With the yardstick we measure, all of us shall be measured, unless...
... cooler heads prevail by putting a stop to this real life charade and travesty of justice that while allegedly upholding ethical behavior and fighting domestic violence (DV), obviously we are not, because if we are talking about ethical behavior in public officials in a fair and just manner, and implement corrective/preventive actions and measures, these should be equally applied if, when and where needed, as we very much should always at least strive to do; then, under these qualifiers, this is not being followed in the San Francisco Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi case thus, the expectations are not, and will not be met.
There are so many irregularities, quick judgments, reckless behavior/actions, possible conflict(s) of interest (2), failures to follow existing written procedures and charters which to begin with, lack specificity in details such as 'will it take a unanimous decision of the Ethics Commission or just a majority of votes will be enough in order to recommend removal of an elected official for official misconduct?' The commissioners opted to adopt the rule that a simple majority will do.
There are questions on the criteria used to exclude material witnesses but include 'experts' at a potentially very high cost to the city to testify (Actually opine) on the duties of a Sheriff and how his ethics violations prevent him from the performance of his duties; even so these are clearly delineated in city charter(s).
As it stands now, we could go on till 'doomsday comes' throwing dirt at each other, or, we can step back, take some deep breaths, take a hard look at what we are doing and try to perform a careful examination at what are the motives, objectives and the endgame for pursuing a case of ethical misconduct in this elected official.
A small (So far) Group of us are ready to take action (A June 29, 2012 Protest/Demonstration on the day Mayor Ed Lee is scheduled to testify (Four-ish (pm) or thereabouts (Yep, it is News-hole day)), in an attempt to stop what we see as an insane course of action which doesn't benefit anyone, will not yield the desired results, where the most likely outcomes will be that of setting a very dangerous precedent ripe with opportunities for abuse of power and political vendettas, furthermore, it will send a chill and set an atmosphere of fear to perform a highly desired independent official discharge of duties, for, if this can be done to an elected official, what would be the working climate, or chances, during the performance of duties for political appointees? Official independence of criteria for action will be the first casualty in what will be de facto structural regimes in our city's government beholding appointees, or elected officials, to the 'powers that be', whomever those may be at that specific point in time.
No doubt some of us demonstrators, however many or few present, will be calling for SF Mayor Edwin Lee to resign, others may be calling for his impeachment or his recall for official misconduct, voter fraud allegations (2), ethical violations (where are the ethics on these? 1, 2, 3), abuse of power or corruption of City structures, policies, practices and run-of-the-mill good-old-fashion cronyism (1, 2, 3), this article is a good primer for a bird's eyes review of the myriad of cases which are very questionable, double standards, conflicts of interest, etc., and plain criminal corruption. While others will be demanding that our elected and sworn-in Sheriff be reinstated with full back pay and a very public and profound apology. I have even heard that the Sheriff's back pay and legal expenses should come out of the Mayor's pocket.
Personally, my message to Mayor Lee is to ask him to immediately withdraw his complaint to the ethics commission, reinstate SF Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi with full pay, including back pay, and thus, put a stop to this insanity.
But the objective/proposal of The Action that I heard and that I find by far the most reasonable and soberly thought out, is to 'take 5' and do a careful examination, evaluation and determination of all of 'the facts in evidence', ALL OF THEM, not only the ones filtered by the Ethics Commission that can be ascertained by viewing the video transcripts of the hearings, starting with the one on April 23rd; by viewing them, it becomes extremely clear that they are 'making it up as they move along'.
During the timeout in this process, a very closer look needs to be taken to the SF Ethics Commission. The first element in its make up that jumps at you, it is its non independence, it is formed by political appointees of officials in city government to allegedly reflect representation, and that teensy, tiny requirement itself has been corrupted.
The case of the newest Commissioner, Paul Renne, who was appointed by SF DA George Gascon is also a very troublesome and intriguing one, not only is he occupying a seat earmarked by charter requirements for a member of the general public. Paul Renne reports that he receives $100,000 or more in income from her (Wife former SF CA Louise Renne) 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 same who at the start of the hearing of April 23, made the disclosure that he had made a small contribution to Sheriff Mirkarimi's opponent in the past election, ironically is the same one who took the lead role in criticizing Ivory Madison's testimony and the city for allowing it, ruing the fact that it was used by the Examiner and other media outlets to paint a defamatory “portrait of verbal abuse and child neglect inside Mirkarimi's fear-ridden household,” as the Examiner put it on the cover of yesterday's paper (Creepy the way Ivory Madison's husband was snooping around the Mirkarimi's home). The positive thing that I can say about Commissioner Renne, is that I hope he is not the only Commissioner who exhibits some spine and shows a glimpse of the honesty that should permeate the SF Ethics Commission as a whole when he said this in the hearing ”A first year lawyer would recognize that much of it is inadmissible and should not be presented to us.”. Good for you Mr. Paul Renne for calling them as/when you see it, at least in this instance and in your earlier disclosure.
The Ethics Commission and the inquisition type of investigation on Sheriff Mirkarimi, is the most glaring example on why this travesty of justice must be stopped, or at least have a time out for discussions on if what is taking place at City Hall, meets the requirements of its creation, or, if the essential structural and functional elements designed for its make up and operation, are adequate, just or fair enough for the target of their investigation. Another question is if in the discharge of their duties, are they selective of their targets? Do they treat all cases equally? We are seeing the answers to these questions unfolding before our eyes with a resounding NO, and the picture that emerges should scare any public official who refuses to tow the official line. Worse yet, if it happens in 'progressive' San Francisco, what are the chances in other cities if there is an attempt to replicate it in their own municipality? Surely, a troubling precedent is being set which may easily become an example for how to get rid of political rivals; even an elected one like SF Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi.
This case is not a DV issue, the only time it was such, started at the moment of the incident, continued when Eliana confided on Ivory and the video was taken, remained so through their Jan. 2, 2012 emails exchange where Eliana was talking about working out their marital problems through counseling while being kept unaware that Ivory had specifically called the 'editor at large' of the SF Chronicle. Informed her that she had spoken with a 'few' friends, among them her (Ivory's) Therapist for referrals to resources for this type of situations and to a "DA friend and an attorney who used to work with battered women" She started this email telling Eliana she "had spoken to a few friends to get advice", and in the very next line she advises Eliana as follows: "The number one thing you must do is call the police" -- Who gave her the advice she was urging Eliana to take? Her DA friend? Does her DA friend work with the SF DA Gascon? And If so, is DA Gascon aware that one of his deputies(?) is dispensing this kind of advice on DV? Who else besides Phil Bronstein did she call?
Sadly, these questions are not being asked by the Ethics Commission which, by all practical purposes, is faithfully following the script and safeguarding the 'official cover story' By allowing only the testimony that supports the script and excluding other witnesses who may be pertinent and germaine to the case, that could potentially expose other aspects of it and possibly the other side of the story, you know... THE FULL STORY.
And while we are on another questions segment, I have a few for the anti-DV non-profit organizations, authorities, experts and individuals knowledgeable in this subject matter: Was Ivory Madison and the people who gave her advice on DV within the scope and range of the established and well accepted course of action rules, protocols and procedures recommended to be applied when dealing with this type of cases? If yes, explain why, and if not, would you let us know what procedures were not followed and the implications of such failure(s)? And in the same vein, how do you rate the performance of the DA's Office in this case? Was it following the aforementioned anti-DV conventions? And If not, where did it fail?
Yes indeed, it was a DV case when it started with the New Year and ended when Ivory betrayed the trust of her friend by calling the police, the DA's Office got involved, charges were filed, a trial was held which ended with A conviction in a plea bargain and a sentence was imposed.
Despite Ivory's protestations of being made a victim, she "KNEW" That she had acted in a manner not consistent with the rules, practices and protocols on how to proceed in the event that someone may be in a position similar to the one Ivory found herself in, if she didn't know, then why when upon seeing Eliana returning home, Ivory run up to her to tell her "You are going to kill me, I've called the police, they are coming here and you have to talk to them". She "KNEW" That she had acted improperly and had not followed even a little bit the rules written and supposedly followed by anti-DV non-profit organizations. I'm still waiting for Casa de Las Madres, the San Francisco's Domestic Violence Consortium and other anti-DV non-profits, to chime in and introduce in the public conversation the basic concepts of the written rules, practices, procedures and protocols recommended as a course of action for a third person when dealing with victims of DV, on what to do as a friend, specially if your friend is a woman... Of color... Immigrant..., for anyone reading this, could you call the police under the same circumstances and in the pattern that Ivory Madison followed?
Somewhere between the DV incident and Ivory's call to the police, it was decided by yet to be fully ascertained 'powers that be', to unseat Sheriff Mirkarimi in a grotesque political campaign through the local media, with the SF Chronicle taking the lead with a relentless barrage of articles, reports and opinion pieces that have continued to this date, some of these were very inflammatory, full of hearsay, innuendo and some now known to be lies.
Will we someday hear from these news outlets at least some corrections or clarifications? They owe the public at least that, yes, at least that, albeit that in all justice and in a perfect world, we should rightfully expect a full mea culpa and a deeply felt apology for the damage caused to the victims and for increasing the already low level of understanding and the widespread misconceptions and presumptions in the issues related to DV that currently exist in the general public.
Throughout the saga of this nefarious SF political plot, it is very hard to find instances where there was a serious thought and consideration given to the 'alleged' victim, Eliana Lopez's, wishes, intentions or feelings, who was inclined to choose to resolve their issues through counseling. No consideration for Eliana from Ivory on Jan. 2, when she 'instructed/ordered/told' her what she (Eliana) "Must do"; and when Eliana didn't do it, Ivory took it upon herself to decide for her friend what to do, and did it. Now, where is the respect or consideration to Eliana's self determination shown in that action? A settled question in segments of the Latino Community is when we asked: Would Ivory have chosen the same course of action if her friend was a prominent white woman? Hands down, the concensus is NO WAY! Obviously, the true answer can only be given by Ivory herself, but in any event and as it came to pass, Ivory feels it is OK to do that to an immigrant woman of color. There was no respect given to Eliana at any time ("once her husband had grabbed her arm, Eliana was simply no longer competent and her wishes were irrelevant."). Not from Ivory Madison, not from Phil Bronstein, not from District Attorney George Gascon, and not even from the Director of La Casa de las Madres.
The last probably takes on a higher relevance to anti-DV organizations such as Casa de las madres ("We seek to prevent future violence by educating the community and by redefining public perceptions about domestic violence") and the San Francisco's Domestic Violence Consortium ("...ensuring the basic rights of safety, self-determination and well-being to victims and survivors of domestic violence and their children"), because even if taking their actions as fruits of their best intentions, this is a highly misguided way to go about directing their anti-DV efforts, specially considering the immense pain and collateral damage being caused to victims such as Eliana and Theo. At best, it may as well be a matter of unintended consequences, and at worst... I don't really know, please do tell me if you do.
In all honesty and in fulfillment of their goals, as I do prefer to think about it, Casa De Las Madres started a campaign to raise funds for an anti-DV billboard. (1, 2) It is now known that Political Rivals Helped to Fund the billboard, and the San Francisco's Domestic Violence Consortium who also went to great lengths to, knowingly or inaDVertently, whichever the case may be, advance the campaign to railroad Sheriff Mirkarimi through the use of the media/public opinion with a demonstration asking for the Sheriff's resignation 8 days after Ivory called the police, could do no wrong by adding their voices to put a stop to this misguided and miscarried process, if for no other reason than for the one placed before SF DA George Gascon: to think about other victims of DV who will be in fear of the repercussions of actions taken by the DA's office, specially now that he is setting such a high standard in pursuing these cases. Not hard to imagine his future difficulties if he goes back to his office's deplorable 2011 standards in anti DV efforts. Least be left unsaid, women of color, immigrant women, specially those who may be undocumented or have relatives who are, comprise the highest percentage of people who do not make a report or call the police.
After witnessing this cruel charade, how many more will think at least twice before making a report, sharing or confiding with a friend their DV problems?
What a pity. Another casualty of this tragicomedy of errors, hypocrisy and misguided intentions, where some of the players in this plot appear to us as 'larger than life' caricatures of the public servants they are supposed to be.
Take for instance the San Francisco District Attorney's Office and DA Gascon himself roles and behavior in the Mirkarimi's case, it'd take several pages to go in detail over the details of his performance and members of the DA Office; but it is important to also take take a closer look. Once one gets a little deeper into details, the Mirkarimi case begins to appear as the political hatchet job that it really is. It also appears that he (DA Gascon) has used, and is still using cases before him in a manner that'd suggest the primary criteria for promptness in prosecution, is politically motivated.
This is not a case of DV zeal on his part, nor is a deep concern of official ethical behavior or performance of duties of officials who have committed grave errors in judgment. Or shows any urgency to fight corruption. DA Gascon seems to act strictly as is best for his political career and so far, it also appears like he doesn't have any reservations for sensationalism if it advances his political career, takes cases that will advance it and neglects the ones which may hurt it, as chronicled in this article ""Gascon Record May Reflect His Political Interests"..."Gascon’s Empty Holster": By late October, four political corruption cases landed on Gascon’s desk involving Lee’s campaign, Willie Brown or Rose Pak. In each case, there was direct testimony from participants drawn into schemes to violate the law regarding money laundering or campaign contributions to Ed Lee’s campaign for mayor." 1, 2, 3, 4
Zero tolerance in DV from the SF DA Office? Hardly, this premise doesn't hold any substance once we pay closer attention at what this office under DA Gascon is doing in this regard, to wit, "District Attorney George Gascon failed to file criminal charges in as many as 1,000 domestic violence cases that involved physical assault in 2011, his first year as District Attorney, according to records maintained by the Police Department’s Domestic Violence unit. Police Department records show 3,515 police reports were filed, including 1,928 physical assaults with hands, feet or an object, 21 involving a gun and 40 involving a knife. The District Attorney’s office informed the Police Department that it filed 245 misdemeanor cases and 240 felony cases out of the 3,515 police reports filed." -- "The District Attorney’s office, in the Mirkarimi case, repeatedly has claimed that it is handling this case the same way it handles all other domestic violence cases."
One can only hope that Casa De Las Madres and the San Francisco's Domestic Violence Consortium, show some concern, righteous indignation, outrage or just show some plain spine, regardless of if it may affect the part of their funding which comes from The City's coffers, by asking the SF DA's office for action in these cases of DV, or at least an explanation on why it appears to be that the DA shows selectivity, preferential treatment, double standards, negligence, or maybe even dereliction of duty when it comes to prosecuting DV crimes in SF, as opposed to when it came to prosecute SF Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi. Also if they could demand accountability from SF DA George Gascon with the same diligence exhibited when they went after Ross and Eliana. I won't hold them to show the same asininity, unfairness and lack of any respect for DA Gascon, as the one shown in the case of SF Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi and to his wife Eliana Lopez. (CDLMs (1, 2, 3), SFDVC (1)
And let's take a peek at the San Francisco City Attorney's Office's behavior on the Sheriff Mirkarimi's case:
When a bruise, scratches and shoving is just a "small marital scuffle" ("James McBride showed police deep scratch marks on his back, which he said were from the April 23 incident. Elaine McBride exhibited a bruise on her hand and one on her upper chest from the May 1 incident. That was it. No fat lips. No broken bones. No black eyes. No blood. No serious violence. Even one high-ranking source in the DA's Office told me, 'This appears to be a relatively minor confrontation.' ") And when an incidental grabbing of the upper arm of an spouse by the other spouse is DV. In this one it should be as easy to discern the political motives for the prosecution of the latter, as it was for George Cothran, writing for the SF Weekly in May 12 1999, when it pertained to the prosecution of the former; the same George Cothran who is now the lead City Attorney's office Investigator in the SF Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi's case and who signed the original complaint in same case.
Not to in any type, shape or form try to minimize the seriousness of any physical contact between domestic, married or dating couples, sometimes an incidental bruise can be just an incidental bruise and doesn't amount to domestic violence, or at least that's what Superior Court James McBride claimed, according to CA Investigator George Cothran in the column he wrote about at the SF Weekly in May 12, 1999.
Big change depending on what side of the political fence you are in. Isn't?
And how about City Attorney Dennis Herrera on releasing the video taken by Ivory Madison of Eliana Lopez' bruise? Clearly, this action ordered by "Ethical" SF Mayor Edwin M. ("SF King/Emperor") Lee was intended to pile dirt on the Sheriff to further inflame public opinion against the Sheriff, it is virtually impossible to view this action any other way. It was purely for the consumption of the public; some at an already frenzy level.
The polemic of what constitutes DV and what doesn't and when it is or when it is not, remains the same today as it has been for years, with different understandings of it and on the application of remedial or corrective actions; extremely confusing, where some respected columnists are opining on the same venue, the 7 links that follow, are by one of the most (Overall) respected columnists at the SF Chronicle, Debra J. Saunders, let's look at the SF Sheriff Mirkarimi's case through her eyes and intellect: (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7), and will continue to be so until we, the people, take matters into our hands, because we know that many in authority and amongst the non-profit anti-DV advocacy organizations, deal with these issues according to their political conditions or financial needs at any given time that DV happens. -- One of the more down to earth, honest and clear expositions of the Eliana's bruise comes from an hotel worker, Fabiola Benavides, in an Spanish interview "Mirkarimi: la polémica resuena en español" ("Mirkarimi: the polemic resounds in Spanish") prior to the June 19 Ethics Commission hearing: "En todas las familias pobres tenemos problemas. ¿Cuántas de las veces uno no agarra al marido o el marido lo agarra a una?" - ("In all poor families we have problems. How one of the many times one doesn't grab the husband or the husband grabs one? ('Us')", she continued: "'Él es un hombre pobre que empezó como nosotros; él empezó como policía. Él no tiene para pagar (a los testigos), como hizo Gavin Newsom, para que ya no hablaran' ("He is a poor man who started as we did; he started as policeman. He doen't have (money) to pay" (The witnesses) as Gavin Newsom did, so they could stop talking".
The Fabiola Benavides' position on the matter today, takes on a larger significance for some of us Spanish speaking and bilingual in Spa-Eng, and as it should also be for the English speaking population in general: Sheriff Mirkarimi was invited to visit and talk at the monthly meeting of Padres Unidos de San Francisco on June 4, 2012, his schedule allowed him to join us as the meeting was in progress, we were talking about the issue while waiting for his arrival, Fabiola and her husband came in, as soon as they 'got' the essence of the conversation taking place, Fabiola, seething with anger and contempt, in a strong tone of voice said "I do not support women beaters" ('Golpeadores de mujeres'), her husband second the stand and also made strong comments while some of us (Juanita Villegas, Silvia Ramirez, Flor Ramos, attorney Mark Silverman, I and a couple of other attendees), jumped in, literally tripping each other with one voice on top of the others, explaining that the Sheriff didn't beat his wife and asking where had they heard that Ross had hit his wife, they were taken aback a little bit by the strong response and replied that on television, in the news (Univision & Telemundo). The were queried in regards of if they had heard in TV anyone mention specifically that it was a beating, the answer was ambiguous, like in 'that is the impression we got from the news on the case'. Once the Sheriff was in attendance, Fabiola, from 3 seats to the right of him at the same conference table, engaged the Sheriff with questions, I gather she was satisfied with the answers and asked what could she do to prevent this injustice to continue. Well, she was in attendance at the SF EC Hearing on June 19 in support of the Sheriff and where she was interviewed.
The previous serves me as a good introduction into the coverage of the Mirkarimi's case regarding the roles of Phil Bronstein et all outlets in the SF Bay Area local main stream media, with the SF Chronicle leading the charge which with an almost daily grind of articles on the case, calling on 'experts' to opine, calls for the Sheriff's resignation, calling on "Ethical" SF Mayor Edwin M. ("SF King/Emperor") Lee to grace us with another dictate: "Mayor should investigate sheriff for misconduct" (You can read their full Editorial here), the space fillers such as the partisan one that staff writer Heather Knight published on Sat. June 23, 2012 (and they manage to act surprised at how the people react. Sam Singer, whom Heather quotes, is actually shocked, 'i'm telling you, shocked' of the climate in SF RE this issue: "Rarely have I seen the level of aversion to a human being that I've seen against Ross Mirkarimi," he said. "He just doesn't come across as a good person, and that hurts his cause even more.", gee, I wonder why.), and the relentlessly nonsensical and meaningless C. W. Nevius' verbiage.
And then, there is Phil Bronstein, who as rumors would have it in the beautiful City of San Francisco, the superior company he regularly keeps resides in a very very very hot place, I'm just saying, because, how else do you explain him? Yep, him of whom the Ethics Commission in a manner reminiscent of the legendary Jedi mind trick scene, felt it didn't need to have him testify on the Mirkarimi's inquisition : "We don't have to make him testify under oath", "Move along", yeah, him; the one who a whole 2 days after Ivory Madison called the police on the Sheriff, was leaving as the editor at large of the SF Chroniclethat he has been for approx. the last 4 years, after 31 years altogether. Surely it is purely coincidental that Ivory called him at least twice on January 2, on January 4 she calls the police and that 2 days later, on January 6, good'l Phil Bronstein quits, purely coincidental and not what some of you conspirationist-Mirkarimi's-backers probably are inclined to think, nooothing further from the truth and of course, nooothing to do with the Chronicle's uninterrupted barrage against Sheriff Mirkarimi. That maybe that is why the Ethics Commission doesn't want to question him or that he may think he has plausible deniability to any involvement. Nothing further from the truth.
And that's precisely one of the many reasons why some of us, however many or few present, will be on Jan. 29, 2012 at the City Hall steps (On the Polk side) Starting around 4...
We know what needs to be said.
Consider this words as an open invitation for anyone else to show up and bring his or her message, request or demand. It is intended to be, albeit energetic, peaceful; as it shall be.
In the event that you'd like to join us and can't, but would like to still get involved, you can write letters to the editors of local publications expressing your point of
view about Ed Lee removing the person you voted for to serve as Sheriff.
Be firm, respectful and brief - no more than 200 words. Always include your real
name, city of residence, and phone number where you can be reached during the
day (most publications will call to verify that you wrote the letter before
they'll publish it).
SF Chronicle, letters@sfchronicle.com,
SF Examiner, letters@sfexaminer.com,
SF Bay Guardian, tredmond@sfbg.com,
SF Weekly, http://www.sfweekly.com/feedback/EmailAnEmployee?department=letters,
Bay Area Reporter, letters@ebar.com
For your neighborhood publication (El Reportero, Westside Observer, Sunset
Beacon etc.) check their letters page and/or website for contact
information. Almost all newspapers (and radio and television stations)
also accept comments on their web site. Join those discussions as well.
Sign the Petition, Sign the Petition to the Mayor & Board of Supervisors in Support of Ross