Judge denies Mirkarimi motions; city process begins Monday

|
(35)
Ross Mirkarimi and attorney David Waggoner (background) addressed reporters after today's hearing.
Guardian photo by Steven T. Jones

Superior Court Judge Harold Kahn today denied all motions by Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi's legal team challenging his suspension without pay, city procedures, and the constitutionality of the city's official misconduct charter language, saying it's premature to conclude Mirkarimi isn't being treated fairly.

“But the courthouse door remains open,” Kahn concluded, inviting Mirkarimi to return after the Ethics Commission establishes rules of procedure and evidence, which it will begin doing on Monday. Today's rulings, and another yesterday, in which Kahn ruled against a motion to disqualify the City Attorney's Office from overseeing the proceedings, clears the way for the Ethics Commission to consider recommending to the Board of Supervisors that Mirkarimi be removed from office.

Kahn also seemed to agree with Mirkarimi's team that Mayor Ed Lee didn't give him a fair hearing before suspending him or that he made an argument for suspending him without pay. But Kahn sided with the city on the legal question of whether Mirkarimi has a “property interest” in his salary, which would have triggered the right to a hearing before being suspended, making such procedural questions moot.

“If there was a property right, what the mayor stated would not be adequate due process,” Kahn said, referring to Lee's affidavit describing their March 19 meeting, where Lee told Mirkarimi to resign or be suspended. Lee claims he gave Mirkarimi the opportunity to tell his side of the story, which Mirkarimi denies, saying the mayor had made up his mind and wasn't interested in the real story. On the salary question, Deputy City Attorney Sherri Kaiser said Mirkarimi would be entitled to full back pay from his suspension period if the supervisors vote to keep him in office, arguing that he isn't being harmed.

Mirkarimi was suspended based on language in the city charter that was adopted in 1996 – banning “conduct that falls below the standard of decency, good faith and right action impliedly required of all public officers” – that has never been reviewed by the courts and which Mirkarimi attorney David Waggoner contends is unconstitutionally vague.

But Kahn didn't agree, saying, “The charter is not so clearly outside the bounds of California law that I should preempt the processes.”

Waggoner complained that the city procedures didn't set rules of evidence or procedure or standards of guilt, making it difficult to prepare a defense, a point to which Kahn seemed sympathetic, noting the variety of legal standards for different types of cases, from “beyond reasonable doubt” to “a preponderance of evidence.”

“We don't know which of any of those is going to apply here. Is that a problem?” Kahn asked Kaiser.

She said no, that Mirkarimi and his legal team could return to court for help “if the commissioners really mess up” in the work they'll begin on Monday. “That summarizes my view. It is hypothetical to say the procedures are going to be unfair,” Kahn agreed. 

Addressing reporters after the hearing, Kaiser praised the judge's rulings and offered a small window into what will likely transpire in the coming months: “Certainly, the sheriff is going to have to testify under oath and not just to the media.” (Waggoner told reporters “no comment” when asked whether Mirkarimi will indeed testify under oath).

Kaiser's apparent dig at the various media interviews that Mirkarimi has just started to grant this week echoes statements that have come from District Attorney George Gascón, who has criticized Mirkarimi's characterization of his guilty plea and the behaviors that constituted false imprisonment, calling the media accounts “disturbing and telling.”

But Mirkarimi shot back at Gascón today, noting that the two men “have had some very high-profile disagreements” when Gascón was police chief and Mirkarimi chaired the Board of Supervisors Public Safety Committee. They had high-profile clashes over requiring police to do foot patrols, the crime lab controversy, budget issues (including Mirkarimi's unsuccessful efforts to find out how much Mayor Gavin Newsom's police security detail was costing the city as he ran for governor), and Gascón's controversial public statement equating people of Middle Eastern descent (such as Mirkarimi, who is Persian) with terrorists.

“It sometimes bubbles up in the course of these proceedings,” Mirkarimi said of Gascón's alleged personal or political animosity toward him.

Asked for a response, District Attorney's Office spokeperson Stephanie Ong Stillman wrote, "“It is the duty of the San Francisco District Attorney to uphold the law,
regardless of who violates it and without political motivation.  Ross Mirkarimi was afforded the same rights as any defendant. We treated his case no differently than any of the 776 domestic violence cases our office charged and reviewed last year."

Comments

Let's have the ethics committee hearings and then we can reach a final assessment.

But I have to say it looks grim for Ross, and I just don't see a way abck for him at this point.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 20, 2012 @ 2:51 pm

"We called the District Attorney's Office for a response and we'll update this post when we hear back."
Why don't you listen to KCBS's "Indepth" this weekend? District Attorney George Gascón will be the guest on the program

Posted by Guest on Apr. 20, 2012 @ 4:14 pm

"Why don't you listen to KCBS's "Indepth" this weekend? District Attorney George Gascón will be the guest on the program"

Why waste one's time with that? I'd have to be very well paid to listen to what he has to say about anything.

Off Topic: This is the first I've heard about this:

Google:

The Pending Sale of the Bay Guardian to the Examiner Makes Sense

The story is in today's East Bay Express

Posted by Guest on Apr. 20, 2012 @ 4:55 pm

The KQED inverview was interesting.

Ross sald he has been too "testosterone-packaged."

Good term. Good way to describe a man who says goodbye to his girlfriend at the airport, attends an environmental conference in Brazil, and comes home with a pregnant Venezuelan soap opera star.

He also said he thinks about "evaporating as a person."

Is he hinting that he may committ suicide?

The soap opera continues...

but things are not looking good for the suspended sheriff.

Posted by Troll the XIV on Apr. 20, 2012 @ 4:42 pm

"But Mirkarimi shot back at Gascón today, noting that the two men “have had some very high-profile disagreements” when Gascón was police chief."

So, it truly is a right-wing conspiracy against the man?

Mirkarimi is digging his hole deeper and deeper.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 20, 2012 @ 4:44 pm

"We called the District Attorney's Office for a response and we'll update this post when we hear back."

A response about what? That the DA is baised against Ross.

As noted above, he is making the situation worse for himself.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 20, 2012 @ 4:47 pm

Ross never seemed to require much in the way of evidence for the rote progressive positions he took whilst on the Board of Supervisors. (plastic bag ban etc)

He never seemed concerned when the city was "illegally taking" from most people in this city. (see his support for rent control, increased taxes etc)

Now the shoe is on the other foot.

I enjoyed it for a while, now he's become so pathetic I find myself turning away.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 20, 2012 @ 6:00 pm

Since you find yourself turning away, does that mean you won't be back to troll?

Posted by Guest on Apr. 20, 2012 @ 9:44 pm

like a sleepy driver jerking back towards the roadway once the Botts Dots start announcing their presence... but we can hope, right?

Posted by lillipublicans on Apr. 21, 2012 @ 11:48 pm

It was easily predictable that Judge Kahn would send the matter back to the ethics commission. let see what happens.

@guest you say: " I just don't see a way abck for him at this point."

It is too soon to predict anything. Thanks.

Note: This case is a total waste of resources by the judicial branch of government.

The DA should never have prosecuted this case against the wishes and without the support of Eliana Lopez.

In order to protect Eliana, they proceeded to destroy her family, it is unconscionable, despicable, and uncivilized. Thanks.

Posted by jccourt on Apr. 20, 2012 @ 6:17 pm

Eliana Lopez never wanted her husband and her family to be destroyed, when she agreed to the shenanigans engineered by her neighbor. (that video)

Posted by jccourt on Apr. 20, 2012 @ 6:32 pm

>"The DA should never have prosecuted this case against the wishes and without the support of Eliana Lopez."

Yeah. Unfortunately that's not the way that the law workd. And yes, sadly, our laws do apply to Progressives. Granted that Progressives are our saviors in so many ways but they are still not exempt from our laws. A sad state of affairs, I know, but that's the way it is.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 20, 2012 @ 6:48 pm

prosecute an abusive spouse without the testimony of the abused spouse.

A Progressive hoisted on his own petard indeed.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 21, 2012 @ 8:14 am

@Guest you say: "Yeah. Unfortunately that's not the way that the law workd."

And you say: "not exempt from our laws"

The supreme court decision Crawford V. Washington is clear.

"Dispensing with confrontation because testimony is obviously reliable is akin to dispensing with jury trial because a defendant is obviously guilty. This is not what the Sixth Amendment prescribes."

Anyone can make a video accusing you of anything, was it scripted, directed, coerced? It does not matter, your accuser(s) needs to show up in court, so that your attorney can question them. (confrontation) Thanks.

Posted by jccourt on Apr. 21, 2012 @ 8:27 am

So Bruce, happily esconced in fully-paid-for and amortized real estate, is willing to cut the Bay Guardian loose and live off his rental properties?

Say it aint so Tim!

Posted by Guest on Apr. 20, 2012 @ 8:20 pm

I posted something about that up above. The pending-sale (sounds like it's about to happen) is talked about on several websites, but, not on the Guardian site. They're closed-mouth about it on here, not a word. A very silly approach. All this hush-hush approach. They could at least mention it and talk a little about it (even if they refuse to give details) rather than have readers to this site learn about it elsewhere. Crazy. Sort of reminds me of years ago when KPFA was having a problem and they had a gag order for the on-air people. They were not supposed to talk about problems at the station, even though the listeners who sent money to the station wanted to know what was going on at the station. It's different in this case other than the absurd silence on here from the Guardian staff about the pending sale. (I'm not surprised by any of this). But what's wrong with talking about it?...when one can read about it on another site, even some details about it.

It's called communication (skills).

Posted by Guest on Apr. 20, 2012 @ 9:42 pm

This is the biggest news since PG&E went to Burning Man.

Posted by marcos on Apr. 21, 2012 @ 6:43 am

Turns out the socialists were capitalists after all, and the flock that followed them are out in the cold.

Hypocrisy, thy name is Bruce.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 21, 2012 @ 8:12 am

When there's something to report, we will do so. It doesn't serve anyone for us to talk about possible deals before they are done, although I don't begrudge the other newspapers their curiosity or speculation. Be patient, when there is something to report, we will do so here in detail. But I can assure you that the Guardian won't be compromising the values that we've held and espoused for 46 years.

Posted by steven on Apr. 21, 2012 @ 10:09 am

Because 'corporate owned weekly's still suck,' right?

Posted by Nate on Apr. 21, 2012 @ 11:31 am

then you clearly have no idea what socialism is. Liberals and progressives are not anti-capitalists, rather they believe capitalism can be regulated or reformed.

Posted by Michael W. on Apr. 21, 2012 @ 3:39 pm

The SFBG is socialist by almost any reasonable standard that applies in the US. they hate success, wealth, business and freedom, and favor big government and higher taxes.

QED.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 21, 2012 @ 5:18 pm

"opportunist about freedom"

Posted by Matlock on Apr. 21, 2012 @ 7:31 pm

Based on that, what would you know about reasonable?

Whatever they (BG) are for, you're against it (and I do know their views from reading their articles over the years so I don't need to list what they are for and that's not the reason you are here anyway). You talk about what they "hate." I think the hate is in your mind, which is sad. That sums it up. That leaves me to ask rhetorically, why do you come here? You don't have to answer that because I already know why you come here, and it's not for the content.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 21, 2012 @ 9:40 pm

Mirkarimi's interview after the hearing was pretty lame. He notes that he looks forward to calling the Mayor as a witness but when asked whether he'll testify himself, he goes silent. Is he going to invoke the 5th? I do hope his lawyers are giving him some criminal legal advice. If he testifies, he could end up incriminating himself on more charges.

Posted by The Commish on Apr. 21, 2012 @ 8:44 am

Well, it is well-known that Bruce and his employees do not get along. Some of the ill-will goes way back to when he busted the union at SFBG.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 21, 2012 @ 8:45 am

Speaking as a Guardian employee of nine years, it's just not accurate to say we don't get along with Bruce. We all like him and have a tremendous amount of respect for his life's work, the Guardian, and we want it to continue to play an important role in San Francisco.

Posted by steven on Apr. 21, 2012 @ 10:14 am
Posted by Guest on Apr. 21, 2012 @ 12:05 pm

the ramifications of their business winding down in public, although the Guardian types are happy to read things into all sorts of developments in other such cases.

One wonders though, why does Bruce lawsuit Brugman not sell the company to the employees and form coop, or are the financial straights that bad?

It would be interesting to have the lowly sales people and account managers have the same say in the business as the Red Guard political types like Steve and Tim. That meeting I would pay to watch.

Posted by Matlock on Apr. 21, 2012 @ 12:37 pm

Where there's smoke, there's usually fire....

Has it occurred to anyone else that karnarimi is a misogynist-

Well that's my conclusion.....
He wanted to legalize prostitution and create public brothels owned by the city where women would sell their bodies in order to make money for the city...

Tell me I'm not the only one that thinks this is sick-

So called "progressives" really do go too sometimes...

Womanizers are often misogynists......this is a classic tale of a skirt-chasing ruthless politician whose a narcissist at heart....

Why anyone would buy is BS is beyond me.....

Posted by Pamela Nice on Apr. 21, 2012 @ 9:29 am

"He wanted to legalize prostitution and create public brothels owned by the city where women would sell their bodies in order to make money for the city...
Tell me I'm not the only one that thinks this is sick-"

It's only "sick" to a prude.
Fact: Many places around the world have legalized prostitution (I prefer to call them sex workers) or areas for it and brothels and not only do women "sell their bodies" but so do guys. There are many male sex workers. You need to get out more and stop worrying about "progressives," troll. You only show your ignorance by posting here.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 21, 2012 @ 1:33 pm

Not that I care either way that much, but I would love to see Mirkarimi advocate such weirdness.

Posted by Matlock on Apr. 21, 2012 @ 7:42 pm

Jason Grant Garza here ... ETHICS at the ETHICS commission ... wasn't St. Croix found guilty of "OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT" by the SUNSHINE TASK FORCE? What about all the ORDERS of DETERMINATION for "OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT" that get shot down by ETHICS form the Sunshine Task Force (MINISTRY of SUNSHINE - city's risk-management shill) ? They seemed to have "GROUND RULES" to do this ... so how this is ROSS matter any different? Don't the same GROUND RULES apply?

So what does the comment above in the article mean: " “But the courthouse door remains open,” Kahn concluded, inviting Mirkarimi to return after the Ethics Commission establishes rules of procedure and evidence, which it will begin doing on Monday. " Does that mean that I can come back to court with my closed case by ETHICS over an "OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT" for the Nurse Ratched case that they closed in a a closed hearing? Since the rules and procedures on evidence are being ESTABLISHED .... does that ESTABLISH that I DID NOT have "DUE PROCESS?" As a matter of fact the Nurse Ratched case was reported here in the SF Bay Guardian ... ask them. Didn't the Civil Grand Jury find these faults with the ETHICS COMMISSION and does it NOT operate out of the superior court .... so why wasn't this repaired before? So if the CRIME LAB had to dismiss and re-open cases because of unfair process .... what is different here with the failed rigged process at ETHICS (sunshine referrals for Official Misconduct) and when will the cases be re-opened. It is similar to what I have asked the MINISTRY of SUNSHINE regarding its rigged voting process (that it recently changed) where as an example in case # 10038 I had 5 out of 6 votes and would have won under the new correct rules; however, under the old rigged rules ... they shot it down ... Am I not entitled to "DUE PROCESS" and will the MINISTRY reopen the cases? Don't hold your breathe ....

Interestingly enough if you type my name into a google search engine you read here at SF BAY GUARDIAN an article where I received a NURSE RATCHED letter in response to a record request thru SUNSHINE that was sent to ETHICS ... want to bet the OUTCOME ??? What is the difference? You could also ask about the referral on case # 10038 from SUNSHINE that went to SUNSHINE ... would you like to see the OUTCOME?

Yes, VIRGINIA ,,, SANTA CLAUS is NOT ONLY VERY MUCH ALIVE ... the ETHICS COMMISSION has ETHICS ... shall I tell you about writing them (ETHICS) with the CITY ATTORNEY"S HANDBOOK definition of "OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT' in my NURSE RATCHED case and what response I got? Would you believe NOTHING, NADA, ZIP.

Isn't Scott Wiener's Office interested in SUNSHINE's cost ... what about the MONEY that the city saves ( since SUNSHINE and ETHICS are a FARCE) and when the individual uses these "RIGGED" process ... they give up. GREAT "RISK MANAGEMENT" SHILL action ... FALSE HOPE, FALSE PROCESS and FALSE OUTCOME sort of like GARBAGE in , GARBAGE out. Wasn't there an article in the BAY GUARDIAN regarding ETHICS, the MINISTRY of SUNSHINE and the constant GOING NOWHERE with the MINISTRY's ORDER of DETERMINATION for "OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT' that is sent to ETHICS for ENFORCEMENT ??? Yes, the BIGGER the LIE ... the MORE the (sheep - people) will believe it.

Isn't it UNETHICAL not to ASK THESE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS ???

Please type my name into a google search engine and read how the city BROKE FEDERAL LAW, had my case dismissed in FEDERAL COURT (c02-3485PJH) by TESTILYING only to sign a confession (settlement agreement) years later with the OFFICE of INSPECTOR GENERAL to whom they paid a FINE yet LEFT their INNOCENT VINDICATED VICTIM for DEAD. NO JUSTICE, NO REMEDY, NO HOPE and NO HUMANITY. Any more questions ...

So where are ... were the ETHICS ... will the MINISTRY of SUNSHINE ask why their referrals are STRUCK DOWN and how this (Ross') Official Misconduct is any different than NURSE RATCHED, or ST. Croix and I believe Ms. Gomez from the Library?

Just thought I would ask the question for "REASONABLE" men.

Posted by Jason Grant Garza on Apr. 22, 2012 @ 6:41 am

If it is true what Mirkarimi has claimed, that he and Gascón had many public disagreements, then is it still okay for Gascón to be the presiding judge over this case? There is a chance that their previous disagreements and bad blood could affect his judgement and made him biased against Mirkarimi. Though lawyers and judges are expected to stay neutral, it is only human that some might take things too personally.

Posted by Simon on May. 09, 2012 @ 8:23 pm

Using your standard no one is qualified to participate in this case because, basically, Mirkarimi was a giant asshole during his political career and alienated everyone around him.

Sorry - he should have thought about that before he burned all his bridges.

Posted by Troll II on May. 09, 2012 @ 9:36 pm

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.