Guardian editorial: The real Mirkarimi question

08.01.12 - 12:42 pm |

(74)

Do you believe Eliana?

After more than five months of legal and political wrangling, after criminal prosecution and a guilty plea, misconduct charges that are costing both sides hundreds of thousands of dollars, and lengthy hearings at the Ethics Commission, the case against Ross Mirkarimi comes down to a simple question: Do you believe Eliana?

Because if you believe Eliana Lopez, and, tangentially, Linette Peralta Haynes, and take the testimony the two women have given under oath as credible, then the entire prosecution turns into something between a misguided disaster and a mean-spirited political vendetta.

Comments

I don't believe either of them. Eliana showed how little respect she had for the US system of justice when she urged Ross to "use your influence" to stop the investigation and Perlta-Haynes is scummier than the lowest level of prehistoric frog shit in a New Jersey slime swamp.

However I do know that Ross plead guilty of a criminal offense and that the sheriff should not be a criminal. Period.

Posted by Troll II on Aug. 01, 2012 @ 1:49 pm

Naturally, T-II managed to chime in first on a Mirkarimi story.

Just the same troll-scat; utterly without justification or merit.

Posted by lillipublicans on Aug. 01, 2012 @ 6:48 pm

Please go watch for hurricanes off our coast

I've heard their arrival is imminent!

Posted by Troll II on Aug. 01, 2012 @ 7:29 pm

T-II, a *ZERO* among zeroes.

Words fail me to describe how loathesome and worthless I find you to be. Here, and perhaps elsewhere -- I haven't looked -- you've evidently felt yourself to be correcting me with regard to the term "hurricane."

This is from the NOAA:
"hurricane" (the North Atlantic Ocean, the Northeast Pacific Ocean east of the dateline, or the South Pacific Ocean east of 160E)

Jackass, moron, idiot, cantaloupe... Troll II, if you were dog shit, then someone's pet would have to be taken to see the vet.

Posted by lillipublicans on Aug. 02, 2012 @ 8:36 pm

Well you took the time to respond!

Can't be that worthless, now can I? :-)

Posted by Troll II on Aug. 07, 2012 @ 1:26 pm

TROLL II is misguided

There's nothing in the stream of evidence countering the City's case that will persuade Troll II otherwise. A few like this one are intransigent thinkers with an inability to assimilate details conflicting with their rooted viewpoint, and reasonableness is lost on them. I'm perplexed as to why they comment at all, since what they hatch is purposeless name-calling. Name-calling and profane nastiness are a certain signal of the uneducated mind.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 01, 2012 @ 9:42 pm

Easy...so easy.

Easy to not want to look beyond the headlines ("Ross plead guilty of a criminal offense and that the sheriff should not be a criminal. Period.")

And easy to insult. (your first paragraph). You do both really well.

As far as Eliana telling Ross to "use his influence", well, she was in total disbelief at what Ivory Madison had done, and panicking because of what Ivory Madison had done, understandably. Use your power? Hell yeah. That's another way to look at it. Myself, I just finished reading Ivory Madison's graphic novel, which is all about ultra-violent revenge for an act of violence that happened long ago. Totally "over-the-top" violence+revenge...makes you wonder. As an artist, I find that usually artists, no matter the medium, have a tendency to spend time on things that they feel an affinity for...otherwise why spend so much time on something. That and other things I've read about Ivory Madison makes me wonder at her decision to call the police. And lest I forget, Ivory presents herself as a lawyer—both in the introduction of this novel as well as to Eliana—when in fact she is not. How about that?

As far as what you say about Peralta-Haynes--not even giving a reason for your remarks--I think says more about you than anything else.

Posted by Daniele E. on Aug. 02, 2012 @ 4:33 pm

Really? So no fiction writer

Really? So no fiction writer is credible as a witness if anything she's written can be stretched to be relevant to the possible real-life crime in question? When Mirk's lawyer first suggested that on the obnoxious Dan Noyes report I couldn't believe it, and I can't believe it now.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 07, 2012 @ 9:20 am

Speaking of "stretching"...

As i said, it was the content of her novel, as well as another thing revealed about her in the Bay Citizen (see for yourself), as well as the intro to her novel portraying her as a lawyer, as well as Eliana saying that she was made to think she was talking to a lawyer....that "makes me wonder". I can wonder, can't I?

And what I'm wondering about is character. Another thing I'm wondering about is credibility.

So don't play your simplistic game with me. This has nothing to do with what I may or may not feel about Mirkarimi. It has to do with what I took the time to find out about Madison. And I did say "wonder".

And there's even more than that, but I have to re-locate the source.

Posted by Daniele E. on Aug. 07, 2012 @ 11:00 am

The real Mirkarimi question

No, neither women are credible. Anyone who sat in the Ethics Commission hearing that night (July 18) when the women testified would know that it was "a misguided disaster" to coach these women to completely flip the situation (of Mirkarimi's plea) to blame and accuse people who were trying to help Ms. Lopez in the first place. It was also "a mean-spirited political vendetta." on the part of the sfbg in creating silly editorials written by both its editors and guest writers.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 01, 2012 @ 4:06 pm

REINSTATE our Sheriff now!!!

I absolutely believe Eliana and Sheriff Mirkarimi, theirs was a domestic argument like it happens in many marriages; theirs was a private matters. However, the Mayor's is a matter of political witch-hunt.
Eliana and Sheriff Mirkarimi speak the truth and as they go by more and more the person who actually looks like is lying is the Mayor. Just like he lied when he said that he wanted to be a temporary Mayor and he wasn't planning to run for the permanent position, but as soon as he had a taste of power he changed his mind and the rest is history.

Posted by Guest Cali-Citizen on Aug. 01, 2012 @ 5:42 pm

Did you believe Eliana on the video?

Frankly- I am not sure which version of the story I believe from Eliana. But I do know Ross plead guilty to a crime and is on probation- and therefore is morally unfit to be sheriff.

Posted by D.native on Aug. 02, 2012 @ 7:28 am

I believe Eliana on the video because she had no reason to

lie there and was clearly speaking spontaneously as she was scared for her life and that of her child.

Months later, after legal coaching, her statements are carefully scripted and nuanced. And I think she's lying. On the video she pointed to her bruise and said "it's happened before". now she claims it didn't. Pfffft.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 02, 2012 @ 8:25 am

Ross Mirkarimi for Mayor.

Recall Ed Lee.

Posted by lillipublicans on Aug. 01, 2012 @ 6:49 pm

No.

It's a very unfortunate situation all the way around. I genuinely feel bad for the family.

But I don't believe her. Simply too much inconsistency in her stories and actions.

Posted by Daniel in Diamond Heights on Aug. 01, 2012 @ 6:59 pm

Please name one

Please name one inconsistency. Thanks.

Posted by jccourt on Aug. 01, 2012 @ 7:29 pm

Hey ChrisCraft!!

I've been wondering when you were going to rejoin us and under which of your 6-7 monikers!

Posted by Troll II on Aug. 01, 2012 @ 7:44 pm

ChrisCraft has been here constantly posting under a whole slew

of handles, and also under "Guest" and "anon". She and Lilli comprise about 95% of all pro-Ross posts here.

Elaian lied about the "powerful man" line, about the number of times Ross hit her, and above all that she ran away and stays away rather than stand by her husband's side.

If she wants to be with Ross, then she now can be, yet she chooses not to be. Eliana wants Ross to get his paycheck back long enough to sue him for a big fat Venezualan divorce.

Then she won't give a crap about his wife-beating ass and, frankly, nor will anyone else.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 02, 2012 @ 7:35 am

Okay, one inconsistency for you

From the video:

"Because he did, he said that, that he's very powerful and he can, he can do it,"

From her testimony:

"He never said, 'I am a powerful man,' "

Any other questions?

Posted by Troll on Aug. 01, 2012 @ 8:34 pm

*That's* your best "inconsistency?"

D'ya know, what's eerily striking when watching the video is just how obviously pre-planned it was.

As I've indicated, I see no inconsistency in Lopez's or Haynes' stories -- and video stands on its own: cooked up by her lawyer Ivory Madison.

Posted by lillipublicans on Aug. 01, 2012 @ 9:40 pm

You see what you want to see Lilli

The video was pre-planned- yet her testimony at the hearing was also obviously well prepared- why dispute the veracity of one versus the other?

Posted by D.native on Aug. 02, 2012 @ 12:24 pm

hypocrisy

Those who now say they don't believe Lopez are showing hypocrisy. If she is not credible then the initial video and charges are not either. So why did they make such a big stink about an unproven claim by a woman they now denounce as "not credible"?

The reason is obvious to me. This is a political act to remove someone they don't want and who cares about the voters. If Lopez was blaming Mirkarimi they would all be writing about "poor Elaina". But now that Lopez has not followed their plans they attack her. What is nice is to show some honestly and admit this is a power play and has absolutely nothing to do with either DV or misconduct.

I have watched this sorry process for months. I have seen plenty of misconduct but mostly from Gascon, Lee, biased "witnesses" and so on. Why I ask are they never questioned while this family is being crucified. Shame on San Francisco for running this circus. More Shame on California for allowing this sham to go on unchecked and make a mockery of justice for all the world to watch in disbelief.

Posted by Avkanediv on Aug. 01, 2012 @ 7:41 pm

The sham which includes a sentence of 3 year probation

>' So why did they make such a big stink about an unproven claim by a woman they now denounce as "not credible"?"

Because shortly after the video appeared her husband plead guilty and was placed on 3 year probation. I notice that you somehow left that part out of your analysis

I'm not really sure of your qualification that allows you to speak 'for all the world'. I do think that many people would consider it quite rare for a public official to be convicted of a crime and to NOT resign immediately.

So I do think that many people are revolted that he didn't resign, but then again, I'm not qualified to speak for 'all the world' like you are.

Posted by Troll on Aug. 01, 2012 @ 10:19 pm

And you don't think the fact

And you don't think the fact that Gascon's top deputy over these prosecutions is an investor in Ivory Madison's Red Room company has anything to do with it? Or that the Chronicle never reported that fact -- it only was in the Wall Street Journal. Or that Madison clearly has a history of exaggerating and seeking vindictive punishment against men she believes have wronged men? Amazing.

Posted by CitiReport on Aug. 02, 2012 @ 6:44 pm

Amazing stretches of logic

Gascon's top deputy has WHAT to do with the current hearing?? And if you were referring to the earlier legal proceedings then you don't think that a judge made the rulings and not Gascon's deputy?

And no, I don't think that Madison's graphic novels have any relevance. I think that stretch really reeks of desperation. One is fiction and one is real life. If someone on the progressive side was being deemed unreliable because of their art then all we would hear from the SFBG crowd is how the moderate neanderthals don't even understand what art is.

Yup. Amazing.

Posted by Troll on Aug. 02, 2012 @ 8:24 pm

Good comment citireport. Yes this whole case stinks.

"Moderate neanderthals?" Troll, you do a disservice to neanderthals and a disservice to true moderates at the same time.

Posted by lillipublicans on Aug. 03, 2012 @ 7:59 am

Yep, neither Gascon nor Madison bruised Eliana.

And in fact, Madison was seeking to prevent it happening again, while it is Gascon's job to stop all such occurences.

And in case nobody noticed, Ross admitted it!

Posted by Guest on Aug. 03, 2012 @ 8:12 am

Hypocrisy

Posted by Avkanediv on Aug. 01, 2012 @ 7:43 pm

Akvanediv, good seeing your monicker and clear incisive

commentary on the Lee/Mirkarimi Matter.* Not sure if you still have an account on SFGate, but this site could benefit from more of your input, since few of those on the right side of the spectrum here have anywhere near your level of intelligence.

And there are just a handful of trolls here and they've got no capacity to report others' comments as abusive or otherwise have them censored, which is really refreshing.

*this, IMHO is how the story should be referenced in the history books.

Posted by lillipublicans on Aug. 01, 2012 @ 9:49 pm

No!

I don't believe Eliana however I understand she is trying to get the Sheriff his job back. Her making the video screwed him over royally. Her testimony was so scripted and rehearsed it looked as phony as she and their sham of a marriage. With that said it's time for the Sheriff to get back go work and for those two to figure out how they will raise a child in a loveless marriage.

Posted by MsUnderstanding on Aug. 01, 2012 @ 9:12 pm

"Do you believe

"Do you believe Eliana?"

Which Eliana am I supposed to believe - the Eliana of a few months ago, or the Eliana now?

What I do believe, despite all the posed photos of her happy "reunion" with Ross, is that she isn't coming back from Venezuela - at least not until she meets another "powerful" American who is capable of supporting her, which Ross can no longer do.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 02, 2012 @ 4:15 am

Thats the question

The Eliana who went complaining to the neighbors or the Eliana who stands by her man?

What a strange way for the Guardian to try and context this.

Posted by matlock on Aug. 02, 2012 @ 7:27 pm

Yes, I believe Eliana told

Yes, I believe Eliana told lies to her neighbors to set up her husband so she could gain full custody of their child. And only after she got what she wanted, was she willing to tell the "truth." Remember, she refused to talk to the police or DA during and, and to testify in the criminal trial. If she had just told truth then, her husband may have been acquitted.

Hopefully, her testimony at the EC was not too little, too late. And if she is not credible now, under oath, then her video and statements to the neighbors are also not credible. It's sad that good people like Ms. Haynes were caught up in Eliana's schemes.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 02, 2012 @ 7:03 am

So basically you think Eliana is a liar

I would agree with you- the question of course is when was she lying? Was she lying trying to get custody etc.? Possibly- or did she lie to the EC because now she wants (and probably never wanted) Ross to lose his job so that she can get child support and alimony??

Posted by D.native on Aug. 02, 2012 @ 7:26 am

I'm with you, D'native. Eliana is lying more now because,

although she is safely thousands of miles away from her abuser, she needs to sue for child support and alimony, and that is futile if Mirk has burned thru his net worth defending the undefendable.

Ross is playing "use it or lose it". He's rather give his cash to the lawyers than to Eliana. If he loses, there is nothing for her to go after. If he wins, then he's "a powerful man" again and will take his chances with her lawsuits.

They almost deserve each other.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 02, 2012 @ 8:23 am

Isn't the real Mirkarimi

Isn't the real Mirkarimi question "Did Mirkarimi plead guilty"?

Posted by Guest on Aug. 02, 2012 @ 7:12 am

We know Eliana lied because she changed several parts of her

story. The only thing we don't know is whether she was lying before or whether she was lying more recently.

The answer seems clear. When Eliana feared for her life and her child, she was telling Madison the truth. She had no reason to lie.

When Eliana had been coached by her vast legal team, she changed various stories to try and help Ross because him having no salary makes him useless to her.

So, Eliana's testimony to the EC was false. QED.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 02, 2012 @ 7:32 am

TIC

What about the question of the Mirkarimi family owning a TIC?!!

(Sorry to make light of this, I'm just so over this entire ordeal.)

Posted by Guest on Aug. 02, 2012 @ 8:59 am

If Mirk or his family or agents evicted tenants then

that doesn't invalidate his holding of the office of sheriff in the way that admitting a violent and abusive crimes does.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 02, 2012 @ 9:49 am

Oh snap! Ross owns a TIC?!

You know, at this point Ross is just Ross. Your standard power hungry political shitbag who wound up stepping over the line. Happens on both right and left.

But his remaining supporters??? Their ability to ignore the hypocrisy that all this man embodies is just bizarre... The dude could show up at a gawddamn Pro-Life rally and they'd just pretend it didn't happens.

The man who owns a Sig Sauer P229, a Beretta 92G, and a Smith & Wesson Model 19 .357-caliber magnum revolver. The man who lives in a TIC which undoubtedly removed a valuable unit of rental stock from the City. A man who roughs up his wife...

STAND WITH ROSS! lol... Yes, please, keep tying yourselves to this trainwreck.

Posted by Sambo on Aug. 02, 2012 @ 9:51 am

Great that you use the racist sobriquet to identify yourself

and help limn out the identity of your anti-Mirkarimi cohort.

It's like the bell on a cat's collar.

Posted by lillipublicans on Aug. 02, 2012 @ 8:46 pm

So when you can't refute an argument, Lilli, you resort to

cheap attacks and ad hominem attacks.

Real nice.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 02, 2012 @ 11:54 pm

It can't be known, since I have been able to easily refute

any arguments I've assessed.

All I can promise is that if you keep your lies cheap, I won't spend much effort dispatching them.

Posted by lillipublicans on Aug. 03, 2012 @ 6:23 am

That's odd because I can't recall you EVER winning a debate

here. Still, if believing otherwise gets you thru the night.

Calling out names and insults is still feeble and makes it look like you've got nothing else.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 03, 2012 @ 6:44 am

About Sambo

Sambo is a Russian martial art.

And that Lilli guy is one troubled individual. He lives his life to battle his 'enemies' on an internet board, like a cyber Darth Vader.

I would stay away.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 03, 2012 @ 6:27 am

Lilli always jumps to the wrong conclusion.

He's predictable like that.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 03, 2012 @ 6:46 am

Martial art, eh? Like naming yourself Judo. Must be a favorite

among racists here in America.

Posted by lillipublicans on Aug. 03, 2012 @ 7:06 am

Friend of mine was called Bo. Another martial arts term.

You really should get out more, Lilli, rather than make assumptions that turn out to make you look ignorant.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 03, 2012 @ 8:00 am

The TIC that Ross owns was in

The TIC that Ross owns was in a building that was burned--gutted. It was rebuilt, all the previous tenants were given the option of either returning or they were bought out. No one was evicted.

See what happens when you have a little knowledge i.e. that the building is a TIC--but not all the facts? The imagination wonders and wanders and you end up looking very silly for purporting to know the whole truth.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 08, 2012 @ 1:30 pm

I believe Eliana. Amazing

I believe Eliana.

Amazing that the views here draw so much attention from the trolls.

Posted by Victronix on Aug. 02, 2012 @ 10:09 am