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.”


You said he would have not had a problem with legal bills if he'd just resigned. The only bit of light you've ever cast here.


Posted by lillipublicans on Sep. 24, 2012 @ 2:06 pm

Yes, "lillipublicans," his legal bills wouldn't have been problematic if he'd done the right thing and resigned.

Posted by Hortencia on Sep. 24, 2012 @ 3:59 pm

resigns quickly to sspare his family and the rest of an an ordeal like that.

But the same stubborness that caused Ross to lash out at his wife and get himself arrested is at work here too. He just doesn't know when he's not wanted.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 24, 2012 @ 1:05 pm

To spare people, sure, but also to honor the public trust of the office.

Posted by Hortencia on Sep. 24, 2012 @ 1:20 pm

Exactly. When I first heard that Mirkarimi pleaded guilty my thought was 'Wow, I wonder who the new sheriff will be?'.

And then when I read on I thought 'WTF? He pleads guilty to a crime and then he thinks that he can just go back to being Sheriff? Really?'.

Posted by Another Guest on Sep. 24, 2012 @ 2:06 pm

"His wife has got him by the short hairs."

Are you kidding with that item?!

Posted by Guest on Sep. 21, 2012 @ 3:41 pm

Eliana will suddenly remember that a bruise had "happened before". Maybe several times.

Must be hard for such a "powerful man" to have to walk on eggshells around she who now wears the pants in that house.

Oh, the indignity.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 21, 2012 @ 4:42 pm

Not usual for me to comment nor to use the term "hater" but YOU take "imagined" pleasure on such a reptilian emotional level...if your not being paid and are really that miserable ...there is help out there if you want it.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 22, 2012 @ 9:47 am

You have a really screwed up view of marriage if you think that kind of power-playing is healthy or normal. If you think that's the way Eliana operates, how can it be squared with all the compassionate wailing about both of them just wanting to save their loving family?

Posted by Guest (the same one) on Sep. 22, 2012 @ 11:33 am

create a video that could only be intended to damage Ross. Eliana thought that would give her an edge and a tactic in what she perceived was a future custody battle. But such conniving often rebounds on the perp, as it did here. Eliana never thought Ross would lose his job and paycheck, which of course she had and has designs on.

It's impossible to know what would have happened between them had Ivory not called the cops. but my guess is that Ross and eliana would have self-destructed. This affair has rather bizarrely united them, at least until and unless Ross can get his job back.

Eliana wants Ross's paycheck. Whether she wants Ross is another matter, and we won't know that for a while longer. But neither of them emerge from this with much credit, and we'd all be better off if they just vanished - together or separately.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 24, 2012 @ 8:41 am


(Sorry Daniele. I know I'll regret this later.)

Posted by lillipublicans on Sep. 24, 2012 @ 9:32 am

Eliana's motives have been transparent from the start. In fact, I've predicted her every move with 100% accuracy so far. She misread the situation and compounded Ross's problems. Even so, Ross only has himself to blame.

I suspect as soon as this is over. Eliana will file for divorce. And she'll be in a very good position to win custody now Ross is no longer "a powerful man".

And I'm sure she will let him keep his panty collection. As long as she gets his money, assuming there is any left.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 24, 2012 @ 9:49 am

makes much more moolah than her husband, as a famous actress, doesn't come into play?Perhaps I should call it "urinalysis"

Posted by Guest on Sep. 24, 2012 @ 9:56 am

to have "predicted her every move with 100% accuracy so far."

Guest, you fault me for (supposedly) not being able to refute your claims, and for (supposedly) only answering anti-Mirkarimi haters with insults, but when you make claims for yourself which you are obviously inherently unable to prove, then what would be the worth in disputing them on a point by point basis?

You exhibit no intellectual integrity and only seek to spread your scat in an effort to besmirch one of the great public servants of our time.

Your particular fascination with a "panty collection" you falsely attribute to Ross Mirkarimi is probably more revealing of your own weaknesses than you'd like it to be.

Posted by lillipublicans on Sep. 24, 2012 @ 10:04 am

I cannot prove Eliana only wants Ross's money at this point and you cannot prove that she does not. This forum isn't really about proof at all - it's about expressing opinions and I was expressing mine.

It's my opinion that Ross and Eliana are both crucially flawed and that, in some weird sense, they're almost well suited. But I still don't expect them to survive.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 24, 2012 @ 1:01 pm

*almost* *always* promote their opinions as fact and don't back down until called on it.

Posted by lillipublicans on Sep. 24, 2012 @ 2:12 pm

I think he abused and beat his wife. You think it was a momentary guiding of her arm.

It's all spin.

Except the criminal conviction. That's fact.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 25, 2012 @ 4:44 am

Case in point.

And as for "spin," Mirkarimi being unsupportably charged with witness intimidation, child endangerment, and domestic violence over an arm grab based on a video which was made under higly suspect guidance of an ersatz attorney with an agenda and released in contravention of Eliana Lopez's right to attorney-client confidentiality -- *was* spin.

And yes, Ross Mirkarimi being compelled to plea to false imprisonment -- the same plea Gascon accepted for Mason Mayer's ruthless beating and threats of death against his girlfriend -- *was* spin.

Ross was faced with a trial in a courthouse shaded by billboards which proclaimed his guilt, and a DA with who had already been trying the case in the court of public opinion by issuing detail upon detail of every scurrilous and salacious accusation being made against him. That was spin.

Posted by lillipublicans on Sep. 25, 2012 @ 7:45 am

The matter of Paul Renne licensed attorney professional misconduct....Calif Bar Assn
Who receives 100K from his wife’s lawfirm that defended Ed Lee from the Go Lorrie money laundering wherein thousands of laundered money entered Lee’s campaign funds.
Rule 5-200 Trial Conduct In presenting a matter to a tribunal, a member:
(B) Shall not seek to mislead the judge, judicial officer, or jury by an artifice or false statement of fact or law;

Paul Renne in regard to the charter amdmt. 'Official Misconduct" Problem for Renne RM was not "official sheriff" on the day of the incident...Renne knows his starting place he has to convict or sustain the mayor's charges so how can he do it ? (because Ross was not "official" sworn in on 12/31 ) Renne pronounces "Well he was supervisor (huh) everyone look at Paul (what did he say?) Renne goes forth boldly where more prudent would not ..."well on December 31 , he was supervisor" ...implying Renne was posing this argument "couldn’t any official position hold the place of the charter amndmt "official misconduct" and MAGICALLY make in applicable i.e. fit Ross when he is sworn in as Sheriff week later that is official would transfer from supervisor to sheriff FOR Mr. Renne? That is the "official" part from when Ross was supervisor can later become the “”official” of the sheriff thereby hold the place of that quality so Paul Renne can arrive at his predestination i.e he knew he was going to sustain the charges ?'legally” huh . That seemed a stretch but undaunted Renne mounts his charger and arrive at the next meeting with a new one (remember this is Renne's second try)....our illustrious barrister puts forth….wohl "couldnt the plea of RM when he was sheriff be misconduct" (huh) the plea is official misconduct” yeah ...both of these ploys are unprofessioanl unethical conduct under the rules of the Calif Bar Assn.
Rule 520 presenting a matter to a Tribunal (the BOS)
B) Shall not seek to mislead the judge, judicial officer, or jury by an artifice or false statement of fact or law. The jury being the BOS who are prepared to possibly overturn a democratic election wherein a licensed attorney Renne(not alone though) attempts to "mislead" put forth “artifice” and “false fact of law”

Posted by thatsthewayitis on Sep. 20, 2012 @ 1:37 pm

be on the chopping block for gross incompetence in this matter. Having people circulating such petitions would form a basis for communicating fact in regard to this case to those who otherwise might be tempted to sign for a recall of the sheriff.

Posted by lillipublicans on Sep. 20, 2012 @ 2:55 pm

First, the BoS, is clearly not a jury as referred by the Rule. Second, lawyers give opinions all the time. Clearly this was his opinion. He supported it etc. To argue that he committed malpractice by this would cause every lawyer who ever argued before a Judge and lost guilty of malpractice. The clear intent of the law is to prevent lawyers from outright lying.

Posted by D. native on Sep. 20, 2012 @ 9:43 pm

The LEGAL Def. of Tribunal

1) An officer or body with the authority to pronounce judgment on a matter based upon the evidence.
2) A court or other judicial body.
3) The bench or seat where the judge sits while presiding over a hearing or trial
So it isnt true this was not argument advocacy for his/her client this was "bastardization" of the clear intent of the Charter it is unprofessional conduct to make this "meritless" argument to a "TRIBUNAL" clealy the BOS IS a Tribunal........ empowered as "body with the authority to pronounce judgment on a matter based upon the evidence. "

Posted by Guest on Sep. 21, 2012 @ 7:40 am

IN the MATTER of Dorothy Liu’s Ethics Commissioner her background includes community work on behalf of the Chinatown Community Development Corporation whose head was a co-chair of the Run Ed Run committee. “Our backgrounds give us unparalleled access to key decision-makers. We have critical government contacts, as well as the know-how and experience to convert access into success,” states their web site. Her law firm Hanson and Bridgett does close to 6 million dollars of work with the City of San Francisco.
So the loverly Ms. Liu voted FOR the Mayor against RM. How did she get there?

From the smorgasbord of the” Official Misconduct” charter amendment. .
“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…”
The loverly Liu found a delicious morsel “ …or conduct that falls below the standard of decency, good faith and right action impliedly required of all public officers .” aahh she thought that’s IT. As soon as she tasted this tasty section she was in love with it. DECENCY had a broad taste it seemed to spread out hmmmm and she thought this being an “inquisition” FULL of judgment and righteousness ahh who could blame her for loving this flavor. Problem as delicious as the loverly Liu found it that um there was a problem? A fly in the ointment the ENTIRE 4 corners of the amendment deals with “official” every word points to “duties of his or her office” BUT… RM wasn’t in office on 12/31. But wait thought Loverly Liu thought this is too tasty and it spreads like warm butter hmmm…standard of decency” She became determined oh no this train is bound for glory (oh this train) this is too good. Okay said Dorothy as she gathered her strength …she became steadfast she would not be a prisoner of this Charter amendment.
Dorothy felt like she was in a prison cell imprisoned by the word “Official” of Official misconduct “ she knew that could only be while “official” i.e. performing the duties of the office …..WAIT WAIT Dorothy felt the like a train of salvation that was headed her way….and sure enough she thought if I wait here in this station, there will be an answer , it was just an intuition …she waited and sure enough the train squeaked to a halt. Again the delicious taste mmm “standard of decency” in her mouth mmm like a chocolate bonbon she could feel the sweet taste and like a jack in the box at the end of it’s tune pop and into her BRAIN was an overwhelming victory ohh there is and she announced to the Ethics Committee CONFIDENTLY she announced…..
“…. I read conduct falls below decency not “time restricted while carrying out the duties.” HUH any one with a legal IQ thought because the law is “Official Misconduct” this was ahh crazy because now Loverly Liu was Subtracting the “Official” from the “Official Misconduct” and no one could deny it ….what was left was just “Misconduct” but but the delicious taste had already moved into Dorothy’s brain and numbed her she became satisfied.
While Dorothy was happy with her performance along came Rule 5-200 of the California Bar Assn to rain on her parade.

“Trial Conduct In presenting a matter to a tribunal, a member:
(B) Shall not seek to mislead the judge, judicial officer, or jury by an artifice or false statement of fact or law.”
Dorothy to be honest if you MADE the decency provision as “not time restricted” when LEGALLY logically in so doing you have changed the charter to “Misconduct “ not “Official Misconduct”however the voters had passed a law that dealt with TIME making it time restricted having the word “Official” before the word “Misconduct” The two words were put together by the voters and they were restricting it to when the person was confined to the office yes Dorothy restricted BY time. Therefore Dorothy you attempted to mislead the …jury (BOS) by an artifice i.e. saying the charter was not time restricted when it clearly was and have committed unprofessional conduct under rule 5-200 (B) (shall not ) mislead …jury …by an artifice or false statement of fact or law.

Posted by thatsthewayitis on Sep. 20, 2012 @ 4:40 pm

Join me please, all who believe in righteousness and justice, to attend the hearing Oct 9th and add our voices to those who demand fairness for Ross and Eliana!

Posted by Dootise on Sep. 20, 2012 @ 6:00 pm

Not to mention Daniele, Erika and AnnG?

Keep it up.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 21, 2012 @ 4:27 am

You need to stop looking at this like a criminal justice proceeding. It's not. The best comparison would be to the impeachment and removal procedure outlined in the U.S. Constitution. No one does voir dire for the Senate, do they?

Posted by Guest on Sep. 21, 2012 @ 3:37 pm

Rule 5-200 of the California Bar Assn.
“Trial Conduct In presenting a matter to a tribunal, a member:
(B) Shall not seek to mislead the judge, judicial officer, or jury by an artifice or false statement of fact or law.”
Studely, Liu and Renne attempted in bad faith to apply the “Official Misconduct” Charter Amendment against RM for the arm grab in so doing they want to overturn an election and used “artifice” and false statement of fact to do so. They are attempting to remove the Sheriff who was elected by the citizens of SF and do so against the Rules of Conduct of the Calif Bar Assn
Rule 5-20 Trial Conduct to a Tribunal…misleading by artifiice and false statement of fact and law”....this is unprofessional and unethical behavior by these 3 attorneys.
They ignored and covered over the facts:
1) RM was not in office on 12/31
2) The arm grab was “personal” (not private) but not “a public“ act as Ben Hur emphasized and this cannot be considered “official misconduct” as it did not occur while “official” and it was not connected to the “duties of office of Sheriff.

All three arrived at a guilty verdict (sustain the mayor’s charges) using merit less argument and reverse engineered their rationale rather than proceed by applying the Charter as it was written. In different ways these three tried to budge the act into the “time frame” when RM was “official” Renne by stating RM accepting the plea was “official misconduct” and being on probation was “official misconduct” ( By definition they are not harmful acts but were RM accepting responsibility for his behavior and could never be considered “official misconduct” by definition therefore making merit less argument before a tribunal the BOS.)
Liu and Studely put forth the merit less argument the “official misconduct” charter A. “could very well have a going forward element” proof this is merit less is the logic of that is IF it could occur when RM was not “official” that would require a change in the title of the charter amendment from “Official Misconduct” to “Misconduct” Again because they reverse engineered the guilty verdict they had to make up merit less argument to reach this irrational verdict done in bad faith and all 3 should be sanctioned by the Calif. Bar Assn.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 21, 2012 @ 9:55 pm

Of context over and over again does not make it true. Just makes you seem like that crazy guy at the back of the Muni bus everyone try's to ignore and hopes doesn't hit them.

Posted by D. Native on Sep. 22, 2012 @ 6:30 am

Let us assume you are correct just for argument sake WHAT about this post "is not true" sir or madam

Posted by Guest on Sep. 22, 2012 @ 7:45 am
Posted by lillipublicans on Sep. 22, 2012 @ 8:27 am

What violence was glorified, excused, advocated, or threatened? I missed it.

Posted by Hortencia on Sep. 22, 2012 @ 12:03 pm

the corrupt Lee machines connivance to depose an elected official who has a track record representing the best of San Francisco public service; as someone who supports the utterly contemptible notion that Ross Mirkarimi -- a distinct individual person with a family made up of distict individuals -- must suffer punishment as though his momentary mistake of an arm grab is part and parcel of every serious cases of domestic violence which has ever occured, your lack of perception regarding the implicit threat of violence, whether real or feigned, is unsurprising.

Here's the quote:
"Posting the same BS nonsense that is taken completely out
Of context over and over again does not make it true. Just makes you seem like that crazy guy at the back of the Muni bus everyone try's to ignore and hopes doesn't hit them."

I'm not going to spell it out.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 24, 2012 @ 11:50 am

Still not seeing a threat of violence, Guest. Maybe you'll have to spell it out.

Posted by Hortencia on Sep. 24, 2012 @ 12:06 pm

Ok- first- that section of the CA Bar code is taken completely out of context and has been warped to meet your sad little world via. Lawyers, and for that matter Judges are completely free to make arguments and render opinions as they see fit. If they are then over turned on appeal or denied by the Judge, life goes on. You are trying to take a rule that exists to prevent lawyers from committing outright fraud and lying to Courts and apply it to this situation. While four of the five members are in fact lawyers, there is ZERO evidence that they committed fraud or out right lied to anyone. Sorry but simply giving their opinion which is different from yours is not a fraud or a lie, it is simply a difference of opinion.

Posted by D.native on Sep. 22, 2012 @ 1:27 pm

You are forgetting something 3 of the lawyers of the EC were NOT suppose to be advocatiing for their client (in fact they were advocating for Ed Lee against their oath to rule without conflict of interest) Renne gets 100K from his wife's law firm that DEFENDED none other than Ed Lee (for Election fraud money laundering with involvement of John L Martin of the Airport commisiion and a Willie Brown fixer middled the deal) Dorothy Liu is involved with Rose Pak's Chinatown Developement Community Corp. and her law firm does 6 million of work for Herrerra and they brag about their city hall connections. It isnt their opinion they are required under the rule to not present fals statements of fact and law and they are prohibited from making false arguments using artifice...these 3 that voted against RM committed unprofessional conduct and it could NOT be said in the fervor of advocacy because they are not suppose to be advocates in this issue.

Rule 5-200 of the California Bar Assn.
“Trial Conduct In presenting a matter to a tribunal, a member:
(B) Shall not seek to mislead the judge, judicial officer, or jury by an artifice or false statement of fact or law

Posted by Guest on Sep. 22, 2012 @ 2:38 pm

"...they were advocating for Ed Lee..."

Wow, so any vote saying the Sheriff committed official misconduct is "advocating for Ed Lee." Got it. Never mind the facts, never mind their duty to the citizens of San Francisco. It's all political, always.

Posted by Hortencia on Sep. 22, 2012 @ 6:40 pm

No you no capisce...they were compromised read the info
"The newest commissioner is Paul Renne, a seasoned attorney married to former City Attorney Louise Renne. As a result, Paul Renne reports that he receives $100,000 or more in income from her practice at Renne, Sloan Holtzman Sakai LLP, which provided legal advice to the Ed Lee for Mayor campaign regarding the Go Lorrie’s money laundering case. The case against the Go Lorries contributors was referred by Ethics to the District Attorney where several misdemeanors are pending. The FPPC has fined the Go Lorrie’s company nearly $50,000.
Beverly Hayon joined the commission early in 2011, a midnight appointment by outgoing mayor Gavin Newsom
Liu’s background includes community work on behalf of the Chinatown Community Development Corporation whose head was a co-chair of the Run Ed Run committee.“Our backgrounds give us unparalleled access to key decision-makers. We have critical government contacts, as well as the know-how and experience to convert access into success,” states their web site."
(the Above Courtesy of Larry Bush CitiR.)
The post clearly lists Rule 5-200 of the California Bar Assn. NOT only were they compromised by being associated with Ed Lee's election fraud 'Go Lorrie" case the Chinatown ballot fraud filmed (G Gascon insuiffient evidence)
the violations of Studely Liu and Renne fall under the Calif Bar Assn rules of professional conduct.
“Trial Conduct In presenting a matter to a tribunal, a member:
(B) Shall not seek to mislead the judge, judicial officer, or jury by an artifice or false statement of fact or law.”

Posted by thatsthewayitis on Sep. 22, 2012 @ 7:29 pm

Mirkarimi supporters on this board were cheering for Paul Renne at the beginning of the hearing when he denounced Ivory Madison's declaration. You just don't like him now because of the way he voted. It's the same with the rest of the commissioners. Transparent.

Posted by Hortencia on Sep. 24, 2012 @ 12:08 pm

Do you realize you are saying nothing 'aah you just dont like Renne" I showed he is connected to Ed Lee's election fraud and money laundering in the post above right. and Renne was appointed to the EC by G. Gascon the DA who found insufficient evidence to prosecute tED LEE's money laundering and ballot fraud do you see how silly you loo when you say
"You just don't like him "
Do you realize those are facts and you dont offer any facts just conclusions (silly) and finally "Transparent" REALLY what is most transparent is your inability to deal with the TRUTH take a deep breath accept what is real if there is no answer accetp that RM has been subjected to an inquisition OR offer facts .....dont fear the voters dont fear the truth

Posted by thatsthewayitis on Sep. 24, 2012 @ 4:03 pm

Do you realize you wouldn't have bothered to research any of this if Renne had voted your way?

Posted by Hortencia on Sep. 25, 2012 @ 8:09 am

Mirkarimi supporters are winning the debate here, as evidenced by the increasingly desperate and vitriolic remarks of the anonymous trolls who post here and at web sites for the Chronicle and Examiner.

The identity of such trolls is unknown, but my guess would be Chris Cunnie or Gossip Girl.

Posted by Erika McDonald on Sep. 22, 2012 @ 8:11 am

of 2012. Since a majority of SF voters want Ross gone, it's hardly surprising that you see that preference being expressed a lot.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 22, 2012 @ 8:14 am

An example of that is how they continue to flog the same highly suspect polls -- among which number two skewed push polls, one of which that is outdated, and one which has been referenced by gossip columnists but never produced in the least part.

I've said all along that my informal polling showed that people for the most part don't think that Ross Mirkarimi deserves further punishment for his mistake of a momentary arm grab; and of those I've spoken to who expressed negative opinion him claiming "he's just another politician," reflecting a poor opinion of all politicians in general -- which, of course I think is a bit mistaken in Ross' case.

Interesting that this runs across the political spectrum. By inveighing against Ross as the supposedly "wife beating" sheriff, the anti-Mirkarimi haters may have succeeded in splitting some progressive votes away from him, but they have also divided their own reactionary cohort.

Posted by lillipublicans on Sep. 22, 2012 @ 8:41 am

Where I stand, the Ross supporters are getting desperate as evidenced by the increasingly silly arguments being posted here- Please see the latest rant accusing the Ethics Commission of violating the Rules of the CA Bar. Sad.

Posted by D.native on Sep. 22, 2012 @ 1:29 pm

That is far fro silly the violations are clear the 3 attorneys were to be "equaniminous" not advocate for their "client" 2 of them had clear compromised positions one Liu connected to the "Run Ed Run" campaign from the CDCC a Rose Pak affiliate and the election Ballot FRAUD took place in Chinatown. Renne receives 100K from his wife's law firm which DEFENDED Ed Lee in the campaing fraud Go Lorrie money laundering with the funds going to Ed Lee (connected to a Willie Brown fixer and the Airport Commission's John L Martin it was pay for play.the other Studely was appointed by Herrera the attorney for the mayor.
The unprofessional conduct was ALSO very clear to a legal mind also what was clear is these 3 "reverse engineerd" their decision Ross was guilty then the tried to make the Charter Amendment fit and their efforts are EASY to detect as in "well the Charter Amdmt. "could" very "well" have a Forward lookiing element." IMPOSSIBLE a law is the four corners it isnt like the weather or wind moving forward OBVIOUS merit less argument false and legal artifice.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 24, 2012 @ 7:26 am

Gascon charged Ross Mirkarimi with what is now known to be the unsubstantiatable charge of "witness intimidation" in addition to the other inflated charges stemming from Mirkarimi's New Year's Day van turn and his momentary arm grab.

Is it not indeed well worth questioning whether his fortuitous chance to make the Renne pick to the ethics commission was decided with this case in mind?

But that aside, the city's ethics law truly *is* horrible, as the mayor's *EXEMPTION* from its reach makes plainly clear.

The provisions in the ethics law now being taken to allow the mayor and his cronies to depose an elected official should promptly be erased from the city's charter, with the ultimate remedy for official misconduct being returned solely to the voters.

Just thinking out loud here, but in order to preserve the investigatory power of the EC in such cases, perhaps the process might be initiated only by supermajority vote of supervisors or by public petition.

The mayor already has *way* too much power in this matter. Remember Lord Acton.

Posted by lillipublicans on Sep. 24, 2012 @ 9:22 am

“Mirkarimi was still a member of the Board of Supervisors and sheriff-elect at the time of the incident, and was not officially sworn in as sheriff until Jan. 8.
In a response filed today by Herrera, the city attorney derided that argument.
He wrote that if it is true, "then there is a period of complete immunity between election and the oath of office for every new or continuing elected official to commit any kind of reprehensible act without the possibility of removal from his or her position of public trust." (Courtesy of Bay Citiz.)

This is an interesting issue that has an answer in it (for those with legal interests) Herrera contends the Charter amendment “Can Do” whatever the immediate situation calls for a legal chameleon it can refer to this now and tomorrow broaden to encompass the new one (that is the charter A. changes to fit the need and can be called upon to be or do something else tomorrow with new EC members imagining what the voters wanted) The lawful solution is the law is its own explanation
Honestly square shooting here the law is what the law says and that is Sup Ct. stuff…
Expediency even if it provides justice for an instant case CANNOT rewrite the law or its interpretation even IF it were “to serve” justice or anything else. The law must be applied as the Voters approved it in the charter amendment. Its easy to see any other interpretation throws our system of laws and democracy into disarray (the charter amendment as approved by the Voters is the 4 corners of it) SO Herrera argument that the charter amendment SHOULD be interpreted in a way to allow it to go back in time (when RM was not official i.e. 12/31) so to apply vs. RM goes against what the Voters approved period.

Herrera’s rationale “so the elected official wont plan to rob the bank between election day and the day he is sworn in is not just STUPID it also is stupid legally and lacks jurisprudence for the law cannot be a chameleon. So to apply the Official Misconduct A. in this case even if RM was not “official” goes AGAINST the 4 corners of what the voters approved. Because the “official” of O.M. confines the law (in time) to when RM was “official” and being a supervisor cannot serve as proxy for that. The 3 attorneys of the EC going in were finding RM guilty they then had a big problem reverse engineering how they got there and the logic FORCED them to be as stupid as they were. They had to “play with time” and put RM in the “TIME MACHINE”: when he wasn’t there when he was not official etc another part of the antics of the 3 Stooges is they rewrote the amendment (by interpreting it) (the voters want this and the voters meant that) is was laughable if this were not so serious.

This reading is what any appeal court process will reach NO matter what the BOS does so if the BOS sustains the EC decision this will be the most disruptive solution when the FAIR application of the Charter should state simply the arm grab didn’t occur when RM was Sheriff. AND if the Voters want to include the time between Election Day and the day the elected official is sworn in they are free to do so but this amendment cannot sing and dance to the tune needed at the time. The voters have the recall and if the Sheriff robbed the bank he would be in jail. The approved amendment only discusses the time WHEN “official” in official misconduct WHICH could not refer to this instant case and whether the arm grab was an offense pertaining to the “official duties” of the Sheriff, Ben Hur made clear this case was a “personal” offense [personal does not equate to the “private” in the discredited “DV is a private matter”, no it is not not “public” offense (pertaining to the duties of office) If the voters want the Official misconduct to pertain to non duties of the office holder they can do that also this amendment isn’t Sammy Davis Junior it cant sing dance and tell jokes it can only do what it “SAYS” no more.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 22, 2012 @ 11:35 am

They make him unfit for office.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 22, 2012 @ 11:43 am

What is true is that we are a country of laws a democratic country ...the laws protect our democracy from POLITCAL tyranny that overturns elections and a tyranny that does so to support a corrupt syndicate that rules SF. Discussions about crimes MUST include affronts to our democracy and the elective process is the cornerstone fo that. Done to ELECT Ed Lee was money laundering (2 known cases Go Lorrie , Archaway tens of thousands of dollars involved the voter fraud Chinatown the DA part of the syndicate "insufficient evidence) Ron Conway has a slush fund of over $6t00.000 dollars to Independent Election Commtes. to elect Ed Lee and Conway has interests as angel funder in Twitter next thing Twitter gets a permanent tax holiday corruption upon corruption to equate an arm grab with the overthrowing of an election and the forces here have corrupted our election process as well is to only be serving their corrupt interests and not those of the people of San Francisco

Posted by Guest on Sep. 22, 2012 @ 12:03 pm

It absolutely and very particularly matters when the arm grab was "committed".Hint: He wasn't yet the Sheriff.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 22, 2012 @ 12:11 pm