Judge Smith threw out Colonies case in total — NOT!

Colonies Four

This would have more effect if it were April 1.  But I couldn’t resist.  I guess the Titanic is still afloat.

From Joe Nelson via Twitter:  “The court is satisfied there is no reasonable likelihood that the result would be different,” Smith said.

From the “Queen of the Blog” to those on the other blog:

Kenneth Holtz on January 9th, 2016 1:15 pm

Where is Examiner.com? A penny a click for the real scoop! Pressing issues in Needles, Ca, Adelanto?

Guess Mandel and her band of thugs are secure in their feeling the court won’t make a misconduct finding on the record that requires a automatic State Bar referral?

The Titanic is still floating but it surely sounds like the Judge put a couple of his own torpedo’s in the ship.

The prosecution should just get former Assistant DA Hackleman on the stand so he can shoot down Larson and Maline’s “huffing and puffing” rhetoric.

Pass the Kleenex to Ms. Mandel.

 

Oops:

SeenItAll on January 11th, 2016 9:11 am

Someone could spend about 24 hours or less, cutting and pasting their own to put this criminal case together. In my 32 years of cases, this would fall under the “Silver Platter” doctrine. One would have loved to be assigned this case, with a “no holds bared clause”. We never like to go after our own, but sometimes it just needs to be done. This would unequivocally be a slam dunk case on a half a dozen plus. The true, true question is, who ordered this to happen? Plea bargains, no way!

This could in no way be construed as intimidation in some way. This took place.

The court transcript, supporting documents and the county’s box full of records (Withheld during discovery) are all there. Where is the A.G.? A first year law student or cadet from your local police department could handled this one.

Sorry Queen of Blog, but this just doesn’t get any worse. So you can refer to the nut jobs over here all you want! This is reality, without threat, intimidation or altered universes.

13 thoughts on “Judge Smith threw out Colonies case in total — NOT!

  1. Haha. Just another clear cut example of how dumb Kenny is. The man couldn’t even gainfully maintain employment as a deputy and we are expected to believe he can effectively evaluate the merits of a criminal case. He has continued to tell everyone how the ship is going down. Looks like the ship just got rammed up his butt.

  2. James Mills sure is timely in rubbing it in when one of his predictions is correct. He was far less timely to respond when a prior motion that he referred to as “rhetoric” resulted in the dismissal of the conspiracy charges against all the defendants.

    Mike Ramos cheerleaders will likely act as though this is some kind of monumental ruling, but all it does is keep the case alive. I’m actually somewhat glad, since it was a near certainty that the prosecution would have appealed any adverse ruling, and delayed everything for another year or so.

    Perhaps we can now move forward to the commencement of the trial without further delay? I look forward to the day that the prosecution FINALLY has to start proving their case in a courtroom.

  3. According to Joe Nelson, Judge Smith was “satisfied there is no reasonable likelihood that the result would be different” if the prosecution provided the Grand Jury with the evidence that the defendants said they withheld.

    My understanding is that prosecutors told the Grand Jury that The Colonies were losing their lawsuit against the county. If I was on the Grand Jury and learned that a trial had taken place and a Superior Court judge had ruled against the county, there is absolutely a “reasonable likelihood” that my conclusion would have been “different.”

    My understanding is that prosecutors told the Grand Jury that the settlement was ridiculous and weird. If I was on the Grand Jury and learned that in other courtrooms county attorneys were representing the settlement as a good deal that saved the county a lot of money, there is absolutely a “reasonable likelihood” that my conclusion would have been “different.”

    Anyway, it’s time to move on. I hope that that defendants do not appeal this ruling; I want to see the prosecution finally have to carry the burden of proving their case in a courtroom where the defendants are able to defend themselves.

  4. How about the “statement” issued by District Attorney Mike Ramos.

    For several years while the prosecution delayed the proceedings by withholding evidence and appealing rulings they didn’t like, Mr. Ramos had a “spokesman” tell us that it was inappropriate to comment on pending litigation.

    Suddenly, Mr. Ramos has decided that it IS appropriate for him to comment on pending litigation, and issue a statement stating that “it is important for the citizens of San Bernardino County to know that we are ready and have been ready to proceed to trial,” clearly insinuating that it’s the defendants who have delayed the proceedings.

    This “statement” reminded me of the line Mel Gibson used at the Golden Globes, where he said he enjoys seeing Ricky Gervais every few years as it reminds him to schedule a colonoscopy.

  5. My understanding is that the intent of the Grand Jury system is to protect the citizens from overzealous prosecutors. I have followed this case closely and can honestly tell you that today, after personally witnessing what went on in that court room the previous 3 weeks, I am disgusted with our legal system and am ashamed to be a citizen of San Bernardino County . Jim Sheridan

    • The Grand Jury system in general is very flawed. However, it is commonly known that it is easier to get a grand jury indictment than to go thru the process in the courts. Grand jury indictments are used generally for weaker cases. I believe the saying is “A grand jury will indict a ham sandwich.”

      That being said, the center point of this case is being missed by most. It is NOT about the Colonies settlement being fair nor is it about what county lawyers thought of the settlement. It is about bribery, extortion, and intimidation. You note the defense never broaches that subject. That is where the prosecution has them and has them good.

  6. My feeling is that the fairness of the settlement is a critical element of the alleged “bribery, extortion, and intimidation.”

    If I was on the jury and facts were presented that showed that the defendants filed a non-meritorious lawsuit against the county, a trial never took place, and the defendants allegedly used “bribery, extortion and intimidation” to obtain a settlement described by county attorney as outrageous, I would have one opinion.

    If I was on the jury and facts were presented that showed that the defendants filed a legitimate lawsuit against the county, a trial took place where the county was found liable, and the defendants allegedly used “bribery, extortion, and intimidation” to obtain a settlement described by county attorneys as a good deal that saved the county money, I would have a different opinion.

    Under the latter scenario, which is what occurred, I would need to see some solid evidence to convince me that the defendants had a motive to use “bribery, extortion, and blackmail” to get the county to settle the case, particularly when the settlement was for an amount far less than they possible would have received if the court had ruled on the damages. Abstract theories such as their fear of a possible appeal or concern about new county supervisors coming on board would not be enough to convince me that the defendants had a motive to commit “bribery, extortion, and blackmail.”

    Establishing motive is one of the burdens that prosecutors face; I look forward to the day when they finally have to start proving their case in a courtroom.

  7. Bribery, appreciation for someone finally acting sane, and political reward can look similar, particularly when large developers are forced to act in a politicaly charged system for any project and those who are not politically connected have no chance to even participate. I will agree that extortion and blackmail are extremely problematic, if proved, because they are alway separate crimes.

  8. Steve Brow:

    If I was on a jury and was presented the facts of the incident in Moreno Valley where a City Council member accepted over $1 million dollars in cash in return for agreeing to vote a certain way on an upcoming land development project, I would have no problem agreeing that bribery took place.

    If I was on the jury in a case where a fully reported $100,000 contribution to a Political Action Committee was being represented as a “bribe” for one person supposedly “influencing” another person to vote a certain way six months earlier, and learned that there was no record of the person who committed the alleged bribery receiving any of the money, other than a $20,000 payment for services he provided to the Political Action Committee, I would have a big problem agreeing that bribery took place.

    Establishing that bribery took place is another burden that prosecutors face.

  9. Todays stories in The Sun and Press Enterprise tell us that the State Supreme Court rejected the prosecutions petition to review the dismissal of the conspiracy charges.
    .
    So as I see it Mike Ramos issued a statement notifying “the citizens of San Bernardino county” that the prosecution “is ready and has been ready to proceed to trial,” while at the same time the prosecution had been attempting to get the Supreme Court to review a ruling they didn’t like, which would have delayed the trial.

    What an insult to the “citizens of San Bernardino County.”

  10. Administrator:

    Are we going to see a “Supreme Court will review the dismissal of conspiracy charges – NOT” post?

    In my opinion this decision is far more significant than the denial of the defendants motions, and at least deserves equal coverage.

    Also, even though Repairman and Red Anon have seemingly disappeared, I would like to see them given an opportunity to respond.

    Repairman eloquent gushed “winner winner prison dinner” when the Supreme Court overruled a ruling in this case, and I would particularly like to see his opinion of this decision.

Leave a Reply