Sunday, May 22, 2011

Who Taught City of Bell How to Raid City Treasury, Rig Elections?


Read the Full Report here that includes the documented proof of how City Officials conducted local elections and the reasons why the L A County Grand Jury, the DA and AG were asked to investigate the obvious conflicts of interest. This report covers a Santa Monica Municipal election that became highly suspicious when retroactive, post election pay raises and bonuses were awarded in a closed, unrecorded meeting to the very officials involved for conducting the election.

The Santa Monica municipal election issues on the ballot were red hot and promised to increase voter participation. A voter revolt was sparked when the City Council approved major commercial and hotel developments, including a Santa Monica Airport development agreement, which became a catalyst for citizen initiatives and startled well-entrenched "renters rights" incumbent officeholders.

Political alliances were threatened as the City Council continued to approve massive development projects. The prospect of luxury hotels lining the beach and on Ocean Avenue was increasingly unpopular and citizen efforts to curb development was a driving force behind initiatives to be placed on the ballot.

Voter activism grew as the Council members and specifically the City Attorney's refusal to prosecute misdemeanor crimes that was blamed for street crimes and violence among the derelict population that resided on the beaches, pier and in the commercial shopping district adjacent to Pacific Palisades Park. Most of the derelicts coming to Santa Monica were provided with meals and shower facilities, and the agencies assisting them encouraged this transient population to register to vote, using the city’s shelter facilities as a residence address. According to Santa Monica Police Officials at one time there were 2,000 outstanding arrest warrants that had been issued for persons using the address of the City facilities for transients. It was reported that many were parolees at large.

The transient population inadvertently became a job creator, generating the need for more city workers and of course the need for more funding to accommodate this new and growing population. New City workers were enthusiastic supporters of the Council members and the City Attorney who appeared to be more sympathetic with the transients than with the residents of the City.

The Citizens Protection Act of 1990 ballot initiative was sponsored by Santa Monica voters who opposed the City Council’s support for a City Attorney who refused to prosecute public drunkenness, trespassing, urinating in public, shopping cart theft and panhandlers who were becoming increasingly aggressive and intimidating.

Following the qualification of four other citizen-sponsored ballot initiatives, the City Council, with advice from their City Attorney, implemented a political strategy to place five additional issues on the ballot, as alternatives. This was seen as a major reason why it became necessary to divide the election into two separate elections one, City Controlled and the other conducted by the County. Strangely the City officially voted to "consolidated” the elections to be conducted by Los Angeles County.

However, without official authorization by the Council the election concerning City ballot initiatives were taken away from the County and placed under the total control of the local city officials. The City Attorney and his staff provided oversight of the election that included a controversial Charter Amendment initiative to eliminate his appointed position and made it an elective position. A hand-picked election contractor was hired, without a bid or contract as required by the City's Charter nor was there a Council resolution of approval. The Contractor instructions for the Election Board conflicted with the county election being held on the same day by the same Election Board. Two separate elections being held at the same time created a great deal of confusion and inability to reconcile the ballots on the precinct voter rosters. Read the FULL REPORT with links to the official documents.

Election Irregularities in 2010 Orange County Electronic Voting?

Saturday, May 14, 2011

Prosecutor Warns: Early Release For Murderers Will Harm The Public's Safety

Los Angeles, CA Steve Ipsen, a Deputy County Prosecutor describes why only convicted murderers will be released from prison to comply with court orders to stop overcrowding and to save money. According to Ipsen Federal Judges have mandated that prisons take swift action to reduce over population in California Prisons, He claims that "Compassionate" releases for murderers will be the favored choice of the Department of Corrections who see a huge cost reduction benefit by releasing chronically ill murderers. He notes that the State is looking to reduce expensive health care costs for those serving "life" sentences.

Reform First: To Stop Release of Murderers
In a separate video Prosecutor Ipsen is calling for "Reform First" before dangerous felons are released from prison. He cites the labeling first & small time drug offenses as "Felony" has added to the overcrowding and felonizing of many in our society who should have an opportunity to prove they are not "hard core" by working at a full time job for one year then their sentence would be reduced from "felon" to misdemeanor.

Watch the Reform First Video Here.

Monday, May 02, 2011

Judicial Wall Of Resistance Broken as 6th Judge Steps Down On Richard Fine Case

Los Angeles, CA The sixth State Superior Court Judge, James Chalfant, has stepped down from sitting on the Richard I. Fine case involving the County of Los Angeles. Fine's Motion to "Null & Void" all of Judge Yaffe's Orders in the Marina Strand Colony II Homeowers Assn. v County of Los Angeles, including his Civil Contempt of Court, have been sent back to Judge Carolyn Kuhl who is searching for a Judge elligible to sit on Richard Fine's Motion, but it appears that all the Judges in Los Angeles now realize they have a serious conflict when sitting on cases involving the County of Los Angeles.

Judge Carolyn Kuhl was one of five other Judges who have either side-stepped, recused or were disqualified from sitting on the Richard Fine case involving the County after it was revealed how much money they had been receiving payments from the County of Los Angeles and continue to do so. Although court officials have declined to respond to Full Disclosure's inquiry as to how many times Superior Court Judges in Los Angeles had been recused or disqualified from sitting county cases, they do admit that all L A.Judges were recused in the 2006 Sturgeon v County of Los Angeles case where the payments to California Judges was found to be illegal.

In 2009 the Judges and County officials received retroactive immunity from criminal prosecution for their involvement in the illegal payment scheme when Senate Bill SBX 211 was approved by the legislature in the middle of the night without any public debate. This measure promises to be scrutinized as the Judicial conflict controversy continues.

Appearing in this video are Richard I Fine Ph.D., former U S Prosecutor and Steve Ipsen, Deputy District Attorney who discuss how L A County payments to Judges create a problem of bias when sitting on cases where the County is involved. Judge James Chalfant has received $608,000 from L. A. County according to the County Auditor's Report obtained by Richard I . Fine who says that the Judge had no choice but to recuse himself from sitting on his Motion to Null and Void all of Judge David Yaffe's Orders, including his Contempt Order that held Fine In solitary "coercive confinement" for eighteen months in the L A County Jail.

All Court Documents on this latest development are available from the links below: