dwain Lee: LAPD Officer Tarriel Hopper responded to a noise complaint at a Halloween party in a Benedict Canyon residence Oct. 28, 2000. Hopper, who said he thought he saw a man pointing a semiautomatic handgun at him, fired nine times, fatally striking Lee, a 39-year-old actor, once in the head.
Lee, dressed as the devil, was carrying a rubber handgun. Witnesses said Hopper did not identify himself as a police officer before firing. Then-Chief Bernard C. Parks defended the officer, saying he did not have the time to give any warning.
Prosecutors argued that criminal charges weren't warranted because Hopper acted reasonably out of fear of a man he thought had pointed a real gun at him. They also noted Hopper had to make a split-second decision.
* Margaret Laverne Mitchell: Mitchell, a mentally ill homeless woman, was pushing a shopping cart near 4th Street and La Brea Avenue on May 21, 1999, when two officers on bicycles tried to question her. The 5-foot-1-inch African American woman at first walked away, then stopped and began swearing loudly.
Police said Mitchell lunged with a screwdriver, threatening to kill the officers. Officer Edward Larrigan, who said he feared for his life, fired a single shot to the chest that killed Mitchell. The incident led to an outcry for reform of the LAPD's internal disciplinary process.
Cooley's office launched a grand jury inquiry but declined to file charges because investigators said witnesses had changed their statements. In a 3-2 vote, the Los Angeles Police Commission ruled that Larrigan had violated LAPD policy and should face discipline. The decision was later reversed by a police Board of Rights, which concluded Larrigan acted in fear for his life.
* Rampart corruption scandal: After he was caught stealing cocaine from a police evidence locker, Los Angeles Police Det. Rafael Perez offered to expose police misconduct in exchange for a lighter sentence. Eighty-two cases of alleged police misconduct, including suspect beatings, drug thefts, evidence planting and perjury, were investigated by the department and forwarded to then-Dist. Atty. Gil Garcetti for review.
Then-candidate Steve Cooley attacked Garcetti for failure "to exercise independent prosecutorial oversight of police conduct."
But after Cooley ousted Garcetti in a November 2002 election, his office chose to file on only nine of the 82 cases, citing insufficient evidence and expiration of the statute of limitations. Prosecutors also said Perez lacked credibility as a witness.
http://articles.latimes.com/2005/dec/09/local/me-da9
Police Are Rarely Prosecuted Unless Case Is Bulletproof
By Andrew Blankstein December 09, 2005 in print edition B-2
The fatal shooting by a Los Angeles police officer of 13-year-old car-theft suspect Devin Brown is the latest in a string of controversial law enforcement cases that Los Angeles County prosecutors have declined to prosecute.
Of 442 officer-involved shootings reviewed since January 2001, Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. Steve Cooley has not brought a single criminal case. And only three of 314 alleged excessive-force cases examined in the same period spurred criminal charges, according to office spokeswoman Jane Robison.
Critics say Cooley and other district attorneys have undermined public confidence by shying away from prosecuting officers who cross the line.
"It's true you can't always second-guess police officers, but when you don't file any cases it doesn't promote confidence in the justice system," said Ramona Ripston, executive director of the ACLU of Southern California.
But experts say broad legal protections, as well as the public's admiration, make prosecuting law enforcement officers extremely difficult. Police are allowed to use deadly force if they reasonably think their lives are in danger, a factor Cooley's office cited in deciding against charges for Los Angeles Police Department Officer Steve Garcia in Brown's shooting in South Los Angeles earlier this year.
The few criminal cases prosecutors have unleashed against police met with near or total defeat.
Rioting followed a Simi Valley jury's 1992 acquittal of four LAPD officers in the beating of motorist Rodney King. A second jury eventually convicted two of the officers in federal court of violating King's civil rights.
Cooley earlier this year dropped charges against an Inglewood police officer after two juries deadlocked on excessive-force charges for slamming a teenager against the trunk of his patrol car.
"It's an easy out for them, but it happens to be true," said Laurie Levenson, a Loyola Law School professor and former federal prosecutor. "Who's going to want to be a police officer if every action can be second-guessed and land you in jail? These are controversial cases, and people are disturbed by use of force, but it doesn't make it criminal."
The last Los Angeles police officer convicted of criminal charges was Ronald Orosco, who pleaded guilty to shooting an unarmed motorist in 2000 during a dispute over a traffic citation. Orosco was sentenced to five years in state prison.
Some of the other cases considered by Los Angeles prosecutors include:
* Stanley Miller: In a case that drew comparisons to the King beating, television news helicopters captured footage of Officer John J. Hatfield pummeling African American car-theft suspect Miller along the bank of Compton Creek. The incident occurred June 23, 2004, at the end of a 21-mile car chase.
After Miller raised his arms in apparent surrender, several officers tackled him. Hatfield then delivered 11 blows with his metal flashlight and kneed him several times.
Prosecutors declined to press charges, citing insufficient evidence that Hatfield acted without "lawful necessity." In evaluating the incident, prosecutors said several officers believed that Miller had a gun. Prosecutors also said Miller's injuries were not serious.
Then-Mayor James K. Hahn and activists were critical of the decision. LAPD Chief William J. Bratton announced that the department would phase out large metal flashlights. Hatfield eventually was fired.
* Donovan Jackson: On July 6, 2002, Inglewood police Officers Bijan Darvish and Jeremy Morse asked 16-year-old Jackson to sit in a squad car outside a gas station convenience store while officers issued his father a ticket for expired tags. When Jackson, who was developmentally disabled, failed to comply, Morse was captured on video wrestling the teen to the ground, handcuffing him, punching him in the face and slamming his body onto the trunk of a patrol car. Morse said he resorted to force after Jackson grabbed his testicles.
The incident sparked a nationwide outcry and claims of police brutality, as well as criticism from then-U.S. Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft. Morse, who is white, was indicted by a grand jury on a state charge of assault under the color of authority. After two separate juries deadlocked on the charge, Cooley's office dropped the case
A civil jury later awarded the Inglewood officers $2.4 million, finding that they had been unfairly disciplined by the Inglewood Police Department. The Jackson family settled its federal civil rights lawsuit against the city.
* Anthony Dwain Lee: LAPD Officer Tarriel Hopper responded to a noise complaint at a Halloween party in a Benedict Canyon residence Oct. 28, 2000. Hopper, who said he thought he saw a man pointing a semiautomatic handgun at him, fired nine times, fatally striking Lee, a 39-year-old actor, once in the head.
Lee, dressed as the devil, was carrying a rubber handgun. Witnesses said Hopper did not identify himself as a police officer before firing. Then-Chief Bernard C. Parks defended the officer, saying he did not have the time to give any warning.
Prosecutors argued that criminal charges weren't warranted because Hopper acted reasonably out of fear of a man he thought had pointed a real gun at him. They also noted Hopper had to make a split-second decision.
* Margaret Laverne Mitchell: Mitchell, a mentally ill homeless woman, was pushing a shopping cart near 4th Street and La Brea Avenue on May 21, 1999, when two officers on bicycles tried to question her. The 5-foot-1-inch African American woman at first walked away, then stopped and began swearing loudly.
Police said Mitchell lunged with a screwdriver, threatening to kill the officers. Officer Edward Larrigan, who said he feared for his life, fired a single shot to the chest that killed Mitchell. The incident led to an outcry for reform of the LAPD's internal disciplinary process.
Cooley's office launched a grand jury inquiry but declined to file charges because investigators said witnesses had changed their statements. In a 3-2 vote, the Los Angeles Police Commission ruled that Larrigan had violated LAPD policy and should face discipline. The decision was later reversed by a police Board of Rights, which concluded Larrigan acted in fear for his life.
* Rampart corruption scandal: After he was caught stealing cocaine from a police evidence locker, Los Angeles Police Det. Rafael Perez offered to expose police misconduct in exchange for a lighter sentence. Eighty-two cases of alleged police misconduct, including suspect beatings, drug thefts, evidence planting and perjury, were investigated by the department and forwarded to then-Dist. Atty. Gil Garcetti for review.
Then-candidate Steve Cooley attacked Garcetti for failure "to exercise independent prosecutorial oversight of police conduct."
But after Cooley ousted Garcetti in a November 2002 election, his office chose to file on only nine of the 82 cases, citing insufficient evidence and expiration of the statute of limitations. Prosecutors also said Perez lacked credibility as a witness.
http://articles.latimes.com/2005/dec/09/local/me-da9
District Attorney - Payback Prosecution
Archive for Friday, February 28, 2003
D.A. Accused of Payback Prosecution
By Nicholas Riccardi February 28, 2003
Although the district attorney's office has filed no charges in its two-year probe of the Belmont Learning Complex construction fiasco, it did pursue a criminal case against one of its own prosecutors who took part in the investigation of the unfinished high school project.
The prosecution of Deputy Dist. Atty. David Eng, who is scheduled to find out todaywhether he can regain his job after the criminal case against him unraveled, has opened a window onto the contentious Belmont investigation.
Eng's attorney maintains that his client was pursued on an unrelated matter as payback for urging his bosses to announce more than a year ago that there would be no criminal charges in the Belmont case. The district attorney's office denies the allegation.
Meanwhile, the office is due in coming days to release its Belmont report, which is expected to conclude that no criminal charges can be filed. The anticipated conclusion has sparked criticism from some observers, including the lawyer whom Dist. Atty. Steve Cooley appointed to head the Belmont investigation and later removed from that post.
Cooley, says attorney Anthony Patchett, has backed off from a 2000 campaign promise to root out wrongdoing connected to the ill-fated school project.
Top officials in the district attorney's office have declined to comment on the Belmont investigation, or respond to critics, before the report is released.
The $200-million-plus Belmont project has long been mired in controversy and dogged by environmental contamination and allegations of conflicts of interest. Work was halted on the site in 1999 when the Los Angeles Unified School District determined that it would be unsafe for children because of toxic and explosive gas underneath the buildings.
Last March, the school board reversed itself, but by year's end had mothballed the project again, citing a newly discovered earthquake fault on the property, which is just west of downtown Los Angeles.
Eng was one of three prosecutors assigned to the Belmont task force who argued in July 2001 that, contrary to Cooley's campaign statements, there was no crime committed in the construction of Belmont.
Last September, the district attorney's office asked the state attorney general to charge Eng with four counts of illegally accessing a law enforcement computer for his personal use.
The criminal case against Eng swiftly fell apart in court last month when the lead prosecution witness, a district attorney's investigator, invoked the 5th Amendment on the witness stand and refused to testify. The attorney general's office, which was handling the matter because the district attorney's office could not legally prosecute one of its own employees in court, dismissed the charges.
Eng's attorney, Mark Geragos, says his client was set up for a sham prosecution because Eng urged Cooley to come clean with the public on Belmont more than a year ago.
"They realize that the emperor's got no clothes, and David wants them to do something about it -- not only because it's costing the taxpayers a lot of money, but they've exposed a lot of people to a criminal investigation," Geragos said. "They take him out through one of the most contrived prosecutions I've ever seen."
The district attorney's office said Belmont did not factor into its investigation of Eng, and people connected with the long-running probe into the school project point out that Eng's viewpoint ultimately won out with the office's top brass.
"No element related to Belmont was involved in the matter that was referred to the attorney general," said Joe Scott, Cooley's director of communications.
Eng's adversary during the Belmont probe was Patchett, a former deputy district attorney and top Cooley backer during the 2000 campaign. Patchett, who once headed the office's environmental crimes unit, selected Eng and two other prosecutors for the task force.
Patchett contended that there were indictable crimes involving Belmont, but the three other prosecutors disagreed. After losing the argument for prosecution, Patchett was removed as head of the task force.
"We only go after little people, not major defendants," he said. "It's a sad commentary on the criminal justice system."
Others are also angered by the outcome. Roger Carrick, an environmental attorney who represented the L.A. Unified inspector general's office during its investigation of Belmont, has publicly urged Cooley to file environmental charges, to no avail.
"I am deeply disappointed, as I think everyone in L.A. is, that no public prosecutor sees fit to prosecute anyone at Belmont," Carrick said in an interview. "I think any regular citizen reading the newspaper would think someone broke the law."
Patchett had retired from the district attorney's office when he was approached in 2000 about helping Cooley's insurgent campaign against Dist. Atty. Gil Garcetti, who had declined to prosecute anyone in connection with the Belmont controversy. Patchett was specifically asked to look into Belmont, and he says he spent 400 hours researching the tangled history of the still-skeletal school structure.
Investigators for Los Angeles Unified and the Legislature identified problems, including the fact that the same high-powered law firm that represented the district in negotiations over the school's construction, O'Melveny and Myers, also represented the developer who won the contract.
Additionally, an auditor for the district said the project's subcontractors had overbilled by more than $2 million. And when methane was found under buildings on site, some school and political officials said the presence of the potentially explosive gas had been concealed from the public.
Cooley swept into office in November 2000 promising to reopen the Belmont probe. The next February he hired Patchett as his special assistant and appointed him head of a new Belmont task force. Patchett said he was particularly interested in one angle -- that contractors had allegedly removed soil from the construction site, a former oil field, without a permit for transporting hazardous waste, and illegally dumped it elsewhere. In April 2001 Cooley declared the school site a crime scene, sparking a brief clash with the school district.
The investigation did not go smoothly. Soon, according to people who were involved, the office split into those who wanted to indict and those who did not.
"It was just a mess from Day One," said one member of the task force who spoke on condition of anonymity. "You could see the tension in the air."
By summer 2001, Eng and the other two attorneys Patchett had selected, George Castello and Fred Macksoud, were arguing that there was no crime at Belmont -- not the possible environmental violations Patchett was investigating or the alleged overbilling, say participants in the probe. Castello and Macksoud declined to comment before the Belmont report's release.
Also a factor was an arbitrator's ruling that the district had not been overbilled. Advocates of prosecution said that shouldn't have been an obstacle, because the arbitration process didn't allow for subpoenaing documents and witnesses.
In July 2001, dozens of prosecutors and investigators crammed into a conference room on the 18th floor of the downtown Criminal Courts Building to review the results of the Belmont probe. It was in these meetings, Geragos said, that Eng argued for a swift public exoneration, because the inquiry had sparked an Internal Revenue Service probe into whether the tax-exempt bonds issued to finance Belmont were legal. That investigation was driving up the cost of the bonds.
By the end of the month, Patchett had been removed as task force chief and Cooley was publicly saying he was narrowing the scope of the inquiry. In a memo to his office staff, he pledged that a comprehensive report on Belmont would be out in "early 2002."
Patchett left the office in December 2001. Last fall, the IRS settled its investigation of L.A. Unified with no criminal charges or fines. In September, the D.A.'s office asked the attorney general to consider prosecuting Eng. According to court records and interviews, Eng asked a colleague in the district attorney's office in October 2001 whether a man who wanted to buy his house had a criminal record. Eng later called off the sale. The man complained, and the district attorney's office opened an internal probe.
It forwarded the case to the attorney general's office a few weeks before the statute of limitations expired. The state prosecutors, who usually perform their own investigations, filed the misdemeanor charges against Eng relying largely on the district attorney's internal probe, said attorney general spokesman Nathan Barankin.
In late January, the attorney general's office backed off. Eng's attorney was contending that his client never accessed a confidential database to look up a criminal record; he simply asked a colleague for information. The key witness, district attorney investigator David Torres, stated in court that he would cite his constitutional right against self-incrimination if questioned about whether he had accessed the confidential database for Eng.
"The D.A. hoodwinked the attorney general on this case," said Geragos, Eng's attorney. "The attorney general did the ethical thing on this and dismissed."
Torres, also a member of the Belmont task force, did not return a call seeking comment. Eng, who was suspended from his job when the criminal charges were filed in October, has appealed to the county's Civil Service Commission for reinstatement, and officials say he is to be informed today whether his suspension will continue.
http://articles.latimes.com/2003/feb/28/local/me-belmont28
D.A. Accused of Payback Prosecution
By Nicholas Riccardi February 28, 2003
Although the district attorney's office has filed no charges in its two-year probe of the Belmont Learning Complex construction fiasco, it did pursue a criminal case against one of its own prosecutors who took part in the investigation of the unfinished high school project.
The prosecution of Deputy Dist. Atty. David Eng, who is scheduled to find out todaywhether he can regain his job after the criminal case against him unraveled, has opened a window onto the contentious Belmont investigation.
Eng's attorney maintains that his client was pursued on an unrelated matter as payback for urging his bosses to announce more than a year ago that there would be no criminal charges in the Belmont case. The district attorney's office denies the allegation.
Meanwhile, the office is due in coming days to release its Belmont report, which is expected to conclude that no criminal charges can be filed. The anticipated conclusion has sparked criticism from some observers, including the lawyer whom Dist. Atty. Steve Cooley appointed to head the Belmont investigation and later removed from that post.
Cooley, says attorney Anthony Patchett, has backed off from a 2000 campaign promise to root out wrongdoing connected to the ill-fated school project.
Top officials in the district attorney's office have declined to comment on the Belmont investigation, or respond to critics, before the report is released.
The $200-million-plus Belmont project has long been mired in controversy and dogged by environmental contamination and allegations of conflicts of interest. Work was halted on the site in 1999 when the Los Angeles Unified School District determined that it would be unsafe for children because of toxic and explosive gas underneath the buildings.
Last March, the school board reversed itself, but by year's end had mothballed the project again, citing a newly discovered earthquake fault on the property, which is just west of downtown Los Angeles.
Eng was one of three prosecutors assigned to the Belmont task force who argued in July 2001 that, contrary to Cooley's campaign statements, there was no crime committed in the construction of Belmont.
Last September, the district attorney's office asked the state attorney general to charge Eng with four counts of illegally accessing a law enforcement computer for his personal use.
The criminal case against Eng swiftly fell apart in court last month when the lead prosecution witness, a district attorney's investigator, invoked the 5th Amendment on the witness stand and refused to testify. The attorney general's office, which was handling the matter because the district attorney's office could not legally prosecute one of its own employees in court, dismissed the charges.
Eng's attorney, Mark Geragos, says his client was set up for a sham prosecution because Eng urged Cooley to come clean with the public on Belmont more than a year ago.
"They realize that the emperor's got no clothes, and David wants them to do something about it -- not only because it's costing the taxpayers a lot of money, but they've exposed a lot of people to a criminal investigation," Geragos said. "They take him out through one of the most contrived prosecutions I've ever seen."
The district attorney's office said Belmont did not factor into its investigation of Eng, and people connected with the long-running probe into the school project point out that Eng's viewpoint ultimately won out with the office's top brass.
"No element related to Belmont was involved in the matter that was referred to the attorney general," said Joe Scott, Cooley's director of communications.
Eng's adversary during the Belmont probe was Patchett, a former deputy district attorney and top Cooley backer during the 2000 campaign. Patchett, who once headed the office's environmental crimes unit, selected Eng and two other prosecutors for the task force.
Patchett contended that there were indictable crimes involving Belmont, but the three other prosecutors disagreed. After losing the argument for prosecution, Patchett was removed as head of the task force.
"We only go after little people, not major defendants," he said. "It's a sad commentary on the criminal justice system."
Others are also angered by the outcome. Roger Carrick, an environmental attorney who represented the L.A. Unified inspector general's office during its investigation of Belmont, has publicly urged Cooley to file environmental charges, to no avail.
"I am deeply disappointed, as I think everyone in L.A. is, that no public prosecutor sees fit to prosecute anyone at Belmont," Carrick said in an interview. "I think any regular citizen reading the newspaper would think someone broke the law."
Patchett had retired from the district attorney's office when he was approached in 2000 about helping Cooley's insurgent campaign against Dist. Atty. Gil Garcetti, who had declined to prosecute anyone in connection with the Belmont controversy. Patchett was specifically asked to look into Belmont, and he says he spent 400 hours researching the tangled history of the still-skeletal school structure.
Investigators for Los Angeles Unified and the Legislature identified problems, including the fact that the same high-powered law firm that represented the district in negotiations over the school's construction, O'Melveny and Myers, also represented the developer who won the contract.
Additionally, an auditor for the district said the project's subcontractors had overbilled by more than $2 million. And when methane was found under buildings on site, some school and political officials said the presence of the potentially explosive gas had been concealed from the public.
Cooley swept into office in November 2000 promising to reopen the Belmont probe. The next February he hired Patchett as his special assistant and appointed him head of a new Belmont task force. Patchett said he was particularly interested in one angle -- that contractors had allegedly removed soil from the construction site, a former oil field, without a permit for transporting hazardous waste, and illegally dumped it elsewhere. In April 2001 Cooley declared the school site a crime scene, sparking a brief clash with the school district.
The investigation did not go smoothly. Soon, according to people who were involved, the office split into those who wanted to indict and those who did not.
"It was just a mess from Day One," said one member of the task force who spoke on condition of anonymity. "You could see the tension in the air."
By summer 2001, Eng and the other two attorneys Patchett had selected, George Castello and Fred Macksoud, were arguing that there was no crime at Belmont -- not the possible environmental violations Patchett was investigating or the alleged overbilling, say participants in the probe. Castello and Macksoud declined to comment before the Belmont report's release.
Also a factor was an arbitrator's ruling that the district had not been overbilled. Advocates of prosecution said that shouldn't have been an obstacle, because the arbitration process didn't allow for subpoenaing documents and witnesses.
In July 2001, dozens of prosecutors and investigators crammed into a conference room on the 18th floor of the downtown Criminal Courts Building to review the results of the Belmont probe. It was in these meetings, Geragos said, that Eng argued for a swift public exoneration, because the inquiry had sparked an Internal Revenue Service probe into whether the tax-exempt bonds issued to finance Belmont were legal. That investigation was driving up the cost of the bonds.
By the end of the month, Patchett had been removed as task force chief and Cooley was publicly saying he was narrowing the scope of the inquiry. In a memo to his office staff, he pledged that a comprehensive report on Belmont would be out in "early 2002."
Patchett left the office in December 2001. Last fall, the IRS settled its investigation of L.A. Unified with no criminal charges or fines. In September, the D.A.'s office asked the attorney general to consider prosecuting Eng. According to court records and interviews, Eng asked a colleague in the district attorney's office in October 2001 whether a man who wanted to buy his house had a criminal record. Eng later called off the sale. The man complained, and the district attorney's office opened an internal probe.
It forwarded the case to the attorney general's office a few weeks before the statute of limitations expired. The state prosecutors, who usually perform their own investigations, filed the misdemeanor charges against Eng relying largely on the district attorney's internal probe, said attorney general spokesman Nathan Barankin.
In late January, the attorney general's office backed off. Eng's attorney was contending that his client never accessed a confidential database to look up a criminal record; he simply asked a colleague for information. The key witness, district attorney investigator David Torres, stated in court that he would cite his constitutional right against self-incrimination if questioned about whether he had accessed the confidential database for Eng.
"The D.A. hoodwinked the attorney general on this case," said Geragos, Eng's attorney. "The attorney general did the ethical thing on this and dismissed."
Torres, also a member of the Belmont task force, did not return a call seeking comment. Eng, who was suspended from his job when the criminal charges were filed in October, has appealed to the county's Civil Service Commission for reinstatement, and officials say he is to be informed today whether his suspension will continue.
http://articles.latimes.com/2003/feb/28/local/me-belmont28
Who Has The Clout To Back Down The IRS?
1) THE LAUSD BOARD, THE NAVY BOYS LAUSD FACILITIES ,CONTRACTORS, LAW FIRMS, CONSULTANTS, AND RETAIL STORES INVOVLED WITH THE BELMONT (CONSPIRACY TO ROB THE PUBLIC PURSE) SHOULD ALL BE PROSECUTED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS TO STEP UP IN ORDER TO BREAK UP THE ORGANIZED CRIME THAT HAS EMBEDDED ITSELF IN THE LAUSD STRUCTURE. WE ALSO HAVE TO GET RID OF THE THREE STOOGES PETER SOBEROFF, DICK RIORDON, AND ELI BROAD, AKA THE GODFATHERS OF MONEY LAUNDERING, LAND GRABS, AND BILLION DOLLAR CONTRACTING. THE CROOKS THAT HAVE STOLEN THE CHILDRENS MONEY AND THOSE WHO CONTINUE TO HARBOR THEM AND THEIR MONEY LAUNDERING SHOULD BE PROSECUTED AND PLACED IN THE GENERAL PRISON POPULATION. ? LESLIE DO THINK THE PUBLIC HAS THE RIGHT TO DEMAND THAT THE BROKERS THAT SELL OUR PUBLIC BONDS ( TO THE INSIDERS) BEFORE THEY HAVE FULLY MATURED SHOULD HAVE THIER LICENSES REVOKED AND THAT THEY BE LOCKED UP? ? WHO ARE THE INSIDERS AND ARE THEY CONNECTED TO PETER SOBEROFF, RICHARD RIORDON,AND ELI BROAD? 2) Leslie... Why hasn't the grand jury entered into this matter, or at least the CDE who would have to take over the District if the voters don't pass the Bond bail out measures? Thanks, Steve Burt
3) DA cooley is corrupt.
4) Please hold the school accountable to it's part of this problem. There seems to be a piece missing on their part and until they step up to the plate to respond, there doesn't seem to be any question who to believe
http://www.fulldisclosure.net/flash/VideoBlog5.htm
3) DA cooley is corrupt.
4) Please hold the school accountable to it's part of this problem. There seems to be a piece missing on their part and until they step up to the plate to respond, there doesn't seem to be any question who to believe
http://www.fulldisclosure.net/flash/VideoBlog5.htm
Steve Cooley - Corruption's Protectorate
THE HUNT FOR DR. HENRY LEE - DR. MICHAEL BADEN AND BILL PAVELIC "....After years of grabbing negative headlines for losing the OJ Simpson double homicide case and other celebrity trials, involving the same three participants, it was inevitable and predictable that the Los Angeles criminal injustice system via Robbery Homicide Division would administer their personal vendettas against me, Dr. Henry Lee and Dr. Michael Baden. That moment arrived in 2007 when music mogul Phil Spector was charged with the murder of Lana Clarkson and the case was "assigned" to judge Larry Fidler. Revenge by the LAPD Robbery Homicide Division would be a "MF"and "MF" didn't stand for Mark Fuhrman...." "....Exposing the truth is never in the interest of those who suppressed it and eliminating the messenger would have to be carried out with precision by the Los Angeles Police Robbery Homicide Division and their protectorate, the Los Angeles District Attorney's Office. Knowing that it was only a matter of time before the OJ Simpson facts would be re-calibrated in my "Guilty of Incompetence" expose, the Los Angeles District Attorney's Office and the LAPD Robbery Homicide Division in the Phil Spector's (2007) murder trial usurped the Los Angles Superior Court and Jude Larry Fidler, to falsely allege that Dr. Henry Lee, myself, and Dr. Michael Baden, were involved in a bogus "obstruction of justice" crime...." "....The judge in the televised Phil Spector trial, on behalf of his friend Deputy District Attorney Patrick Dixon, creatively, albeit injudiciously, granted the LAPD Robbery Homicide Division the commensurate authority to "investigate" the disappearance of non existent "evidence" that was allegedly removed and or discarded by member(s) of the defense team, while conducting an examination of the Lana Clarkson's accidental suicide shooting scene...." "....The "missing evidence" and or the "obstruction of justice" investigation was conveniently assigned to Robbery Homicide Division (RHD) investigator Victor Pietrantoni, a key player in the OJ Simpson criminal investigation. What a "happy coincidence" that this case would end up in the lap of Detective Victor Pietrantoni the RHD stud who was nicknamed "Casanova" because of his steamy relationship with a high ranking Los Angeles Deputy District Attorney. As my old LAPD Puerto Rican partner would say, "F----g a lawyer, especially a district attorney is the ultimate high for a cop and the fastest way to climb the ladder of success...." To be fair, Victor Pietrantoni is just one of many LAPD officers who are incestuously connected and or married to members of the Los Angeles District Attorney's Office, The City Attorney's Office and or to the jurists assigned to the Los Angeles and Orange County Superior Courts. Allowing Victor Pietrantoni (on behalf of his wife, DDA Patrick Dixon and Judge Fidler) to conduct an impartial obstruction of justice investigation was tantamount to allowing the fox to investigate who broke into the hen house...." "....Instead of recusing himself and or convening the Grand Jury to investigate the false allegations which were revolting, contemptible and based on perjurious witnesses, the luminous Judge Larry Fidler took a page from the "Spanish Inquisition" period and used his black robe, minus the hood, to lunch a personal, vicious, unethical and unrelenting smear campaign against Dr. Henry Lee, with one objective in mind; to publicly humiliate and destroy Dr. Henry Lee's professional reputation, knowing that he can do it with impunity while hiding behind his judicial immunity...." "....It should have come as no shock to Judge Fidler that dishonesty was compulsory in much of Robbery Homicide Division and that Judge Fidler's colleagues at the Los Angeles District Attorneys Office have shown an affinity for using the grotesque Robbery Homicide Division to once again, dispense their own form of perverted justice trough manufactured and rigged investigations...."
http://www.guiltyofincompetence.com/viewtopic.php?t=98&view=previous&sid=c891725fe65976badec1df274e3d5d1b
http://www.guiltyofincompetence.com/viewtopic.php?t=98&view=previous&sid=c891725fe65976badec1df274e3d5d1b
Steve Cooley - Belmont Crime Scene For Children
D.A. DECLARES BELMONT SITE A 'CRIME SCENE'.
Byline: Beth Barrett and Harrison Sheppard Staff Writers District Attorney Steve CooleyStephen Lawrence ("Steve") Cooley (born May 1, 1947 in Los Angeles, California) is a veteran prosecutor who was elected as Los Angeles County's 36th District Attorney on November 7, 2000. He was sworn in for his second term on December 6, 2004. ..... Click the link for more information. has designated the Belmont Learning CenterThis Belmont Learning Center contains information about a building currently under construction.It may contain information of a speculative nature, and the content may change dramatically as construction progresses and new information becomes available. ..... Click the link for more information. a ``crime scene'' and warned Superintendent Roy RomerRoy R. Romer (born October 31, 1928 in Garden City, Kansas, United States) was the 39th governor of Colorado and served as the superintendent of the Los Angeles Unified School District from 2001 to 2006. ..... Click the link for more information. to restrict access to the 35-acre site even as he seeks a private firm to finish it as a school or buy it.
The warning letter from Cooley - who reopened a criminal investigation into Belmont after his election in November - was sent Wednesday, a day after the district released its proposal to solicit bids from private developers interested in completing the $175 million abandoned high school or buying the site. The letter elicited a harsh response from Romer, who called it preposterous and accused the district attorney of grandstanding. The letter, undersignedun·der·signed adj.1. Having signatures or a signature at the bottom or end. Used of documents.2. Signed or having signed at the bottom or end of a document: ..... Click the link for more information. by Cooley's special assistant Anthony G. Patchett, said that due to the past grading and movement of contaminated contaminated,v 1. made radioactive by the addition of small quantities of radioactive material.2. made contaminated by adding infective or radiographic materials.3. an infective surface or object. soil, ``it appears the LAUSD LAUSD Los Angeles Unified School District (Los Angeles, CA) and others have created the illegal storage and disposal of hazardous wasteHazardous wasteAny solid, liquid, or gaseous waste materials that, if improperly managed or disposed of, may pose substantial hazards to human health and the environment. Every industrial country in the world has had problems with managing hazardous wastes. ..... Click the link for more information. at the Belmont Learning Complex (Center).'' ``Therefore, the Belmont Learning Complex (Center) is considered a 'crime scene' and should be treated as such. Access should be restricted and care should be taken not to tamper with the monitoring wells,'' it concluded. The letter means prospective bidders may be limited in their access to the site and their ability to evaluate its environmental conditions until the criminal investigation is completed. Patchett said the instructions do not necessarily bar prospective bidders from the site, but do provide the parameters for their access. But Romer, who reinstated five suspended administrators involved in the Belmont fiasco and has pushed for its completion, issued a statement questioning why the district attorney was not being more constructive in trying to help Romer with the Belmont issue. Romer said: ``In my 40 years of public service, including 12 as governor, I can't remember receiving a letter from a public official that is as strange as this one. ``To try to intimidate this school district from finding a solution to Belmont by declaring Belmont a crime scene is preposterous. We have already said we will fully cooperate with any investigation or prosecution of wrongdoing wrong·do·er n.One who does wrong, especially morally or ethically.
wrongdo relating to relating to relate prep → concernantrelating to relate prep → bezüglich +gen, mit Bezug auf +acc Belmont. ... This letter is below the standard this community deserves from a district attorney.'' Armed with dozens of investigative documents ignored by his predecessor, Cooley in January announced he was reopening a criminal probe of the Los Angeles Los Angeles (lôs ăn`jələs, lŏs, ăn`jəlēz'), city (1990 pop. 3,485,398), seat of Los Angeles co., S Calif.; inc. 1850. Unified School District's abandoned high school - the nation's costliest school, built atop an old oil field seeping potentially deadly and explosive gases. Patchett said the letter to Romer was to underscore the depth of concern regarding Belmont. ``I don't believe Mr. Romer knows the seriousness of this situation,'' Patchett said. ``He's an out-of-state person, and while some people may have brought him up to speed, I don't think he realizes what occurred at that site when the dirt was moved around.'' To build the school, developers scooped away part of a hillside, drawing closer to the shallow oil field that lies below. Patchett added that neighbors continue to complain of the rotten smell associated with hydrogen sulfide hydrogen sulfide, chemical compound, H2S, a colorless, extremely poisonous gas that has a very disagreeable odor, much like that of rotten eggs. It is slightly soluble in water and is soluble in carbon disulfide. . The gas, which has been detected in the soil beneath Belmont, is potentially deadly. Because no barrier was built beneath the school, critics have charged the buildings are vulnerable to both hydrogen sulfide accumulations and methane, which can explode at certain concentrations if ignited. Patchett said he doubts the structures as they stand today could pass inspection and that the Belmont Task Force is trying to determine if the site is located on a quake fault line. Patchett declined to comment on what step prosecutors might be prepared to take if Belmont is disturbed in defiance of prosecutors' instructions. School board members said the letter will complicate efforts to allow bidders to evaluate the site. ``Belmont has been a problem from Day One,'' said board member Julie Korenstein, a staunch Belmont opponent. ``It can't do anything but continue to present problems. There are those that are madly trying to find ways of remediating it. It's going to be extremely difficult and complex, and this makes it even more difficult.'' Board member Caprice ca·price n.1. a. An impulsive change of mind.b. An inclination to change one's mind impulsively.c. Young said officials should heed the district attorney's directive. ``He's doing a very important job that is critical to regaining public integrity around this project,'' Young said. ``And I would not want to tamper with or thwart his investigation in any way.''
Byline: Beth Barrett and Harrison Sheppard Staff Writers District Attorney Steve CooleyStephen Lawrence ("Steve") Cooley (born May 1, 1947 in Los Angeles, California) is a veteran prosecutor who was elected as Los Angeles County's 36th District Attorney on November 7, 2000. He was sworn in for his second term on December 6, 2004. ..... Click the link for more information. has designated the Belmont Learning CenterThis Belmont Learning Center contains information about a building currently under construction.It may contain information of a speculative nature, and the content may change dramatically as construction progresses and new information becomes available. ..... Click the link for more information. a ``crime scene'' and warned Superintendent Roy RomerRoy R. Romer (born October 31, 1928 in Garden City, Kansas, United States) was the 39th governor of Colorado and served as the superintendent of the Los Angeles Unified School District from 2001 to 2006. ..... Click the link for more information. to restrict access to the 35-acre site even as he seeks a private firm to finish it as a school or buy it.
The warning letter from Cooley - who reopened a criminal investigation into Belmont after his election in November - was sent Wednesday, a day after the district released its proposal to solicit bids from private developers interested in completing the $175 million abandoned high school or buying the site. The letter elicited a harsh response from Romer, who called it preposterous and accused the district attorney of grandstanding. The letter, undersignedun·der·signed adj.1. Having signatures or a signature at the bottom or end. Used of documents.2. Signed or having signed at the bottom or end of a document: ..... Click the link for more information. by Cooley's special assistant Anthony G. Patchett, said that due to the past grading and movement of contaminated contaminated,v 1. made radioactive by the addition of small quantities of radioactive material.2. made contaminated by adding infective or radiographic materials.3. an infective surface or object. soil, ``it appears the LAUSD LAUSD Los Angeles Unified School District (Los Angeles, CA) and others have created the illegal storage and disposal of hazardous wasteHazardous wasteAny solid, liquid, or gaseous waste materials that, if improperly managed or disposed of, may pose substantial hazards to human health and the environment. Every industrial country in the world has had problems with managing hazardous wastes. ..... Click the link for more information. at the Belmont Learning Complex (Center).'' ``Therefore, the Belmont Learning Complex (Center) is considered a 'crime scene' and should be treated as such. Access should be restricted and care should be taken not to tamper with the monitoring wells,'' it concluded. The letter means prospective bidders may be limited in their access to the site and their ability to evaluate its environmental conditions until the criminal investigation is completed. Patchett said the instructions do not necessarily bar prospective bidders from the site, but do provide the parameters for their access. But Romer, who reinstated five suspended administrators involved in the Belmont fiasco and has pushed for its completion, issued a statement questioning why the district attorney was not being more constructive in trying to help Romer with the Belmont issue. Romer said: ``In my 40 years of public service, including 12 as governor, I can't remember receiving a letter from a public official that is as strange as this one. ``To try to intimidate this school district from finding a solution to Belmont by declaring Belmont a crime scene is preposterous. We have already said we will fully cooperate with any investigation or prosecution of wrongdoing wrong·do·er n.One who does wrong, especially morally or ethically.
wrongdo relating to relating to relate prep → concernantrelating to relate prep → bezüglich +gen, mit Bezug auf +acc Belmont. ... This letter is below the standard this community deserves from a district attorney.'' Armed with dozens of investigative documents ignored by his predecessor, Cooley in January announced he was reopening a criminal probe of the Los Angeles Los Angeles (lôs ăn`jələs, lŏs, ăn`jəlēz'), city (1990 pop. 3,485,398), seat of Los Angeles co., S Calif.; inc. 1850. Unified School District's abandoned high school - the nation's costliest school, built atop an old oil field seeping potentially deadly and explosive gases. Patchett said the letter to Romer was to underscore the depth of concern regarding Belmont. ``I don't believe Mr. Romer knows the seriousness of this situation,'' Patchett said. ``He's an out-of-state person, and while some people may have brought him up to speed, I don't think he realizes what occurred at that site when the dirt was moved around.'' To build the school, developers scooped away part of a hillside, drawing closer to the shallow oil field that lies below. Patchett added that neighbors continue to complain of the rotten smell associated with hydrogen sulfide hydrogen sulfide, chemical compound, H2S, a colorless, extremely poisonous gas that has a very disagreeable odor, much like that of rotten eggs. It is slightly soluble in water and is soluble in carbon disulfide. . The gas, which has been detected in the soil beneath Belmont, is potentially deadly. Because no barrier was built beneath the school, critics have charged the buildings are vulnerable to both hydrogen sulfide accumulations and methane, which can explode at certain concentrations if ignited. Patchett said he doubts the structures as they stand today could pass inspection and that the Belmont Task Force is trying to determine if the site is located on a quake fault line. Patchett declined to comment on what step prosecutors might be prepared to take if Belmont is disturbed in defiance of prosecutors' instructions. School board members said the letter will complicate efforts to allow bidders to evaluate the site. ``Belmont has been a problem from Day One,'' said board member Julie Korenstein, a staunch Belmont opponent. ``It can't do anything but continue to present problems. There are those that are madly trying to find ways of remediating it. It's going to be extremely difficult and complex, and this makes it even more difficult.'' Board member Caprice ca·price n.1. a. An impulsive change of mind.b. An inclination to change one's mind impulsively.c. Young said officials should heed the district attorney's directive. ``He's doing a very important job that is critical to regaining public integrity around this project,'' Young said. ``And I would not want to tamper with or thwart his investigation in any way.''
Steve Cooley - Full Disclosure
Los Angeles, CA -- The L.A. County District Attorney and the L. A Superior Courts have declined immigration enforcement actions such as deportation of criminal alien gang members, as a matter of policy.The Full Disclosure Network® is releasing a three minute Video News Blog, featuring statements from the official spokespersons for the Superior Court and the District Attorney's office who tells Full Disclosure that "our prosecutions don't have anything to do with immigration policy".Much like the Los Angeles Police Department's Special Order 40 "don't ask, dont' tell" policy, the Los Angeles Superior Court spokeswoman, Geri Ann Haslet states their policy is "we do not treat undocumented persons any differently than anyone else".The Full Disclosure Network® Video News Blog provides insight into the hands off policy of local law enforcement and the courts where illegal criminal aliens apparently have equal rights and protections under the law. This Video News Blog is featured on the Full Disclosure Network website at http://www.fulldisclosure.net/ and is to be featured on 45 cable television channels as part of a Video News Blog Special Series.Steve Ipsen, President of the Association of Deputy District Attorneys, who is a critic of the hands off immigration policy, told Full Disclosure that "illegal alien gang members who are released from jail, on probation in Los Angeles County, must have the approval of the District Attorney's office and in fact are ordered by the Courts to stay in the United States and to obtain employment".
Following the March 2, 2008 murder of a popular high school football star, Jamiel Shaw, II, a criminal gang member by the name of Pedro Espinosa, was arrested for the crime. Espinosa had been early released from L. A. County jail after service four months on assault and weapons charges.
Neither the District Attorney’s office or the Courts raised any questions as to whether or not he should be removed from the country. The L. A. County Sheriff’s Department failed to notify Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE) that Espinosa was in the country illegally.
http://www.fulldisclosure.net/news/archives/2008_05_01_archive.html
Following the March 2, 2008 murder of a popular high school football star, Jamiel Shaw, II, a criminal gang member by the name of Pedro Espinosa, was arrested for the crime. Espinosa had been early released from L. A. County jail after service four months on assault and weapons charges.
Neither the District Attorney’s office or the Courts raised any questions as to whether or not he should be removed from the country. The L. A. County Sheriff’s Department failed to notify Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE) that Espinosa was in the country illegally.
http://www.fulldisclosure.net/news/archives/2008_05_01_archive.html
Corruption and District Attorney Steve Cooley
DISTRICT ATTORNEY CORRUPTION?: TWO VIEWS ON DA COOLEY’S RECORDInternet exclusive: On Full Disclosure® Video News BlogVideo Preview Time: Preview 7:30 min.Release Date: May 14, 2008
participate in survey & leave your comments below
Los Angeles, CA Is it a co-incidence that it has been almost 20 years, since the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s office prosecuted a big dollar, white collar crime? Or could it be there are no more big corruption cases or major crimes committed by powerful and prominent people in Los Angeles?
In a Full Disclosure Network® two-part series Steve Ipsen, President of the Association of Deputy District Attorneys (L. A. County) and Albert Robles, Constitutional Attorney who serves as an elected member of the So. California Water Replenishment Board both contend that corruption is alive and well in Los Angeles County. These two challengers running against Cooley in the June 2008 election, point out that the current DA has refused to prosecute the rich and powerful while successfully lobbying for a $55,000 pay raise bringing his salary to $292,300, making him one of the highest-paid government officials anywhere.
Watch this seven minute preview from the series that is featured on 45 cable systems and the internet. The full two-part programs will be available for viewing (for a limited time up to the election) from the Full Disclosure website from the following links:
Preview (7:30 min)
Segment #1 (8 min)Candidates provide background on their careers and qualifications. They present a summary of issues for why they are running against the Incumbent DA Steve Cooley.
Segment #2 (8 min)Candidates discuss why Steve Cooley is not participating in the U. S. Department of Justice Gang Initiative and address the following issues:
DA non-action policy on deporting illegal alien gang members
Mexican Drug Cartels in City of Cudahy
Impact of Criminal Defense lobby on DA prosecution policies
DA Cooley's campaign contributions from Criminal Defense lobby
Segment #3 (8 min)Candidates describe the failures and demoralization of the DA's office, and of DA Investigators as body guards and chauffeurs for questionable personal activities.
Segment #4 (8 min)Both candidates noted the following:
DA's refusal to prosecute pedophile priests in the Catholic Church
DA's non-prosecution policies of powerful people, i.e. Board of Supervisors
Called DA's pay raise "pay back" for looking the other way.
Ethics Violation: Cooley called Jury members "stupid" following the Blake Verdict
Segment #5 (8 min)Candidates detail issue where there is Corruption in the DA's office:
Belmont Learning Center scandal
Criminal Defense Attorneys influence
DA disbanded environmental crimes unit
Manipulated cases by transfer of expert Deputies
Segment #6 (8 min)Video disclosure of how DA Investigators were used to conduct an unofficial and unauthorized investigation. Candidates describe DA's failure to investigate MacArthur Park beatings gross negligence at Martin Luther King Hospital.
Challengers Quotes on DA Cooley’s record:Steve Ipsen:“The corruption that exists in the county that I'm aware of, that I can state here today is with the District Attorney's office.”“This DA doesn't deserve to be paid when he isn't doing his job.”
Albert Robles:“He has refused to prosecute the pedophiles and child molesters that work and still work in the Catholic Church”.“Steve Cooley takes untold amounts of money from the criminal defense sector”.
This series is to be featured on 45 cable systems starting May 14, 2008. A complete listing of channels and airtimes, by community can be found from this link.
http://www.fulldisclosure.net/Programs/515.php
participate in survey & leave your comments below
Los Angeles, CA Is it a co-incidence that it has been almost 20 years, since the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s office prosecuted a big dollar, white collar crime? Or could it be there are no more big corruption cases or major crimes committed by powerful and prominent people in Los Angeles?
In a Full Disclosure Network® two-part series Steve Ipsen, President of the Association of Deputy District Attorneys (L. A. County) and Albert Robles, Constitutional Attorney who serves as an elected member of the So. California Water Replenishment Board both contend that corruption is alive and well in Los Angeles County. These two challengers running against Cooley in the June 2008 election, point out that the current DA has refused to prosecute the rich and powerful while successfully lobbying for a $55,000 pay raise bringing his salary to $292,300, making him one of the highest-paid government officials anywhere.
Watch this seven minute preview from the series that is featured on 45 cable systems and the internet. The full two-part programs will be available for viewing (for a limited time up to the election) from the Full Disclosure website from the following links:
Preview (7:30 min)
Segment #1 (8 min)Candidates provide background on their careers and qualifications. They present a summary of issues for why they are running against the Incumbent DA Steve Cooley.
Segment #2 (8 min)Candidates discuss why Steve Cooley is not participating in the U. S. Department of Justice Gang Initiative and address the following issues:
DA non-action policy on deporting illegal alien gang members
Mexican Drug Cartels in City of Cudahy
Impact of Criminal Defense lobby on DA prosecution policies
DA Cooley's campaign contributions from Criminal Defense lobby
Segment #3 (8 min)Candidates describe the failures and demoralization of the DA's office, and of DA Investigators as body guards and chauffeurs for questionable personal activities.
Segment #4 (8 min)Both candidates noted the following:
DA's refusal to prosecute pedophile priests in the Catholic Church
DA's non-prosecution policies of powerful people, i.e. Board of Supervisors
Called DA's pay raise "pay back" for looking the other way.
Ethics Violation: Cooley called Jury members "stupid" following the Blake Verdict
Segment #5 (8 min)Candidates detail issue where there is Corruption in the DA's office:
Belmont Learning Center scandal
Criminal Defense Attorneys influence
DA disbanded environmental crimes unit
Manipulated cases by transfer of expert Deputies
Segment #6 (8 min)Video disclosure of how DA Investigators were used to conduct an unofficial and unauthorized investigation. Candidates describe DA's failure to investigate MacArthur Park beatings gross negligence at Martin Luther King Hospital.
Challengers Quotes on DA Cooley’s record:Steve Ipsen:“The corruption that exists in the county that I'm aware of, that I can state here today is with the District Attorney's office.”“This DA doesn't deserve to be paid when he isn't doing his job.”
Albert Robles:“He has refused to prosecute the pedophiles and child molesters that work and still work in the Catholic Church”.“Steve Cooley takes untold amounts of money from the criminal defense sector”.
This series is to be featured on 45 cable systems starting May 14, 2008. A complete listing of channels and airtimes, by community can be found from this link.
http://www.fulldisclosure.net/Programs/515.php
End LAPD Brutality: Remove LA Prosecutor Steve Cooley & Fire Brattonby Kelly McSwain Friday, May. 04, 2007 at 8:24 AM DumpCooley@AOL.COM
With substantial support from George W. Bush and the local forces of the extreme right, the LAPD and its financed-DA (Steve Cooley - Republican) have succeeded in transforming Los Angeles County to a well-engineered police state.
Los Angeles, May 4, 2007 -- The brutal rampage by LAPD in McArthur Park on May 1, 2007 was culmination of a 6-year old secret but intricate policy by the Bush administration and local forces of the extreme right in reversing attempts to reform LAPD after Rodney King Beating and Rampart Corruption Scandal. In early 1999, the US Department of Justice under then-US Attorney General Janet Reno began an aggressive plan to impose reform upon LAPD. By the time the LAPD's Rampart Corruption Scandal became public in 1998, the Clinton Administration knew that previous attempts to reform one of the largest police departments in the World had largely failed. In June 1999, rumors began to circulate within the ranks of the LAPD and its powerful union (Police Protective League - PPL) that President Bill Clinton and Janet Reno were about to implement drastic anti-corruption measures against LAPD. At the time, the LAPD and PPL alleged that these acts represented the federal government's attempt to "violate the LAPD’s 10th amendment rights" and interfere in LAPD's "internal affairs." These rumors, however, were not baseless. During 1999, Janet Reno's US Attorneys in Washington, D.C. were busy drafting a historical federal civil rights lawsuit against LAPD in which the Clinton administration was charging LAPD with "endemic corruption and systematic violation of constitutional rights of residents of Los Angeles." Additionally, at US DOJ headquarters at 950 Pennsylvania Avenue serious discussions were taking place about using the federal funding of the LAPD as leverage in imposing anti-corruption reform on LAPD. Sensing the warning of the incoming tsunami from Washington in their direction, the LAPD and its PPL began to brace for a defensive position. In 1999, the LAPD and PPL began their work to secure the local front. To secure the local front meant getting rid of Gil Garcetti, the Los Angeles County District Attorney who in the post-Rampart LA politics had begun to prosecute LAPD officers for corruption. Garcetti's public statements at the time, such as, "I can't tell you whether we will wind up with three, four or five dirty cops or 25 or more," was making LAPD and PPL gravely nervous. In a desperate attempt to shield LAPD from Garcetti, LAPD and PPL funded and fielded Steven Cooley, a Republican and an LAPD Reserve Officer, as their own candidate for the LA District Attorney position. Public court records from the United States District Court for the Central District of California in Los Angeles and the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco show that at the same time PPL-sponsored Cooley was campaigning to unseat Garcetti, PPL, through its high-powered lawyers, was filing multiple motions and appeals against Attorney General Janet Reno's attempts to impose a federal-mandated reform upon LAPD. The above multiple attempts by PPL to prevent the Clinton administration from initiating its anti-corruption program proved to be legally frivolous since the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied all of them. In September 1999, the Republican Cooley began his PPL-funded campaign to unseat DA Garcetti. PPL was against Garcetti's criminal prosecution of LAPD officers. In his 1999-2000 campaign against Garcetti, Cooley received more than $1 million from PPL while publicly speaking against LAPD's Rampart Corruption Scandal and criticizing Garcetti for not being forceful and efficient enough in his criminal prosecution of corrupt officers. Of course, Cooley was engaging in blatant public deception since he knew that he had received the $1 million from PPL to try to unseat Garcetti and shield LAPD officers from any further criminal prosecution. History would show that Cooley's 1999-2000 campaign against Garcetti for the Los Angeles District Attorney's Office was one of the biggest frauds against the voters of Los Angeles since at the same time PPL was waging federal court battles against President Clinton's attempts to fight corruption in LAPD, PPL was paying for Cooley's campaign commercials which depicted Garcetti as not forceful enough in fighting corruption. On the federal level, significant developments were taking place. Attorney general Reno was putting her final touches on the draft of the federal civil rights lawsuit against LAPD. About three weeks before the document was filed in the federal court, on October 11, 2000, then-governor Bush made the following statement in his televised debate with Al Gore in North Carolina: "One of my concerns, though, is I don't want to federalize the local police forces. I want to -- obviously in the egregious cases we need to enforce civil rights law, but we need to make sure that internal affairs decisions at the local level do their job and be given a chance to do their job. I believe in local control of governments, and obviously if they don't there needs to be a consequence at the federal level." Bush, however, knew that the LAPD's "Internal Affairs" was a source of corruption in itself. On November 2, 2000, Janet Reno filed her historical anti-corruption lawsuit against LAPD in federal court in Los Angeles. LAPD was charged with systemic violations of civil rights, including, "having a pattern of arresting residents of Los Angeles Without probable cause." SEE page 2 of the Complaint at: http://www.freemarje.com/US%20Fed%20Lawsuit%20v%20LAPD%2011-03-00.pdf Nevertheless, two critical historical events followed which reversed the course of anti-corruption attempts at LAPD for the following six years. In fact, these two events resulted in emboldening, empowering, and expanding the forces of corruption in the LAPD on a gigantic and unprecedented scale. On November 7, 2000, Reserve LAPD Officer and Republican Cooley, with substantial backing from PPL, defeated Gil Garcetti. On December 12, 2000, George Bush was declared as the new President of the United States. On January 1, 2001, Cooley took office as the new District Attorney of Los Angeles. According to the recorded statement made by one of the senior Deputy District Attorneys of Los Angeles and reviewed by this researcher, within two weeks after taking office, Cooley walked into the six-man office of Rampart Task Force which Garcetti had set up within the Special Investigations Division of the DA Office and simply said: "wrap it up!" Shortly thereafter the office was closed and all Rampart Corruption Scandal investigations in DA office ended. The above two historical events had drastic and severely detrimental consequences for the people of Los Angeles. On the federal front, the Bush administration brought the federal litigation against LAPD to a screeching halt. The management of the Federal Consent Decree by John Ashcroft and Alberto Gonzales became a practice in public deception. All federal efforts to reform LAPD were abandoned and the Bush administration became LAPD's "partner in war on terror." Having realized it was now a major force in Los Angeles politics and having successfully rolled back attempts to "interfere in its internal affairs" by both Reno and Garcetti, LAPD and PPL's tentacles began to rapidly grow into the only remaining component of the Los Angeles County Criminal Justice System, the Criminal Division of Los Angeles County Superior Court system. With full support from the Bush administration, police brutality, misconduct, deception, fraud, perjury, criminal conspiracy, fabrication of evidence, and criminal activities by police officers achieved new high marks in the history of Los Angeles. On local level, Cooley shielded corrupt LAPD officers from any and all criminal prosecution. No more LAPD officers were prosecuted. Even when an LAPD officer fired multiple shots at a black 13-year-old boy (Devin Brown) backing a car at 2 miles-per-hour, the prosecutor Cooley refused to prosecute the liable LAPD officer for the boy's killing. When a disabled black teenager (Donovan Jackson) was beaten up by white LAPD officers on national TV, Cooley and LAPD conspired to prevent a Rodney King type of reaction from the public by deceptively putting the officers on a bogus circus-style criminal trial while at the same time undermined the chances of their conviction by removing a seasoned prosecutor and assigning a young lawyer with no experience in such prosecutions. Cooley further allowed the officer's seasoned defense lawyer to put up evidence before the jury that the "beating" was a "training issue" and not a criminal act. By botching the trial, Cooley guaranteed that LAPD officers Jeremy Morse and Bijan Darvish would not be convicted. Cooley proved to be a loyal puppet of LAPD. He was also aggressively bringing criminal charges against victims of police misconduct, knowing that winning criminal convictions against victims of LAPD misconduct prevented them from filing future civil rights lawsuits and forever closed chances of investigation for these cases. In his reelection campaign in March 2004, Cooley received more than $1.5 million in campaign contribution, mostly from the LAPD's PPL. Thomas Higgins, his most serious challenger, had collected $25,000 in campaign contributions. With enough PPL money to send colorful brochures to every LA voter and substantial TV commercials, Cooley easily won his reelection to a second-term as the LA’s District Attorney. During the 2001-2007 Bush-Cooley's reign of terror in Los Angeles, hundreds of victims of police brutality and police misconduct cases were charged with baseless and fabricated criminal charges. Cooley and LAPD worked together on fabrication and manufacturing of false evidence against victims. At the same time, LAPD's PPL, having flexed its political muscles and having realized the extent of its power, began to more actively finance the reelection of those Superior Court judges whom Cooley and LAPD viewed as valuable assets in the complex political empire they had engineered. With federal protection evaporated under George W. Bush, hundreds of innocent victims were convicted and sent to prison. State convictions guaranteed that LAPD was shielded from future civil rights lawsuits. During the above period, no LAPD officers were ever charged with any crime arising from fabrication and false manufacturing of evidence. An example of this policy of terror and criminal conspiracy is in the case of a Swedish woman and mother who was held in pretrial detention for more than four years (2002-2006) based on evidence fabricated by Cooley's DA office and LAPD. Despite four years of incarceration, the woman refused to plea guilty to the charges fabricated by LAPD and Cooley. The case had begun as a police misconduct case when LAPD officers had entered the woman's home without a warrant and by mistake had arrested her while she had fallen unconscious from a wrongly prescribed medication. The officers had wrongly assumed the woman was suffering from an illegal drug overdose. Cooley filed criminal charges against the woman in order to cover up the LAPD's misconduct. Further information on this case and the inner working of Cooley-LAPD's empire can be viewed at http://www.freemarje.com. What happened in McArthur Park on May 1, 2007 was the culmination of LAPD's reign of terror under Bush-Cooley policy during 2001-2007. During the above period, the residents of Los Angeles were left defenseless against forces of the extreme right which implemented a policy built on deception, fraud, perjury, and criminal conspiracy. The events of May 1, 2007 showed that LAPD with the help of its DA Cooley and under the protection of the Bush administration has succeeded in establishing a police state in the most populous county of the United States. Presently, LAPD officers engage in overt misconduct and serious criminal acts with full impunity while exerting undue influence over the largest metropolis of the United States with an iron fist. In fact, with substantial support from George W. Bush and the local forces of the extreme right, the LAPD, PPL, and Cooley have succeeded in transforming the 4,000-square-mile Los Angeles County to be ruled under a sophisticated and well-engineered police junta composed of the LAPD, Cooley, and an army of 600 mostly corrupt judges who owe their reelections to financial contributions from LAPD's PPL. Without PPL's money, these judges would not be reelected. For further information on how various intricate components of this police junta operate in tandem, SEE pages 19-26 at http://www.freemarje.com/Federal%20Complaint%20Filed%20Against%20Defendants.pdf
With substantial support from George W. Bush and the local forces of the extreme right, the LAPD and its financed-DA (Steve Cooley - Republican) have succeeded in transforming Los Angeles County to a well-engineered police state.
Los Angeles, May 4, 2007 -- The brutal rampage by LAPD in McArthur Park on May 1, 2007 was culmination of a 6-year old secret but intricate policy by the Bush administration and local forces of the extreme right in reversing attempts to reform LAPD after Rodney King Beating and Rampart Corruption Scandal. In early 1999, the US Department of Justice under then-US Attorney General Janet Reno began an aggressive plan to impose reform upon LAPD. By the time the LAPD's Rampart Corruption Scandal became public in 1998, the Clinton Administration knew that previous attempts to reform one of the largest police departments in the World had largely failed. In June 1999, rumors began to circulate within the ranks of the LAPD and its powerful union (Police Protective League - PPL) that President Bill Clinton and Janet Reno were about to implement drastic anti-corruption measures against LAPD. At the time, the LAPD and PPL alleged that these acts represented the federal government's attempt to "violate the LAPD’s 10th amendment rights" and interfere in LAPD's "internal affairs." These rumors, however, were not baseless. During 1999, Janet Reno's US Attorneys in Washington, D.C. were busy drafting a historical federal civil rights lawsuit against LAPD in which the Clinton administration was charging LAPD with "endemic corruption and systematic violation of constitutional rights of residents of Los Angeles." Additionally, at US DOJ headquarters at 950 Pennsylvania Avenue serious discussions were taking place about using the federal funding of the LAPD as leverage in imposing anti-corruption reform on LAPD. Sensing the warning of the incoming tsunami from Washington in their direction, the LAPD and its PPL began to brace for a defensive position. In 1999, the LAPD and PPL began their work to secure the local front. To secure the local front meant getting rid of Gil Garcetti, the Los Angeles County District Attorney who in the post-Rampart LA politics had begun to prosecute LAPD officers for corruption. Garcetti's public statements at the time, such as, "I can't tell you whether we will wind up with three, four or five dirty cops or 25 or more," was making LAPD and PPL gravely nervous. In a desperate attempt to shield LAPD from Garcetti, LAPD and PPL funded and fielded Steven Cooley, a Republican and an LAPD Reserve Officer, as their own candidate for the LA District Attorney position. Public court records from the United States District Court for the Central District of California in Los Angeles and the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco show that at the same time PPL-sponsored Cooley was campaigning to unseat Garcetti, PPL, through its high-powered lawyers, was filing multiple motions and appeals against Attorney General Janet Reno's attempts to impose a federal-mandated reform upon LAPD. The above multiple attempts by PPL to prevent the Clinton administration from initiating its anti-corruption program proved to be legally frivolous since the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied all of them. In September 1999, the Republican Cooley began his PPL-funded campaign to unseat DA Garcetti. PPL was against Garcetti's criminal prosecution of LAPD officers. In his 1999-2000 campaign against Garcetti, Cooley received more than $1 million from PPL while publicly speaking against LAPD's Rampart Corruption Scandal and criticizing Garcetti for not being forceful and efficient enough in his criminal prosecution of corrupt officers. Of course, Cooley was engaging in blatant public deception since he knew that he had received the $1 million from PPL to try to unseat Garcetti and shield LAPD officers from any further criminal prosecution. History would show that Cooley's 1999-2000 campaign against Garcetti for the Los Angeles District Attorney's Office was one of the biggest frauds against the voters of Los Angeles since at the same time PPL was waging federal court battles against President Clinton's attempts to fight corruption in LAPD, PPL was paying for Cooley's campaign commercials which depicted Garcetti as not forceful enough in fighting corruption. On the federal level, significant developments were taking place. Attorney general Reno was putting her final touches on the draft of the federal civil rights lawsuit against LAPD. About three weeks before the document was filed in the federal court, on October 11, 2000, then-governor Bush made the following statement in his televised debate with Al Gore in North Carolina: "One of my concerns, though, is I don't want to federalize the local police forces. I want to -- obviously in the egregious cases we need to enforce civil rights law, but we need to make sure that internal affairs decisions at the local level do their job and be given a chance to do their job. I believe in local control of governments, and obviously if they don't there needs to be a consequence at the federal level." Bush, however, knew that the LAPD's "Internal Affairs" was a source of corruption in itself. On November 2, 2000, Janet Reno filed her historical anti-corruption lawsuit against LAPD in federal court in Los Angeles. LAPD was charged with systemic violations of civil rights, including, "having a pattern of arresting residents of Los Angeles Without probable cause." SEE page 2 of the Complaint at: http://www.freemarje.com/US%20Fed%20Lawsuit%20v%20LAPD%2011-03-00.pdf Nevertheless, two critical historical events followed which reversed the course of anti-corruption attempts at LAPD for the following six years. In fact, these two events resulted in emboldening, empowering, and expanding the forces of corruption in the LAPD on a gigantic and unprecedented scale. On November 7, 2000, Reserve LAPD Officer and Republican Cooley, with substantial backing from PPL, defeated Gil Garcetti. On December 12, 2000, George Bush was declared as the new President of the United States. On January 1, 2001, Cooley took office as the new District Attorney of Los Angeles. According to the recorded statement made by one of the senior Deputy District Attorneys of Los Angeles and reviewed by this researcher, within two weeks after taking office, Cooley walked into the six-man office of Rampart Task Force which Garcetti had set up within the Special Investigations Division of the DA Office and simply said: "wrap it up!" Shortly thereafter the office was closed and all Rampart Corruption Scandal investigations in DA office ended. The above two historical events had drastic and severely detrimental consequences for the people of Los Angeles. On the federal front, the Bush administration brought the federal litigation against LAPD to a screeching halt. The management of the Federal Consent Decree by John Ashcroft and Alberto Gonzales became a practice in public deception. All federal efforts to reform LAPD were abandoned and the Bush administration became LAPD's "partner in war on terror." Having realized it was now a major force in Los Angeles politics and having successfully rolled back attempts to "interfere in its internal affairs" by both Reno and Garcetti, LAPD and PPL's tentacles began to rapidly grow into the only remaining component of the Los Angeles County Criminal Justice System, the Criminal Division of Los Angeles County Superior Court system. With full support from the Bush administration, police brutality, misconduct, deception, fraud, perjury, criminal conspiracy, fabrication of evidence, and criminal activities by police officers achieved new high marks in the history of Los Angeles. On local level, Cooley shielded corrupt LAPD officers from any and all criminal prosecution. No more LAPD officers were prosecuted. Even when an LAPD officer fired multiple shots at a black 13-year-old boy (Devin Brown) backing a car at 2 miles-per-hour, the prosecutor Cooley refused to prosecute the liable LAPD officer for the boy's killing. When a disabled black teenager (Donovan Jackson) was beaten up by white LAPD officers on national TV, Cooley and LAPD conspired to prevent a Rodney King type of reaction from the public by deceptively putting the officers on a bogus circus-style criminal trial while at the same time undermined the chances of their conviction by removing a seasoned prosecutor and assigning a young lawyer with no experience in such prosecutions. Cooley further allowed the officer's seasoned defense lawyer to put up evidence before the jury that the "beating" was a "training issue" and not a criminal act. By botching the trial, Cooley guaranteed that LAPD officers Jeremy Morse and Bijan Darvish would not be convicted. Cooley proved to be a loyal puppet of LAPD. He was also aggressively bringing criminal charges against victims of police misconduct, knowing that winning criminal convictions against victims of LAPD misconduct prevented them from filing future civil rights lawsuits and forever closed chances of investigation for these cases. In his reelection campaign in March 2004, Cooley received more than $1.5 million in campaign contribution, mostly from the LAPD's PPL. Thomas Higgins, his most serious challenger, had collected $25,000 in campaign contributions. With enough PPL money to send colorful brochures to every LA voter and substantial TV commercials, Cooley easily won his reelection to a second-term as the LA’s District Attorney. During the 2001-2007 Bush-Cooley's reign of terror in Los Angeles, hundreds of victims of police brutality and police misconduct cases were charged with baseless and fabricated criminal charges. Cooley and LAPD worked together on fabrication and manufacturing of false evidence against victims. At the same time, LAPD's PPL, having flexed its political muscles and having realized the extent of its power, began to more actively finance the reelection of those Superior Court judges whom Cooley and LAPD viewed as valuable assets in the complex political empire they had engineered. With federal protection evaporated under George W. Bush, hundreds of innocent victims were convicted and sent to prison. State convictions guaranteed that LAPD was shielded from future civil rights lawsuits. During the above period, no LAPD officers were ever charged with any crime arising from fabrication and false manufacturing of evidence. An example of this policy of terror and criminal conspiracy is in the case of a Swedish woman and mother who was held in pretrial detention for more than four years (2002-2006) based on evidence fabricated by Cooley's DA office and LAPD. Despite four years of incarceration, the woman refused to plea guilty to the charges fabricated by LAPD and Cooley. The case had begun as a police misconduct case when LAPD officers had entered the woman's home without a warrant and by mistake had arrested her while she had fallen unconscious from a wrongly prescribed medication. The officers had wrongly assumed the woman was suffering from an illegal drug overdose. Cooley filed criminal charges against the woman in order to cover up the LAPD's misconduct. Further information on this case and the inner working of Cooley-LAPD's empire can be viewed at http://www.freemarje.com. What happened in McArthur Park on May 1, 2007 was the culmination of LAPD's reign of terror under Bush-Cooley policy during 2001-2007. During the above period, the residents of Los Angeles were left defenseless against forces of the extreme right which implemented a policy built on deception, fraud, perjury, and criminal conspiracy. The events of May 1, 2007 showed that LAPD with the help of its DA Cooley and under the protection of the Bush administration has succeeded in establishing a police state in the most populous county of the United States. Presently, LAPD officers engage in overt misconduct and serious criminal acts with full impunity while exerting undue influence over the largest metropolis of the United States with an iron fist. In fact, with substantial support from George W. Bush and the local forces of the extreme right, the LAPD, PPL, and Cooley have succeeded in transforming the 4,000-square-mile Los Angeles County to be ruled under a sophisticated and well-engineered police junta composed of the LAPD, Cooley, and an army of 600 mostly corrupt judges who owe their reelections to financial contributions from LAPD's PPL. Without PPL's money, these judges would not be reelected. For further information on how various intricate components of this police junta operate in tandem, SEE pages 19-26 at http://www.freemarje.com/Federal%20Complaint%20Filed%20Against%20Defendants.pdf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)