Ethics Commission rejects Mirkarimi delay request

|
(143)
The Mirkarimi case has generated intense media and political scrutiny.
Luke Thomas/Fog City Journal

The Ethics Commission – in a decision made by Chair Benedict Hur, to whom the commission had given the authority to make procedural decisions – today rejected a request by attorneys for suspended Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi to delay transfer of his official misconduct case to the Board of Supervisors until after the Nov. 6 election.

Mirkarimi's attorneys argued that the decision has been overly politicized during the election season, with supervisorial challengers turning the decision into a litmus test and interest groups polling voters on whether they would be more likely to reject supervisors who voted for reinstating Mirkarimi. The City Charter requires the board to act within 30 days of receiving the official record from Ethics, which will probably happen early next week.

“The fate of the sheriff has been made a key political issue in the election by the media, candidates, consultants, mayoral appointees to commissions, and others. Sending the record to the Board immediately prior to an election deprives the Sheriff of a neutral decision-maker, as guaranteed by the Due Process clauses of the 5th and 14th Amendments,” attorney David Waggoner wrote to the commission on Sept. 10, attaching eight articles and campaign pieces linking the Mirkarimi decision to the supervisorial races.

But Hur disagreed. “There is no evidence suggesting that any member of the Board of Supervisors will disregard the facts and the law and instead vote to sustain the charges based upon perceived political pressure,” he wrote. Actually, he argued that “granting the Sheriff's request would cause the Commission to engage in the type of political maneuvering that it seeks to avoid. The commission will not manipulate the timing of the Board's decision in a misguided attempt to predict the nadir of public pressure on the Supervisors.”

Mirkarimi told the Guardian that he was disappointed by the decision, noting that it was Mayor Ed Lee's piling on of excessive charges that the commission found no evidence to support that have delayed the board's deliberations until the height of the election season. “This is so vividly and transparently political.”

Comments

Well, simple enuf, lilli. You frequently ask people "Citation please", so just provide the citation from the city charter to show that "Official misconduct is conduct occuring while in office". You know...the one that 4 commissions, and possibly 5, missed.

I know you have it....otherwise it would seem as if you *are* just blithering mindlessly, saying whatever comes to mind and hoping no one notices that it isn't true

Posted by Another Guest on Sep. 15, 2012 @ 11:59 am

You countered with a non-sequitur.

You claim that the various far-fetched interpretations of four political hacks on the "ethics commission" allow them to do something the legislative analyst in 1995 assured San Francisco voters that they would not be able to do.

The voters were told that the 1995 Prop E was not making any substantive changes to the ethics law and *never* before had it been used to remove an official for an act which took place not connected to his official duties in government -- let alone an act which took place before he was in office.

And remember: we are talking about Ross' turning the family van around and an momentary arm grab; nothing *at* *all* like the severe beating that yahoo-related thug Mayer committed -- which only elicits obnoxiously stupid comments from you lying reactionary haters.

Posted by lillipublicans on Sep. 15, 2012 @ 12:46 pm

Another Guest needing badly info
you said ust provide the citation from the city charter ....that show ...Official misconduct ...while in office ....Simple enough to grant your wish
I hope even the words "official" dont you know that means while in office or you no capisce
Here is the law
e) OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT. Official misconduct means any wrongful behavior by a public officer in relation to the duties of his or her office, willful in its character, including any failure, refusal or neglect of an officer to perform any duty enjoined on him or her by law, or conduct that falls below the standard of decency, good faith and right action impliedly required of all public officers and including any violation of a specific conflict of interest or governmental ethics law. When any City law provides that a violation of the law constitutes or is deemed official misconduct, the conduct is covered by this definition and may subject the person to discipline and/or removal from office. (Amended November 2001; March 2002; November 2003)
AGAIN official misconduct is “public” related to the duties of office even “conduct” of decency , good faith and right action” LOOK at what follows that clause EVERYTHINNG follows that only points to the public duties of office as the sentence completes, “including any violation of a specific conflict of interest or governmental ethics law.

Posted by thatsthewayitis on Sep. 15, 2012 @ 3:40 pm

Here is the law
e) OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT. Official misconduct means any wrongful behavior by a public officer in relation to the duties of his or her office, willful in its character, including any failure, refusal or neglect of an officer to perform any duty enjoined on him or her by law, or conduct that falls below the standard of decency, good faith and right action impliedly required of all public officers and including any violation of a specific conflict of interest or governmental ethics law. When any City law provides that a violation of the law constitutes or is deemed official misconduct, the conduct is covered by this definition and may subject the person to discipline and/or removal from office. (Amended November 2001; March 2002; November 2003)
AGAIN official misconduct is “public” related to the duties of office even “conduct” of decency , good faith and right action” LOOK at what follows that clause EVERYTHINNG follows that only points to the public duties of office as the sentence completes, “including any violation of a specific conflict of interest or governmental ethics law.

Posted by thatsthewayitis on Sep. 15, 2012 @ 3:45 pm

interpretation of the last clause of the first sentence which takes it to stand alone from all the clauses preceding it and uniquely *not* be referring to and modifying the first part of the sentence; taking it to refer to *any* conduct *anywhere* which "falls below the standard of decency, good faith and right action impliedly required of all public officers" is official misconduct -- and, of course, just ignoring the context-providing follow up sentence that "When any City law provides that a violation of the law constitutes or is deemed official misconduct, the conduct is covered by this definition and may subject the person to discipline and/or removal from office." -- is certainly grounds for a recall based on gross incompetence.

The other three commissioners who voted to uphold charges used logical chicanery which was only slightly less obvious due to its outrageous complexity: suggesting that Ross Mirkarimi's New Years Eve act of turning the van around and briefly grabbing his wife's arm was an act which carried forward into the next year... and his future official duties... because...

No. I forget. Too complicated to hold all those thought twists in mind at one time.

Posted by lillipublicans on Sep. 15, 2012 @ 4:18 pm

Okay, @lilli...this thing started when you made some blanket statement saying "Official misconduct is conduct occuring while in office". And I asked you for a citation, which you couldn't do. Just saying that your citation is 'The City Charter' isn't a citation. For most people that would be a pathetic response. Even grading for you on a curve it is still remarkably weak.

Just another example of how you pontificate meaningless pablum and expect people to accept it as the truth. But when someone calls you on it you just throw a childlike tantrum.

Again.

Posted by Another Guest on Sep. 15, 2012 @ 6:32 pm

Sorry guys. I stand with lilli here.
First of all, I can attest to SFGate being full of thug-like people, with their one-dimensional views of "throw the bum out". The minute I shed some light on the credibility issues (which are real) of Madison and Mayor Lee, I was censored immediately. Then when I called them on their censorship (in a quite civilized way), that comment too was summarily deleted. That was shocking to me.

“…conduct that falls below the standard of decency, good faith and right action impliedly required of all public officers”…Seems like that’s what we’re up against here. Sorry guys, but conviction or no conviction (cause I know y’all love to hide behind that word) turning the car around during the heat of an argument, and leaving a bruise on your wife’s arm notwithstanding, cannot be equated w/ the story of the yahoo guy…even though I see *you* see no difference. See my comment about “one-dimensionality”.

This is a story of people who rightly try to see what is going on vs people who like to sanitize human behavior to right vs wrong with no room for anything in between. As John Lennon once said in a popular song: “Living is easy with eyes closed…misunderstanding all you see”….

Posted by Daniele E. on Sep. 16, 2012 @ 10:53 am

Right on. That criminal conviction never happened, no matter how many 'one dimensional' people say that it did. We say that it didn't. So it didn't. Never happened.

Ross was driving his family home from a lovely dinner and, being ever so considerate, attempted to gently guide his wife's arm as she was helping to get Theo out of the car. For some reason she jerked her arm away and bruised it. Then she made a video of the bruise. That's all.

End of story.

Posted by Steroidal Progressive on Sep. 16, 2012 @ 2:32 pm

Like I said: one-dimensional. And reactive: I never said the conviction doesn't exist, I said to look at what the "conviction" actually is about. Like looking behind the curtain. But some people who take the easy route, who take the "us vs them" approach to life, won't bother. This way, they can just have someone to bash. It's the easy way to look at life/people. There are enemies, and then there are your friends.

Go ahead and paint that lovely fairytale picture that you did. But even though you're pretending that that's what I do, it's not the world I live in. But it seems to illustrate perfectly what I was describing earlier. The Norman Rockwell, romantic view of life vs the "throw the bum out" view of life. Enjoy.

Posted by Daniele E. on Sep. 16, 2012 @ 3:23 pm

Thanks for explaining.

So yes, Ross was convicted of a crime but *we* don't consider it to be much of a crime. Only the 'one dimensional' types out there consider a guilty plea to be a evidence of a crime, without making their own judgement as to whether it counts or not.

Is that better?

Posted by Steroidal Progressive on Sep. 16, 2012 @ 5:14 pm

Of course we who have reason upon reason to question the witch hunt being perpetrated against Ross Mirkarimi have been accused of it by those accursed trolls who afflict this site, but it is -- of course! -- the other way around.

Previously, when one such troll misspelled "arm grab" -- I was given a cue to reminisce about former governor -- and then- candidate -- Arnold Schwarzenegger's humble admission that he'd committed a series of abusive acts towards women in his life; these same trolls who pontificate at length about Ross' momentary lapse *never* spent any time writing critically of the governator.

They are not just one-dimensional. It's far more complex to by hypocritical.

Posted by lillipublicans on Sep. 16, 2012 @ 5:22 pm

Like all progressive logic it makes sense in a created world sort of way, The logic here is that Mirkarimi doesn't think politicians should be judged by there actions... when it effects him.

Posted by matlock on Sep. 15, 2012 @ 3:27 am

at least Ross can spell. The concept is really simple. It's called "making a record". No one will ever be able to say or argue, say in front of an appellate court, that nothing was done to stop this trainwreck which will ultimately cost the city and county great, uneeded expense.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 15, 2012 @ 12:22 pm

even necessary to realize that fact... affect/effect

Posted by lillipublicans on Sep. 15, 2012 @ 1:08 pm

It's a good thing Mirk didn't kill someone just before taking office - lillipublican would be arguing that the SF city charter prohibited the BOS from considering the murder in judging Mirk's fitness for office.

You know - either the DV laws are too strict, or they aren't. If you think they are too strict, work to make them less strict. You don't get to argue for a one-off exception for your Golden Progressive.

Maybe I missed it, but I haven't seen the Guardian editorializing that the DV laws generally are too strict - they just think that their favorite Progressive politician should get a pass.

Posted by Politics Is Fun! on Sep. 15, 2012 @ 10:48 am

WHY wouldn’t the Anti-Domestic Violence movement (assuming they are not "politically motivated" by Funding Willie Brown/Gavin Newsom/ Ed Lee/Rose Pak etc. Rather do at RECALL and let democracy rule who should be Sheriff? Instead of enthusiastically going along with Lee/Willie Brown/Gavin Newsom/Rose Pak et al. and along with that goes voter fraud perjury jury tampering influence peddling corruption no bid contracts.

IF the anti Domestic Violence supported a Democratic Election Recall of the Sheriff it could provide:
1) An incredible opportunity to teach the entire city what Domestic Violence REALLY is they could have pictures of Eliana's arm to make their case.
2) Raise money for the movement
3) They can Remove Ross (because people will understand DV issue from this case).
4) Sensitize the public about the devastation that DV leaves in its wake
5) Importantly uphold Democracy because the people behind Ed Lee's charges are a Syndicate who perpetrate and are accused of perjury, jury tampering, voter fraud, influencing a witness influence peddling (Willie Brown) Gavin "etc" Newsom who appointed Gascon as DA (now re-elected) and who is there to never prosecute their criminal activity. A great reason for the anti-DV movement to embrace a RECALL election is to uphold democracy … why would the DV movement want to be tainted with the corruption of Willie Brown,Newsom, Ed Lee, Rose Pak and the control they exert over SF government to the detriment of our city !

Posted by thatsthewayitis on Sep. 15, 2012 @ 4:03 pm

Was it the crime of DV or false imprisonment....any notion of DV is interpreted through a 3 rd party one Ivory Madison who is she what was her involvement was she Joan of Arc, or as she describes herself "an ineffective assasin"
"Still, I knew I was Hamlet in the corporate castle. My “real life” was my volunteer leftist activism and my intellectualism. My true desire was to write social justice manifestos, scholarly treatises, to immerse myself in the world of ideas."
"I have to say I would like to be the face of radical, post-postmodern, bisexual, ecofeminist, socialist, communitarian, humanist, legal thought and activism in the new millennium."
"“I found that it was much easier for me to lobby legislators about domestic violence than to leave my abuser. Even after I finally escaped, I didn’t want to think about my victimization. I wanted to be a hero. I still do.”
So Ivorty notes her failure to act heroically in her own stated DV situation she expresses the desire to "act heroically" and she took Eliana's situation and placed her directed her in the filming showing she had a black and blue on her upper inner arm. HOW did Ivory direct her in Eliana's sworn affidavit (courtesy of CitiR Larry Bush) "According to Lopez’ declaration, Madison coached Lopez repeatedly to say “Screw him” with regard to Mirkarimi, urged that Lopez not shower, appear in the video without makeup, still wearing pajamas, “so that I looked as disheveled as possible.”
RATHER than this being anti DV's last stand as the Willie Brown machine is setting up it is the machine using a woman with unresolved issues who placed Eliana in a position she did not want to be in. So the DV issue is lost in the power grab of the machine to control yet another elected office .....

Posted by thatsthewayitis on Sep. 15, 2012 @ 4:14 pm

Just my opinion as I haven't met her, but she seems too intelligent to want all the things she has claimed to have wanted *and* act as we know she did in regard to this case. Maybe I'm giving her too much credit though.

Posted by lillipublicans on Sep. 15, 2012 @ 4:42 pm

What did she get out of it? No interviews, no book deal etc. seems she was genuinely trying to do the right thing in a very difficult situation.

Posted by D. Native on Sep. 15, 2012 @ 5:12 pm

Trying to "do the right thing"!! you know what if youve lived in this world you KNOW when someone has your best interests at heart ...for those that dont know ....THAT feels sooo good ...someone that cares.
On the other hand WE all know when someone has USED us pretending to care and ....again for those that dont know that fees horrible a betrayal .
Time for a quiz how do you think Eliana feels about Ivory Madison?

Posted by thatsthewayitis on Sep. 15, 2012 @ 5:58 pm

“I realize that what was reported … was truly a desire to help my family,”

- Ross Mirkarimi
3/12/2012

Posted by Guest on Sep. 15, 2012 @ 6:28 pm

Really to be frank I have given my opinions on the RM matter ....in my comments despite those thinking it was agenda driven it was not. It was principle driven based upon an election by voters we call the system democracy. What RM said could be what he believed. I cannot speak to what he "believes" or even says he "believes"
What I do comment on is the strange story in which the person who the most to do with this occupied a very strange role, Ivory Madison. RM's legal team did not explore her motives or what drove her to proceed against the strong wishes of Eliana. We do have Ivory Madison's writings in which one could feel she expresses deeply felt emotions and thougts.
I stand by my comment that when someone does somethbing to "help" or cares about someone wnen that is real the recipient of that care melts it touches one very deeply and is unmistakeable your cant fake that but you dont know it until the act occurs. Ivory Madison riding to the rescue as SHE puts in relation to DV
"“I found that it was much easier for me to lobby legislators about domestic violence than to leave my abuser. Even after I finally escaped, I didn’t want to think about my victimization. I wanted to be a hero. I still do.”
We can see she regrets her inaction in her own stated DV situation and longs for the time speaking directly about DV "I wanted to be a hero I still do"
Eliana and RM had custody and other issues whatever happened Ivory appears to have highjjacked that situation and created another in which she rides to the rescue of a Damsel which hinted at DV in other words it was magnified so Ivory could live out her expressed dream to be a "hero".That is cooroborated by how Ivory manipulated the circumstances around the film how she prepared Eliana these measures that she took were stated according to Eliana's sworn affidavit (courtesy of CitiR L. Bush)
"According to Lopez’ declaration, Madison coached Lopez repeatedly to say “Screw him” with regard to Mirkarimi, urged that Lopez not shower, appear in the video without makeup, still wearing pajamas, “so that I looked as disheveled as possible.” I look at all of this which hardly was presented to the public and the EC.

Posted by thatsthewayitis on Sep. 15, 2012 @ 7:17 pm
Posted by lillipublicans on Sep. 15, 2012 @ 6:03 pm

I forgot that you are incapable of looking at this case objectively.

Posted by D. Native on Sep. 15, 2012 @ 7:57 pm

with him as being "paid" to post here. It just doesn't occur to him that ordinary joe's see this very differently from his highly politicized version.

The irony is that it is Lilli here who most acts like he is being paid to post. He won't let a single anti-Ross post go without responding - he must have posted thousands of times on this topic, and all on a website with about 20 readers!

Posted by Guest on Sep. 17, 2012 @ 5:03 pm

hence the 52 weeks of DV counseling as part of the criminal sentence.

Posted by D. Native on Sep. 16, 2012 @ 6:08 am

RM took responsibility for the misdemeanor of "false imprisonment" and accetpted 52 weeks of Domestic Violence counseling the act in question occurred on 12/31/2011 BEFORE he was sworn in as Sheriff. The issue is a Sheriff chosen by the voters of SF ....you dont like him? fine do the recall that is easy the Syndicate of Willie Brown and that election fraud specialist Ed Lee will pay for it. ITS callled Democracy do you like Democracy?

Posted by thatsthewayitis on Sep. 16, 2012 @ 4:08 pm

Eliana or whether it was a few days before. The important thing is that his abuse of Eliana was not an item of information that the voters knew when they elected him. Had they known that, Ross would have lost the election, as he would if it were held now.

Moreover, that act renders him incapable of serving the people in that role, partly because of the conflicts of interest thereby generated, and partly because he can no longer command respect or trust.

It is the same arrogance that caused ross to abuse his wife that now causes him not to bow to the inevitable. Lee was right to fire him and the people support Lee in that by a huge majority, as every poll so far has shown.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 16, 2012 @ 4:30 pm

Does it matter that Ed Lee committs perjury jury tampering and did so in the action against RM you said it doesnt matter ....well that may be your opinion but the charter amendment makes that essential so it doesnt matter what your opinion or mine is......This is overturning a democratic election you found out after the election? is that your problem that is why we have "RECALL" election you no capisce that this is a democratically elected official.You go on talk about commanding respect Ed Lee committs perjury election fraud influence peddling money laundering (Go Lorrie case the Archway Andrew Hawkins case voter fraud in Chinatown) IS he still mayor does he as you put it "Command respect" As far as polls go there was one RM was elected that is called democracy you like "the little liar perjurer influence peddler voter fraud specialist Ed Lee him YOU respect. That puts in perspective your view.

Posted by thatsthewayitis on Sep. 16, 2012 @ 4:54 pm

Walker's sordid hearsay allegation was denied by all parties and witnesses who were actually present at the time.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 17, 2012 @ 9:58 am

because there's been no investigation. There's been no investigation because the "Ethics Commission" and the DA are part of the Brown/Pak/Lee team.

Also, of course, you "sordidly" haven't honestly been looking for such evidence.

In addition to Walker's initial off-the-cuff reaction to Lee's claim -- made during a surprise hiatus in Lee's testimony where he suddenly had to be scurried to safety not only from a supposed bomb, but a certain grilling he was undergoing concerning his performance during this witch hut -- there is more.

For one, Olague's interesting reaction to being asked about it -- a long pause and suggestion she might have to recuse herself before later saying that no such conversation between Lee and her had taken place. (By the way, this was done to the media and not under oath where she might have been cross examined: was she contacted through an *intermediary* of Lee's? as apparently was Aaron Peskin?)

And yes, we have Aaron Peskin's testimony to being so contacted through an intermediary and Peskin's hightly suggestive phone record to back up his claim.

Troll, don't try to get wordy here, it simply reveals your lack of intellectual power all the more; i.e. "sordid."

Posted by lillipublicans on Sep. 17, 2012 @ 10:44 am

because some nutjob called in a bomb threat? That's a stretch.

the simple fact is that there is no evidence or proof - just speculation of the type you engaged in.

And of course Walker is a Ross supporter, so no bias or temptation to cause rouble there, huh?

Walker has been refuted by all the other parties who were actually present at the time, which she was NOT.

So there is nothing to investigate.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 17, 2012 @ 11:08 am

reactionary propagandists such as yourself -- or dupes of the same.

This pattern of baseless reactionary inference in regard to Ross Mirkarimi's persecution promoted by Brown/Pak/Lee machine has been well established through such statements as that from "his honor" calling the sheriff a "wife beater."

So, no. I only *suspect* Ed Lee is a perjurer; but I *do* know he is a liar (i.e. "wife beater").

Again, there is more smoke than Ed Lee's suspicious disappearance and Walker's off-the-cuff reaction to his interupted testimony: there is also Aaron Peskin's account and his phone records to back it up.

And you, *obviously*, sidestep the constellation of clues suggesting Lee is a felony perjurer because you have no intellectual integrity and a *completely* justifiable investigation looking into such might tend to completely discredit this outrageous extralegal process to overturn an election that the Lee machine has organized.

Yes. It just might.

Posted by lillipublicans on Sep. 17, 2012 @ 1:32 pm

Intellectual integrity. Of course.

Hey, that Peskin "phone" record that you cling to so dearly? Did it come from Ed Lee? Does it prove in any way that Walter Wong wasn't free lancing? Does it make any reference to a job offer?

Aren't there about a dozen very plausible explanations for your "phone" record? Other than the one that your simple mind clings to ?

OK, @lilli. This is the point where you've you slink away rather than further exposing what a moron you are.

Posted by Another Guest on Sep. 17, 2012 @ 2:25 pm

Of course, the original use of "at" is to preceed mention of unit pricing, and in recent times it is used to refer to "physical" location such as with email, but in this sort of internet forum, I suspect it is generally intended to convey a sort of insult implicit in the a + circle components of its makeup.

To be plain: @ = A + circle = A + hole = Asshole.

By extension, (@) might mean "big asshole."

(@) Another Guest, just want to be sure you get *my* meaning.

Anyhow, your straw man argumentation doesn't help establish that there isn't good reason to investigate the possibility of Lee's perjury in this matter -- which would obviously be such a clear case of "OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT" it would make the "Ethics Commission's" intellectual circumlocutions over Ross Mirkarimi seem more ridiculous than they already do.

DA Gascon first said he'd defer to the EC, then when they punted, he grew silent.

Posted by lillipublicans on Sep. 17, 2012 @ 3:07 pm

a troublemaker. Why would anyone believe her?

Posted by Guest on Sep. 17, 2012 @ 3:20 pm

while maintaining that there is no cause to put Walker, Olague, Peskin and Wong under oath in the matter is quite suspicious. To paraphrase The Bard, you argue *too* much.

It all comes down to this: in this nakedly political scheme gone wrong -- a scheme to defeat the American principle of democracy by overturning an election after-the-fact -- the mayor made himself look ever so much more guilty than his quarry.

I think the people of San Francsico have *already* noticed and you are here feebly attempting to do damage control.

Posted by lillipublicans on Sep. 17, 2012 @ 3:59 pm
Posted by Guest on Sep. 17, 2012 @ 4:29 pm

Only the mayor was evacuated ....." Courtesy of Wikepedia "During the Ethics Commission hearing on Friday, June 29, 2012, following the Mayor's testimony in which he allegedly committed perjury by saying he had not consulted with anyone on his decision to remove Mirkirimi,[28][29] the Ethics Commission Chair announced that the hearing was being suspended and the room would need to be cleared immediately, without further explanation, while Mayor Lee’s security detail escorted the Mayor out of the room. Although the SF Examiner later reported that a "high-priority call" which was a bomb threat had come in "at almost exactly the same time that Lee began to testify", at 1:06 p.m., the cross-examination of Mayor Lee by attorney Shepard Kopp was not interrupted until 1:28 p.m., 22 minutes later.[36] None of the other estimated 900 people in San Francisco City Hall were told to evacuate, despite the claim that a bomb threat had been made on the building. City Hall building manager Rob Reiter said that, "One of the things we were trying to do was not to induce panic". A second reason, according to Reiter, was that San Francisco Sheriff's staff had reported that the explosive device was planted outside City Hall, possibly in the hedges or in a car, and so Reiter said that he didn’t want to risk sending people into a potential danger zone when exiting the building.[37] No explanation was given as to how the Mayor knew where to exit the building. One report suggests that Lee was seen going to his second floor City Hall office, closing the door, and did not re-appear in public for at least ninety minutes.[38] The hearing resumed at 3:01 p.m.

Posted by thatsthewayitis on Sep. 17, 2012 @ 6:15 pm

I see your arrogant pronouncements of what the outcome of the election would be; I see you arrogating power to the mayor not given to him in the city charter because it seems convenient.

What if Ross Mirkarim had gotten a parking ticket and not paid it promptly? Would he have not won the election? What if he'd gone for a long drive with his dog in a pet carrier on the roof of his car, the dog had shit himself and Ross had hosed the dog off with cold water; the dog then running off at first opportunity? Would he be doing well in the polls?

See? It is all debatable and not a bright-line matter of judgment. The correct procedure is a recall election. Not a falsified interpretation of the city charter enabling those dominating city government to further tighten their grip.

Posted by lillipublicans on Sep. 16, 2012 @ 5:06 pm

Did you just equate a conviction of false imprisonment with not paying a parking ticket promptly or a dog running away?

Posted by Guest on Sep. 16, 2012 @ 7:06 pm

WHERE is your standard ....if you are out as a "rightteous" citizen kick and you want to remove from office people who DONT belong there. Why arent you ready to talk about the little liar perjurer Ed Lee the influence peddler election fraud expert (Go Lorrie money laundering FOR Ed Lee case, the Andrew Hawkins/Archway Mgmt/ Veritas inv. money laundering campaign contributions FOR Ed Lee the elecion fraud filmed in Chinatown by the Ed Lee San Fran. Neighborhood Alliance , the jury tamperer (attempt to influence one of the BOS jurors for the RM matter when Ed Lee asked Olague how she would vote on the RM matter after he had appt. her, the witness tamperer (using back channels to get RM to step down a Walter Wong) SO guest why are YOU so obsessed about only one issue RM what have you to say about all of these crimes many around the RM issue. Such weak little arguments you offer but you cant let go of even this to be real and honest WHY not? What is your motive it cant be wanting better government?

Posted by thatsthewayitis on Sep. 16, 2012 @ 7:42 pm

Yeah, a conviction for false imprisonment is no worse than a jaywalking ticket, really.

Besides, Ross is the Sheriff - he's **supposed** to be an expert on imprisonment!

You can't blame him for wanting to do it recreationally once in a while!

Posted by Demented, Yet Terribly, Terribly Persistent on Sep. 16, 2012 @ 8:36 pm

What difference does it make whether or not misdemeanor "false imprisonment" is equated with any other misdemeanor or not? That isnt the issue RM was elected by the people of SF in an election. The accuser a Ed Lee is facing charges of perjury jury tampering and had 3 seperate cases of money laundering campaign fraud and election fraud you wanna start comparing ? The overturning of our Democratic process isnt worth fighting for but to your Demented (your choice of name) self that doesnt exist the fraud lying perjury influence peddling of the accuser is of no connsequence your Demented self wants to talk about "jaywalking" in comparison to misdemeanor "false imprisonment" Look anybody have a problem with RM as sheriff you have a "democratic"method of getting someone else it is called tada the Recall do you capisce..As far as "recreation"the mayor has election fraud ballot fraud etc and the Sheriff is the one who secures the ballots putting Ed Lee as the person who would appoint the next sheriff is putting the fox in the hen house the hen house being our democracy and the integrity of our elections. You want to talk about "misdemeanor false imprisonment" is not comparable to other midemeanors you should worry more about the serious crimes and corruption of the present city hall. Why are you so interested in pettiness?

Posted by thatsthewayitis on Sep. 16, 2012 @ 9:29 pm

As I said: "Demented, Yet Terribly, Terribly Persistent ".

Posted by Demented, Yet Terribly, Terribly Persistent on Sep. 17, 2012 @ 6:22 am

Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe.

Albert Einstein

Posted by thatsthewayitis on Sep. 17, 2012 @ 8:01 am

and lacerated her: false imprisonment.

Ross Mirkarimi: turned. the. family. van. around.

Posted by lillipublicans on Sep. 16, 2012 @ 9:05 pm

There have certainly been more serious cases of DV than the one or more bruises that Ross inflicted on Eliana. That's why we have felonies and misdemeanor charges.

But the bar is much higher for a sheriff. He really shouldn't be committing any violent crimes or incidents of DV or spousal abuse.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 17, 2012 @ 11:05 am

Ross Mirkarimi was not convicted of any "violent crimes or incidents of DV or spousal abuse" and certainly not of causing "bruises" -- *and*: He. Was. Not. Sheriff.

And yes, to refresh your memory, the Mayer case involved the thug straddling his girlfriend, pummeling and lacerating her, ongoing mental torture and threats, multiple photos and witnesses to these various miscreant behaviors, *AND* a plea down to "misdemeanor false imprisonment" from initial *FELONY* assault and other charges.

Now, if Ross Mirkarimi had acted as the Mayer kid, then plead down to misdemeanor false imprisonment, all you comments and perspective would make sense; as would the poll question which falsely claimed that he had plead to a less serious charge.

But what doesn't make sense is that the same San Francisco DA's office which went soft on Mayer has acted as it has in this case. Have we seen the photos of the beaten girl? No? They weren't leaked to the press, as was Eliana's dramatic video showing a bruise -- intended for later use in a possible custody battle -- were they?

Hmmm.. Some will applaud the completely unethical behavior of the mayor and Da in this matter. Those are reactionaries.

Posted by lillipublicans on Sep. 17, 2012 @ 11:38 am

If I imprisoned you and forcibly restrained you from leaving (while no doubt giving you a verbal tongue-lashing) you'd realise that fairly quickly.

In some ways, it is worse than hitting you, and then leaving. Because of the fear factor.

It may not reach the level of felony that some DV perps commit. But it is sufficient to render him unfit to hold office.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 17, 2012 @ 12:50 pm