Mayor vs. Mirkarimi

Rival politicians to take the witness stand in official misconduct hearings this week

|
(58)
Mayor Ed Lee will testify on the morning June 29, following Ross Mirkarimi's testimony on the evening of June 28.
EXAMINER FILE PHOTOS

steve@sfbg.com

For all the lawyers, investigators, witnesses, politicians, and political appointees involved in Mayor Ed Lee's official misconduct case against suspended Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi, this case is ultimately a battle between these two politicians, who come from rival ideological camps — and have a lot riding on the outcome of their clash.

And this week, both Mirkarimi and Lee are expected to take the witness stand and face tough questioning from each other's attorneys.

These first two rounds of live testimony before the Ethics Commission — which has been painstakingly setting up procedures for its inquiry, defining its scope, and making myriad rulings on what evidence and witnesses to allow — could be the emotional high point of hearings likely to drag on throughout the summer.

On June 28, after the commission finishes ruling on the admissibility of evidence — dealing mostly with the controversial testimony of Lee's star witness, Ivory Madison, the neighbor who triggered the police investigation that found Mirkarimi had grabbed his wife's arm during a Dec. 31 argument — Mirkarimi is expected to take the stand.

Given the tacks taken by each side so far, the deputy city attorneys representing Lee will likely try to ask Mirkarimi a broad array of questions about his actions and their wider implications, while his attorneys will seek to limit the line of inquiry to what they see as the narrow question of whether he committed specific acts of official misconduct.

"They're going to want to blast him with every single issue they can conjure up," said Mirkarimi attorney Shepherd Kopp. But he thinks the Ethics Commission "will limit it consistent with how they've been ruling on our objections," which has already greatly limited the case that Lee sought to present.

The next day, Lee is scheduled to take the stand, with Mirkarimi's attorneys planning to question the mayor about why he didn't conduct an investigation or seek more input from witnesses or former mayors before demanding Mirkarimi's resignation and suspending him without pay in March.

"The suspension was not done carefully with the best interests of the city at heart. It was a rash political decision that had little to do with the facts," Mirkarimi's other attorney, David Waggoner, told us.

Indeed, the city didn't begin gathering evidence until after the charges had been filed, and since then Lee and his team haven't been able to unearth much evidence in support of his most damning allegations that Mirkarimi tried to dissuade witnesses and thwart the police investigation, something that Mirkarimi and his attorneys have adamantly denied. In the absence of that evidence, Waggoner said Lee has stepped up his efforts to defame Mirkarimi publicly.

Lee told reporters on June 19 that he suspended Mirkarimi because he was "beating his wife," seeming to escalate the characterization of a single arm-grabbing incident. The city has also released the video that Madison made of Mirkarimi's wife tearfully recounting the incident and the couple's text messages, which made Mirkarimi look bad but don't offer much new information or evidence.

"He's panicking. The ship is going down and he's beginning to flail," Waggoner said of Lee's recent statements and actions. "The more the mayor uses that kind of rhetoric, the less credibility he has."

We sought responses and comments from the press secretaries for Lee and the City Attorney's Office, but both refused to comment for the record.

Ethics Commission Chair Benedict Hur has taken an increasingly strong role in running the hearings and limiting the ability of either side's attorney to control them. At the June 19 hearing, he cut off Deputy City Attorney Sherri Kaiser at least twice when she tried to offer unsolicited comments, at one point causing her to get visibly agitated and declare, "I'm objecting to the procedures for objecting to evidence."

Comments

Jason Grant Garza here ... here is the link to some of the paperwork regarding the Nurse Ratched letter I received that was sent to ETHICS from the MINISTRY of SUNSHINE.

Did the LAW change, did the RULES change did the DEFINITION change ???

Or is it someone with $$$ and lawyers as opposed to the POOR?

When JUSTICE costs ... we've ALL LOST.

"Telling the TRUTH during times of UNIVERSAL DECEIT is a REVOLUTIONARY Act." George Orwell.

Here's the link ... http://www.myownprivateguantanamo.com and click on the section:
Sheriff's Office, Sunshine, Ethics Commission,Human Rights Commission, Patient Advocacy, Inc re: Nurse Ratch

ENJOY ....

Posted by Jason Grant Garza on Jun. 27, 2012 @ 5:28 am

Yep, it definitely says that the Ethics Commission must "keep all complaints and related materials confidential until a probable cause determination can be made."

Posted by Terrrie Frye on Jun. 27, 2012 @ 11:13 am

So of course the information is public. And it should be - we the voters have a right to know who Ross really is, so we can give support to the politicians who will decide if he can ever have his job back.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 27, 2012 @ 11:35 am

Jason Grant Garza ... thank you Terrrie Frye ... I did also want to point out another comment I made in response to Troll's question regarding RULES and PROCEDURES ( see http://admin.sfbg.com/bruce/2012/05/08/editorial-mirkarimi-case-abominat... ) :

Jason Grant Garza here answering Troll's question .... "But because this in front of an Ethics Commission that hasn't even adopted evidentiary rules, one side has all the rights, and the other side has none." Can someone help me with this logic, please? If they haven't adopted rules then how can the rules be unfair to Ross. Do we just assume that, whatever they are, they will be unfair to Ross?"

It is the ART of ILLUSION and DECEPTION (another form of "Risk Management") in which the TALK is spoken but the ACTION is NIL. No rules ,etc ... why? Have there not been "OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT" cases before or were the RULES and PROCEDURES that dismissed them clear and evident and NOW there is an ATTEMPT to change them.

The example I can give is that gasoline (DUE PROCESS) is advertized and promoted a X ... everyone comes in and gets X ... Ross comes by and NOW it is Y (deep down we know we have been INCORRECT on X since it was NOT providing DUE PROCESS) and instead of correcting procedure to change ... ETHICS NOW want to change the X consequence to Y ( in mid stream) while NOT accounting to ALL for the INCORRECT X.) Similar to what the FAMOUS JOHN YOO approach was to PRISONER of WAR into an ENEMY COMBATANT in order to change what was before into a new process ... and we have all noted what DUE PROCESS they (Guantanamo) has received even the "INNOCENT" ones already declared by the White House.

The correct procedure would be for the ETHICS commission to "PAINT" this (dismiss) as all the others it has failed, .... THEN EXPLAIN the FAILURES and WHY, move to correct its failures (rules, procedures, etc) re-open all old cases and PROVIDE the JUSTICE that they failed on ... then and only then could any action be considered ETHICAL; however to try to do this to Ross, change in mid stream (rules, procedures for "OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT") is another UNETHICAL way to NOT accept responsibility for their (ETHICS COMMISSION) failure and pass a "FAST ONE" to the IGNORANT public.

So the SIMPLE answer is that the OLD RULES and PROCEDURE (ETHICS DISMISSAL of "OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT" cases - see SUNSHINE) applies to ROSS and if NOT ... this is HOW the CREATION of NEW RULES can be UNFAIR to Ross ... any more questions? Please note that while I do NOT agree nor condone what Ross has done admittedly ... I do NOT condone the witch hunt, different rules and "GOALPOST" movement ... if they can do with Ross ... why NOT us ... oh, Yeah they (the ETHICS COMMISSION) already did when it bogusly threw out the SUNSHINE's OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT referrals ... quite UNETHICALLY I might add and NOW that those rules aren't working they want a change and to forget, sweep under the rug, whitewash all their failures (ETHICS) of prior "OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT" charges.

Why don't you ask them about my NURSE RATCHED letter from the Sheriff and why that was dismissed (after a referral of OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT) ... go ahead I dare you ... by the way the ETHICS COMMISSION has not contacted me and informed me that their old rules were incorrect and that is why they are changing now for ROSS and if I wish to re-open my case ... wouldn't that be the ETHICAL thing to do ??? Again as I stated at the opening ... the ART of ILLUSION and DECEPTION ... how ETHICAL is that?

Posted by Jason Grant Garza on May. 10, 2012 @ 6:36 am

6/28/2012 : Oh and FYI ... I still await the HIPAA expert, my MEDICAL RECORDS, the MINISTRY holding the DCA and city attorney advise which denied and delayed receipt ACCOUNTABLE, the MINISTRY referring Barbara Garcia to ETHICS for case # 11099, the RESULT of Shields referral to ETHICS case # 10038, the scheduling of the IDR I sent Wolfe in Dec 2011, the list goes on ... yes, thanks for obviously looking at http://www.myownprivateguantanamo.com and coming to an "Informed" decision. Oh and I HAVE NOT GOTTEN a call from ETHICS regarding the RULES changing, the Definition (of Official Misconduct) changing NOR the LAW ... HOW ETHICAL IS THAT ???

Posted by Jason Grant Garza on Jun. 28, 2012 @ 10:30 am

Jason Grant Garza here ... WOW, what a feeling of complete and ultimate SCHADENFREUDE .... "Standards" and the Mayor's Testimony last night that was suddenly STOPPED? I hope his cross-examination begins IMMEDIATELY so that suspicion (appearance) will not be aroused regarding NOT speaking to anyone let us say in the City Attorney's Office.

Yes again SCHADENFREUDE ...

So I am confused what part of "while in office" for the Mazzola case while under consideration for sound legal footing while admitting that SAME standards should apply didn't he speak with or consult with the City Attorney over BEFORE bringing written charges?

Would this be the same City Attorney that had my case thrown out in Federal Court (C02-3485PJH) with Testilying in 2003 only to have signed a "confession/settlement" agreement with the Office of Inspector General in 2007 admitting fault and guilt and leaving its INNOCENT VINDICATED VICTIM for DEAD ... where are the standards, rules of conduct, professional ethical responsibilities ??? Go to http://www.myownprivateguantanamo.com to see the paperwork ... why has there been NO followup to this .... would it expose too much (at least what the standard is at the city attorney's office to win.) Let us NOT forget my FALSE and INJURIOUS 5150 at the hands of the City Attorney during my deposition for the above mentioned case (C02-3486PJH) which I consider bullying and intimidation; however, certainly not decent nor right action from my OFFICIALS. I still await HUMANITY, DECENCY, "made whole' CONTRITION. correction, admission ... the list goes on and on.

So just to be clear ... ETHICS dismisses NURSE RATCH (go to http://www.myownprivateguantanamo.com ) "while in OFFICE" - a violation found and referred by SUNSHINE yet should sit in determination to persecute Ross when he wasn't in office ... does the TERM ... ABUSE of POWER ring any bells? How about bullying? What standing ... what standards ... HOW ETHICAL IS THAT?

So just for "OFFICIAL COUNT" how many times during Ross' testimony did HIS (Ross') side object compared to the objections raised by the city during the BRIEF Mayor's testimony?

GO KOPP GO KOPP GO KOPP GO KOPP GO KOPP GO KOPP GO KOPP

Good thing there's a KOPP to keep things straight ...

Stay tuned and go to http://www.myownprivateguanatamo.com to see how the GAME is played.

ENJOY ....

Oh and by the way ... if I had been in the BUILDING during the ALLEGED bomb scare that they had to interrupt to move the MAYOR ... I certainly would not consider myself fodder not worthy of PUBLIC SAFETY concerns by my OFFICIALS ... oh not more "OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT" that falls below the standard ...

Posted by Jason Grant Garza on Jun. 30, 2012 @ 7:22 am

Rivals for sure: one beats women (ross) while the other (Mayor Lee) doesn't

Posted by Guest on Jun. 27, 2012 @ 12:27 pm

the city has taken away the family's income...a judge still won't let the family be together..the city is willing to spend megabucks to fly this san diego police fellow up here and put him up for several days in a fine sf hotel, meals, transport...much more money than it would cost to bring a direct witness here.. Why is the city soooo afraid of actually hearing what Eliana Lopez has to say??? Why is Eliana less important than a police chief whose own department is messed up with ethics problems down in San Diego, a police chief who doesn't know any of the parties here in San Francisco.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 27, 2012 @ 8:51 am

sunning herself thousands of miles away and demanding to be PAID to give support for her husband.

Eliana is as bad as Ross is - maybe they deserve each other.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 27, 2012 @ 9:23 am

she's been taking care of her dying dad, her child, and doing some film work. Because you have such low regard for women, and because you are trembling at how she might testify, if given the direct chance..you have to attack her.

The city has called her as a witness.This is after they chased her out of the country. They are willing with taxpayer money to pay a san diego police chief and a psychobabble east bay lawyer who thinks all men are abusers, both "witnesses" who haven't witnessed diddly squat. They never thought that Eliana would be strong enough to agree to testify, now they're all quivery about her ability to blow gaping holes in their ludicrous case.
I say, Bring her on.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 27, 2012 @ 11:37 am

She went willingly rather than stay and support Ross.

It doesn't really matter what Eliana says as we already have the testimony on video and first hand from Ivory.

Eliana's testimony will be self-serving as she wants Ross to get his salary back, of course. Nothing that she or Ross says can be trusted.

The DV laws are what they are, and were put in place by liberals like Ross. That they can work against an official when he commits violent crimes is just too bad.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 27, 2012 @ 11:44 am

Clearly they're trembling at the thought of Ivory Madison's testimony and looking forward to attacking her, an act which Mirkarimi's attorney is looking forward to and one which he even considers "fun."

Of course, not to mention, that had Ross held women in higher regard and not considered them chattel which he could withhold food from when he wanted, then he wouldn't be in this position to begin with.

Posted by Troll II on Jun. 27, 2012 @ 11:50 am

witness their home life and Eliana's suffering first hand. As such, her testimony carries far more weight than anything self-serving that Ross or Eliana might dream up.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 27, 2012 @ 12:02 pm

look at Dan Noyes ABC 7 I-team investigation into Ivory Madison's "activity" between the time she got Eliana to let her make a videotape..supposedly in confidence for a potential custody battle..Looks like Mrs. Mertens was busy sending out "embellished" accounts of things she'd never observed to enlist the assistance from some elite and powerful friends in destroying Ross Mirkarimi and his family...before she EVER called the police. read the transcript, watch the story and weep

Posted by Guest on Jun. 29, 2012 @ 5:24 pm

for reelection. She's been giving lots of press conferences lately where she claims the same conspiracy which is after Ross is after Chavez too - Eliana sees conspiracies lurking everywhere.

Eliana also just loves autocrats who subvert democracy for their own aims. Why - she even tried to encourage Ross to do the same thing here in San Francisco when she asked him to use his "influence" to stop the investigation!

Perhaps, if El Presidente survives his latest battle with cancer (which isn't likely) she can be appointed Commissar of the Arts or something like that - and keep her ass down in Venezuela.

Posted by Troll II on Jun. 27, 2012 @ 12:10 pm

apologist, although of course it makes perfect sense.

And now she is demanding to be paid to come back and support her husband"

Posted by Guest on Jun. 27, 2012 @ 12:21 pm

One would think so, from the viciousness of the comments here.

And let's not forget that Ross is Iranian, his wife Venezuelan and neither country's government is in favor with the U.S.

Posted by Guest Ann Garrison on Jun. 27, 2012 @ 12:15 pm

But she has hired lawyers, telling us she is worried about her actions. And she has contradicted herself although, so far, not under oath.

She's also not within US jurisdiction so unless she comes back, any illegality on her part is moot.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 27, 2012 @ 12:29 pm

Since when? Eliana is a citizen of Venezuela. Ross is a citizen of the United States. The connections you're drawing are tenuous at best.

Posted by Troll II on Jun. 27, 2012 @ 12:48 pm

And how can she get away with that unless she paints Ross as something he is not?

That's what happens when you try too hard and have an over-arching prejudice.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 27, 2012 @ 12:55 pm

Is Madison on trial?

One would think so, from the viciousness of the comments here.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 27, 2012 @ 9:31 pm

Because she is just going to lie. I have come to the conclusion that she is worse than her husband. I am not trying to take away from the abuse that I believe he inflicted on her - both physical and emotional. But, throughout this entire circus neither she nor Ross have taken any responsibility for their actions. It is a fact that some of the actions that set this whole thing in motion were hers. She went to Ivory Madison and told her of the abuse and let herself be videotaped. And then all of a sudden decided she was not being abused, her marriage was fine and the entire thing was a political witch hunt. I understand that a lot of abuse victims recant their stories out of fear of reprisal, low self-esteem, love - whatever. The problem with her is that she talks too much - to the press, to anyone willing to listen. First she says that no one asked her what happen - when in fact the police and district attorneys' offices tried, but she refused to cooperate with them. Then she doesn't want anyone seeing the video (which I understand), but went out of her way to draw attention to it by giving interviews, writing letters to the editor, etc. That did more to peak peoples interest in it than anything else. I have to ask myself why she keeps throwing herself out there to be heard when she says she just wants to be left alone to rebuild her life.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 27, 2012 @ 9:28 am

It seems clear that her machinations with Ivory were predicated on the idea of building up a body of evidence for a future fight over a divorce settlement and custody of their child.

Where this backfired on Eliana (and she isn't the brightest bulb in the box was that she did not anticipate Ross getting fired and losing his job over this. And, to be fair to her, a lot of people didn't realise how the DV machine works, including the writers at SFBG.

So now she's looking at a lousy divorce settlement. She's safe from physical harm now, and that's good. But she's just flapping around in the slipstream at this point.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 27, 2012 @ 9:53 am

she continues to petition the court to allow her and her son to rejoin with their husband/father?

Posted by Guest on Jun. 27, 2012 @ 11:40 am

last 3 months, but she chose to be elsewhere.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 27, 2012 @ 11:45 am

without the court forcing her husband to leave their family home. Do you understand that? She is asking for travel expenses from Venezuela for one day of testimony..returning the next day to be with her family there.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 29, 2012 @ 5:27 pm

After what it has done, in violation of California State law.

Posted by Guest Ann Garrison on Jun. 27, 2012 @ 11:42 am

although one might then reasonably ask why she has a lawyer. Or three.

Ross of course has already admitted to committing violent crimes.

If Eliana thinks anyone here except Ross owes her alimony or child support or maintenance, then she should get off her ass and return here to face questions.

And if she wants a big payday, she should sue the husband who abuses and assaulted her. Nobody should profit from the commission of a crime.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 27, 2012 @ 11:48 am

Which laws has San Francisco violated in pursuing a domestic violence complaint against her abusive husband? Statute please.

Posted by Troll II on Jun. 27, 2012 @ 11:52 am

never allows facts or the truth to interfere with her politically-inspired machinations.

Hmm, could she be Craft/Dootie/Coppermom etc?

Posted by Guest on Jun. 27, 2012 @ 12:04 pm

You can sneer all you want, but it doesn't make what you say true.

Posted by Guest Ann Garrison on Jun. 27, 2012 @ 1:57 pm

recently who has adopted a kneejerk apologist support for our wife-beating sheriff is a woman who left as soon as she was busted for posting here under multiple handles to create the illusion of there being a bedrock of support for our ostensibly unsupportable, criminally violent sheriff.

So maybe you got caught in the shrapnel and fallout from that denouement. But you're not doing yourself any favors here by endlessly defending the indefensible.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 27, 2012 @ 2:09 pm

Answer the question. Specifically - what statutes has SF violated in prosecuting criminal Mirkarimi?

Posted by Troll II on Jun. 27, 2012 @ 2:23 pm

@Guest. What this city has done to the wife Eliana Lopez and her family, while pretending to be protecting her, is despicable. Thanks.

Posted by jccourt on Jun. 27, 2012 @ 9:29 pm

Welcome back!

Posted by Troll II on Jun. 27, 2012 @ 9:43 pm

ChrisCraft, Dootsie and Coppermom vanish.

Coincidence?

Posted by Guest on Jun. 28, 2012 @ 2:58 am

try "pique"

Posted by Guest on Jun. 27, 2012 @ 11:38 am

I wish the chicken-shit "Guests" would have the courage to include their names.

Posted by Terrrie Frye on Jun. 27, 2012 @ 11:20 am

sign this post with a "real" name, so you can see what I mean.

Focus on the message, rather than who you think the messenger may or may not be.

Posted by Terrie Frye on Jun. 27, 2012 @ 11:33 am

>"I wish the chicken-shit "Guests" would have the courage to include their names."

Did it ever occur to you that, if their name is somewhat unique, that giving it out means giving out their phone # and physical address? Maybe they don't want other 'commenters' phoning or coming over to their house at night.

And what is it to you, anyway? Do you want our real names so that you can get even with us for disagreeing?

Posted by Troll on Jun. 27, 2012 @ 9:42 pm

If so I missed it; there's more press on this than I can keep up with, far more than there was on the November citywide elections in which Ross got more first ranked choice votes than Mayor Ed Lee.

I spoke to him for the KPFA Evening News on Saturday, 06.16.2012: http://www.anngarrison.com/audio/sheriff-ross-mirkarimi-in-san-francisco...

Posted by Guest Ann Garrison on Jun. 27, 2012 @ 11:45 am

"Ross's own words" although, reading it, it had obviously been crafted by his small army of lawyers, and told us very little of the real truth.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 27, 2012 @ 12:00 pm

Mirkarimi's conduct did. Had Mirkarimi not abused his wife in front of their child then there never would have been an investigation to begin with!

Posted by Troll II on Jun. 27, 2012 @ 11:46 am

and trying to protect a woman at risk.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 27, 2012 @ 11:59 am

I assume they mean she triggered the investigation when she made a call to the cops in which she didn't intend to name the parties involved.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 27, 2012 @ 9:33 pm

Rivals for sure one beats and abuses women (ross) while the other one (Mayor Lee) doesn't.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 27, 2012 @ 12:21 pm

Ross was violent towards his wife.

Now admittedly, she has hardly presented herself as a sympathetic victim but that's not a reason to retain as sheriff a guy with clearly a long history of abuse and hostility.

I genuinely believe that Lee is a good guy trying to do the right thing. Ross, OTOH, was never more than an opportunist with a control problem.

Justice is being done.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 27, 2012 @ 12:33 pm

...can anyone tell me why the SFPD denied me my Constitutional right to equal protection under the law? I am a violent crime survivor, and was disallowed from pursuing my attacker by the same government agencies now claiming the moral high ground in the name of public safety.

The case against Ross sends a very clear message to criminals in this town: you will never be prosecuted unless you become an elected official who dares to demand that police do their jobs.

Posted by Erika McDonald on Jun. 27, 2012 @ 4:43 pm

Can we refocus on Erika please?

Posted by Troll II on Jun. 27, 2012 @ 4:58 pm

Once again, the trolls are licking the dog-shit from my boot-heel and calling it chocolate. ROFLMAO!

Posted by Erika McDonald on Jun. 27, 2012 @ 5:20 pm

95% of the irrelevant pro-Ross posts here are about women, most of whom i will near guarantee you are single and staying that way

Posted by Guest on Jun. 27, 2012 @ 5:27 pm