GARDENING INMATES LESS LIKELY TO COME BACK TO LOCK UP

A growing number of corrections facilities across the US are surprised to find that inmates who participate in gardening programs are significantly less likely to return to prison than the national average predicts.

Pattie Baker writing for Youth Today, has the rest of this terrifically cheering story. Here’s a clip:

The most recent study by the Pew Center for the States and the Association of State Correctional Administrators found the [national] rate of recidivism (percentage of people released from prisons who are rearrested, convicted, or returned to custody within three years) to be 43.3 percent. What may be surprising, however, is that correctional facilities with a few years under their belt with a garden are finding not just reduced recidivism rates, but significantly reduced rates. According to the WorldWatch Institute, Sandusky County Jail in Ohio finds a recidivism rate of only 18 percent from those inmates who participate in its garden program, as opposed to 40 percent for those who don’t. Graduates of the Greenhouse Program at Rikers Island in New York City experience a 5-10 percent recidivism rate, as opposed to 65 percent in the general inmate population. Participants in The Garden Project at the San Francisco County Jail have a 24 percent recidivism rate, rather than 55 percent otherwise.

Jail gardening programs that involve people at even younger ages show promising positive effects in not only reducing recidivism but also helping youth avoid first-time offenses. Sidney Morgan, the Community Works Leader for the Department of Community Justice in Multnomah County, Ore., sees big changes in youth when they work in a garden. Morgan runs Project Sega (which means “to grow”) which provides youth on probation the opportunity to work on a quarter-acre garden to pay restitution for their offenses. Produce from this garden is sold at New Seasons supermarkets in the metro-Portland area, and the participating youth get the opportunity to plant, maintain, harvest from the garden, prep the food, and bring it to market. Morgan says New Seasons will even offer jobs to youth in Project Sega after they are done with probation. Through Project Sega, Morgan claims they learn that they can be successful, and that crime is not their only option.

“I’ve been doing probation work for seven years, and I’ve never seen anything like the reaction and results we get from kids who participate in gardening,” Morgan exclaimed.

STATE SUES OC TO PROTECT SCHOOL MONEY

The State of California filed a lawsuit against Orange County on Thursday to prevent the budget-strapped OC from using education funds ($73.5M worth) to pay other bills, leaving the state to foot the bill for schools. While California would be held to a constitutional requirement for funding K-12, if the court ruled in favor of the OC, community colleges could take a big hit with the loss of county funding.

The LA Times has the story.

Ted Guest at The Crime Report writes about a new DOJ and MacArthur Foundation-funded study, “Causes and Consequences of High Rates of Incarceration,” headed by eighteen corrections experts, will study the the nation’s 2.3M prison population (roughly six times that of most other countries). Research will explore possible low-cost, high-social benefit alternatives to current prison policies.

The panel of scholars, chaired by Jeremy Travis, president of John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York, will examine the reasons for the dramatic increases in U.S. incarceration rates since the 1970s, which have produced one of the world’s highest incarceration levels—with more than 2.3 million people behind bars in U.S. prisons and jails at any time

The topic has been widely discussed and analyzed for years by advocacy groups on the left and right, as well as by individual scholars. But the two-year, $1.5 million project, convened by the National Research Council (part of the National Academy of Sciences) represents the first time in recent memory that these issues have been subject to wide-ranging, cross-disciplinary research.

“It now is time to review the state of knowledge—to look at the causes of the high rate of incarceration and the consequences for society,” said Travis, author of But They All Came Back: Facing the Challenges of Prisoner Reentry (2005).

TWO FULLERTON POLICE OFFICERS CHARGED, ONE WITH MURDER, IN DEATH OF KELLY THOMAS

This is from the LA Times with multiple staffers working the story, most particularly Abby Sewell, Richard Winton and Scott Gold.

Here’s the opening:

Two Fullerton police officers charged in the death of a homeless man made their first court appearance Wednesday afternoon, and one was set to be released on bail.

Orange County Dist. Atty. Tony Rackauckas took the unusual step of appearing in person for the arraignment of Officers Manuel Ramos and Jay Cicinelli, who are charged in the death of Kelly Thomas, 37. Thomas’ father, Ron, also spoke out at Rackauckas’ request during the arraignment.

Cicinelli pleaded not guilty to charges of involuntary manslaughter and the use of excessive force. He posted $25,000 bail and was slated to be released Wednesday.

The LA Times editorial board rightly praised OC DA Tony Rackauckas in the Kelly Thomas case for “conducting a thorough yet timely investigation into a homeless man’s death at the hands of Fullerton police officers..”

In a separate article LAT’s reporters Richard Winton and Abby Sewell write about how DA Rackauckas told those at a news conference how Kelly Thomas had begged for his life only to be pummeled and tased further.

Rackauckas gave a painfully detailed narrative of the July 5 events leading up to Thomas’ death -– details that he said resulted in second-degree murder and manslaughter charges being filed against two police officers.

Rackauckas said Officer Manuel Ramos put latex gloves on his hands and brandished a fist at Thomas. Then, Rackauckas said, the officer, in a “menacing” manner, threatened Thomas: “These fists are ready to F you up.”

The OC Weekly’s reporter Scott Moxley, who has been extremely critical of the Orange County District Attorney over the years, reported that the press conference was Rackauckas’s “finest moment.”

At today’s press conference, the DA seemed to finally fit the job, both in terms of decision-making and style. He didn’t stutter. He didn’t pause for an inordinate amount of time to think up dubious answers. He didn’t run from hard questions. He didn’t use cheap props. He was clearly comfortable and in command. There’s no doubt he believes the severity of the charges are justified.

“In Orange County, we generally trust our law enforcement and with good reason,” he declared. “[But] all people in this great country of ours have a constitutional right to be free from the imposition of unlawful and excessive force under the color of law…”

NBC said that Rackauckas may try the case himself, and is now listed as the attorney of record. Much of the press conference may be viewed here.

EXCELLENT STORY ON THE DIFFICULTIES OF BRINGING CHARGES AGAINST POLICE OFFICERS

Read this article by LA Times’ reporter Jack Leonard.

Here’s a clip:

Murder charges against on-duty police officers — such as the one announced by Orange County prosecutors in the Fullerton beating case — are rarely filed, and successful prosecutions in such cases are almost unheard of in California.

Legal experts said jurors who are naturally sympathetic toward law enforcement are not easily persuaded that an officer has committed the ultimate crime, even after seeing video of the death.

Ira Salzman, who has represented police officers, said defense attorneys in Orange County will have the added benefit of jurors who look favorably toward law enforcement and can make a forceful argument that police had the legal right to use force against a non-complying suspect.

Investigators interviewed more than 150 witnesses, analyzed video and reviewed stacks of documents as part of an intensive 11-week investigation leading up to the decision to charge Officer Manuel Ramos with second-degree murder in the July 10 death of a mentally ill homeless man.

But to obtain a murder conviction, Orange County prosecutors will have to convince jurors that Ramos intended to kill Kelly Thomas or acted with a conscious disregard for life.

COINCIDENTALLY, TWO MD POLICE OFFICERS WERE INDICTED TUESDAY FOR A BEATING OF A U OF MARYLAND STUDENT CAUGHT ON VIDEO

The Washington Post has that story.

Yes, well….of course the videos will be key evidence in the horrific Kelly Thomas beating casein which six Fullerton police officers pummelled the homeless and unarmed Thomas into a fatal coma.

The LA Times’ LA Now has the story. Here’s a clip:

Both the FBI and the Orange County district attorney’s office are investigating the incident, and the case has generated an emotional response from residents of the college town who are demanding answers from the police department.

Passengers boarded an Orange County transit bus on the night of July 5 with disturbing stories of a violent altercation they had witnessed between police and a homeless man at the train depot.

“The cops are kicking this poor guy over there. All these cops,” one woman told the bus driver in a conversation captured on a grainy bus surveillance tape.

“He’s almost halfway dead,” another passenger told the driver. “They killed him.”

Exactly what happened that night has become the subject of anger and much speculation in the Orange County community…..

Here’s the longer version of the story that will appear in Wednesday’s paper.

THE MYTH OF THE EXTRAORDINARY TEACHER: WITHOUT DECENT CONDITIONS EVEN THE BEST TEACHERS AREN’T AT THEIR BEST

I missed linking to this LA Times Op Ed by LA teacher Elie Herman, that ran this Sunday, so here it is belatedly. It’s a good read, I promise.

In a significant victory for the So Cal ACLU, on Tuesday, a federal judge ruled that Orange County District Attorney Tony Rackauckas and the City of Orange Police Department had violated the Constitutional rights of more than 60 people by enforcing a highly restrictive gang injunction against them, without ever giving those same individuals a hearing to determine whether or not they were actually gang members.

The circumstances behind the case began in late March 2009 when OC DA Rackauckas filed an injunction against a gang known as Orange Varrio Cypress, or OVC, which generally claims territory in the traditionally Mexican American area of the City of Orange known as Barrio Cypress.

Functionally, a gang injunction works like a restraining order. But, instead of barring contact with an individual, it bans certain activities by purported members of a particular group named in the order.

Here’s a clip from the post I wrote back in 2009 (here and here) that will give you a little more of the backstory:

The OVC injunction demarcates a 3.8-square-mile area the DA has designated as the Safety Zone. This section of Orange, which amounts to 16 percent of the city, is located mostly in Orange’s downtown sector, west of the 55 Freeway. In the Safety Zone, alleged gang members are not allowed to be in the presence of anyone else who is allegedly a gang member. They are also barred from drinking alcohol, or to being nearby to anyone else who is drinking alcohol, or to wearing “gang attire, ” which is a woozy term that means certain brands and certain colors. In addition, those named in the injunction must obey a 10 p.m. curfew.

And there are other prohibitions. Among the most bizarre is the rule that alleged OVC gang members named are forbidden to stand in front of a famous local mural painted by the highly respected artist Emigdio Vasquez. It seems that the police have deemed the mural as OVC’s gang “flag.”

If those named in the injunction violate any of these restrictions, they face six months in jail and a hefty fine.

With previous Orange County gang injunctions, there had sometimes been minor protests, but they had come to nothing.

This time community members and activists seemed far more determined in their objections, saying that the police at the DA had cast an absurdly wide net that amounted to racial profiling. It was, they said, making the lives of the innocent people named to the list….. simply impossible.

Around sixty of the 100 or so people named on the injunction as suspected gang members appeared or tried to appear in court to argue that they were not, in fact, gang members. At first prosecutors dismissed those 60+ from the case and obtained the injunction by default only against the gang and those individuals who never appeared in court.

But soon afterward, the District Attorney and police began serving the injunction on the very same people who had been dismissed from the case, on grounds that they were suspected of being part of the OVC gang.

The reasons why various individuals had been labeled as gang members were often preposterously flimsy. One person was listed as a gangster because an officer had once seen him in clothing that the cop deemed to be gang attire, although no one could say precisely what that clothing was. In another case, an individual was seen talking with gang members who also happened to be neighbors and childhood friends.

The restrictions imposed on those named in the injunction made normal daily life difficult. For example, in a couple of instances, sets of brothers could not socialize with each other outside of their homes for fear of being arrested.

U.S. District Court Judge Valerie Baker Fairbank noted other effects of the order in her ruling:

“When the grandfather of one set of [of brothers] had a stroke and was taken to a hospital in the Safety Zone in the middle of the night, their mother was forced to decide whether to permit the brothers to visit the publicly accessible hospital, an act that would violate both the curfew and association provisions of the Order.

To get a better idea of how the injunction worked, the judge spent an hour touring the area it covered before she ruled.

Afterward she wrote “….by subjecting Plaintiffs to the Order, Defendants have imposed a significant restraint on their liberties.

And then finally:

For the reasons set forth above, the court issues an injunction barring Defendants from enforcing the Order against the Plaintiffs.

The ACLU attorneys were thrilled:

“The ruing shows that police and prosecutors cannot take it on themselves to throw out someone’s most basic civil liberties, just because they think that the person might be a gang member,” said Peter Bibring, staff attorney for the So Cal ACLU.

“What the court recognized,” said Bibring ” is that gang injunctions are a big deal. They apply significant restrictions to people’s lives. And police and prosecutors should not be given sole discretion to impose them on an individual without some kind of additional procedural protections.”

Despite the favorable ruling, Bibring admitted that the legal battle over the OC injunction is likely not over.

“Now,” he said, “we’re bracing ourselves for an appeal.”

The OC Weekly, the LA Times and the AP also have the story.

Photo of OC DA Tony Rackauckas from OC Weekly

(OC Weekly columnist Gustavo Arellano standing in front of mural by artist Emigdio Vasquez, which was weirdly deemed forbidden territory to anyone named in the OVC gang injunction.)

When we left off earlier this week, Orange County District Attorney Tony Rackauckas designated 115 people in his proposed gang injunction as among the “most active participants in” the Orange Varrio Cypress gang.

Rackauckas said that the injunction was necessary because the gang— of which these 115 were purportedly hard core members—was guilty of all manner of heinous crimes.

(Nevermind that community members continued to protest that the Chapman College students who came over drunk from nearby Fullerton, were causing them way more regular trouble that the OVC homeboys.)

Usually when a DA—either in LA or in Orange County-–names people to a gang injunction , that’s the end of it.

This time, however, the ACLU got into the mix and agreed to represent five of the 62 people attempting to contest their inclusion.

The idea, the ACLU attorneys hoped, was to use the five to suggest to the presiding Superior Court judge that maybe he ought to take a look at the rest to see if they were really the dangerous gangsters the DA advertised them to be. The ACLU limited themselves to five because representation is time consuming and expensive,and the staff attorneys figured five was better than none.

The case marks one of the few times that individuals named in a gang injunction have been able to obtain legal representation and defend themselves against the charge they are gang members and should have their activities severely restricted, said the ACLU’s LA Staff Attorney Peter Bibring.

The five that the ACLU chose to represent were single mother, Erika Aranda, (see Tuesday’s post for Aranda’s story), an unnamed 16-year-old boy, and three middle-aged brothers: Patrick DeHerrera, 43, Roy DeHerrera, 46, and Louis DeHerrera, 32.

Patrick, the 43-year-old, admits he was once was an OVC gang member, “when I was young.” Patrick has also done time—but says he long ago left the gang behind and had worked for years as a carpenter until the pinched nerve in his back put him on permanent disability. Now Patrick lives inside the DA’s designated Safety Zone with his two aging parents—a father who is blind, and a diabetic mother who has recently had a debilitating stroke.

“Because I live and shop in the Safety Zone,” said Patrick, “I will become a prisoner in my own home even though I am not on parole or probation. I fear that I will be targeted by the police and will be accused of violating the terms of the preliminary injunction by engaging in day-to-day activities. There are many restaurants, stores, and gas stations, for instance, in the Safety Zone where I could run into someone named in the injunction and then be arrested for associating with ‘gang members.’ I also take my kids to the street fair at the Orange Plaza and the carnival at Holy Family Catholic Church, both of which are located in the Safety Zone. I would be afraid of going those places and running into people named in the injunction.”

Roy the oldest of the three is a fork lift operator who lives with his wife and his kids just outside the Safety Zone, but frequently goes in to see his brothers and his parents, and to take his kids to and from the library and to see their grandparents. Roy also goes to church with his mother, tries to help kids in the area by teaching them boxing and felt similarly worried.

Ditto for Louis, the 32-year-old, who is studying to be an X-Ray Technician/Medical Assistant and is currently completing his clinical internship at Golden West Medical Clinic in Anaheim. After his graduation in August, Louis says he wants to attend Kaplan University, in North Hollywood, to become a Certified Radiologist Technician, and then, if he can afford it, continue his education further after that, doing the radiology work while he studies.

Louis has letters from his teachers to back up his claims.

Despite Patrick’s youthful gang membership, all three brothers say they are not gang members now, not in any way, shape or form.

On Thursday, the judge agreed and refused to include the ACLU’s five clients in the preliminary injunction. Then, while he was at it, the judge decided to exclude the other 57 who contested their status.

And what did the DA do when these dangerous people were struck from the injunction? Speak passionately about the clear and present danger they presented to the community?

Nope. He dismissed all 62 from his own list

Which makes his original accusations against them look a teensy-weeny bit suspect.

“The district attorney would not have dismissed our clients — and so many others – if there was any evidence that they were dangerous,” said Belinda Escobosa Helzer, a staff attorney for the ACLU’s Orange County Office. “Their dismissal undermines his earlier claims that the people named in the injunction were all active and dangerous members of a gang.”

LA’s Peter Bibring agreed. “This decision shows that the district attorney’s guilt-by-association strategy won?t stand up in court. By dropping the case against anyone who offered a defense, the district attorney has conceded the weakness of his case and that he cast too wide a net.”

Yep. That would be my read.

As commenter Linda said on the earlier thread when she heard the news, Thursday is a “good day for the Constitution.”

(NOTE: PART 2 COMING THURSDAY)

In late March of this year, Orange County District Attorney Tony Rackauckas filed an injunction against a gang known as Orange Varrio Cypress, or OVC, a group that generally claims territory in the traditionally Mexican American area of the city Orange known as Barrio Cypress. It is the sixth such injunction filed in Orange County in the last 2 1/2 years.

Unlike some of my fellow liberal friends, I am not against gang injunctions per se. They are a tool, and at times a very useful tool in giving a community breathing room when gangs are running roughshod. But as with a hammer, whether the tool of gang injunctions is used for constructive purposes or as a clumsy bludgeon, depends on the skill with which it is wielded.

In the case of the OVC injunction it appears that the tool is being wielded discouragingly poorly.

Functionally, a gang injunction works like a restraining order. But, instead of barring contact with an individual, it bans certain activities by purported members of a particular group named in the order.

The OVC injunction demarcates a 3.8-square-mile area the DA has designated as the Safety Zone. This section of Orange, which amounts to 16 percent of the city, is located mostly in Orange’s downtown sector, west of the 55 Freeway. In the Safety Zone, alleged gang members are not allowed to be in the presence of anyone else who is allegedly a gang member, or to drink alcohol, or to be nearby to anyone else who is drinking alcohol, or to wear “gang attire, ” which is a woozy term that means certain brands and certain colors. In addition, those named in the injunction must obey a 10 p.m. curfew.

And there are other prohibitions. Among the most bizarre is the rule that alleged OVC gang members named are forbidden to stand in front of a famous local mural painted by the highly respected artist Emigdio Vasquez. It seems that the police have deemed the mural as OVC’s gang “flag.”

If those named in the injunction violate any of these restrictions, they face six months in jail and a hefty fine.

With previous Orange County gang injunctions, there had sometimes been minor protests, but they had come to nothing.

This time community members and activists seemed far more determined in their objections, saying that the police at the DA had cast an absurdly wide net that amounted to racial profiling. It was, they said, making the lives of the innocent people named to the list….. simply impossible.

Among the problems with poorly calibrated gang injunctions is the fact that, when mistakes are made, they are extremely difficult to rectify. If one is not a gang member, but is wrongly named in the injunction, there is no way off the list short of hiring a private attorney to contest one’s inclusion. And even if one can afford an attorney, there is no guarantee that contesting will work, as one is stuck with the task of having to prove a negative.

One of those named on the OVC list was Erika Aranda, a 21-year-old single mother who lives with her family and her young daughter in the so-called Safety Zone, but says she has never claimed gang membership, or participated in gang activity. She has never been convicted of a crime. She has, however, grown up around those who are admitted gang members and has sometimes, according to police, been seen talking on the street with these childhood friends who still live in the neighborhood. Plus her uncle—a drug addict— is a old time OVC gang member who lives with the family intermittently, “whenever he’s not locked up,” she says.

That was enough for the DA, who named Aranda as a gang participant, thus subject to all the restrictions. For instance, this meant that the young mother, who had recently been laid off from her job at the Dairy Queen, would be unable to continue with the job training classes she had been attending at the The Bridge, a non-profit also located in the Safety Zone. It seemed that, among its services, The Bridge counseled and provided classes to at-risk youth, some of whom were listed in the injunction. So just by being in the building, Aranda would be in violation of the order.

Nor could Aranda ask a neighborhood friend to drive her to a job interview (she doesn’t have a car), if that friend happened to be on the list or had a family member on the list.

And, if the police wanted to push things, it meant she could not use public transportation if someone on the injunction list was also taking the same bus.

“Because I live and shop in the Safety Zone, I will become a prisoner in my own home even though I am not on parole or probation,” Aranda wrote in a statement protesting her inclusion in the injunction. “I fear that I will be targeted by the police and will be accused of violating the terms of the preliminary injunction by engaging in routine, day-to-day activities.”

Given the flimsy “proof” of gang membership the DA had compiled to justify her listing and that of some of the others who claim they were named wrongly, Aranda’s fear doesn’t seem outlandish.

As if to validate her anxiety, on Easter Sunday, police arrested a teenager named in the injunction for nothing more than standing with a friend (not named in the injunction) outside the apartment building where he lived with his mother, which happened to be located right next to the forbidden Emigdio Vasquez mural.

At their wits end, the community group went to the ACLU, which finally agreed to represent five of the people named in the injunction, Aranda among them.

“The ease with which the District Attorney’s Office embraced this sweeping approach is troubling, and should make the public very nervous,” said Belinda Escobosa Helzer, one of the two ACLU staff attorneys who would be working the case. “This haphazard, catch-all approach to cracking down on gangs ensnares innocent victims and threatens to take away their most basic freedoms — associating with family and friends.”

PART II TOMORROW THURSDAY

Photo of Orange County District Attorney Tony Rackauckas from the OC Weekly.

Those of us who teach journalism at USC , if we checked our email last night, found the following message from Dean Ernest Wilson, the new-ish head of the Annenberg School of Communication at USC.

As you may already know, I have been appointed to the team advising President-Elect Barack Obama as he assembles his new administration. As this is an outstanding opportunity to help shape future public policy in communication, media and technology, I am delighted to serve our country in this capacity.

I will be wearing several hats during the presidential transition. I will be leading a team reviewing America’s international broadcasting services, including the Voice of America and the Broadcasting Board of Governors, and I will advise the transition team working with the U.S. Department of State on public diplomacy issues.

Effective Friday, December 5, I will take an official leave of absence from my position as dean of the USC Annenberg School until the end of the calendar year in order to serve on the Presidential Transition Team as a private citizen.

Dean Ernie is a good guy, and a smart guy. So…..what do we think? We think, Hey, Cool! This is good.

If we needed any more indication (which we don’t) that former OC Sheriff Mike Carona was a creep and a weasel, the recent and horrifying OC jail revelations make clear the extent of his inexcusable mismanagement.

Here’s some of what the LA Times had to say in this morning’s editorial on the subject:

Newly released grand jury transcripts provide terrifying insight into life inside Orange County jails. There is the shocking admission by one deputy that “inmates do run the jail system.” There is the callous indifference of deputies watching television and text-messaging while inmates ran amok, of deputies so committed to evading their responsibilities that they devised a code to alert one another when supervisors were coming. There is the haunting realization that while those deputies snickered and ducked their duties, an inmate was sodomized and beaten to death. And then, as has so often been the case when there is disgrace in Orange County, there are the actions of its fallen sheriff, Michael S. Carona.

Carona’s first offense was to treat the inmate’s killing as an internal matter and to fend off outside investigation. Then the Sheriff’s Department, continuing its emphasis on secrecy over safety, fought media requests for copies of the grand jury transcripts — a natural if abhorrent impulse, given that members of the department lied to the panel and tampered with witnesses, among other offenses. But it was only this week, after a judge overruled the department, that the full extent of Carona’s misuse of his office became apparent.

As the transcripts reveal, on Jan. 15, Carona was summoned to the grand jury and asked to testify about the death of John Derek Chamberlain, who was brutalized and killed while deputies ignored his cries. At that session, Carona, who earlier had resigned, agreed to spell his name and to tell the truth. But when asked whether he would cooperate, Corona responded: “On advice of counsel, I respectfully wish to rely on my 5th Amendment right and decline to answer this question.” He was asked nine more times, and Corona invoked his right in each instance. Finally, he was dismissed….

Read the rest here.

To further bastardize the immortal words of the great Bob Marley, “And he also shot his deputy..(Oh no, no…)”

You have to admire the grindingly mean-spirited thoroughness of Orange County Sheriff Mike Carona who, as he left office on Monday to fight seven criminal corruption charges, in effect blew up the town as he was evacuating. Specifically, he further destabilized his already reeling command staff by firing one of his assistant sheriff’s “without explanation” as he walked out the door. (The LA Times has additional details.) Then he demoted his Undersheriff and, if that wasn’t enough, Carona appointed a department crony and local Republican party official as his interim successor, a move that may or may not be a violation of state law.

The Orange County Board of Sups are not thrilled, says the OC Register.

You can read Carona’s released statement about leaving, firing and demoting on the OCSD blog here.

AND HERE’S THE REAL KICKER: Contrary to his statement about his reasons for leaving on Monday (“….my staff and my lawyers all believe that this is the right time to take my retirement. This action will permit me to focus on vindicating my name and refuting the false charges which have been made against me and my wife…”), the truth of the matter, according to the OC Reg, is that Carona decided to retire after a well-known OC citizen watchdog contacted California Attorney General Jerry Brown and pointed out that as a public official Sheriff Mike could not accept the FREEBEE LEGAL SERVICES offered to him by high priced Los Angeles attorneys at the Jones Day law firm, because state law bars public officials from accepting anything worth more than $390, and Browns office launched an investigation.

Bottom line, this meant, had Carona not retired, he would have had to go with less-than-superstar attorneys or a (gasp!) public defender.

Oh, the irony–– since it is Michael Carona’s gargantuan sense of entitlement that has caused this whole mess to begin with.

“He shot the Sheriff but he swears it was in self defense.Oh, no! (Ooh, ooh, oo-oh) “

**************************************************************************

By the way just for the hell of it, while you’re on the OCSD blog, be sure to read Corona’s weirdly character-revealing explanation as to why the OCSD blog doesn’t allow public comments on the blog (the LAPD’s blog, wisely does, making it dynamic and, well, bloggy, as opposed to Carona’s control freak press-release mechanism.)

Also worth reading: the OC Weekly’s chief Carona Watch reporter Scott Moxley’s end of the year challenge to the former sheriff to play the audio tapes that he claims will prove his innocence.

********************************************************************
Carona photo by Bruce Chambers, the OC Register

Everybody loves a good corruption scandal. And the federal indictment debacle breaking open in the life of OC Sheriff Mike Carona (also naming his wife and his alleged mistress) has the makings of a doozy. Thus far, the story has the LA Times and the Orange County Register tripping over themselves in trying to scoop each other with each eyebrow-raising installment.

But both the Times and the OC Reg are reporters-come-lately to this party. It was Scott Moxley at the OC Weekly who has been way out ahead on the Carona story—back when everyone else was still fawning over Carona as “America’s Sheriff.”

Turns out that Moxley and the OC Weekly were right. (Some examples of Moxley’s past reporting here, here, here, and here).

As Carona’s former “brothers for life,” co-conspirators Donald Haidl and George H. Jaramillo, race to make deals in return for ratting out the sheriff, and nearly everyone who courted his favor, is now calling for his resignation, Moxley has yet another take on the scandal in this week’s paper. Here are the opening few ‘graphs:

Read the rest of this entry »