Perjury charges don't look so good for the mayor

|
(65)

The Chron doesn't think it's important, but there's some serious evidence in today's Ex that the mayor wasn't entirely forthcoming when he testified before the Ethics Commission. The declarations from Debra Walker and Aaron Peskin are attached at the end of the story; they're worth reading.

Walker is very straightforward: She says she's friends with Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi and his wife, Eliana Lopez. She's also been close friends with Sup. Christina Olague:

Ms. Olague and I often got together for coffee or movies, and we talked often about land-use issues. I wrote a letter of support for Ms. Olague to Mayor Lee, asking him to appoint her as supervisor. At her request, I loaned her a painting to hang in her office when she took office.

All of that is consistent with what I've heard about their friendship, and it doesn't sound like Walker was ever out to get Olague or to put her in a bad situation.

Then Walker  explains that during the week of March 6, she was talking to Olague and complained about the Mirkarimi case. "She said the mayor had asked her about the case when they were talking about other issues, and had asked her for her thoughts."

The declaration goes on a bit, with plenty of backup to the idea that Olague and Lee had discussed how to deal with the sheriff. Which doesn't surprise me -- I have heard from other prominent people in the city that Lee reached out to them for advice on whether to suspend Mirkarimi.

But it's a problem for two reasons. One is that Olague, sitting as a judge in this case, isn't supposed to have talked to anyone else about it -- certainly not the prosecuting authority, the mayor.

The other is that Lee denied under oath that he had talked to any of the supervisors about the case.

Debra Walker isn't a fan of Ed Lee, but she would have had to go to considerable lengths to create this level of fiction. It rings honest to me, particularly when she notes that "on June 29, 2012, at 2:10 pm, I received a phone message from Supervisor Olague saying 'Debra, the converstaion never happened.'"

Look: This is a sworn statement, made under penalty of perjury. So either Walker's lying and guilty of perjury, or the mayor is. Which seems more likely?

Ditto for the Peskin declaration, which includes dates, times, places, and specific messages. Again: Did Peskin go out of his way to perjury himself -- or did the mayor fail to tell the truth on the stand?

This is now part of the case, like it or not: The credibility of the mayor is one of the issues at hand -- and more important, if Lee talked to Olague he probably talked to others. Who would then have to recuse themselves.

Comments

And that fascist Gascone is covering for the mayor.

Why isn't the LameStream press all over this?

Posted by Guest on Sep. 25, 2012 @ 3:53 pm

It's bad enough the SF Chron's editorial writers never mentioned this story that basically proves District Attorney George Gascon is terribly corrupt and should be defeated in his next election but to (the Bay Guardian's) Tim, Steve, Bruce or Jean, why didn't any of you pen a column in the Bay Guardian about this story???

Granted the SF Chron made very little of it (was in the paper one day only and somehow those guardians of correct behavior at the Chron never did an editorial on it despite numerous editorials on Mirk) but I'm amazed that none of you at the SFBG heard of this story.

Assuming you did (I think that's a safe assumption), why wasn't this discussed by any of you?

This is plain obvious corruption by Gascon in my book and when a newspaper in an area gives a pass to this kind of corruption, it only invites more since the public officials in the area (in this case, Gascon, & Mayor Lee) and big donors see that the press in the area will let obvious corruption stories be ignored.

Here's a link to the story in the Sept 6, 2012 Chron and the article itself:

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/No-charges-for-firm-in-Ed-Lee-dona...

********* start of article ***********

District Attorney George Gascón will not file criminal charges in the case of a property management firm accused of laundering thousands of dollars in contributions to Mayor Ed Lee's election campaign last fall, a spokeswoman said Thursday.

There was "insufficient evidence to support criminal charges," said Gascón spokeswoman Stephanie Ong Stillman. She declined to go into specifics on the decision.

The case had centered around $4,500 in contributions to Lee's campaign from employees and associates of Archway Property Services. Lee's campaign returned the money after being contacted by The Chronicle with questions about the donations. Lee's campaign also notified prosecutors that it may "be the victim of a fraud."

A donor provided The Chronicle with an e-mail from Andrew Hawkins, managing director of Archway Property Services who had worked as an eviction strongman for CitiApartments Inc., sent to 16 associates directing them to attend an Oct. 18 fundraiser for Lee.

"I expect each and every one of you to be at this event tonight," he wrote in capital letters. "Bring your check books and write a check for $500 for Ed Lee donation. You will be reimbursed right away for you coming."

At least nine people - eight Archway employees and the spouse of someone who received Hawkins' e-mail - donated the $500 maximum allowed under city law at the event, finance records show.

One of the donors, who asked for anonymity for fear of retaliation, said Archway employees were reimbursed for donations. The donor gave The Chronicle a copy of a $500 reimbursement check from Archway.

Hawkins, who sent the e-mail under the name Dr. Andrew Hawkins-Cohen, donated $500 to Lee on Sept. 2, campaign finance records show.

State law prohibits donating in someone else's name or being reimbursed for a contribution.

Hawkins said last fall that the money-laundering allegations were "more of an internal misunderstanding," and he would not discuss details about it.

The whistle-blower who provided the documents to The Chronicle was fired shortly afterward. A call to Archway Property Services was not returned Thursday.

*********** end of article *********

There's nothing complicated about the story and no legitimate reason for Gascon not to file charges against Andrew Hawkins (or Dr. Andrew Hawkins-Cohen - whatever his correct name is).

The only reason Gascon wouldn't file charges against Andrew Hawkins is that AH was helping out Mayor Ed Lee (both Gascon and Lee got their jobs because of Gavin Newsom) so AH can get caught acting corruptly but gets a pass from the DA (and from the Chron and SFBG).

What's also terrible about this story is the whistle blower - the one who acted ethically - was the one punished (he or she was fired) while the one who broke the law and engaged in massive corruption (AH) wasn't punished.

It'd be nice if every San Franciscan home received a copy of this story in the mail so that at election time, they'd know better than to ever cast a vote for the very corrupt DA George Gascon.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 25, 2012 @ 10:32 pm

that the sheriff is a "wife beater," this case makes me think that Lee *is* utterly corrupt.

Why funnel so much corrupt campaign cash to a candidate if you don't have a quid-pro-quo basis for doing so? Why take such an extreme risk if you don't expect to get away with it -- EVEN IF CAUGHT?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Posted by lillipublicans on Sep. 26, 2012 @ 10:22 am

2 documented election frauds that Gascon found "insufficient evidence"
Courtesy of SF Citiz. So ACCEPT the challenge do you think there is "insufficient evidence" or do we need the FBI
"The well documented scene in Chinatown of Ed Lee IE campaign workers filling out ballots for voters and the Go Lorries money laundering scheme may seem tame in comparison to what two local newspapers documented in today’s paper.
The San Francisco Chronicle is reporting that a person known for “strong-arming tenants out of rent-controlled apartments” emailed associates of Archway Property Services directing them to attend a Lee fundraiser and telling them they would be reimbursed for their $500 contribution. Campaign finance laws prohibit money laundering.
Andrew Hawkins, the managing director of Archway Property Services, emailed 16 associates the following: “I expect each and every one of you to be at this event tonight. Bring your check books and write a check for $500.00 for Ed Lee donation. You will be reimbursed right away for you coming.”
Filling out their ballots
After describing themselves as prospective voters, two Epoch Times reporters were met by a Lee campaign worker who explained that her role with CTA included working on the Lee campaign.
The worker explained that “helping” voters in fact meant to simply have an elderly person sign and date their ballot, and then she or another campaign worker would take it away to fill it out and mail it in.
Using a nonprofit for campaign purposes
At 777 Broadway – a CCDC building – CTA is apparently running an office out of the community room in which they also distribute Ed Lee campaign literature and make announcements for meetings in support of Lee’s mayoral bid. CCDC says that political advertising is not allowed at their buildings.
Coincidental statistics
According to CCDC website, the 777 Broadway building includes 31 studio apartments. According to voter records, there are 33 registered voters of which 31 are vote by mail voters. This equates to nearly 94 percent of the voters being vote by mail. By comparison, the city at large is only 46 percent. And even as early as October 24, 60 percent of the 777 Broadway voters had already cast their ballots, versus only 6 percent for the rest of the city.
Equally troubling is the fact that 19 of the ballots from the building arrived at the Elections Office within a day of each other. In essence, the public is expected to believe that 1/3 of the ballots arrived at virtually the same time in complete coincidence.

Posted by thatsthewayitis on Sep. 28, 2012 @ 8:54 am

And it's why I've always been against the proliferation of absentee ballots. Is it not obvious that this process facilitates vote selling, vote extortion, and other corruption?

Posted by lillipublicans on Sep. 28, 2012 @ 9:11 am

"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.”

Why would she say such a thing unless she had indeed conferred with Ed Lee? If she did, it would be completely unjust for her to sit in judgment of Mirkarimi. She either needs to recuse herself immediately or explain to the voters why she made such a statement (about the need to recuse herself). Something's very fishy in Denmark.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 25, 2012 @ 4:45 pm

“At this point, I have 20 million other priorities... I don’t remember. It’s been too f---ing long. How many months has it been?”

http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/2012/09/olague-says-she-can-t-recall-det...

Posted by lillipublicans on Sep. 26, 2012 @ 7:57 am

A man's future hangs in the balance and Olague can't recall. Nice. No, I'm sorry but that just doesn't cut it. Well, at least she's no longer denying Walker's account ~

"When the perjury matter flared up, Walker claims her former friend Olague shunned her.

“On June 29, 2012 at 2:10 pm, I received a phone message from Supervisor Olague saying ‘Debra, the conversation never happened,’” Walker said. “I responded to her by text message saying that I thought that she should be honest that the Mayor perjured himself.”

"On Tuesday, Olague didn’t deny Walker’s account, but said she simply couldn’t remember."

http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/2012/09/olague-says-she-can-t-recall-det...

Posted by Guest on Sep. 26, 2012 @ 4:30 pm

Peskin never claims to have spoken to Ed Lee - so any "evidence" would be 2nd or 3rd hand.

And Debra Walker is completely non-credible here. She is one of the most prominent Mirkarimi backers. And what does the 2:10 PM phone call from Olague prove - other than she is corroborating Ed Lee?

Posted by Guest on Sep. 25, 2012 @ 4:51 pm

So, she backed Mirkarimi. She had to choose between two of her close friends, which is difficult under any circumstance. I think she chose to go with the truth.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 25, 2012 @ 5:19 pm

So you're sitting in an official hearing and you hear someone, under oath, say something that contradicts what a 'close friend' told you in confidence.

Do you:

a) Contact your 'close friend' to tell her of the discrepency, make sure that you heard her correctly and give her the chance to come forward?

b) Immediately rush to the press without ever contacting your 'close friend'. She'll find out about it when a bunch of reporters gather outside her door.

Posted by Troll on Sep. 25, 2012 @ 5:40 pm

So you're sitting in an official hearing and you hear someone, under oath, say something that contradicts what a 'close friend' told you in confidence.

Do you:

a) Contact your 'close friend' to tell her of the discrepency, make sure that you heard her correctly and give her the chance to come forward?

b) Immediately rush to the press without ever contacting your 'close friend'. She'll find out about it when a bunch of reporters gather outside her door.

Posted by Troll on Sep. 25, 2012 @ 5:40 pm

How do you know she didn't try to contact Olague first?

Posted by Guest on Sep. 25, 2012 @ 5:46 pm

Nope not omniscient. I just read Walker's very detailed statement which would have included your fairy tale solution if there was any reality behind it. Sorry.

Posted by Troll on Sep. 25, 2012 @ 7:26 pm

you seem to have missed this regarding a March 6 conversation she described with Olague:

"19. I asked Supervisor Olague if she thought the Mayor would remove Sheriff Mirkarimi from office. She said that the Mayor had asked her about the case when they were discussing other issues, and had asked her for her thoughts."

"20. Supervisor Olague told me that if asked, she would denay the conversation with the Mayor happened.

Thanks.

Posted by lillipublicans on Sep. 26, 2012 @ 4:19 am

Lilli, I was saying that if Walker was really a 'close friend' she would have checked with Olague before running to the press. To make sure that she heard it correctly and to give Olague the chance to come forward on her own terms. Instead she blindsided and damaged her 'close friend'. She could have said 'either you say something or I will' if she felt that strongly.

What the heck do the items you posted have anything to do with that?

Your lack of even remedial reading comprehension skills make me nauseous. I can't be responsible for trying to follow your convoluted, twisted thnking.

Posted by Troll on Sep. 26, 2012 @ 6:34 am

As the quotes I pulled from Walker's declaration show, Supervisor Olague had already made it clear to Walker that she intended to never publicly reveal that her conversation with the Mayor happened.

What Olague didn't know at the time was that it would come up in the EC hearing and that Lee would commit felony perjury about it.

You *are* casting about copious quantities ad hominems and distractionary nonsense here, reminds me of a story about rats scurring about a sinking ship: listing, listing, rail is going under... oh my!

Thanks.

Posted by lillipublicans on Sep. 26, 2012 @ 7:05 am

What can one say? I don't even have to know Debra Walker that well to know she's telling the truth. I happened to be near her at the recess during the hearing when this all came out. I know her as an upstanding person, and in this case just another person at the hearing who was clearly upset and in disbelief at what she was hearing. Why would she go out of her way if it weren't true?

I want an investigation. I want "the authorities", whoever that would be, to have the willingness and the neutrality to look into the matter. Will it happen? And if it doesn't, what does that say? Do "the powers that be" think we are stupid?

Is it all about hierarchy? That's not what a democracy is. It doesn't smell right, and we all have a right to know the truth—I don't care which "side" you are on.

Posted by Daniele E. on Sep. 25, 2012 @ 4:56 pm

Tim, you say that there is 'some serious evidence' about the perjury. Where is it?

We have Debra Walker's statement, completely uncorroborated. She may have heard what she wanted to hear or Olaque may have been exaggerating. That's why we have hearsay laws that determine 'serious evidence'. Evidence isn't considered 'serious' just because you want it to be, Tim. It's been a couple of months already and I assume that Mirkarimi's team has been trying to come up with some corroboration.

Do you want to tell us where it is Tim?

And Tim, please share with is your 'serious evidence' that Walter Wong wasn't freelancing, wasn't sounding out Peskin on his own. Which sure seems like the case since he went back to Peskin and said that the Mayor's office wasn't interested in a deal for Under-Sheriff. And if Lee intentionally included his arch enemy Peskin in a sensitive backroom deal then yes, he should be charged with mind blowing stupidity.

What are you going to do if the SFBG goes under, Tim? You think that there is a big market out there for dishonest journalists?

Posted by Troll on Sep. 25, 2012 @ 4:56 pm

It wouldn't be the first time a politician made a stupid ass of himself. The best evidence we have is this: a witness who just wasn't credible. Ed Lee was shifty, ill at ease and downright evasive on the witness stand. (Face it, he was doing so poorly, he needed a phoned-in bomb threat to save his ass on the stand!) Anyone who watched Lee's terrible performance -- all that squirming on the stand could see he was being evasive. But the fact that he's mayor gave him an unfair advantage when it comes to issues of justice and power. Gascon wasn't about to pursue it. But you have two people who have signed affidavits under penalty of perjury. Maybe if it was just Walker alone..or just Peskin alone, you could write it off. But this is not one crazy individual, but TWO city officials who understand what perjury is, and how serious it is to lie under oath. It seems highly unlikely that both of them would concoct a story to tell under oath, or were confused/ deluded about what was going down. Give us a break

Posted by Guest on Sep. 25, 2012 @ 5:44 pm

She's not fit to be supervisor, much less sit in judgment of someone else. She has proven that she is nothing but a Lee-bot.

Julian Davis for District 5 Supe!!

Posted by Guest on Sep. 25, 2012 @ 5:57 pm

"..more important, if Lee talked to Olague he probably talked to others. Who would then have to recuse themselves."

So, did Lee confer with other supes who aren't letting on? If so, this will be a monumental travesty of justice when the votes come down.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 25, 2012 @ 6:03 pm

>"So, did Lee confer with other supes who aren't letting on?"

The Examiner asked every Supervisor and I think something like 7 went on record saying no (they were from both sides of the aisle). The other 4 (such as Chiu) said that they were asked by the Attorney not to make any statement about Mirkarimi.

You won't read that here because it works against the Progressive story.

Posted by Troll on Sep. 25, 2012 @ 7:24 pm

Please help me locate it by providing a URL. Thanks.

Posted by lillipublicans on Sep. 26, 2012 @ 3:02 am

Dude, you were probably born stupid but the laziness is something that you could control if you wanted to. It took me about 5 seconds to find the article:

http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/2012/07/sf-city-attorney-slams-request-d...

"Olague denies ever speaking to the mayor about that, as do supervisors John Avalos, David Campos, Carmen Chu, Mark Farrell, Jane Kim, Eric Mar and Scott Wiener. Supervisors Malia Cohen and Sean Elsbernd, and board President David Chiu, declined to comment on the matter, citing a request by the City Attorney’s Office that they not speak publicly about a case they will ultimately decide."

This doesn't fit into the Progressive attempt to move the focus away from Mirkarimi's conviction so Tim ignores it and you will probably call it an 'absurd push poll'.

Posted by Troll on Sep. 26, 2012 @ 6:44 am

... and again it marks your position as one which requires insulting bombast and rhetorical sleight-of-hand to survive scrutiny in the light of day.

The question of whether any of the other supervisors were spoke to by the Mayor only speaks to whether Lee's perjury can be redundantly proven; not as to whether it happened... redundantly.

And as for your initial claim that supervisors from "both sides of the aisle" denied speaking to the mayor, that is also distractionary and meaningless.

Olague has now said: “At this point, I have 20 million other priorities. I don’t remember. It’s been too f---ing long. How many months has it been?”

None of the supervisors has filed a legal declaration regarding the matter, and Supervisors Malia Cohen and Sean Elsbernd, and board President David Chiu, declined to comment on the matter citing a request by the City Attorney’s Office that they not speak publicly about a case.

There is plenty of smoke here to suspect a fire, and your recourse to bombast and insult does nothing to extinguish any flames.

Posted by lillipublicans on Sep. 26, 2012 @ 7:22 am

"Evidence" can be misleading, as in the Mirkarimi video, but will be seized upon like it's the holy grail.
In Lee's case, the people claiming perjury are simply dismissed as not having clear enough "evidence".

Either way, what I see is an unwillingness to really look. And that's sad. Sad if you believe in justice.

Posted by Daniele E. on Sep. 25, 2012 @ 7:18 pm

“At this point, I have 20 million other priorities,” Olague said. “I don’t remember. It’s been too f---ing long. How many months has it been?”

'nuff said.

Posted by lillipublicans on Sep. 26, 2012 @ 3:15 am

Great—is she using foul language too (as in London Breed)? Very telling...basically, she's saying "get out of my face". This must be very uncomfortable for her, and well, that's understandable. Deflect, deflect.
Yeah, it's not cool to lie. Maybe Ed Lee can do it well, others, not so much.

I don't like to see this in my public officials, and I don't think I am alone.
Mirkarimi, on the other hand, made a human mistake in the heat of an emotional argument. I'd rather that than out and out liars.

Posted by Daniele E. on Sep. 26, 2012 @ 6:00 pm

That book keeps on coming back to me. I think its time for a re-read.

Did you know? Abe Reuf was a *very* clever man. He didn't hold office himself and would *never* have gotten caught running his *breathtakingly* corrupt San Francisco government had it not been for the bumbling freelancing that was going on by his lower echelons, the mayor and the supes.

I think there are some parallels to Brown and Lee here. Nothing quite "spooky," but quite amusing nontheless.

Posted by lillipublicans on Sep. 26, 2012 @ 3:57 am

Jason Grant Garza here ... maybe the MAYOR should speak with Barry Bonds over his situation regarding PERJURY. Are the "OFFICIALS" going to be sooo diligent as they were with Barry? Are they also going to INVESTIGATE the BOMB SCARE with the same diligence? I know they prepared their case against (Ross) with such DUE DILIGENCE (investigated before charging, ha,ha,ha), provided SOUND LEGAL FOOTING (prior cases) and provide the same STANDARD?

Yes, Virginia ... in a PERFECT world ... where JUSTICE, HONOR and TRUTH apply, however, that is NOT here. Don't believe me ... go to http://www.myownprivateguantanamo.com to see HOW the GAME is PLAYED.

There you will find a signed "Confession/Settlement Agreement" signed by the city dated 2007 for BREAKING FEDERAL LAW against me then leaving their INNOCENT VINDICATED VICTIM for DEAD. This was after TESTILYING in 2003 to have my case thrown out (C02-3485PJH) and applying scorched earth tactics and taking no prisoners (same as they are doing with ROSS.)

This confession was not out of the "KINDNESS" of the city attorney who left me for DEAD rather my continuing against ALL ODDS. I did not have an attorney like ROSS however, the difference will be the LARGE $$$$ CASH settlement that the city will offer ROSS naturally with the escape clause of admitting NOTHING ....

Yes JUSTICE for the RICH and JUST THIS for US. Go to http://www.myownprivateguantanamo.com

Prediction:

Preliminary perfunctory investigations, no appeals, case closed.
Settle with ROSS no admission. Go after MAYOR (not) no reason ...
the case was settled no admission.

Investigate the BOMB SCARE ... repeat above.

Shall we wait to see if the same zeal and vigor at arriving at the TRUTH will be used against the MAYOR and the BOMB SCARE. I can show the approach USED after signing a "CONFESSION" admitting BREAKING the LAW and leaving its INNOCENT VINDICATED VICTIM for DEAD ... ha,ha,ha.

"Telling the TRUTH during times of UNIVERSAL DECEIT is a REVOLUTIONARY Act." George Orwell

So has all the COMMOTION, FALSE CONCERN, and DIRE CONSEQUENCE now ended over the MINISTRY of SUNSHINE (not working, providing harm, damages and delay ... see case # 11081 (How long does it take to get a HIPAA expert?) ... what about the "RULES and STANDARDS" changes at ETHICS to EXTRACT a POUND of FLESH from ROSS ...yes, another CRISIS and the MAYOR's problems will too pass ....

Ha,ha,ha.

I mean the MAYOR did take the OATH for the "WHOLE TRUTH" or did he hear the "HOLE" truth when he took the OATH?

Again, go to http://www.myownprivateguantanamo.com to see the city provide EXPERT "TESTILYING" testimony ... what was the consequence of PERJURY?

Ha,ha,ha.

Please go to http://www.citireport.com/2012/05/mirkarimi%E2%80%99s-boo-boo/ to read more specifics ....

Posted by Jason Grant Garza on Sep. 26, 2012 @ 5:23 am

I'm curious as to the criteria he and other 'law enforcement' officials use when deciding which 'issues' warrant investigation. We have seen a brief video of Eliana Lopez in distress, in which she claims she was misrepresented, yet that is the cornerstone of the case against her husband. We have a video of apparent violations of campaign law occurring during the Mayor's campaign, no one has disputed them, yet they do not provide 'sufficient evidence' of possible wrong-doing. We have sworn declarations that the Mayor may have committed perjury and yet to date no investigative action has been taken. Something smells rotten in the Hall of the Mountebank Mayor.

Posted by Patrick Monk.RN. on Sep. 26, 2012 @ 12:07 pm

Gascon is corrupt and incompetent and had no possible justification for prosecuting Sheriff Mirkarimi EXCEPT political payback as a sworn enemy. Read this well-documented Report on domestic violence prosecution and explain how a marital argument got to dominate City business for the entire year of 2012 and most probably much longer at enormous expense. Gratitude to George Gascon and his political handlers (Kamala, Bronstein) for the kiss-off to voters.

http://sfpublicpress.org/news/2012-09/san-francisco-trails-bay-area-in-d...

Posted by Patty on Sep. 26, 2012 @ 1:11 pm

From the story to which you provided a link:

"On Jan. 7, 2011, San Francisco police responding to a domestic violence report in the Taraval District found a woman with two black eyes and a swollen right cheek.

A neighbor had called police after the woman rang his doorbell and said she had been abused by her boyfriend, and did not know what to do. The police report said the boyfriend had injuries on his hands, suggesting he had attacked her.

The boyfriend’s father told police that he witnessed the couple physically fighting throughout the previous evening.

But the injured woman said she loved her boyfriend and did not want him to face charges.

The final disposition of this case? Court records show the district attorney declined to prosecute, citing a lack of evidence."

Gascon's DA office's 2012 prosecution rate for DV is *down* 1.5% below previous SF City and County annual rates, which in turn lag behind almost all of the rest of California counties.

Perhaps the anti-Mirkarimi haters will come up with some pumped-up mendacity to try and cover for our corrupt -- certainly not incompetent -- DA.

Posted by lillipublicans on Sep. 26, 2012 @ 1:47 pm

""The boyfriend’s father told police that he witnessed the couple physically fighting throughout the previous evening. But the injured woman said she loved her boyfriend and did not want him to face charges , The final disposition of this case? Court records show the district attorney declined to prosecute, citing a lack of evidence.""

Um, Lillipudian? Has it occurred to you that Gascon may have learned a lesson from this? That domestic violence should not be taken lightly.

77% of DV victims recant their complaints. Elaina is typical in this regard.

Posted by Barton on Sep. 26, 2012 @ 3:04 pm

..I thought Lilli's point was that he found someone he thought would make a better Sheriff. I thought he was recommending the boyfriend based on his superior record of domestic abuse. Why settle for an arm-grabber when you could have a full blown raving lunatic representing our system?

Posted by Another Guest on Sep. 26, 2012 @ 3:19 pm

Of course Barton, you *are* free to go on imagining possible scenarios wherein Gascon learned from one case in such a way as to affect his handling of another; but since they were exactly contemporaneous cases -- well, actually with the Mirkarimi case predating the one described -- you might need to posit some sort of time warp to make an explanation work.

Far more credible is that prosecuting Ross Mirkarimi for a momentary grab of his wife's arm *took* *precedence* over far more serious cases; political reckoning took presence over the safety of San Francisco women who were actually in danger.

As for the 77% figure -- which, again, does not and can not apply to Eliana -- I've asked for a citation for that number before without reply. Perhaps you'd be so kind to put just a fraction of the great effort you evidently put into devising what you must think was an insulting corruption of my screen name into supplying a source for that data.

Thanks.

Posted by lillipublicans on Sep. 26, 2012 @ 4:00 pm

She never filed a police complaint. If you remember she said that instead she was going to 'open a record with her doctor'.

In other words she was going to consult with her physician about a bruise, which she says was a very common occurance for her, something that even happened while playing with her 3 year old.

Only this one, she wanted to have medical documentation on.

But remember, Ross never abused this paragon of truth and virtue! How dare the Mirkarimi haters doubt her words!

Posted by Claris on Sep. 26, 2012 @ 4:21 pm
Posted by lillipublicans on Sep. 26, 2012 @ 4:43 pm

With his record on dv prosecutions, they should be up in arms!

Posted by Guest on Sep. 26, 2012 @ 4:47 pm

Throw the lying, scheming connivers out and elect leaders with real integrity in their place.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 26, 2012 @ 5:09 pm

My question is, why is she so uncertain? Did she confer with Lee or didn't she? THAT is the question.

"When asked by The San Francisco Examiner if she should excuse herself from voting because of the controversy, Olague said she didn’t know.

“Who knows, man?” Olague said. “That’s nothing for me to decide.”

http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/2012/09/olague-says-she-can-t-recall-det...

Posted by Guest on Sep. 26, 2012 @ 5:14 pm

Dropping the f-bomb and making talk like some spaced-out bong head suggests that of the 20 million things she's focused on besides remembering if she spoke with Lee about Mirkarimi, maybe getting elected to her D5 seat is no longer among them.

Posted by lillipublicans on Sep. 26, 2012 @ 5:43 pm

What made THEM think they could get away wtth this ....overturning a democratic election with lies perjury jurty tampering interference with a witness . That is a good question where did they get the gall to try to overturn democracy in a supposedly liberal town. Any body know the answer? Yes there were twisted personalities Ivory etc but even that isnt enough we should explore this why it is they think they could do this in broad daylight. Like the Chinatown Ballot fraud for Ed Lee. How could they do this
We should consider how close they are to accomplishing this.it is known the electorate of SF are the most ill informed
WHEN have you seen any election coverage of local candidates on the local TV news THAT is a crime against what a free press must do fulfill the responsibility of the media to inform. In the entire country there is NONE worse than San Francisco Local news total complete political blackout it might as well be the old Soviet Union the same effect. In this climate of an information vacuum does the rancid corruption like Willie Brown grow. It is so far gone at this point only a Federal Grand Jury and the FBI can check the momentum as the cancer of corruption continues to spread.. think of some of the BOS Weiner, Farrell, Cohen. Chu... happy haloween because it can make the flesh crawl

Posted by happy guest on Sep. 26, 2012 @ 10:43 pm

Except that Walker says so. The same Walker who admits she is a "friend of Ross".

No bias there then.

The only two people who know what Lee and Olague said are Lee and Olague. and they both say Walker is lying or mistaken or misunderstood.

So, total non-issue, which is why the DA is doing nothing. It's just a smokescreen to take the heat of where it should be - on the one proven criminal here - Ross.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 26, 2012 @ 11:55 pm

It's even better for Lee! Only Lee knows what they said!

Olague: “At this point, I have 20 million other priorities... I don’t remember. It’s been too f---ing long. How many months has it been?”

http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/2012/09/olague-says-she-can-t-recall-det...

See? And Aaron Peskin getting a city-job-for-resignation pitch from mayoral confidant and "permit expediter" Walter Wong was certainly not what an observant person might consider a "shred" of evidence.

Posted by lillipublicans on Sep. 27, 2012 @ 1:55 am

Hey Lilli, I know that you are always very precise, in debunking the push polls and all, so I'm sure that you know the answer to this:

Exactly what question was Olaque answering when she said that she couldn't remember. Exactly what was the reporter asking and in what detail?

I'm sure that you know, because you are such a stickler for important details that you must know the exact wording.

Because otherwise you would just be blithering.

Posted by Another Guest on Sep. 27, 2012 @ 6:27 am

probably struggle to remember all the details, and that applies equally both to Olague and Walker. But it is significant that neither Alague nor Lee, after that reflection, have got a clue what Walker thinks she is wittering about.

The most likely scenario is that Walker mishread something at the time, or perhaps heard what she wanted to hear. Without any evidence to substantiate Walker's allegation, it remains just that. Hearsay, not evidence. Still no story here despite SFBG's attempt to "talk it up"
,

Posted by Guest on Sep. 27, 2012 @ 7:38 am

And if you've noticed, Olague is no longer denying what Walker said in a sworn affidavit. Now, it is just "I can't remember." Oh dear, she has so many things to do that just can't recall her tete-a-tete with the mayor. And she just can't seem to figure out whether she should recuse herself. Well, who's call is it, if not hers? Is she waiting for marching orders from General Lee?

Posted by Guest on Sep. 27, 2012 @ 12:16 pm

maybe that will jar her memory

Posted by Guest on Sep. 27, 2012 @ 12:37 pm