Correspondence that ended Friday, February 12, 2009, led - following initial resistance - to acceptance of complaints against the Sheriff’s Department by the Office of the Los Angeles County Ombudsman, Stephanie Maxberry. The complaints included a wide range of alleged wrongdoings, from false imprisonments and false hospitalizations, to operation of falsely registered booking terminals and large-scale financial corruption in bail/bond services. However, in the course of such correspondence it was clarified that the Ombudsman was not authorized to initiate her own investigations, or to engage in any criminal investigation. She was only authorized to review the complaint procedure as implemented by the Sheriff’s Department itself, and help in ensuring that complaints filed with the Sheriff’s Department were in fact adequately investigated.
Therefore, in an effort to satisfy all requirements, four complaints were filed and/or re-filed with Office of Sheriff Lee Baca. The complaints were concomitantly filed with Office of the Ombudsman, with a request that the Ombudsman help in ensuring adequate investigation of the complaints:
COMPLAINT #1: False arrest and booking data for the falsely hospitalized Attorney Richard Fine, which the Sheriffs Department refused to correct.
COMPLAINT #1: False arrest and booking data for the falsely hospitalized Attorney Richard Fine, which the Sheriffs Department refused to correct.
It was alleged that upon investigation it would be found that the Sheriff’s Department was operating falsely registered booking terminals, which were left registered under the no-longer existing Municipal Courts, which were abolished almost a decade ago. Therefore, in the case of Richard Fine, where no warrant or other legal foundation for the arrest existed, the booking was conducted through a terminal registered under the no-longer existent Municipal Court of the City of San Pedro. In fact, Richard Fine was arrested in the City of Los Angeles. However, following extensive correspondence, including intervention by the Honorable Michael Antonovich, LA County Supervisor, the Sheriff’s Department refused to correct the false data, which were published online regarding Richard Fine’s arrest and booking. Moreover, the Sheriff’s Department finally explained its refusal to allow access to Richard Fine’s arrest or booking papers by stating that California Public Records Act did not require the production of papers which did not exist! [1]
COMPLAINT #2: False or missing information regarding arrest and booking of numerous inmates held by the Sheriffs Department
Survey of data from the Sheriff’s Department online Inmate Information Center demonstrated that the Department published false and deliberately misleading records as the foundation for the arrest and jailing of a large number of inmates. [2] Such conduct was inconsistent with compliance with the Human, Constitutional, and Civil Rights of the 10 million residents of Los Angeles County. The Sheriff’s online Inmate Information Center was claimed to be a hazard for the Liberty of all. It was alleged that such conduct was part of a pattern of large-scale false imprisonments, which were never addressed since the Rampart scandal (1998-2000). [3]
COMPLAINT #3: False hospitalizations with no probable medical cause, appearing as cover up for false imprisonments of dissidents.
The complaint noticed the cases of Attorney Richard Fine and Attorney Ronald Gottschalk, two senior attorneys who had filed complaints pertaining to corruption of judges of the Los Angeles Superior Court, and were subsequently falsely hospitalized. However, additional cases of this sort were also discovered in the past few months. It was claimed that Dr John H Clark, Chief Medical Officer of the Sheriff’s Department must be held accountable for such abuses. Richard Fine has been falsely hospitalized for almost a year, with no ailment at all. [4]
COMPLAINT #4: Alleged widespread corruption in bail/bond operation based on evidence pertaining to bail/bond of Attorney Ronald Gottschalk.
COMPLAINT #2: False or missing information regarding arrest and booking of numerous inmates held by the Sheriffs Department
Survey of data from the Sheriff’s Department online Inmate Information Center demonstrated that the Department published false and deliberately misleading records as the foundation for the arrest and jailing of a large number of inmates. [2] Such conduct was inconsistent with compliance with the Human, Constitutional, and Civil Rights of the 10 million residents of Los Angeles County. The Sheriff’s online Inmate Information Center was claimed to be a hazard for the Liberty of all. It was alleged that such conduct was part of a pattern of large-scale false imprisonments, which were never addressed since the Rampart scandal (1998-2000). [3]
COMPLAINT #3: False hospitalizations with no probable medical cause, appearing as cover up for false imprisonments of dissidents.
The complaint noticed the cases of Attorney Richard Fine and Attorney Ronald Gottschalk, two senior attorneys who had filed complaints pertaining to corruption of judges of the Los Angeles Superior Court, and were subsequently falsely hospitalized. However, additional cases of this sort were also discovered in the past few months. It was claimed that Dr John H Clark, Chief Medical Officer of the Sheriff’s Department must be held accountable for such abuses. Richard Fine has been falsely hospitalized for almost a year, with no ailment at all. [4]
COMPLAINT #4: Alleged widespread corruption in bail/bond operation based on evidence pertaining to bail/bond of Attorney Ronald Gottschalk.
Although the complaint detailed the data relative to bail/bond services for Attorney Ronald Gottschalk, additional cases were identified that demonstrated large scale corruption in bail/bond services. In the specific case of Attorney Gottschalk, the bond was stated by the inmate to have been set at close to half a million dollars, and over $40,000 was paid in cash for first year bond. Moreover, a lien was placed on real property for the remainder of the bond amount. However, the online Inmate Information Center listed the respective bond at $0.00, and the facts in several cases demonstrated that bail/bond service companies refused to provide any documentation of the actual financial bond transactions with the Sheriff’s Department. It was alleged that upon investigation it would be found that large- scale embezzlement of public funds was underway. [5]
It remained to be seen how the justice system of Los Angeles County would investigate itself. The precedent – from the Rampart scandal demonstrated that the County was unable to address its own corruption, and the Blue Ribbon Review Panel report (2006), recommended “external investigation”. Unfortunately, US agencies refuse to perform their duties in this respect for the past couple of decades.
Links
[1] Correspondence of Sheriff Lee Baca with office of LA Supervisor Michael Antonovich: http://www.scribd.com/doc/25555341/10-01-08-Supervisor-Antonovich-Los-Angeles-County-repeat-mailing-of-January-8-2010-response-from-Sheriff-Lee-Baca-in-re-Richard-Fine-papers-inclu
[2] False or missing data regarding legal foundation of the jailing of numerous inmates, data surveys of the Sheriff’s Inmate Information Center:
[3] Review of large-scale false imprisonments in Los Angeles County, uncovered during the Rampart scandal investigation (1998-2000). The Rampart FIPs (Falsely Imprisoned Persons) were never released to this date:
[4] False hospitalizations by the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, as retaliation against dissidents:
[5] Complaint filed with the Sheriff’s Department in re: Corruption of bail/bond services:
No comments:
Post a Comment