LAURACK D. BRAY, ESQ., M.S., M.P.A., J.D.
FEDERAL ATTORNEY
P.O. BOX 611432
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA
TEL: (805) 901-2693
March 8, 2011
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 ?
INDICTABLE CRIMINAL ROSTER (ICR) FOR THE PUBLIC INTEGRITY SECTION OF THE U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE IN LOS ANGELES
This Round, Round 12, concludes the above-entitled blog because, apparently, the Public Integrity Section of the U.S. Attorney's Office has produced its first public official indictee. It appears to be John Pomierski, the ex-mayor of Upland, Califronia. According to the L.A. Times, "A federal grand jury has indicted former Upland Mayor John Pomierski on extortion and bribery charges in an alleged scheme to extort money and campaign contributions from two businesses seeking city permits and other governments approvals. . . ." Therefore, the question posed by this blog, "Who will be the first public official charged or otherwise prosecuted or indicted by the "new" public integrity section of the U.S. Atty's office?" has been answered.
However, the other two questions have also been answered: (1) Will it be a judge? The answer is no. And, (2) 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? Clearly, the answer to this question is "no" as well. Consequently, my forecast has matured. That is, I stated that I did not think that the first public official indicted would be a judge (e.g., "it will be even more interesting to see if the first indictment will be that of a judge. . . ."), even though "there are so many qualified judicial candidates with cases (or complaints) now pending in the U.S. Attorney's Office."
Thus, we must conclude at this point that U.S. Attorney Andre Birotte is no different from his predecessor Thomas P. O'Brien, "notwithstanding the resurrection of the public integrity section". See September 16, 2010 blog, "Who will be the first Public Official charged or otherwise prosecuted or indicted by the "new" Public Integrity section of the U.S. Atty's Office?" Of course, Birotte can still try and demonstrate a difference by prosecuting "civil rights cases" and judges who have violated federal civil rights laws. Those were the two areas that Birotte said the public integrity section were going to prosecute: (1) public corruption and (2) civil rights cases. He has demonstrated that he will not prosecute judges for public corruption, now we must wait and see if he will prosecute them for civil rights violations. That will be the topic of a new blog that I will start next week: "Will the first public official charged or referred to a grand jury for indictment for a civil rights violation by the "new" public integrity section of the U.S. Attorney's Office in Los Angeles be a judge?"
This concludes Round 12 and this blog, entitled "Indictable Criminal Roster (ICR) for the First Indictee of the "new" public integrity section of the U.S. Attorney's Office in Los Angeles".
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)