As a resident of Middletown, I am directing these comments to my district supervisor, Jim Comstock, but I feel compelled to address all five Board of Supervisors members. Unfortunately my work schedule does not afford me the opportunity as a citizen to provide direct input to the board during their regularly scheduled meetings so this will have to suffice.
Sheriff Rivero has requested to be represented by a private attorney regarding his conflict with the district attorney, a conflict I believe is wholly caused by Sheriff Rivero's loose relationship with the truth, but that's a matter for another time. His request will create a de facto blank check for whatever attorney he decides to represent him.
It is well documented that Sheriff Rivero has a litigious past, and if he is to be taken at his word, maintains a relationship with a San Francisco-based legal firm which would likely be the recipient of the “blank check.”
Were he to choose this particular firm, a legal firm whose chief attorney was a supporter of his in the past election, the appearance of impropriety would be so strong that I think many would believe that this conflict was created by Sheriff Rivero as a way to funnel money to this legal firm, either as a form of payback for their support in the past election or for his past law suits. I think the only way to avoid this appearance is for the board to deny Sheriff Rivero's request.
I believe this conflict stems from actions he took prior to his election to the office of sheriff, at a time when he was, or could have been, covered by a legal defense fund through the Deputy Sheriff's Association.
After his election to the office of sheriff he was still eligible to purchase coverage from the legal defense fund if he chose to. This legal defense fund covers all criminal investigations and any work related disciplinary actions with the exception of Brady issues.
Be that as it may, his lack of prior planning and the actions he took before he was elected should not be covered by my tax dollars, especially if it relates to him being dishonest.
Instead, the Government Code Section he is requesting representation under has an alternative resolution should his request be denied by the board.
Under Government Code Section 31000.6(b), Sheriff Rivero is entitled to an ex parte review of his request by a superior court judge. It is my opinion that such a review is the only way to be sure that we are legally and ethically required to expend taxpayer money for what essentially amounts to a private attorney.
Should the board be inclined to grant his request, I would urge them to consider requiring the attorney to be a local one, thereby keeping taxpayer money local, or at a minimum require him to use a law firm with which he does not have a previous or existing relationship.
I would like to add that if this request is related – as I believe it is – to the reports in the news media and Internet blogs that Sheriff Rivero is potentially receiving a “Brady” letter from the district attorney, it would be frivolous to pay an attorney to try to intervene at all.
The district attorney has a duty and a responsibility pursuant to the United States Supreme Court Decision in Brady vs. Maryland to disclose information on any witness who might testify in any matter if that information directly relates to their credibility.
It should also be noted that the district attorney has complete discretion and immunity in this area, so the sheriff obtaining a writ of mandate as he said he would in the previous Board of Supervisors meeting to stop the district attorney from doing what he is required to do under the law would be very unlikely.
Patrick McMahon lives in Middletown, Calif.
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed
written by a guest, February 23, 2012
written by Michigan J. Frog, February 21, 2012
Hey cartoon bear,
What? Are you kidding us? I find it ironic, ridiculous that a cartoon character uses the word "cartoon" as an offense about another one.
Maybe the abuse of mj has made the forgetful frog forget that Michigan J. Frog is also a cartoon? Remember Frog? Hello my baby, hello my honey, hello my ragtime gaaaal.
Now back to topic. You haven't answered my question.
Why was it OK for Rivero to reopen an investigation of Chief Clausen but is a waste of money for Anderson to investigate Rivero?
So, please stop toking for a few minutes so you won't forget to answer me.
Marzocco (a toad who doesn't like top hats or tap dancing).
-
- +6
-
-
written by a guest, February 23, 2012
The only thing worse would be McMahon being Sheriff.
-
- -4
-
-
written by YogiToBoo, February 23, 2012
"Sheriff Rivero, you know what this is all about. We on the board know what this is all about. The only people who don't know what this is about is the people of Lake County."
If Rivero ran on transparency, and he says he wants this investigation to go forward, why not come clean and show it all?
Rivero had no problem throwing trash at anyone who did not agree with his opinion or investigations on others. Rivero had no problem sending out Nixle Citizen Alerts attacking these people in the court of public opinion. Now, he pulls a double standard and goes mum..
The cost to the tax payers for what Anderson is doing is very little. It's not that difficult to put together a case about someone telling a lie. You look at one statement under oath, and you look at another statement under oath. If they don't match, Bingo. Done!
If he wants a lawyer for something he did as a deputy, he can have one. He just has to pay for it himself. We the people didn't tell him to change his story. He did & now's the time to answer.
Remember, Rivero stated the week before he's seeking a Writ of Mandate. He's trying to stop this investigation. (He can say, he welcomes it, but his lawyer will say "Nay" for him) In my opinion, he does not want the public to see all the different statements he made.
-
- +4
-
-
written by County Resident, February 23, 2012
-
- -6
-
-
written by cobbite, February 22, 2012
-
- +11
-
-
written by Vocal Local, February 22, 2012
You're right because he'd have been fired for other misconduct in my opinion. If you haven't read today's story on the BOS meeting you should. I think Frank's refusal to waive the conflict shows that my comments in the letter were on target. He could have legal representation by a county attorney if he did, but that's now not acceptable? This smells like a money grab to me. Frank's attorney was on the phone before his seat in the chamber had cooled. I think someone smells easy money, and it's our money they are after.
-
- +9
-
-
written by chrizzy, February 21, 2012
-
- -14
-
-
written by YogiToBoo, February 21, 2012
I haven't seen anyone defend Rivero "to the death."
Here, let me help you with that. Look in the mirror.
As for myself, I simply pose other possibilities. Like perhaps Anderson is threatening Rivero with some legal action that has NO MERIT. If so, just WHO is wasting taxpayers' money?
Where is your proof that it has no merit? It's not wasting taxpayers money if a defense lawyer wins a case based on Rivero's testimony if he is, or does end up on the Brady List.
It's up to Anderson to know the all the facts before he tries a case.
I also didn't hear you complain when Rivero spent $15,000 of our money for his one man PI lame report.
-
- +6
-
-
written by YogiToBoo, February 21, 2012
Blame game
written by Michigan J. Frog, February 21, 2012
"Shouldn't the blame for needless expenditure of county funds be placed squarely where it belongs? "
Do you mean Anderson?
Now, if you feel it's the fault of Anderson, please list & document the cost of each one. How about just a few?
-
- +1
-
-
written by a guest, February 21, 2012
-
- -8
-
-
written by Michigan J. Frog, February 21, 2012
I said bug off and stay on topic, half-wit.
-
- -11
-
-
written by YogiToBoo, February 21, 2012
needless expenditure of county funds
Please list & document the cost of each one.
-
- +2
-
-
written by ou812, February 21, 2012
-
- +7
-
-
written by YogiToBoo, February 21, 2012
I talked with Ranger Smith & he told me I'm fine, but thinks you suffer from multiple personality disorder.
So, once again answer the question.
-
- +6
-
-
written by a guest, February 21, 2012
-
- +6
-
-
written by Michigan J. Frog, February 21, 2012
What's your infatuation with "Dwaine"?
I haven't seen anyone defend Rivero "to the death." As for myself, I simply pose other possibilities. Like perhaps Anderson is threatening Rivero with some legal action that has NO MERIT. If so, just WHO is wasting taxpayers' money? You can make up your mind that Rivero is ALWAYS at fault, but rational sane people don't invent stories, jump to comclusions and have paranoia about other posters.
So every first post and last post on a topic is this Dwaine? And he changes his name just to make you mad?
Here's a simple question, cartoon bear, have you seen your psychiatrist lately?
-
- -10
-
-
written by YogiToBoo, February 21, 2012
I only know of one YogiToBoo with my email address which can be checked with LCN. Same with Marz, OU182, or even yourself hbhbglenn. Dwain has made it a habit to jump into the comments with wild rants and name calling. He screamed & yelled about those cowards who refused to use their real names, and now does the same himself. In my opinion, Dwain was caught in a number of lies & was wrong on many subjects. Instead of facing the music, he changed his name.
Anyone who has been reading the drama about Rivero & Anderson knows where I stand from my past posts. If I was to make up a new name, and act like I was impartial, then make new arguments against Rivero or Anderson, that would be deceptive.
-
- -2
-
-
written by hbhbglenn, February 21, 2012
-
- -5
-
-
written by YogiToBoo, February 21, 2012
How do we know Frog is Dwain? He always tries to get in the 1st & last word, defends Rivero to the death and posts under multiply names. So, here's the question you refused to answer last week.
Here's a simple question for you Mr. Frog. Have you ever posted here before under the name of Dwain or that little blue man? Simple yes or no.
-
- +2
-
-
written by Michigan J. Frog, February 21, 2012
Do you mean Anderson?
-
- -10
-
-
written by a guest, February 21, 2012
-
- -13
-
-
written by a guest, February 21, 2012
End of story.
-
- -10
-
-
written by guywithanopinion, February 21, 2012
In paragraph 3 of this editorial the author says: "It is well documented that Sheriff Rivero has a litigious past..." which insinuates that Rivero is involved with lawsuits. I would scratch my head on this one and expect a chief law enforcement officer to be just that, someone involved in matters of the law. Let's translate this piece for Comstock and the Board of Supervisors... "I do not like Rivero! He should not have an outside attorney. He should just be quiet and do his job!" Sound about right?
Clearly the Hatfields and McCoys are coming out again. Those for Rivero and those against him (for Anderson). I hope that Comstock and the Board read this comment and know that their are citizens who vote in this county who want the truth and justice to be served. I hope that they will look at ALL the evidence and make their decisions. I actually hope they do not base their decisions on anyone's editorial piece or comments. I can't wait to read the "BOO RIVERO!", "HOORAY RIVERO", and "HOORAY ANDERSON" comments that will surely follow mine.
Bottom line here: McMahon, the author of this, truly has an agenda that does not favor the Sheriff. McMahon would probably find himself on ANY other cause against the Sheriff. McMahon has cited some pertinent case law to support his case but began his research with a personal agenda. I hope the board's agenda is open and just. McMahon's point to keep money local is a noble one and one that I would normally support whole heartedly but the board, like myself and others, will need to consider who much influence Anderson has locally, or, more so, how much has Rivero pissed off other attorneys in this area.
-
- -11
-
-
Mr. Wizard: "Drizzle, Drazzle, Drozzle, Drome, Time for this one to come home" See ya later Frog ...