Tag Archives: john hueston

iePolitics: The Hueston debacle

Posted on by Administrator
5

San Bernardino County’s million dollar attorney may very well cost the county even more.  Tomorrow, as part of closed session, the lawsuit against the Assessor’s folks is on the agenda.  Closed session is a very good place for it.

Of course we do not know the county’s reason for putting the case on the agenda.  We do know what happened last week with the case and wonder if Legal Beagles Ruthie Stringer and John Hueston have fessed up to the board about how they screwed up. You mean the Million Dollar Man screwed up?  He most certainly did Ollie.

Continue reading →

Senor Blogger: Hueston, You Bet We have A Problem‏

Posted on by Administrator
4

Remember John Hueston?

Hueston is the high-profile Democratic Party heavyweight Orange County lawyer who convinced the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors to hire him for a mission to pursue civil litigation against former County Assessor Bill Postmus and several of Postmus’ former office aides.

In convincing the board of supes to contract for his services, John Hueston presented himself as the federal prosecutor who five years ago secured convictions in jury trials against executives related to the collapse of merchant energy generator Enron.

Continue reading →

iePolitics: So who is fornicating now?

Posted on by Administrator
2

San Bernardino County’s law firm, Boxer, Ramos & Stringer (remember Mikey likes to be in the middle), is at it again.  We learned of their speciality months ago when chief legal Beagle Ruth Stringer determined that fornication is part of the “deliberative process” and taxpayer monies spent for said fornication is not the business of the taxpayers.  We are supposed to take it in the shorts, literally.

Well our favorite ménage à trois has defied logic and sound legal reasoning yet once more.  Until recently the county reluctantly released information regarding the costs of civil litigation against former Assessor Bill Postmus, et al.  The investigation was originally capped at $250,000 but former Enron prosecutor and special investigator John Hueston went through that amount quickly.

From all appearances, the cost of the investigation/persecution has already exceeded $1 million or is quickly approaching that mark with nothing to show for it and likely no hope of ever showing anything for it except for a conviction and judgment against Adam Aleman.  Aleman is the only one to plead guilty and not file an answer.

Continue reading →

iePolitics: Just When We Thought They Might Grow a Spine

Posted on by Administrator
6

On Tuesday’s agenda is this:

County Counsel

20)

Approve Amendment No. 2 to Contract No. 09-0038 with Irell & Manella, LLP, to increase the funding to handle the civil litigation regarding former Assessor Bill Postmus and the improper expenditure of public funds while he was in office (Four votes required).

Talk about a group of individuals that just won’t learn.  You’re not going to win these cases so why keep feeding Ruth’s flame? If you dumped Ruth and Hueston, you might be able to hire a seasoned litigator who could mete sage legal advice instead of telling you what you want to hear. Continue reading →

InlandPolitics Commentary: Special Counsel “defending” those responsible for American financial collapse

Posted on by Administrator
1
  • Written by Senor Blogger
  • Posted February 5, 2010 at 6:42 am

Remember John Hueston?

Hueston is the “special counsel” who brought a civil action against Republican Party official and former San Bernardino County Assessor Bill Postmus and several of Postmus’ former aides and advisors.

His civil lawsuit against Postmus was heralded by the anti-Postmus crowd and unquestioned by the local media.

Maybe it’s time for the media – and more importantly, the board of supervisors – to start asking pertinent questions

John Hueston, who is a Democratic Party luminary, apparently has billed an estimated $700K from county taxpayers in compiling a 33-page “report” skewering many rising Republican Party officials and staff in San Bernardino County and California – and even throughout the Unites States. Hueston’s “report” spared no Republican – Bill Postmus, and nearly all GOP county supervisors, were slimed by his lackluster research, which relied on third-hand rumors, gossip, speculation, and wild conclusions drawn by supposed super lawyer John Hueston. Continue reading →

iePolitics: Who needs the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals when we’ve got Ruth Stringer?

Posted on by Administrator
2

Maybe when San Bernardino County’s Chief Legal Eagle Ruth Stringer is booted in a few weeks, President Obama will appoint her to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  From our experience she would be a perfect fit with the aberrant justices already sitting on that bench.

Under Stringer’s matronly tutelage we have all been blessed to learn new legal concepts not taught in any law school but practiced with fervor here in San Bernardino County.  For example, “fornicating” is apparently synonymous with “deliberating” as in the “deliberative process.”  We are not sure what an elected official and his inamorata would deliberate about at  2 a.m. that the public isn’t entitled to know since the “deliberating” is taking place on our dime.  We also haven’t figured out why salmon and wine can be made public but the raw oysters and asparagus cannot.  Perhaps it is the “Stringer Rule of Libidinous Measure.”

Continue reading →