Supervisors set Oct. 9 to decide Mirkarimi's fate

Mirkarimi served on the Board of Supervisors with 10 of the 11 jurors who will decide his fate.

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors officially received the official misconduct case against suspended Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi yesterday, starting the clock on the 30-day deadline that the City Charter provides for that body to take action. Board President David Chiu announced a special meeting to consider the case on Oct. 9 at 2pm.

“The last day the Board of Supervisors can act on this is Oct. 17,” Chiu told his colleagues yesterday, reiterating the schedule the board had previous agreed to: a 10-minute presentation by the Ethics Commission, 20 minutes by representatives of Mayor Ed Lee (who brought the case), 20 minutes by Mirkarimi's side, a five-minute rebuttal by Lee, public comment (which could last for hours), and then deliberation by supervisors.

In addition, attorneys for both sides have until Sept. 25 to submit any legal briefs they want the supervisors to consider, and Mirkarimi's attorneys are expected to raise objections to an Ethics Commission summary they considered “one-sided,” as well as getting into the issue of whether Lee committed perjury during his sworn testimony in June.

It takes at least nine of the 11 supervisors to remove Mirkarimi, and there is an open question about whether some supervisors should recuse themselves from voting because of conflicts-of-interest, which would essentially count the same as a vote in Mirkarimi's favor.

Lee was asked on the witness stand whether he spoke with any supervisors about removing Mirkarimi, which he denied. But Building Inspection Commissioner Debra Walker said her longtime friend and political ally Sup. Christina Olague told her Lee had sought her input on the decision. Confronted by journalists, Olague denied the charge but said, “I may have to recuse myself from voting on this.”

Lee was also asked whether he tried to get Mirkarimi a city job in exchange for his resignation, which Lee denied, but former Sup. Aaron Peskin has said that permit expediter and Lee ally Walter Wong (who has refused to answer questions from the media) extended that offer through him, which Mirkarimi didn't accept. The Ethics Commission refused to consider the perjury allegations, calling them beyond its purview, but Mirkarimi attorney David Waggoner said he plans to submit sworn declarations by Peskin and Walker to the supervisors.

Another possible recusal from the vote would be Sup. Eric Mar, who just happened to be called as a juror in Mirkarimi's criminal case before it was settled with a plea bargain. There have also been rumors that Board President David Chiu spoke with Lee about Mirkarimi at some point. Last month, Waggoner told the board that he wanted each supervisor to declare whether they have spoken with anyone about Mirkarimi, but their team is proceeding cautiously and wary of offending the supervisors who will now decide the fate of their former colleague.

“We're going to respectfully ask each member of the board to state under oath who they've talked to about the case,” Waggoner told us.

Normally, jurors would be extensively questioned during the voir dire process, and those who had served on an elected body with a defendant for years would almost certainly be removed from the jury pool, which seems to have been the case with Mar's disqualification on the criminal case. But that's just one more example of how this unprecedented process is anything but normal, with city officials basically making up the rules as they go along.

Mirkarimi's wife and alleged victim, Eliana Lopez, has consistently maintained that she was never abused, except by city officials who have sabotaged and humiliated her family and taken away its livelihood. She told the Guardian that the thin charges in this case shouldn't warrant the removal of an elected official: “You can have different opinions about Ross's behavior, and people can have different opinions about that, but the people of San Francisco should decide who represents them.”

Lopez said she's been dismissed and mistreated by Lee, the Ethics Commission, and domestic violence advocates: “These self-appointed white women that are part of the Domestic Violence Consortium are doing everything they can to attack me and insult me while claiming to help me, and never once reaching out to me.”

But she said that she's hopeful the supervisors will resist political pressure during an emotionally charged election season and do the right thing: “What we need from the supervisors is brave and honest supervisors. The people of San Francisco need that.”


Could you make your coverage any more biased if you tried?

Nice of Eliana to play the race card though . .

Posted by Guest on Sep. 19, 2012 @ 4:39 pm

Valuable info. Fortunate me I discovered your web site unintentionally, and I'm shocked why this twist of fate did not happened in advance! I bookmarked it.

Posted by find employees on Sep. 24, 2012 @ 4:45 am

Hello, i read your blog from time to time and i own a similar one and
i was just wondering if you get a lot of spam remarks? If
so how do you protect against it, any plugin or anything you can advise?
I get so much lately it's driving me insane so any support is very much appreciated.

Posted by dressmaking tips on Sep. 25, 2012 @ 7:56 am

Why should Olague recuse herself if she maintains she did not talk to Ed Lee her mentor and anointer to the Board of Supervisors. For Ed Lee this is much more serious and his question demonstrates how city government works i.e. you call in your chips. Lee appointed her and ANY question implies you must vote the way I (Lee) wants you to. The very question given their relationship betrays the character of Ed Lee who far from being the hardworking beaurocrat working to the wee hours honest and admirable, some of us find he is a corrupt bag man for Willie Brown going back 2 DECADES and that the same corrupt syndicate using the same methods owns more and more of the elected offices and next on the list is the Sheriff. Importantly the SAME money laundering was done for Ed Lee as backk then Go Lorrie Archway Mgmt, in 2011 courtesy Bay Cit.

"In the summer of 1999, Lee, who had been tapped by Brown to head the Department of Public Works in 1996, came under public criticism after proposing a 44 percent rate hike for residential garbage collection. Although the rate was lower than the 52 percent hike proposed by Norcal (as Recology was then known), it was substantially higher than the 20 percent increase recommended by his staff, said Quentin Kopp, a former supervisor and state senator and a retired judge who advocated against the rate hike at the time.
The agreement was heavily criticized in newspaper editorials and by supervisors including Aaron Peskin, who said it was a deal based upon “political considerations.”
Several months later, Norcal employees gave a total of $11,600 to Mayor Brown’s campaign for re-election. Campaign finance records show that Norcal employees -- mostly managers and executives -- tended to bundle their contributions and direct most of them to Brown. With 34 donations of up to $500 each, Norcal employees padded Brown’s war chest with an extra $8,650.00 on March 9, 1999 and $2,950.00 on November 17 of that same year."

Posted by thatsthewayitis on Sep. 19, 2012 @ 5:42 pm

So Brown did all that for $11K? In a re-election that he eventually won with 57% of the vote? Sounds pretty stupid to me.

Did any unions donate money to Ammiano? And did he do anything to support unions?

Posted by Troll on Sep. 19, 2012 @ 6:02 pm

Conspiracy no its the way a Syndicate operates a Racketeering method to maintain control and get more (the Sheriff's office) the more positions that are under control the more favors and protection. Look at Ed Lee's SF Neighborhood Alliance committing edlection fraud out in the open in Chinatown (only what was seen) they own the DA George Gascon who finds "insufficient evidence" the more positions controlled by Willie Brown the bigger the influence he can wield and the BIGGER protection he can promise. It is a crime family. Identical to the above money laundering is 2 seperate instances in 2011 for Ed Lee the Go Lorrie case 11,500 dollars to Ed. to buy a favor from the Airport commission's John L Martin (who called Martin we dont know)the money was laundered and deposited into Ed Lee's campaign by a fixer closely associated with Willie Brown. That may be small money to some but the $500 limit makes it into a lot. ...the pattern is the same from Willie Brown to Gavin Newsom to Ed Lee the same syndicate the same election fraud and they win. If they want the Sheriff out (he does take the ballots into custody on election day) they want the BIG protection owning every office holder gives them, its one more piece they can play.

Posted by thatsthewayitis on Sep. 19, 2012 @ 6:51 pm

in Willie Brown's 1999 campaign. Candidates depend heavily on IEs -- especially when the maximum they can get from individuals is $500.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 23, 2012 @ 8:19 am

Relevant to taking down RM by Ed Lee is the myth
The Ed Lee Myth that he was a hard working honest concientious city beaurocrat when in truth he was dripping with corrutption for 20 solid years can ONLY imagine the magnitude of the sleaze and influence peddling ...causes one to harken when the "caretaker" mayor was annointed by David Chu and exalted as the "first Asian Mayor" aah how they swelled with pride. Following courtesy of L. Bush

"Ed Lee became Willie Brown’s Inside Man almost two decades ago, when Brown turned to him to approve minority contracts for his backers. Lee went on to hold positions where he could tweak the requirements for contractors, order “re-evaluations” where necessary, even reverse his staff and his own earlier findings on behalf of contractors tied to Brown.

Some of those instances were reported during the 2011 mayoral campaign or were seized on by Lee’s opponents. They ranged from contracts awarded for computer services later determined to be fraudulent to contracts at the airport to a bidder that twice failed to get top ratings to a “nonprofit” that didn’t actually exist and that federal official ordered its grant returned to the city."

Posted by thatsthewayitis on Sep. 19, 2012 @ 7:54 pm

You tell 'em, Eliana! It's just those evil white women in the DVC causing all the problems!

Posted by Demented, Yet Terribly, Terribly Persistent on Sep. 19, 2012 @ 5:44 pm

WHY wouldnt the anti DV movement embrace a RECALL election if they dont like RM? Look at the great advantages
1) they work without Ed Lee and the baggage of a corrupt syndicate run by Willie Brown using election fraud money laundering of campaign donations to Ed Lee. influence peddling alleged perjury, jury tampering etc.why be tainted with this filth
2)they could gain tremendous publictiy for DV and the terrible suffering in its wake using the RM family as an example and a chance to raise funds as this case conveys to people this important issue
3) the people of SF would be so impressed with this case as exemplifying DM the voters would remove him as Sheriff
4) they could have the entire project funded by Ed Lee Willie Brown Gavin Newsom
WHY doesnt the anti DV movement embrace the recall? Why

Posted by thatsthewayitis on Sep. 19, 2012 @ 7:24 pm

By going along with this "ethics" route, the DV prevention groups are acting in service to PG&E, developers, and in general, consolidation of power for the Brown/Pak/Lee machine; best case is they are simply ignorant patsies.

The pitfall of "single issue" politics. *Always.*

Posted by lillipublicans on Sep. 19, 2012 @ 7:44 pm

I love how all of a sudden the BoSshould be like a jury and and completely impartial. What idiocy to even suggest that Mar should recuse himself for being called into the jury pool. Please. Nice try to give him political cover.

Posted by D. Native on Sep. 19, 2012 @ 7:38 pm

I know...that part was hilarious. So Mar was in he jury pool, he (maybe) had to tell them that he knew Mirkarimi and they sent him home.

I actually hope that Mar does something stupid. That he either votes for Mirkarimi or, better yet, does recuse himself for no reason and look like a coward. I would gladly trade 3 impotent years of Sheriff Mirkarimi for a guarantee that Mar is defeated in D1. I'll take that trade any day.

Posted by Troll on Sep. 19, 2012 @ 8:16 pm

last month -- on weekend nights to skew the result further than the poll wording would have by itsef -- had District 1 voters supporting Mirkarimi's removal only 52% to 39% with 9% undecided.

As for the degree to which the selected group was more likely or less likely to vote for Mar if he voted "against the findings" of the "Ethics Commission," 19% were more likely, 45% less likely, 23% wouldn't make a difference, 12% undecided. Split the 12% roughly according to the committed answers and we have 19 + 23 + 4 = 46% -- FORTY SIX PERCENT! -- of voters who Mar doesn't have to worry about if he votes to reinstate Ross.

So if you think there is a really big problem for Mar if his conscience tells him to reinstate Ross, you are mistaken... again.

(This rather obvious analysis that, by-the-way, you should have been able to do for yourself if you weren't busy inanely and verbosely self-pleasuring, does not take into account an unquantified aspect of the poll: what percentage of those who answered with negative opinions with regard to the sheriff wouldn't vote for Mar *in* *any* *case*; not to mention the relative intensity of feeling in that regard.

And, yes! The poll *is* BS. This analysis just goes to show how much *more* BS your previous comment is.

Oh -- and Troll II?


Posted by lillipublicans on Sep. 19, 2012 @ 9:00 pm

Oh...I'm isn't nice to laugh but this is just too funny. So Mar doesn't have to worry about FORTY SIX PERCENT of the voters turning against him!

That must make him feel just great!

He only stands to loose ground with A MAJORITY OF THE VOTERS IN A CLOSE RACE if he supports Mirkarimi! How great! Don't worry, Mar, @lillipublican has done the math for you. Rest easy!!!

Posted by Another Guest on Sep. 19, 2012 @ 9:21 pm

There is no justification for allowing such gross politicization of the ethics process. Let us eliminate the six-month recall limitation from the charter -- which should have never been added in the first place -- and eliminate the mayor's "right" to suspend an elected officer.

A recall by voters is the *only* was an elected public official should be stripped of their office.

Posted by lillipublicans on Sep. 19, 2012 @ 8:11 pm

@lilli blithers on: "A recall by voters is the *only* was an elected public official should be stripped of their office."

Okay. So on one side of the issue we have James Madison and Thomas Jefferson. In the other corner we have @lillipublicans.

Seems fair to me.

Posted by Another Guest on Sep. 19, 2012 @ 8:50 pm

You are funnier than a barrel of monkeys. Please don't change.

By the way, your likening the City's "ethics" law to the Constitution's provisions for impeachment is completely incompetent: the City has *no* provision for removing the chief executive.

On the other hand, the Constitution isn't clear regarding whether impeachment can be used for removing legislators; also, it should be pointed out, the recent Clinton impeachment was widely viewed as unpopular. The Constitution's writers didn't forsee the development of political parties and almost every instance of it has been overtly political in nature.

But don't let that stop you from pointing it out when I'm blithering, okay? I'm looking forward to hearing from you again soon.

Posted by lillipublicans on Sep. 19, 2012 @ 9:56 pm

Um...okay...@lilli...when you say:

"The Constitution's writers didn't forsee the development of political parties".

OK...let's try this. Go read Thomas Jefferson's bio at

It talks about political parties in the first line.

Or even better:

Talks about how the two of them founded the 'Republican' party.

Look, I know it's late and you just made something up and blurted it out but it is REALLY STUPID so look at those two bios and come up with something that perhaps makes a little sense.

The rest of what you posted is just absolutely incoherent. I can't make any sense out of it at all. Clinton's impeachment was unpopular? So what? Sorry.

Posted by Another Guest on Sep. 19, 2012 @ 10:37 pm

But I notice that the link you so thoughtfully provided has the following passage:

"Jefferson succeeded Benjamin Franklin as minister to France in 1785. His sympathy for the French Revolution led him into conflict with Alexander Hamilton when Jefferson was Secretary of State in President Washington's Cabinet. He resigned in 1793.

Sharp political conflict developed, and two separate parties, the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans, began to form. Jefferson gradually assumed leadership of the Republicans..."

So, please tell me AG when was the U.S. Constitution written? I guess it was either 1903, or 1787; one or the other, I'm not sure. Which comes first anyhow? I'm tired of blithering without your guidance in thought.

Posted by lillipublicans on Sep. 20, 2012 @ 1:00 am

Look, lilliblither, you made up something stupid out of thin air. Here it is:

"The Constitution's writers didn't forsee the development of political parties"

In fact the Whigs and Tories in England had been around for more that a century. Jefferson and Madison belonged to parties and founded their own just a few years after the constitution was written.

That's what I mean by blithering, Lilli. You just say whatever you want and hope that nobody will notice that you just made it up yourself. Well people do notice. We might not be the brightest bunch here on this board but we certainly don't function at your low level.

Okay, throw a frustrated tantrum now.

Posted by Another Guest on Sep. 20, 2012 @ 7:47 am

You lie boldly to cover for your self-revealed intellectual weaknesses.

You claimed that the Constitution's writers implicitly would support EC process for removing the sheriff, when unlike the city procedure, their's specifically and expressly allowed for the *top* executive to be toppled by the impeachment process; that was the main point.

You claimed that the highly politicized aspect which has characterized the impeachment process throughout its history would not bother the Constitution's authors, even though they when the wrote the document they were expressly against the formation of political parties. Hamilton and Madison wrote specifically of the dangers of such; the problems deriving from such that they predicted, and which we live with on an everyday basis.

You pretend that the nation's founding fathers "belonged to political parties" and then "founded their own" which is hugely innaccurate. What party did George Washington belong to?

You justify your false claim that the Constitution's writers foresaw the advent of political parties based on the Tories and Whigs of England; but those parties only had existed as formal entities for three years when the U.S. Constition was written.

But Another Guest, I love reading your ignorant posts. Please continue. I especially like it when you call me names using baby-talk nonsense words.

I just can't stop blithering, can I?

Posted by lillipublicans on Sep. 20, 2012 @ 9:18 am

No, you really can't.

Posted by Hortencia on Sep. 24, 2012 @ 12:58 pm

Yeah, putting it to the voters is the way depoliticize something. *eyeroll*

Posted by Guest on Sep. 21, 2012 @ 3:32 pm

What about the 500 pound gorilla of evidence that is NOT being submitted to the BOS. WHO is Ivory Madison and WHY did she do what she did against the wishes of Eliana. For 4 days after making the film, Madison did not go to the police we do know she made phone calls ...the only one we know is to Phil Bronstein. How can we determine the credibility of the video given Eliana's sworn statement she was coached and told what to wear she was prompted to vocalize "screw him" screw him" all part of sworn affidavit by Eliana. WHY would someone make such a film and then use it against the wishes of the person Madison purported to be helping. Madison did state the following regarding DV in a Stanford application on CitiR
“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.”
The theme of regretting "failure to act "in her own stated DV situation and the expressed longing to be the "hero" is expressed. Could provide the motive to place Eliana in the position of needing to be rescued even if that required coaching and direction in the video to create the stage for the "hero" to rescue etc. The only reason this seems plausible is because it fits with the facts that are known.In addition Madison observed “I realized recently that most of my fiction is about ineffective female assassins.”
Dictionary definition of assassin:
“a murderer, especially one who kills a politically prominent person for fanatical or monetary reasons.”
Even though the actions of Madison could be as in the above and it also could and might be more probable that she is unaware conciously of what she did and why? but that Madison highjacked the custody issues between RM and Eliana to live out her issue as expressed.
And that what really happened in the RM affair is that the Willie Brown Syndicate along with Ed Lee took this tragic situation and they in turn highjacked it for their own predatory motives set this inquisiton in motion USING the anti DV movement to create COVER for their ruthless political motives AND to blunt any inquiry of Ivory Madison because any inquiry could be said to be preventing others from reporting DV a clear misapplication in this case.
Why to gain greater power greater influence and protection for the syndicate this is a Racketeering growth industry ruling SF and all its elected officials to sell to the corporations who are waiting on line outside Willie's office wanting to do business Willie loves to be needed.

Posted by thatsthewayitis on Sep. 19, 2012 @ 8:25 pm

most ironic when described in such a way, but that's it essentially, isn't it?

For people who have trouble interpreting events as indicative and emblematic of the widespread culture of corruption which exists, I recommend reading "Abe Ruef's San Francisco" by Walter Bean.

I bought my own copy after reading it from the SFPL.

Posted by lillipublicans on Sep. 20, 2012 @ 2:36 am

She waited because Eliana hemmed and hawed about what to do. She discussed the issue with Bronstein and others because she wanted advice. She wasn't trying to be a hero, just a friend. I hate to break it to you, but from what I can tell, Ivory Madison really isn't all that interesting, and even the Sheriff said she acted as she did with good intentions, apologized to her, and affirmed that apology during the EC hearings.

Posted by Guest (the same one) on Sep. 22, 2012 @ 11:31 am

Echoing silence from the peanut gallery, G(tso); par for the course when logic is introduced.

Posted by Hortencia on Sep. 24, 2012 @ 3:58 pm

Practically speaking, a vote to uphold the mayor's corrupt gambit will offer the progressive supervisors little or no help come election time; the voters who are most likely to take a dim view if their supes miss an opportunity to roll back progressive presence in city government... are. not. progressives.

On the other hand, if the progressive supes actively cast a vote against tne mayor's scheme, campaign ads proclaiming their "support for wife beaters" will of course be seen in abundance.

So yes, recusal, abstention, or just plain not being there for the vote; walking out. No matter how it is described, the process is hardly praiseworthy, and a significant percentage of the voters see that.

So go ahead and leave it to the Sean Elsbernds on the board to puff out their chests and claim to have valiently fought to defend women from domestic abuse. I can hardly wait to see it.

Posted by lillipublicans on Sep. 20, 2012 @ 12:42 am

Jason Grant Garza here ... "But later, when attorney Scott Emblidge — who is volunteering his legal services to both the Ethics Commission and Board of Supervisors on this case — offered his interpretation that the charter language requires removal of officials found to have committed official misconduct, the commission accepted that and opted not to consider recommending a lesser punishment to the Board of Supervisors. "

GREAT ... now the ETHICS COMMISSION can move against the FOUR SUPERVISORS found GUILTY of "OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT" that was decided and sent to ETHICS per sunshine for violation prior to ROSS' December date while he was NOT in office. Here clearly the SUPERVISORS were in office and FOUND GUILTY by SUNSHINE. Check out on city website ... go and check out case # 11048.

Then ETHICS can call all the cases that it failed for "OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT" as found guilty by SUNSHINE ... re-open them ... apply the same NEW STANDARD and RULE interpretation ... and APPLY EVENLY. They can start with my NURSE RATCH case see where the paperwork is on the web. There is also the paperwork the ETHICS COMMISSION specifically asking about the "OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT" phrase and you will NOTE ... NO RESPONSE. Was the COMMISSION UNETHICAL then and made up now ... then where are the calls and re-opening of the cases?

So, before the FOUR SUPERVISORS can sit in JUDGMENT of ROSS ... will it be heard in ETHICS ... for their "OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT" according to the MINISTRY of SUNSHINE that happened before ROSS' ....

Why is NO ONE asking this questions ?

At the very LEAST the FOUR SUPERVISORS MUST recuse themselves from voting or go through the NEW RULES and STANDARD process at ETHICS as did ROSS before they can sit in JUDGMENT. These (supervisors) sitting in JUDGMENT must be "ABOVE REPROACH" and this MUST be addressed before or then already found guilty of "OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT" by SUNSHINE (the fact finders) will decide. THEY MUST be cleared by ETHICS before under the same INTERPRETATION of "OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT" that they used against ROSS. Shall we see how the INTERPRETATION of "OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT: plays out in this ETHICS proceeding for the FOUR SUPERVISORS?

"LIVE by the SWORD ... DIE by the SWORD." I can just hear the ETHICS COMMISSION when it comes to this "OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT" against the supervisors ... they will probably say "THAT IS NOT WHAT WE CLAIMED WHEN WE INTERPRETED the OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT definition THAT WE USED AGAINST ROSS. or maybe they will say on;y the MAYOR can remove for "OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT" even though the SUNSHINE found them guilty and referred to ETHICS just as the MAYOR ... shall we wait and see ???

As another point ... my prediction regarding the MAYOR'S possible perjury and the BOMB threat can TRUE ... preliminary, perfunctory , no real investigation ... move on ... we are waiting for another crises so that the MASSES will forget. Yes, a perfect ten (10) on the 1 to 10 "STINK FACTOR."

Oh, and for the NAIVE, KOOL AID drinkers ... the SUNSHINE TASK FORCE has been closed (not operating ... not performing ... and NO VIABLE ALTERNATIVE) since June 2012 it is now September 20, 2012 ... are the COMPLAINANT/VICTIMS not entitled to speedy process ...ha,ha,ha. The sheer INSANITY belies all the LIES of CONCERN. COMPASSION, MORALITY, HUMANITY, CIVILITY ... the list goes on and on.

However nothing NEW ... go to htpp:// to see JUST how far the city will go to WIN. Enjoy ...

P.S. Shall we see how NO ONE addresses these issues or better yet responds and tries to divert by saying WHAT a NUTTER I am in order to deflect/divert from the TRUTH.

A nation of FOOLS deserves what it receives ...

Posted by Jason Grant Garza on Sep. 20, 2012 @ 5:55 am

People who are trying to oust Mirkarimi have used everything in their power. They have abused the media; DA's office; the judicial process; the EC; some of the less intelligent DV advocacy groups; the alleged victim and gone as far as to make a fake bomb threat to get Lee off the hook. It has gone so far that even people who don't agree with Mirkarimi see through it. Do you people not see the repercussions? It ain't over.

By going this far you have turned a lot of people against you. People who normally either did not care or were supportive. Upton has become a pariah among many progressives. You all assume that supporting Mirkarimi is going to have a political cost now and for higher office. But what about supporting this witch hunt? I guarantee it will also have a cost. A cost that shall follow people and their reputation forever.

The EC will be remembered as the Salem Court of San Fransisco. Nancy Lemon will be Cotton Mather and you fill the rest. Whatever happens to the participants this will be a textbook example of judicial abuse.

Posted by Akvanediv on Sep. 20, 2012 @ 6:06 am

"The EC will be remembered as the Salem Court of San Fransisco."

And the Salem witch trials were conducted by white people, just like the "self-appointed white women that are part of the Domestic Violence Consortium"!

Posted by Demented, Yet Terribly, Terribly Persistent on Sep. 20, 2012 @ 6:26 am


Remember that you can duck the issue, yet still Stand With Ross, by recusing yourself!

The voters will never figure it out!

Political opponents of recusing supervisors should be forbidden from pointing out that recusal has exactly the same effect as voting for Ross!

The Progressive Movement needs to find a friendly judge who will ban discussion of such an obviously inappropriate topic!

Posted by Demented, Yet Terribly, Terribly Persistent on Sep. 20, 2012 @ 6:24 am

that voting to retain Mirkarimi will cost a supervisor their seat. This just what Upton and other bullies want people to think. This is how all of the bullies behave.

If I were a supervisor I would vote for Mirkarimi without apology and stand by it. I would remind the voters the whole thing is a power grab and I will have none of it.

I would further indicate that Lee or Upton will not dictate my vote. If voters prefer Upton they are welcome to vote for her or anyone they want. If they want Mirkarimi out then they should either to a recall or not vote for him next time. What is the worst thing: I lose a political seat? Fine, better that than to be a puppet of this gang.

There is more to life than politics.

If more politicians took risks with their "seat" we won't have so much corruption. You people make it sound like that is or must be the most important thing. I don't agree.

What if I was a supervisor and lost my seat? I'd get a job and be fine. Not all decisions should be based on getting reelected to office.

Posted by Akvanediv on Sep. 20, 2012 @ 8:14 am

As you write: "she's been dismissed and mistreated by Lee, the Ethics Commission, and domestic violence advocates."

Her mention of race *is* explicative of the utter disdain these dv advocates had for consulting Eliana. It might not be the right explanation, but such an analysis is completely justified by South American history.

Posted by lillipublicans on Sep. 20, 2012 @ 8:08 am

that voting to retain Mirkarimi will cost a supervisor their seat. This just what Upton and other bullies want people to think. This is how all of the bullies behave.

If I were a supervisor I would vote for Mirkarimi without apology and stand by it. I would remind the voters the whole thing is a power grab and I will have none of it.

I would further indicate that Lee or Upton will not dictate my vote. If voters prefer Upton they are welcome to vote for her or anyone they want. If they want Mirkarimi out then they should either to a recall or not vote for him next time. What is the worst thing: I lose a political seat? Fine, better that than to be a puppet of this gang.

There is more to life than politics.

If more politicians took risks with their "seat" we won't have so much corruption. You people make it sound like that is or must be the most important thing. I don't agree.

What if I was a supervisor and lost my seat? I'd get a job and be fine. Not all decisions should be based on getting reelected to office.

Posted by Akvanediv on Sep. 20, 2012 @ 8:26 am

How can it be?

Friedrich Nietzsche once cautioned that we should be careful which monster we set ourselves against to destroy, as we were liable to *become* that monster in the process. He was crazy genius who came up with some killer insights into the human condition.

If you read through stories about this case from earlier in the year, it is shocking how slanted they seem now that the actual facts have come to light. The degree to which people are still swayed by earlier erroneous perceptions -- and deceptions -- about this case is an ephemeral condition.

There *will* be repercussions for those who have joined themselves to the mayor's conniving gambit -- and quite possibly no penalty at all for those who refuse to cooperate now.

I believe that Lee's forces have behaved in a manner which exemplifies the behavior of all autocrats throughout history: they have grossly overestimated their strength and their ability to control matters; they have underestimated their opponents. That is what always leads to their downfall.

Posted by lillipublicans on Sep. 20, 2012 @ 8:56 am

First, the pundits seem to have lined up the votes already and believe it will come down to how Mar and Olague vote. I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that Sean Elsbernd and/or others will vote to remove RM. Elsbernd, for example, is termed out soon and says he doesn't have aspirations to run for State office (as it's rumored that Campos does). Who knows, he may look at it from a fiscal perspective and think it's a waste of money to remove RM.

Second, the notion that Mar would have to recuse himself because he was an excused juror makes no sense. If he asked to recuse himself, the City Attorney would probably tell him he can't, and he would look really bad.

Third, the level of discourse on this board has become lame and hardly worth reading. Most of the comments seem focused on insulting the writer of the last comment rather than saying anything worthwhile.

Posted by The Commish on Sep. 20, 2012 @ 10:03 am

remember thinking them incisive and valid, but this one seems out of place. Are you being imped?

For one, it's hard to give credence to your claim that "pundits" have already "lined up the votes" since the supervisors are ostensibly still unable to discuss their intentions, and secondly -- and despite any intent you may have had -- your statement that it will all come down to how Olague or Mar votes is completely inscrutable.

Are you saying that if either of them votes to uphold the ethics charge, then Mirkarimi is toast; or are you saying that if either of them votes to reject the ethics charge, then Mirkarimi will be reinstated? See what I mean?

I remember your previous posts as communicating clear thought and civility, but by branding the comments on the board with a broad brush as you do above, the sense I get is quite opposite. So sorry if you take that as validation for your claim that "most of the comments seem focused on insulting the writer of the last comment rather than saying anything worthwhile."

The fact is that there is both intelligent commentary made here -- sometimes leavened with responses to ad hominem attacks -- and there are numerous comments made seemingly only with the intent to stifle intelligent discourse; imposterings, straw man attacks, non sequiturs. For you to brand the comments here with such a broad brush is insulting in itself.

Posted by lillipublicans on Sep. 20, 2012 @ 12:51 pm

I'm not being imped.

I didn't think I was unclear, but: As for my statement about pundits lining up the votes, I've read more than a few articles that suggest that the RM decision will all come down to how Mar and Olague vote. As an example, see this article

The inference from the articles is that Chu, Farrell, Elsbernd, Weiner, Chiu, Cohen, and Kim will likely vote to sustain the charges and throw RM out of office; that Avalos and Campos will probably reject the charges; and that Mar and Olague will be the swing vote(s). So, to clarify, what I'm saying is that the anticipated line-up won't necessarily pan out. E.g., Elsbernd might think Ben Hur's analysis is correct and reject the charges -- especially if Elsbernd doesn't have any political aspirations and thinks the whole process was a waste of time and money.

As for my comment about the level of discourse, just read the comment string in this article. There are more ad hominem attacks than there is content.

Posted by The Commish on Sep. 20, 2012 @ 1:47 pm

As for the level of discourse in this particular thread, I believe you need to re-verify the thread to which you intended to refer; there is plenty of contructive commentary here, and while there are negative sentiments, they are directed almost universally away from commenters and toward personages who figure prominently in this matter.

There is good reason to believe that not all is sweetness and light in this matter; if your point was that criticisms of Lee are unfounded, you ought to have said so directly.

Posted by lillipublicans on Sep. 20, 2012 @ 2:42 pm

In brief, I'm not saying I think he will be reinstated. I have no idea one way or the other. I'm just not positive that the vote lineup will be as everyone expects it to be.

Posted by The Commish on Sep. 20, 2012 @ 4:42 pm

Think about it. If the Supes uphold the EC finding (as they should, else why have the EC at all?) then Lee is vindicated, and his standing and power will increase. He will get his own way more.

If RM prevails and gets his job back, he is still significantly weakened in several ways:

1) He's lost respect and credibility with those with whom he has to work
2) He has hundreds of thousands in debt for all those legal bills
3) His wife has got him by the short hairs. He won't be able to assert himself at home without fear of her revealing more crap about him
4) He's had one year taken off his term
5) He will lose at the next election, even if he doesn't get recalled first
6) He has no political future anywhere
7) He will have lost his confidence and will always have this thrown back in his face whenever he tries to assert himself

This is why most pols, when disgraced like this, resign. They never recover.

Lee knew all this going in. He wins either way.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 21, 2012 @ 4:33 am

The EC process *is* a mistake: your logic is faulty.

But just to carry it a bit further, if the Board of Supervisors was supposed to rubber stamp the EC's findings then why bother with that part of the process?

Why not just have some unelected lawyers appointed primarily by the city's most powerful clique respond to the mayor's unique ability to put the process into motion and remove elected officials at will?

No. The ethics process should more closely mirror the impeachment clause in the U.S. Constitution -- *if* it exists at all. Roberts Rules of Order provides some better ideas as to how it might work; not so much power in the mayor's hands.

My suggestion is the voters repeal the *stupid* six-month delay before a recall can be mounted that (I think) was added in the 1996 Charter, and start heading back "towards the light" with regard to democracy.

Posted by lillipublicans on Sep. 21, 2012 @ 7:49 am

As if there is no right or wrong in this very AMORAL post "cant win" isnt that RIGHT ...a weird take from my perspective. I think years from now he will have established the best Sheriff's office in the Country. If RM remains Sheriff. Why you worrying about his legal fees anyway? And his wife ? Seems like your thinking off of the MAIN topic and delving into personal matters ? Strange
The issue of "resignation" is interesting and on topic. I VOTED for RM for Sheriff if he resigns based on this Inquisition and political power grab he betrays me and the people that voted for him ....A PR talking point "aaaah why doesnt he resign" RESIGN cowardly it might be easier for RM that isnt the question WE voted for him if he is voted out it is by our democratic vote.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 21, 2012 @ 8:05 am

of the attitude of the anti-Mirkarimi haters and reactionaries in general.

The same goes for the gleeful expressions of delight with every report suggesting that Eliana would leave Ross for good and take his son from him. These people are ghouls; malformed humans, at best.

And, of course, the underlying precept behind the mention of legal bills is that justice should be only those that can afford it; justice at all -- just power for the rich.

These people are so stupid it hurts to think about it. Don't they realize that there will *always* be somebody richer? The more that wealth completely controls, the more we become slaves to one master.

Posted by lillipublicans on Sep. 21, 2012 @ 9:06 am

The "City Family" equivalent of a SLAPP suit for elected officials who are not deemed relatives.

Posted by marcos on Sep. 21, 2012 @ 10:20 am

If he'd just had the decency to resign, the legal bills wouldn't be a problem, would they?

Posted by Hortencia on Sep. 24, 2012 @ 12:11 pm

Well. Most revealing.

Hortencia, I've yet to see a single comment made under your name which exhibits much value, but here you seem to be correctly identifying the prosecution of Ross Mirkarimi for witness intimidation, child endangerment, and domestic violence as wholly motivated by the fact that he won the November election.


Posted by lillipublicans on Sep. 24, 2012 @ 12:45 pm

No, I'm saying that when he realized how badly he betrayed the public trust by acting as he did (and not just on New Year's Eve), he should have resigned. Any man of honor would have. He still should. (P.S. I live in D5, thought he was a great supe, and supported his election, including financially.)

Posted by Hortencia on Sep. 24, 2012 @ 12:57 pm