The Christmas miracle did not happen

Colonies Four

We’ve been hearing for the past month that today was going to be it.  The Colonies case was going to be dismissed.

That information came from several sources, including Mark Kirk who thought he was going to be a free man for Christmas.  How did that work out for you Mark?

Of course you guys don’t really have it so bad.  You could be like Rex was and spending the holiday season in prison.

Remember that Mark and Paul?  You two could have prevented it if only you had balls enough to come forward and let the judge know that Andrew Lamberto lied under oath.  But it was only Rex, and not either of you, so it was okay that one of your employees lied under oath.

You know, karma is such a bitch.  I don’t know if you two will ever be convicted or not, but I do know you were both in a position to clean up county corruption.  Instead you went along with it.  It sure did come back to bite you.  What a shame . . . not!

23 thoughts on “The Christmas miracle did not happen

  1. What a shock. The Titanic is still floating. And what is this about a DEFENSE continuance? Thought they were eager to get it to the jury. I was sure Kenny was right when he said today was the day. But then again that day has been every appearance for the last 12 months. Such an idiot.

    • Mills if your brain and balls were as big as your mouth you would have put Holtz in prison according to your bs. He made no such prediction for Friday. STFU.

      • Where have you been? I don’t read 80 percent of Kenny’s crap and I’ve seen several comments that yesterday was going to be it.

        • Really, you read just 20%’of the crap and have to bring out the Erwin/Holtz Law School picture with comments?

          I am honored. Thank you!

  2. I’ll comment soon on your last few posts.

    I am laughing so freakin hard right now I about soiled myself.

    The Mark Kirk free for Xmas and a new court date? That’s it from yesterday?

    OMG. Hilarious.

    Why didn’t your awesome source tell you about the 4 hour power point presentation?

    The courtroom was packed.

    The PE and Daily Journal were the ONLY media present from start to finish.

    I’ll give you first shot and commenting on what was said in open court.

    That’s all for now.

    BTW NO ONE mentioned the Judges integrity being challenged as YOU seem to rant about.

    Now post up specifics and impress us!

  3. James Mills:

    Before you criticize others for their predictions not coming true, perhaps you should examine your own interpretation of something that actually did happen.

    Your comment above suggests that the defense requested a continuance, and you mock them for it.

    However, according to the Court’s Minute Order, the “MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL FILED BY THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY HELD,” and it was done so “OVER OBJECTIONS RAISED BY DEFENSE.”

    That sure sounds to me like it was the prosecution who filed a motion to continue the trial, and the defense objected.

    Your heard it first here.

  4. Here’s some more language from the Court’s Minute Order:

    “THE PROSECUTION INDICATES THAT THEY WERE PREVIOUSLY ORDERED TO TURN OVER THEIR WITNESS LIST AND EXHIBIT LIST BY TODAY’S DATE AND IN LIGHT OF THE TRIAL BE CONTINUED – THEY REQUEST THOSE LIST BE TURNED OVER 90 DAYS PRIOR TO TRIAL.”

    “COURT ORDERS PROSECUTION TO PROVIDE THEIR WITNESS (REALISTIC) LIST BEFORE 1/8/16 HEARING.”

    As I understand those direct quotes from the Minute Order, the prosecution admitted they were ordered to provide their witness list by a certain date, and didn’t do so. Instead, they requested a continuance, and when they received it, tried to delay the production of the witness list for another 6 months, but were ordered by the court to produce it in less than 15 days.

    James Mills and the other Mike Ramos cheerleaders can continue to claim that it is the defendants who are delaying things, but the facts seem to suggest otherwise.

  5. “THE PROSECUTION INDICATES THAT THEY WERE PREVIOUSLY ORDERED TO TURN OVER THEIR WITNESS LIST AND EXHIBIT LIST BY TODAY’S DATE AND IN LIGHT OF THE TRIAL BE CONTINUED – THEY REQUEST THOSE LIST BE TURNED OVER 90 DAYS PRIOR TO TRIAL.”

    This explains WHY the Titanic continues to float at this time. One of several reasons.

    Thank you OoF.

    We await certified war veterans Gilbert and Henry aka James Mills expert commentary.

    They have no clue on what crap is.

    I think Red Anonymous and Repairman should step up to assist!

    Oh wait, maybe I am a hair close to going to jail AGAIN?

  6. Seriously, are you two that stupid. I know Kenny has no deductive reasoning or investigative skills whatsoever, but I thought you were brighter than that OOF. Did you happen to actually read the minute order in full? The three stories by the PE, DP, and IVDB? Two of the three reporters were actually in the courtroom. Don’t you think it strange that suddenly Erwin is not posting any of the stories from that court hearing? And BTW, if you read my post in its entirety, you would see the answer right there as well.

    • Administrator:

      I read the Press Enterprise article. It states that “Former county Supervisor Paul Biane asked Superior Court Judge Michael Smith to push back the trial from February to October because of a medical issue involving his attorney.”

      It also contains the usual one sided recital of the history of the case, including references to “multiple felonies involving bribery-related offenses.” Predictably, I did not see any reference to the 18 day trial where the county was found liable for trying to shift their responsibility to a private party and jeopardizing Public Safety.

      I did not bother to read the Daily Bulletin / Sun story, as I’m pretty sure it’s more of the same.

      If I based my opinions on what I read in the local media, I would probably be on board with the rest of the Mike Ramos cheerleaders. However, whenever possible I consider source documents, such as Judge Warner’s ruling, and in this instance, the courts minute order.

      I read what was represented in your post as the “entire minute order.” I’ll admit being less savvy about courtroom procedure than you are, but if the trial was continued due to a request by one of the defendants due to “a medical issue involving his attorney,” why not say so in the minute order? Why would it be referred to as a “MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL FILED BY THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY” that was granted “OVER OBJECTIONS RAISED BY DEFENSE?”

      It also seems clear from the minute order that the prosecution failed to provide their witness list by the date they agreed to, and then attempted to delay having to do so for several more months. Do you agree?

      • No worries OoF.

        One is a sorry excuse for a reporter when 75% of your story is another copy and paste of what you have said countless times before and only 25% is NEW content, NOT the good stuff.

        NOTHING the Judge might have said to the prosecution that isn’t favorable in OPEN court on the record!

        Just so you know OoF the reporters are GIVEN the defense motions BEFORE court and the reporters can COME to court and see for themselves what is going on. They can read and SEE for themselves.

        But all you see at the end of the day after some serious fireworks is Paul Bianes lawyer needing more time because of a medical issue. WOW!

        Real OJ Simpson stuff!

        Must be ruff being a reporter, but your BOSS is holding your hand every step of the way.

  7. Why don’t you put up the stories by the papers Sharon?

    You keep forgetting Detective Gilbert your the one who was telling the world about witness intimidation, folks going to be charged with crimes, ongoing FBI investigation etc that ALL turned out to be BOGUS!

    Would you like me to break them down for you?

    Obviously you don’t have any court documents so you think a news article and your other excuses and now Erwin not posting up said articles proves your right.

    LMAO!

    Exactly what did you do as a County Clerk?

  8. No really it’s true. It’s true the prosecution asked for a continuance based on defense counsel’s health issues. There really are moronic people here. Just continue to read the “minutes” and make your conclusions based on those when you have no other facts. You are brilliant.

    • James Mills:

      Thank you for your insight.

      I did reach a conclusion based on reading the “minutes,” and had some questions. The Administrator responded to those questions with logical explanations. You responded by calling me “moronic.” Guess which response I place more weight on?

      Speaking of “other facts,” you once called the motions filed by the defendants “rhetoric.” That “rhetoric” resulted in the dismissal of the conspiracy charges against all the defendants, a ruling that was upheld on appeal. “You are brilliant.”

  9. Let me spell this out for you. The issue of Biane’s attorney wanting a continuance came up one or two hearings ago. It’s in the stories you all read on Jim’s blog.

    I do not know what the health issue is but I have to imagine it is something that has a long recovery such as back or heart surgery or cancer treatment. If it were gall bladder surgery, for instance, there would be no need for a delay of more than a couple weeks, if at all.

    Larson immediately started huffing and puffing about his client not being willing to waive more time and wanting a separate trial. I am not sure about Kirk’s and Erwin’s attorneys.

    The judge took the matter under consideration. The DA filed a brief supporting Biane’s attorney’s request for continuance versus filing a brief to support Larson wanting a separate trial.

    Judge Smith ruled that based on the complexity of the trial he found good cause to continue it rather than grant separate trials

    My guess is that gives Larson an appealable issue down the road if the jury trial goes south on him.

    I do not know the case law on such matters. Logically, I’m not sure how such a matter would look to an appeals court when the defense waived time for almost five years and then suddenly doesn’t want it waived when one of their own team has a major medical crisis. I’m sure there is precedent somewhere in one direction or another.

    As far as the witness list goes, the DA knew the trial was not going to start in February. I think they were very confident no judge would grant separate trials under these circumstances. They now have been ordered to provide the list next month. We shall see if they do.

    • Well Sharon it won’t be to long and ALL those stories INCLUDING the verbatim transcript of the last hearing via PDF file will be up on the other blog.

      The Daily Journal has yet to release their story from last Friday. The PE is doing a follow up story as a result of some interesting revelations. No it doesn’t have anything to do with Biane.

      Despite your well informed comment about Erwin not posting anything up as SOME sign that supports your theory, the delay in getting the transcript was because of the holiday. Nothing more.

      One theory down the drain.

      So EVERYONE will be able to read Steve Larsons “huffing and puffing”.

      Will be able to read the Judges comments to the prosecution and defense.

      You can go through everything and pick it apart with your vast experience and expertise then let us know what is REALLY going to happen!

      One way or the other it will be there for ALL to read.

      Much better than a Sun article don’t you think?

      The Johnson motion continues January 8th.

      Let see if Joe Henry who should be called .20 Joe can pick up on any brilliance?

  10. If I were innocent, I also wouldn’t be trying so hard to suppress evidence the Feds recovered in a search warrant. Must be mighty damning to keep fighting for it to be suppressed. Crooks don’t suppress evidence that is not relevant or damning to their case. Oh my how the motions tell so much.

    • That’s why McMahon gets the county to pay off plaintiffs because he can’t get evidence not even HIMSELF dismissed from the lawsuit.

      Brilliant .20 Joe!

    • James Mills:

      If I was prosecuting a guilty defendant, I would provide discoverable evidence in a timely manner. I would not force the defendants to file motions to compel and notice depositions before finally complying with reasonable discovery requests.

      If I was prosecuting a guilty defendant, and agreed to provide a list of witnesses by a certain date, I would do so. I would not refuse to do so, and, when confronted, try to delay doing so further.

      In the event of an appeal, I would want the record to show complete cooperation with the defendants attorneys, not stonewalling.

  11. So in other words you are suggesting that the courtroom clerk falsified her minutes. That’s a pretty strong accusation, right up there with Smith and Hackleman being crooks.

Leave a Reply