Indictment, Richard Alarcon and Steven Hintz: Why has City Councilman Richard Alarcon been Indicted, but Ex-Judge Steven Hintz hasn't ?

LAURACK D. BRAY, ESQ.
FEDERAL ATTORNEY
P.O. BOX 611432
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA
TEL: (805) 901-2693

August 19, 2010


Indictment, Richard Alarcon and Steven Hintz : Why has City Councilman Richard Alarcon been Indicted , but Ex-Judge Steven Hintz hasn’t ?

Steven Hintz, the corrupt, former Ventura County Superior Court judge, who has since “retired”, is now running for treasurer-tax collector of Ventura County. Such action is surprising, at least, since the basic requirement for the position is or should be “honesty” (since the treasurer will be handling or administering the public’s money). And, clearly, Hintz has not displayed much of that in his declaration of candidacy papers (e.g., ballot designation worksheet) or in his previous “retirement” situation.

First, Hintz’s retirement from the Superior Court bench was not “voluntary”, rather, it was involuntary, and the result of FBI persuasion, after Hintz was faced with the options of either being arrested and undergoing a likely grand jury indictment (based on probable cause evidence of a criminal felony, e.g., racial discrimination) or retiring from the Superior Court bench. Hintz chose to retire. (The events leading to the criminal matter centered on an unlawful detainer jury trial presided over by Hintz. I was the defendant. I am Black. Hintz’s misconduct caused my unlawful eviction from my home-law office and the shutdown of my law practice in Ventura, California) . So, immediately after his retirement, Hintz knew that the retirement was not voluntary, that is, freely undertaken without pressure, persuasion, or threat . Therefore, his first act of dishonesty regarding his retirement was not informing the public, including court personnel, and the Ventura County Star newspaper of the real reason for his retirement (and, if he did so, not requiring or demanding the Star to inform Ventura County citizens of the real reason for his retirement (either before or after the paper published the first story about his retirement (implying that it was voluntary).

Hintz’s second act of dishonesty was designating his ballot profession as “retired judge”, knowing, or should be knowing, when he wrote it down, that it was misleading and a violation of California state regulations; further, a third act of dishonesty was to campaign as a “retired judge”, armed with the same aforementioned knowledge, and, finally, a fourth and most significant act of dishonesty was allowing Ventura County voters to vote for him without his disclosing the aforementioned information to them (and he amassed the most votes of all treasurer-tax collector candidates). Therefore, these acts of dishonesty alone should preclude his selection and election as treasurer-tax collector of Ventura County, California.

But, these acts of dishonesty are not the only reasons that he should not be treasurer-tax collector. The other reason is that he has simply displayed bad character. Were it not for the FBI and the former U.S. Attorney in Los Angeles, Thomas P. O’Brien(who himself is currently under criminal investigation), allowing him to retire from the bench, with retirement benefits, Hintz would likely be a convicted felon, who would be disqualified from running for elected office (that is, there was sufficient probable cause evidence supporting a criminal complaint against him for his arrest , indictment, and conviction). This brings me to the issue of indictment , and, in particular, the indictment of councilman Richard Alarcon and his wife.

Why has Alarcon and his wife been indicted for committing perjury and voter fraud, allegedly for lying about the address of Alarcon’s proper home for district representation and voting purposes, while Hintz has not been indicted for committing racial discrimination and voter fraud ? I purposefully has not attached the term “allegedly” to Hintz’s acts because he has not entered the criminal justice “system” officially (which cloaks a defendant with a “presumption of innocence until proven guilty”); on the other hand, Alarcon and his wife have---with the indictment. As far as the victim (the undersigned) is concerned, Hintz has committed the crimes he is charged with in the criminal complaint (based on probable cause evidence) until he enters the criminal justice system and process and it is proven otherwise. A most illustrative hypothetical example of this point is a woman who is physically robbed of her purse by gunpoint on the street by a man (or woman) whose face is not covered and who has descriptive scars on his face . Once the robbery is done, to the victim who has recognized the robber and experienced the robbery, the man has committed the crime of robbery. He has robbed her of her purse. So, until the man is arrested (which cloaks him with the presumption of innocent until proven guilty), he is a criminal, as a matter of fact and law; and the victim, especially, need not use the “allegedly” description .

According to news accounts regarding Alarcon, “Prosecutors said they launched their investigation after receiving a written complaint that Alarcon was living outside his district. . . .” And, Jane Robison, L.A. County D.A. Steve Cooley’s spokeswoman stated, “We don’t pick targets.” “We respond to complaints from citizens in their community.” Well, Hintz had two separate written complaints filed against him by a member of the community, charging racial discrimination and election and voter fraud. Yet, even in view of probable cause evidence, he has not been indicted, nor has his case even been submitted to a grand jury. Instead of indicting him, the former U.S. Attorney allowed him to secretly retire, with benefits (while not secretly returning the victim’s home-law office).

Alarcon has been indicted for voter fraud. Hintz was charged (by complainant) with voter fraud and election fraud, yet, his case has not been submitted to a grand jury (and clearly there was sufficient evidence for the discrimination charge, while violation of California voting regulations would buttress support for the voting fraud charges). There is also evidence of Hintz committing perjury in relation to his ballot designation worksheet-declaration of candidacy statements.

Alarcon has been indicted for felony charges, e.g., perjury, associated with his candidacy filings for his council office, i.e., declaration of candidacy form. Hintz was charged with a felony associated with his candidacy filings ,i.e., ballot designation worksheet and declaration of candidacy forms, and Hintz has clearly violated California election regulatory laws, yet, he has not been indicted.


Lastly, Hintz, as alluded to earlier, unlike Alarcon, has been charged with racial discrimination, with the discrimination charge supported by probable cause evidence. Yet, Hintz has not been indicted, nor has his case been submitted to a grand jury. And, it makes no difference that Alarcon has been indicted through efforts of the L.A. District Attorney rather than the U.S. Attorney. If the U.S. Attorney or the Ventura County District Attorney wanted to submit Hintz’s case to a grand jury for investigation and indictment, either one could have. The U.S. Attorney could easily have referred the matter to the Ventura County D.A. if it felt the matter would be better handled by a county D.A. , or, the Ventura County D.A., regarding the voter fraud allegations, could initiate an investigation on its own accord, for it has at least, I believe, some limited knowledge of those allegations. But, thusfar, there has been no investigation that I am aware of.

So, why has Richard Alarcon been indicted, but Steven Hintz hasn’t?

Could it be race ? Alarcon and his wife are Hispanic, while Hintz is white . And, it makes no difference that there is separate counties. Both Los Angeles and Ventura are counties of the state of California, and they both operate under the same principles and rely on the same standard of evidence to seek an indictment. That’s why there is such a thing as “change of venue”, which provides that a defendant can be tried in a different county of the same state for certain reasons. Implicit in the “change of venue” concept is the notion that all counties of the same state operate under the same standards for criminal prosecutions. So, if Hintz has the same or greater evidence against him than Alarcon has against himself, Hintz should be indicted, regardless of the county, if the county district attorneys are truly and fairly seeking justice.

Could it be because Hintz is a former judge and/or a former deputy district attorney? Both appear to be strong and influential factors. Upon my information and belief, Alarcon is neither one.

Or, could it be simple selective prosecution, where the Counties are simply choosing to prosecute Alarcon and not prosecute Hintz ? But, even if its selective prosecution, there has to be a reason for making the selection. And, the most obvious reason is race. But, even if race is not the reason, whatever reason it is, it’s unlawful. Even if the County DAs and/or the U.S. Attorney’s Office attempt to argue simple prosecutorial discretion, that argument fails as well, because it would be an abuse of discretion if Hintz has as much or more evidence against him than Alarcon, or, at least, probable cause evidence to arrest, yet, an indictment is not sought. And, an abuse of discretion is unlawful. I believe the decision to not prosecute Hintz is based on a reason other than prosecutorial discretion, with the strongest ones being race and/or Hintz’s former judicial and prosecutorial background.
The real question is : How can the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Los Angeles, in good conscience, watch a man like Alarcon (who has dedicated much of his legislative career to fighting poverty) be indicted for charges associated with the alleged use of a false address for one of his homes for voting purposes, while allowing a man like Hintz (who the FBI found enough evidence of racial discrimination against him to persuade him to retire, or face arrest and likely indictment) to avoid indictment altogether ?

Nonetheless, whatever the reason for the disparate treatment between Alarcon and Hintz, the L.A. County and Ventura County public will never know about it through the major print media because the L.A. Times and the Ventura County Star (which has endorsed Hintz for treasurer-tax collector) newspapers have exercised disparate treatment of their own against Alarcon by publishing stories about Alarcon’s indictment in their papers, while not mentioning anything about Hintz’s criminal conduct. And, both papers have at least some minimum knowledge about Hintz’s criminal conduct; certainly enough knowledge to have conducted an investigation to gather further information. Further, the L.A. Times, at least, cannot rest its decision to not print any criminal information about Hintz on the fact that Hintz’s case has not reached the stage of indictment. See “Bell City Councilman Owns a Home in Chino”, L.A. Times, August 12, 2010, where the paper writes a criminal investigatory article about a Bell councilman who the Times apparently believes possibly could be using a false address regarding one of his two homes for his district’s council seat. This individual, Luis A. Artiga, who appears to be Hispanic, has not been indicted or arrested for using a false address, as the paper itself points out, “there is currently no investigation into Artiga’s residency status” (as reportedly stated by David Demerjian, head of the district attorney’s public intergrity section); nevertheless, the fact of no indictment did not prevent the Times from writing an investigatory story about Artiga. Thus, the Times decision to not write anything about Hintz’s criminal background and history has nothing to do with Hintz not being indicted. It is simply disparate treatment as to Alarcon, and , along with the story regarding Artiga, that disparate treatment appears to be based on race.

Cc: L.A. Councilman Richard Alarcon
Friends of Councilman Alarcon
Bell Councilman Luis A. Artiga
L.A. Times and Ventura County Star
The general public