Search Results for “Jones & Mayer” – Page 4 – Friends For Fullerton's Future

November 17, 2016November 17, 2016Behind Closed Doors

The Odd Case of the Client Newsletter

richard_jones

Okay, you may have painfully listened to the five-minute drone of Fullerton City Attorney Richard Jones on a previous post, explaining why no information was forthcoming in the Case of the City Manager and the Dead Parkway Tree. Sorry to inflict that on you, but no pain, no gain, as they say.

If your cerebral synapses are sufficiently recovered, reflect back on what Mr. Jones, Esq. said, and what he was asked to repeat twice by our Mayor, about electronic records generated at the scene and how they could not be released via PRA request because they were part of an “ongoing investigation;” but moreover, because they were somehow part of some sort of double-top secret “personnel” proceedings.

But wait! A quick trip to Jones and Meyer’s website newsletter to clients (we are clients, aren’t we?) reveals some interesting case law that seems to show exactly the opposite of the malarkey Jones was pitching to a remarkably incurious Council the other night. Here’s the synopsis:

mav-evidence

See? The video was created before any administrative investigation, or internal affairs investigation even started.

So let’s get this straight. A “client alert” sent out less than four months ago seems to contradict what Jones said, and reiterated twice on Tuesday night. Hmm. Hopefully someone can drop by to explain why the case of City Manager Joe Felz isn’t covered by the Greenson case finding by the Court of Appeal.

February 21, 2012February 21, 2012Behind Closed Doors

Don’t Get Your Hopes Up. I’m Not.

by Joe Sipowicz369 Comments

Today Fullerton will be favored with the first installment of reports produced by Michael Gennaco. The one tonight is supposed to deal with the FPD PR apparatus and the way it disseminated information in the wake of the Kelly Thomas killing by members of the FPD. We’ve editorialized plenty on what was said (self-serving claptrap), and not said (the truth) by FPD spokesopening Andrew Goodrich. I do wonder what Gennaco would have to say about the City using a police union boss as its official spokesman – if he addresses it at all, which I think is doubtful.

I have a feeling that the reports issued by Gennaco will be little more than expensive PR for the City.

This might be a good time to remind everybody that the offical sounding “County of Los Angeles Office of Independent Review” is actually a private law firm for hire by anybody with the dough to pay. It’s a small law firm with half a dozen lawyers and a logo that just happens to look like a city seal.

Gennaco is really no different than Jones and Mayer or Rutan and Tucker, hired to limit the damage caused by the serial misdeeds of the FPD and limit liability.

Does that sound harsh? Remember, as an attorney, Gennaco’s main concern is to protect his client and gin up more business in the future. Does that sound like a formula for reform?

Color me skeptical.

December 9, 2011Dick Jones

It’s Been 5 Months Since a Man was Murdered by the Fullerton Police. Who’s Been Fired?

by Travis137 Comments

Ramos and Cicinelli, the two men charged in the murder of Kelly Thomas, got three months of paid vacation. Now they’re on unpaid leave, but they still have not been fired.

What about officers Hampton, Wolfe, Blatney and Craig who were accomplices in the brutal beating? Nope. Still employed. Still getting paid.

And the FPD management who allowed the six officers to collude on their reports? We still don’t know who’s responsible for that mess. But nobody was fired.

Chief Sellers, who went on vacation, returned only to hide under his desk, and then foraged up a doctors note to dodge his responsiblies while Fullerton suffered? Not fired.

How about Jones and Meyer, the city attorneys who have worked so hard to conceal the department’s criminal activity from the public eye for all those years? They’re still here. And they’re probably making more than ever.

And the City Manager, who’s supposed to be responsible for all city employees and their actions? Not fired. But he did try to give himself a raise.

And finally, the three councilmembers who’ve been overseeing this mess for 56 collective years, who did nothing but insult the murder victim and defend the police department responsible for his death? They’re still here, and they’re still deflecting responsibility for the actions of the city they’re supposed to be running.

Five months have passed and not a single soul has lost their job for their involvement in a murder under color of authority. That’s a pretty stark contrast to those of us in the real world, where people are often fired for showing up to work late or taking a nap on the clock.

But not in Fullerton. This year we have witnessed a demonstration of a power structure so perverse that it can insulate itself from the most heinous of crimes with almost no remorse or repercussions.

October 3, 2011October 3, 2011Fullerton City Council

On the Agenda – October 4, 2011

by Christian68 Comments

View the entire agenda.

Item 2 of the Consent Calendar should upset your applecart. The item is for the City to receive grant funding to solve cold cases. Sounds good, right? Here is the bitter sweet pill the Council will shove down our throats tomorrow.

The grant will fund 2-3 part-time reserve officers to look into these cases. According to Police Spokes-hole Andy Goodbar, normal reserves aren’t getting paid and haven’t for more than a year due to lack of funds. This grant will allow 2-3 reserves to earn $22 per hour. “Not on my dime, so it’s ok” you might say. No, these aren’t your typical reserves. These will be RETIRED POLICE OFFICERS with their big FAT pensions earning an extra $22 per hour to solve cases they couldn’t solve when they were on duty. (Maybe after Bankhead and McKinley get recalled, they can go back to work as reserves). Remember, these same retired cops are already making 90% of their last year’s salary. Now they want another $22 an hour to finish what they couldn’t do before. I think they should do it without any additional pay.

Item 4 will take long-time City Attorney consultants Jones-Mayer off the police misconduct and civil rights cases. At $200 per hour, I bet we get exactly what we pay for with Lewis Brisois Bisgaard and Smith defending the City’s use of force policy and criminal actions of several police officers while on-duty.

And whatever the esquires at Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard and Smith can’t figure out, I’m sure the cats at Carpenter Rothans and Dumont can. Item 5 is an agreement with the firm for more legal services. Good Lord we must be subsidizing half the firms in Orange County ! These legal hounds will cost us $175 an hour. I guess they’ll have to make it up in volume.

Item 6 will bring us closer to Vegas! This is the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for a Fullerton to Las Vegas train line. If we make it cheap and easy for college students to hop a train to Vegas, do they take our Vegas-style problems (and money) with them? High-Speed Rail to San Francisco was a stupid idea. This isn’t quite as stupid though there appears to be a lot of details yet to be discussed.

Item 7 seeks to place adult businesses closer to churches. The municipal code says in short that adult businesses cannot be permitted within 750 feet of a church. Staff would like to strike “churches” from the current law. The code also says these businesses must be 750 feet away from school, parks, playgrounds, day care facilities, etc. Those who attend churches also know that many have their own day care and schools with play grounds. The Planning Commission took up this issue last week and voted to leave the law alone.

Item 8 is an official apology and acknowledgment by the Police Department for raiding the wrong house. You might recall when the FPD burst through the back door of a reverend’s home during a drug raid on the wrong house. Nice one FPD! You can add that to the growing list for the F’dPD.

Item 9 is the Lemon Park/Maple Center improvements. After looking at the scope of improvements, I cannot imagine how spending $3-million on these two facilities will improve the community. There is also some creative bookkeeping going on- somebody call Levinson.

Item 10 will allow St. Mary’s to borrow the baseball field next door for their annual carnival. Their usual location behind the Community Center is under construction.

Item 11 will open up one of the St. Jude parking structures for people using the Brea Dam Recreation area. It also calls for massive improvements in the area. Parking will cost $1 for the first half-hour and a maximum of $5 per day. The report says that it costs about $96,000 to operate and maintain the new structure and the revenue will go into a special account. Parking in this area will include the structure on the east side of St. Jude (behind hospital), the Tennis Center , Fullerton Community Nursery School , and the YMCA.

March 25, 2011May 19, 2011Setting The Bar Low

Crime and Cover Up: The Pastor Raid Debacle Gets Ugly

by Travis46 Comments

FFFF has been trying to obtain the police report filed after several Fullerton police officers conducted a narcotics raid on the wrong house and held an innocent pastor and his family at gunpoint last year (read the story here).

Since the family presented a copy of the police report to the council at a public meeting, that document is now undeniably a public record. But the cops and the city administrators love to keep secrets when they blow it, and thus have deployed one ornery city attorney to block out any sunshine on this case. God forbid the public learns about the mistakes it’s own cops are making.

Lego Police Raid — We have the right to remain silent

But here’s where it gets weird. In this email below, the city attorney justifies keeping the report secret by admitting that crimes were committed when the cops entered the wrong house with guns drawn!

Travis,

After reviewing the police records in a light most favorable to the Nordells if the entry made by the officers were unlawful they may have been victims of several crimes, namely assault, trespass and a civil rights violation. If the officers did enter with guns drawn, they more than likely experienced the fear that goes accompanied with such entry. While, we are not acknowledging any of those unlawful acts occurred it does establish that they are victims of a crime. As victims of a crime they were the only party entitled to obtain the police report under Gov Code 6254 (f).

Kathya M. Oliva
Jones & Mayer

Let’s go over that again. Did our city just deny a public records request by confirming that its officers committed assault, trespass and civil rights violations? Pretty much. Admitting guilt to cover your tracks is a novel approach to criminal defense.

FFFF’s response? If there was a crime committed against the family, the incident should have been referred to the DA for prosecution. Was it? If not, covering up the report because there “may have” been a crime doesn’t hold legal water.

Our question was met with a friendly invitation to sue the city in Superior Court…which is actually a great idea. I can’t think of a better way to bring more attention to this issue.

February 16, 2011February 16, 2011The Crime Beat

A Fig Tree and the Suppression of Evidence of Harassment

by Travis22 Comments

Should the city actively seek to suppress any evidence of harassment by city staff from the court record when prosecuting code violations? That’s exactly what’s happening in the strange case of an allegedly overgrown fig tree in south Fullerton.

A few weeks ago this woman, henceforth known as “The Fig Tree Lady,” came before council to tell her side of the story in a code enforcement case against her fig tree, which was allegedly hanging over a public sidewalk last year. The Fig Lady accused city staff of singling her out for criminal prosecution as retribution for her embarrassing victory over the city attorney (Jones & Mayer) several years prior.

That same day, the city attorney had filed a motion in court to suppress any evidence of harassment by City employees.

The fig lady’s guilt or innocence will be decided in court, and is not really the point here. But why is the city using it’s legal muscle to suppress any evidence that it’s code enforcement officers might be harassing citizens?

What if this woman did have evidence that the city attorney and staff were giving her case “special treatment”? Shouldn’t she be able to make her case to the judge? Is someone using the city’s expensive legal resources to bully and silence this outspoken critic in some sort of personal vendetta as the Fig Lady claims?

Fullerton Fig Tree — Exhibit A: The overgrown fig tree

If the motion is granted, the woman would not even be allowed to submit this current photo of her tree (courtesy of Greg Sebourn) as evidence that the situation has been corrected.

Obviously the tree is not a threat anymore. Why is the city attorney still spending our money to silence and prosecute this woman? And are they really worried that she could prove her claims of harassment?

February 24, 2010July 8, 2010Big Brother

Will Fullerton Cash in on DUI Checkpoints?

by Travis17 Comments

California Watch released a report last week suggesting that DUI checkpoints in many California cities are focused on revenue generation via vehicle impounds rather than stopping drunk drivers. OC Register data shows that checkpoints in some OC cities stop relatively few drunk drivers, but do cash in on massive impound fees through revenue-sharing agreements with local impound yards. Most of the impounds come from unlicensed drivers, not DUI arrests.

We couldn’t help but notice that Fullerton PD is ready to pitch the creation of it’s own impound yard to the city council in the coming weeks. Revenue generation is the motive.

Coincidentally, the city has planned six DUI checkpoints in Fullerton through the end of summer.

So what’s the problem?

First, the report states that many cities are ignoring case law that would prevent them from making many of the current non-DUI related impounds. The article quotes Fullerton attorney Martin J. Mayer of the law firm Jones & Mayer, who has warned law enforcement agencies statewide that this could become a big legal problem.

Second, many contend that DUI checkpoints are a violation of the fourth amendment – the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. Checkpoints stop dozens of innocent drivers in order to catch a single DUI offender. Unfortunately courts have ruled that protecting citizens from drunk drivers gives the state a compelling interest to ignore the 4th amendment.

But what happens when the courts find out that DUI checkpoints aren’t really about stopping drunk drivers, but rather impounding vehicles for cash?

It will be interesting to see how this plays out in Fullerton. The curious timing of the California Watch story, Fullerton PD’s impound lot proposal and the ramped-up DUI checkpoints does make one wonder if there is more to this story.