The other blog has reported that Supervisor Josie Gonzales is not running for re-election based on comments she made to the SEBA board. My first impression was that was a matter of semantics.
Barring additional candidates with large financial backing, Gonzales’ name will be on the ballot but she will not have to “run.” She will win by a landslide in June even if she never puts up a single campaign sign.
I know they hate her over there, but Josie’s constituents love her. They really do. No matter what I may think or feel about her, which some of it has to do with things similar to the reasons they feel the way they do over there, Josie is a hands-on supervisor that really connects with her constituents. Unlike some other supervisors, she tries hard to be put constituents first and they are loyal to her.
I should also mention that the meeting in question took place before the Lamberto fiasco. I cannot say whether she really reprimanded the SEBA board for all the lawsuits in SBSD but I can tell you that according to my sources, who were actually in the meeting, they hammered her for being all talk when it comes to negotiations.
As to the second item, well Kenny, you’ve forced me to revive my Erwin & Holtz logo. It’s a really good thing, and quite understandable, why you did not make it to the rank of detective when with the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department.
Yes, Sheriff McMahon personally told me he was not at Del Taco in Adelanto at 3:30 a.m. the night of the incident in question. But he was not the first one to tell me that. I shall not name names, but a captain (who was a lieutenant at the time) told me the same thing. Considering the position this Captain/Lieutenant held at the time, he would definitely be in a place to know.
Something that cannot seem to be gotten through the brains of those on the other site is that county attorneys and county department heads only have so much say as to what cases are litigated and what cases are settled. Also difficult to get through those same brains is that the county carries insurance that covers many lawsuits. As such, it is not the county that makes the decision, it is the insurance carriers. They assess risk based on factors that I imagine the county does not like many times over.
Sure, the county can go against what the insurance company wants, but in doing so, it is assuming liability. You’d be bitching about that too.
So let’s look at the case in point. Four minority women get into an altercation with an off-duty sheriff’s deputy in the drive-thru of Del Taco in Adelanto. According to the lawsuit, Sheriff McMahon personally came to the call at 3:30 a.m. because the off-duty sheriff’s deputy was there with Steve Singley, former deputy county counsel for SBSD, as a personal favor to Singley.
In case you have not noticed, Singley no longer works for County Counsel because he was appointed to the Superior Court bench. Do you really think the governor would have made that appointment if there was one iota of truth to this allegation? If you do, then you know absolutely nothing about the judicial appointment process.
So, we have Singley not at Del Taco. What reason would McMahon have to be in Adelanto at 3:30 a.m.? He didn’t have a reason and he was not there.
But the off-duty female sheriff’s deputy did have a male companion with her. Supposedly, and I won’t believe it until I see it, that male companion used his video camera to record the incident.
The female deputy has since been fired for using racial slurs, which apparently she claims she did not use. That is where the video could come in handy.
Yes, there was surveillance video at Del Taco that apparently the Sheriff’s Department lost. That looks really bad, I agree. Whoever is responsible for that should be fired. But, as far as I know, it was surveillance video–meaning there was not likely audio. So, if the female deputy did in fact call the four black women racial slurs, how would you know from the video. In other words, that video is likely not all that important to the case. But, as I wrote earlier, it does look really bad that they lost or erased it.
It is my understanding the female deputy is appealing her case. If there was proof she did what she did and that McMahon was at the scene, do you not believe she would use her get-out-of-jail card. To my knowledge, she has never claimed he was there. Not only that, do you really believe she would have used racial slurs in front of him? Your arguments make no sense.
Finally, there is the issue of the women being kept in the back of the patrol units for four hours. If that did happen, it is problematic. I’m not sure what proof there is or isn’t.
Based on the accusations that you are dealing with four black women who say they were the victim of racial slurs left in a patrol unit for four hours is reason enough to settle the case, assuming there is proof at least some of it occurred. Of course, the amount of the settlement will tell us a lot. And, it could be there will be no settlement.
Now let’s look at your other argument. You say that because the judge did not dismiss the case or dismiss McMahon from the case, it means the allegations are true. What have you been smoking? It’s some good stuff.
Let’s apply this very same logic to the Colonies prosecution. Supervisor Josie Gonzales says Jeff Burum was in China the same time she was. Based on your logic, the case has not been dismissed, so it must be true. Clearly, Repairman was on the right track with his two passport theory.
Lawyers for the Colonies Four have filed a series of motions, similar to what county lawyers did in the Del Taco case, and guess what? The whole case has not been dismissed. Again, based on your logic, the charges against the Colonies Four are obviously valid since the judge did not dismiss the case after the first set of motions. Heaven knows there is no such thing as as using different legal theories to attack various charges or claims over a period of time to get the desired results.
So, as with the Del Taco incident, there is really no need for a trial in the Colonies Four matter. Let’s just send them all to prison.
Why do we even have a court system? The crack(ed) law firm of Erwin & Holtz, LLC has the system figured out without all of the witnesses ever being heard or the evidence presented.