LAURACK D. BRAY, ESQ.
FEDERAL ATTORNEY
P.O. BOX 611432
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA
TEL: 805) 901-2693
Febuary 8, 2011
(renewed date)
(see Round 1 of ICR)
September 16, 2010
(original date)
WHO WILL BE THE FIRST PUBLIC OFFICIAL CHARGED OR REFERRED TO A GRAND JURY FOR INDICTMENT BY THE “NEW” PUBLIC INTEGRITY SECTION OF THE U.S. ATTORNEY’S OFFICE IN LOS ANGELES ?
WILL IT BE A JUDGE ? (WHEN IS THE LAST TIME A JUDGE, STATE OR FEDERAL, WAS REFERRED TO A GRAND JURY FOR INDICTMENT BY THE U.S. ATTORNEY’S OFFICE IN LOS ANGELES ?)
WILL THE “NEW” PUBLIC INTEGRITY SECTION HAVE THE COURAGE TO PRESENT A STATE OR FEDERAL JUDGE TO A GRAND JURY FOR INDICTMENT, WHERE THERE IS CLEARLY SUFFICIENT AND PROBABLE CAUSE EVIDENCE TO DO SO ?
THE U.S. ATTORNEY’S OFFICE IN LOS ANGELES HAS A CASELOAD OR ROSTER OF OBVIOUS CANDIDATES (JUDICIAL AND OTHER) AWAITING AN INDICTMENT DECISION.
On June 12, 2010, according to the L.A. Times, “U.S. Atty. Andre Birotte Jr. announced Friday that he was creating a specialized unit to prosecute public corruption and civil rights cases, such as those involving politicians or police officers accused of crimes. The move effectively restores a similar unit that was disbanded by Birotte’s predecessor, Thomas P. O’Brien, two years ago.” (Emphasis added). Will “new” U.S. Attorney Birotte really and truly be any different from his predecessor, O’Brien, notwithstanding the resurrection of the public integrity section? Especially when it comes to the enforcement of civil rights laws? We will see. This is an opportunity for him to show that he will be. “Its mission, he (Birotte) wrote, will be ‘to bring to justice those public officials and public employees who violate the public’s trust.’ ” Id. I interpret “public officials” to mean judges as well, because , clearly, judges are public officials. If Mr. Birotte prosecutes (charges or presents to a grand jury for indictment, or requires to pay restitution) at least one judge, state or federal,
or other federal official, he will clearly show that he is different from O’Brien, with respect to both courage and fairness. **
To that end, it will be interesting to see who will be the first public official charged or referred to a grand jury by the “new” public integrity section of the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Los Angeles. Moreover, it will be even more interesting to see if the first indictment will be that of a judge, especially since there are so many qualified judicial candidates with cases now pending in the U.S. Attorney’s office.
Beginning this week, in conjunction with and in support of the objective or mission of the new unit, I will identify, by name and charges, some of the public officials that I am aware of (because complaints were filed by my clients and I---and in several cases, action based on the complaints was taken, either directly or indirectly, by the FBI or the Department of Justice, which attaches some credibility to the complaints) with cases or complaints pending in the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Los Angeles. They are obvious candidates because the complaints against them were supported by evidence (and, in most, if not all, cases, it was probable cause evidence). I will call this the Indictable Candidate Roster (ICR), if you will. That is, this roster will represent those individuals who have had federal criminal complaints lodged against them and whose victims’ complaints are still pending in the U.S. Attorney’s office (and where there has been virtually no response to the victims whatsoever from the U.S. Attorney’s Office regarding the complaints).
I will identify ten candidates (or less) a week until all individuals from the roster have been identified. Once the roster, or list, has been exhausted, I will recycle the list again. And, the roster will continue to be recycled until there has been some resolution and/or disposition of the complaints (some of which have been pending for years now) based on the evidence (either clear the individuals---if they can be cleared, some cannot be because of action taken---or indict them ), by the special prosecutor, John Durham, or the U.S. Attorney’s Office. Further, as the new names are added each week, the old names and charges will remain on the list as well. However, in round 2, after the first completed list of names, the identified names will be accompanied by both charges and some of the facts supporting the charges.
As an attempt at injecting some modicum of fairness into the disclosure process, I will begin , in the initial listing, disclosing the names of most of those individuals who have the strongest evidence against them, e.g.,
probable cause evidence, and I will end with most of the individuals with the least strongest evidence. In that way, if the U.S. Attorney’s Office decide to prosecute one or more of the individuals with the strongest evidence against them (or to take any other appropriate action, e.g., require the payment of restitution--- as should have been done for several of the accused--- by those accused that the U.S. Attorney’s Office has decided and/or agreed not to prosecute (the so-called “NPA”, non-prosecution agreement), it may prompt me to discontinue the disclosure of the remaining candidates with the less strong evidence (but Note : none of the complaints was bare allegations alone).
While this disclosure is undertaken primarily to promote and urge the disposition of the identified pending complaints in the U.S. Attorney’s Office, or, where applicable, the payment of restitution (where a deal has been made without the required payment of restitution), it is also undertaken as a means of piercing through the veil of “secrecy” and “selectivity” with respect to the criminal conduct of certain members of society, i.e., certain public officials (yet, exposing the conduct of others) and as a means of promoting the accountability of certain public servants (e.g., state and federal judges) for their actions, especially as it pertains to the payment of restitution for the damage caused by their criminal acts.
“Secrecy deflects accountability. It allows judges to err. Children to die. Information is its antidote.” L.A. Times, August 26, 2010, “Truly ‘Public’ Servants.” “And, yes, accountability can strike those on its receiving end as unfair: It’s no fun for the teacher whose students fail year after year to read about it in the Sunday paper; it’s frightening for the police officer who has shot someone to have that fact known to anyone who watches the evening news.” Id. Such applies to state and federal judges who have criminally denied United States citizens their constitutional and statutory rights, sometimes based on race. And, in many instances, the secrecy surrounding the violation of the law often leads to the violation of other laws. “(T)he county’s insistence on hushing up these matters has led it to break the law: In contravention of the state law that requires board members to hold their meetings in public, the supervisors initially discussed the leak investigation in closed session. They tried to remedy that this week by at least debating in public, but secrecy is corroding this issue at every step.” L.A. Times, “Leaks don’t kill kids,” August 21, 2010. And, in this case, the secrecy surrounding ex-judge Steven Hintz’s forced retirement from the Superior Court of California, Ventura County bench lead Hintz to violate California
election regulatory law dealing with ballot designations and to commit fraud on Ventura County voters in the primary election.
All of the individuals identified in my roster of Public Integrity Section candidates are, or were, public officials, and therefore, are open to public scrutiny . “Maybe in the private sector there’s some expectation of privacy. But if you’re in the public sector and supported by taxpayers, the people have a right to know.” L.A. Times, “Parents have the Right to know,” August 23, 2010 (quoting Bonnie Reiss, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s education advisor). Regarding the publishing of teachers names (and the names of judges and other public officials here) in regard to the Times investigation and revelations of teacher competency in the L.A.U.S.D., Times reporter George Skelton states, “Publishing the teachers’ names will make some of them uncomfortable. . . . But most important, it will make the public more informed.” Id. “I think the taxpayer is entitled to have that information” (quoting former Gov. Gray Davis). Id. “Many of the teachers and school administrators aren’t happy. They feel ambushed and unfairly exposed because the newspaper pushed on to the front page, and on to an online database, information that had been held confidentially by the school district for years.” L.A. Times, “Hard Lessons for Teachers”, September 4, 2010. “The Times has taken a lot of heat. . . but it’s also been praised by. . . parents, who say they have a right to know what impact teachers appear to be having on students.” Id. “I’m told that supervisors all the way up to Editor Russ Stanton reviewed the stories and considered whether they needed to single out teachers by name. Would the stories tell enough, some at the paper wondered, if they rated teachers only by school and grade level, but did not name them as individuals?” . . . (W)ithout singling out any of them for disdain.” Id. “ ‘I think that if we had just took the analysis to the grade level (here, to the pending criminal complaints against judges or public officials) without naming specific teachers (here, judges and others), a lot of parents (here, the public, and especially litigants and lawyers) would have been justifiably angry with us for withholding data from them’, David Lauter, the Times’ metropolitan editor, told me. ‘That is public information that I think people do have a right to know’ ” (Emphasis added) Id. “ ‘We have the opportunity to shine a spotlight not just on ineffective teachers but also on very effective teachers (here, judges with no criminal complaints against them plus high praise by litigants and lawyers for their competency and fairness),’ he added . ‘Not doing that would be a copout.’ ” Id.
“The Times could have. . . singled out schools, not teachers. . . . Instead, the newspaper took the road less traveled. There might be a few more accidents along that way. But it also appears to provide a shorter route to
something we all want---a better way to figure out who is good at teaching (here, judging) and who is not.” Id.
And, according to the Times, Education Secretary Arne Duncan states “The truth is always hard to swallow, but it can only make us better, stronger and smarter,” L.A. Times, “U.S. schools chief to push disclosure,” August 25, 2010. “That’s what accountability is all about---facing the truth and taking responsibility.” Id.
Finally, regarding the professional baseball player, Roger Clemens, after Clemens had been indicted by a Washington, D.C. grand jury on charges of making a false statement, perjury, and obstruction of justice, the L.A. Times, through reporter Bill Dwyre, stated, “the government, having warned Clemens, had no alternative but to recommend a longer look. That was done by a group of citizens making up a grand jury. They, too, are aware of the current strain of government spending on the economy, but they said indict. Now Clemens will go to trial. He can plea-bargain out anytime, but he would have to admit things and show remorse.” “This is the people’s business” (emphasis in original), August 24, 2010. “Justice now needs to be played out, not swept under the rug because of costs.” “Congress has gone ahead because it serves all people in this country. . . .” (Emphasis added) Id.
All of the above principles are applicable to the herein-identified candidates for Public Integrity indictment, particularly the need for a “longer look. . . by a group of citizens making up a grand jury.” I purposely cited and relied on L.A. Times articles and rationale for this blog, not only to support my position regarding disclosure, but also to pose the question : Why hasn’t the L.A. Times conducted an investigative report on the ICR candidates as it has for teachers, police officers, social services workers, probation officers, nurses, municipal workers and officers, e.g., the City of Bell, etc. ? And, yes, the Times is aware of many of them, at least enough of them to have conducted an investigative report.
There is a group of candidates, which I have designated the “Judicial Seven”, because they were caused to retire (one was already retired) or resign by the FBI or other pursuant to either a misconduct complaint or criminal complaint filed against them (by myself and the two aforementioned clients; and, while I happen to be black, my two clients
were (are) white —at one point, two years or more ago, we , together with other supporters, demonstrated in front of the federal courthouse in downtown Los Angeles against the “judicial seven” and for required restitution based on their non-prosecution), i.e., secret retirements or resignations. None of the judicial seven suffered any penalty (which includes a payment or other type of restitution) for their criminal acts, even after the FBI had found sufficient probable cause evidence to persuade them to retire (rather than face arrest and/or probable indictment), and in some cases, they collect(ed) pension benefits. The Judicial Seven are on the ICR and will be among the first candidates to be identified.
With the above in mind, the first ten candidates are (when the term “charged” is used here, it means what the complainants complained about in their complaints) :
The week of September 12, 2010
1. Steven Hintz, ex-judge of the Superior Court of California, Ventura County, who is now running for treasurer-tax collector of Ventura County: Hintz has been charged with intentionally acting to deny the civil and constitutional rights of a black lawyer (myself), based on race (or racial discrimination), and with conspiring with other Superior Court judges to do the same. He is also charged with committing election and/or voter fraud in the primary election of this year. Hintz’s actions caused my unlawful eviction from my home-law office and the shutdown of my law practice in Ventura, California. Hintz is a member of the Judicial Seven.
2. Barry Klopfer, ex-judge of the Superior Court of California, Ventura County: Klopfer , while serving as an appellate judge, was charged with obstruction of justice and conspiracy to deny civil and constitutional rights under color of law and based on race (or racial discrimination). He was also charged with making a false statement during a judicial proceeding. Klopfer is a member of the Judicial Seven.
3. Dickran Tevrizian, an ex-judge of the United States District Court for the Central District of California: Tevrizian is charged with obstruction of justice and conspiracy to deny constitutional and statutory rights under color of law, and based on race (or racial discrimination). He committed multiple acts of misconduct. He committed acts against both my female client and myself. Tevrizian is a member of the Judicial Seven.
4. Terry Hatter, Jr., senior (and reired) judge, United States District Court for the Central District of California: Hatter was charged with
obstruction of justice and conspiracy to deny constitutional rights. Hatter is a member of the Judicial Seven.
5. Thomas P. O’Brien, ex-United States Attorney for Los Angeles : O’Brien and his Office are charged with making a false and fraudulent statement during an executive proceeding and with obstruction of justice. He was subsequently charged with committing mail fraud . O’Brien is also a member of the Judicial Seven.
6. Cathy Catterson, ex-Clerk of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: Catterson was charged with, among other things, making and using a false and fraudulent document in violation of federal criminal law. Catterson was charged with the same or similar allegations of misconduct as those for Mary Schroeder (when she was Chief Judge of the Ninth Circuit). Catterson is a member of the Judicial Seven.
7. William Schwarzer, senior (and retired) judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of California : Schwarzer, while already retired and serving as a visiting member of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and on a three-judge panel, was charged with obstruction of justice , conspiring to obstruct justice, violation of civil and constitutional rights under color of law, and for violation of a federal statute providing relief for the denial of relief benefits, e.g., social security disability benefits , based on race (I relied on my race in relation to a white client). Schwarzer is a member of the Judicial Seven.
8. Harry Pregerson, judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit : Pregerson was charged with obstruction of justice and making a false statement in a judicial proceeding.
9. David Long, judge of the Superior Court of California, Ventura County : Long, while serving as an appellate judge, was charged with a conspiracy to deny civil and constitutional rights under color of law and based on race (or racial discrimination). He was also charged with making a false statement during a judicial proceeding.
10. Mary M. Schroeder, ex-Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (the conduct charged against Schroeder occurred when she was Chief Judge of the Court) : Schroeder was charged with obstruction of justice and conspiracy to obstruct justice.
**Thusfar, Birotte has not demonstrated that he is any different from O'Brien. In over a year now since the resurrection of the "new" Public Integrity Section, not one public official has been prosecuted for a civil rights violation (of a citizen). It's the "same-old", "same-old". Lots of talk and no action. (Update)
cc : United States Attorney Andre Birotte
A.J. Duffy, President, United Teachers Los Angeles
L.A. Times
The general public
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment