Monday night the news was startling. Alex Sanchez’s attorney Kerry Bensinger learned that US District Court Judge Manuel Real had been taken off the case.
Tom Hayden quickly wrote up the news for The Nation. Here is how his report opened:
The gang conspiracy case against Alex Sanchez was transferred to the jurisdiction of a new federal judge today after weeks of community protest alleging bias by Judge Manuel Real. The decision was rendered by a judicial status conference in a closed chamber December 2. Supporters of Alex Sanchez saw the ruling as a major change for the better.
After weeks of protests alleging judicial bias, the gang conspiracy case against Alex Sanchez was transferred to the jurisdiction of a new federal judge.
The new judge assigned to the case is Judge Christina Snyder, 61, appointed by President Bill Clinton in 1997 on the recommendation of California senators Diane Feinstein and Barbara Boxer. Judge Snyder is a Pomona College alumna (1969) and a Stanford Law School graduate (1972). In an important recent decision, she ruled against California state Medicare cuts in 2008. Little is known about her approach to juvenile justice or police reform issues. She was in private practice for twenty-five years before her appointment to the federal bench.
Alex Sanchez supporters were thrilled.
Certainly the change in judges in no way suggested whether or not legal events would play out in Alex’s favor. But supporters felt it would mean a trial that would hopefully be fair—an outcome that many even outside the Sanchez camp had increasingly come to question should the proceedings stay in Judge Real’s courtroom.
The order to transfer the Sanchez case from Judge Real—which also contained a concurring signature of the new Judge, Christina Snyder, signed Dec. 2—- was filed on December 4, and then reportedly sent to Sanchez’ defense lawyer at 3:07 Monday afternoon.
Then a couple hours later on Tuesday afternoon…..everything changed.
Sanchez’s attorney received a new email, this time from the government prosecutor. Judge Real’s clerk said that Real wanted to keep the case and that Judge Snyder’s signature was “a mistake.”
Hayden sent around an email Tuesday night containing details and reactions. It read in part:
“The turn of events will raise new suspicions about alleged manipulation of the proceedings which began six months ago with Sanchez’ arrest on gang conspiracy charges. Sanchez, a well-known gang intervention worker who helped expose the Los Angeles police Rampart scandal a decade ago, asserts his innocence in the case. He is being held without bail at a federal prison in Los Angeles.
As of 4:30 Tuesday afternoon, no order reversing the transfer had been received by defense counsel, and no explanation offered for the unusual chain of events.
The order surprised and pleased the Sanchez defense team. His supporters, organized as www.wearealex.org, assert that Sanchez is being railroaded and denied any semblance of a fair trial. Sanchez’ court-appointed counsel, Kerry Bensinger, argued in a recent appeal to the Ninth Circuit that the case should be remanded to another judge.
Why the December 4 transfer order was withdrawn less than a day after it was made public will raise questions about the inner workings of the judiciary itself.
Uh, huh. Something like that.
Or to put it another way: Whiskey Tango Foxtrot???!!
It’s a shame Judge Manuel L. Real wasn’t presiding over O.J. Simpsons’s infamous trial.
I thought about changing my handle to “Whiskey-Tango-Foxtrot”, but is just TDL (“Too-Damn-Long”).
There liberals go again…shopping for a judge.
Kevin Roderick over at LA Observed didn’t read past the rather confusing headline, and posts that Judge Real was removed from the case. OH-oh. Well, at least the people directed over here will read past the headline, or 200 words. (Except Woody who doesn’t read Roderick anyway.)
Hey folks, how about that Tiger Woods!!!
The defense of Sanchez is nauseating. The guy shouldn’t even be in the country and we have an idiot judge and jackasses like Hayden to thank for that.
What gets the least amount of mention here is the murder victim. Even if he was just another gangster that’s probably better off dead murder is still a crime.
Guess that’s ok if one of the guys who is suspected in putting the crime into action is your pal.
What a bunch of posers anyone who supports this thug is. This isn’t about any type of justice, this is misguided hero worship.
Sure Fire, if Alex Sanchez is guilty, I can certainly understand your irritation. But if he turns out not to be, then what? What would you hope would happen if by some chance he is innocent of the charges that have been brought against him? What outcome would you want?
The matter at issue is not whether a heinous crime was committed, but whether Alex Sanchez engaged in any actions that were related in any causal way to the commission of that crime—-or whether, to the contrary, he tried to intervene to prevent violence.
The Feds likely have some big, bad cards up their collective sleeves that they will not fork over as discovery until right before the trial late next year. But based on what they’ve shown thus far, the evidence just isn’t there. Worse, it appears that they were so sure of their conclusions, that a lot of their investigative work was astonishingly sloppy and incomplete.
Later this week, or early next, I’ll put up and/or link to a bunch of documents. You can read ’em and make your own judgment.
By the way, I’m sure you realize that in your haste to label me a poser you have just labeled Father Greg Boyle, former First AME Church pastor, Rev. Cecil Murray, Thomas Parker, the former co-director of the LA office of the FBI, Aquil Basheer (follow the link to read his bio], author, poet and youth mentor, Luis Rodriguez….and so on and so on…. all as posers.
David: Hey folks, how about that Tiger Woods!!!
What is it with the brother that he only messes around with white women? By doing that, he’s offending black females, and that’s one group that I wouldn’t want mad at me.
“black females… one group that I wouldn’t want mad at me.”
Which is why you post racist garbage ?
Meanwhile, SureFire continues to disgrace the law enforcement profession.
Imagine, people who think their friend is innocent of a crime defending him! Surefire is made physically sick by this completely understandable behavior. I can’t believe this person devoid of empathy was a cop. Just tragic.
should say “a person this devoid of empathy”
Looks like Tiger Woods’ popularity is dropping faster than his trousers!
“The Feds likely have some big, bad cards up their collective sleeves that they will not fork over as discovery until right before the trial late next year”.
Gee Celeste, do you really think so?
People like you and Boyle and Murray are always more in line to side with some “revered gangbanger-turned-peacemaker” as Tom Hayden described him, than law enforcement. Any other reformed gang leaders that you know of been down this same type path before Celeste? Did you or the people you mentioned support any of them prior to conviction? I don’t know your entire history so that’s an actual question.
As you pondered above, and knowing a thing or two about how the USAO works (trust me on that), there’s no doubt that you have limited information to this point that doesn’t allow you to make any type of statement that’s based on all the facts, that Sanchez is innocent. A trial will be that decider. To appear to have this pretty much all figured out without having enough info is to me “posing”. In my opinion it’s due to your well know support for Sanchez and his type. I understand that but I call it what it is to me.
Tom Hayden is the same simple minded attack dog he’s always been. He’s gone as far as to claim this is payback for Sanchez’s embarrassment of the LAPD years back and that maybe, based on this one case, the consent decree’s end might not have been a good move. This is no surprise to people like me. This is right from the radical playbook that the left uses. Hell even our president’s people use the same tactics it’s not like it’s a secret. Nothing Hayden says should ever matter, he’s nuts.
This statement of yours Celeste, “The matter at issue is not whether a heinous crime was committed, but whether Alex Sanchez engaged in any actions that were related in any causal way to the commission of that crime—-or whether, to the contrary, he tried to intervene to prevent violence” is strange seeing as everything you write points to him in no way, shape or form being involved. In my opinion you’ve declared him innocent before trial because of what you and others believe to be the manipulation going on already.
You asked me this Celeste, “What would you hope would happen if by some chance he is innocent of the charges that have been brought against him? What outcome would you want”? If he’s factually actually innocent I’d want him freed, why would I feel otherwise? I still wanted him deported because the ruling that allowed him to stay here, after again entering illegally is b.s.
But as a well known supporter of his Celeste, as are the others you mentioned, what are the odds that even if he’s found guilty that all of you will say “We were wrong”?
I defend the actions of people when all the facts are presented Mavis, I’m not the tree hugger type that believes things easily.
Sorry Mavis, still in law enforcement but a retired cop. I have empathy, your silly to think I don’t. I’d defend a friend in a heart beat once I knew the truth behind their actions and agreed with them. I haven’t seen anything regarding Sanchez that’s convinced me he’s innocent yet and how long did it take all the usual suspects to start going after law enforcement after his initial arrest?
Spare me.
“Did you or the people you mentioned support any of them prior to conviction? I don’t know your entire history so that’s an actual question.”
Answer: No.
I didn’t. Father Greg didn’t. No one I know well did. Not even sort of.
(If you’re thinking of Hector Marroquin and the like. Uh, no. Frankly, he always creeped me out. When Mario Corona of Communities in Schools got arrested, it made me sad. But disbelieving? Nope.)
The widespread and consistent support for Alex Sanchez is, I think, a fairly unique situation.
It is not that Alex himself is so unique. He’s a very, very likable, winning guy who has come from a bad past to do a lot of very good work.
But I/we have known more than a few very likeable guys who’ve turned their lives around—and then have slipped and are, as a consequence, either dead or locked up—or back on drugs or….fill in the blank. Granted most are no where near as high profile as Alex Sanchez. But the principle is the same. This is not an unusual concept.
There is this irritating myth that people like me who see the humanness in someone, don’t see their sometimes catastrophic downsides. That’s preposterous. I go to their funerals and accept their collect calls from prison, and know the women who are now left having to raise their kids without fathers—because some guy with good qualities, for one reason or another, couldn’t manage to let the good in himself win out, and thus hell followed after.
What is unique about Alex’s situation, is that the very serious charges arrayed against him are still are so roundly and firmly doubted by so many people, many of them—despite your characterization otherwise— very sober-minded and experienced on such issues.
Sure Fire, I feel like I continue to repeat myself on this issue, but I’ll do it (very briefly) one more time. I don’t know Alex is innocent of these charges. I have not seen all of the evidence. I have no way of being absolutely sure. But, after six months worth of talking to a very, very wide variety of people on this case (including smart, informed people who lean strongly to the government’s side of such issues, like Tom Diaz) and of reading whatever of the case material I can get my hands on, I still believe at a bottom-line gut level, that Alex is not a shot caller, is not still banging, is not involved with drug dealing, and did not order anybody’s murder, etc, etc.. I simply don’t believe it. But that is based on the puzzle pieces that I have, not on dead-bang factual knowledge. I don’t have access to all the facts.
But eventually I will. We all will. Until that time, I’ll continue to tell you what I know, as I know it. As the case unfolds, I will also give you my opinion. Everyone here will take it or leave it as they see fit.
Sure Fire Says:
December 9th, 2009 at 5:13 pm
What gets the least amount of mention here is the murder victim. Even if he was just another gangster that’s probably better off dead murder is still a crime.
……………..
Translation: Normally I wouldn’t give a shit about a dead Mexican. But if a high profile gang interventionist is accused of being involved with the murder, I’ll make an exception.
# Sure Fire Says:
December 9th, 2009 at 10:47 pm
# Sure Fire Says:
December 9th, 2009 at 10:47 pm
“Gee Celeste, do you really think so?
People like you and Boyle and Murray are always more in line to side with some “revered gangbanger-turned-peacemaker†as Tom Hayden described him, than law enforcement”
……………
Oh, add me to that list, too. Definitely.
# Sure Fire Says:
December 9th, 2009 at 10:52 pm
… I’m not the tree hugger type that believes things easily.
……………….
Yeh, you fact check everything you see on Fox News, I’m sure.
I don’t expect to have people care for my opinion Celeste, but you and I both know Hector fooled a lot of people and Alex, in my opinion, is cut from the same cloth.
Time will tell.
From an LAUSD teacher. Kind of an interesting take.
To all of you who are responding with the “this is a government conspiracy” or “I have met Alex”:
For the past nine months, Homies Unidos has been running one of their “gang intervention programs” in my classroom, once a week. where the funding comes from, I don’t know, but I am CERTAIN they are welcomed guests of the LAUSD. Over the nine months, I have heard their moderators spew the MOST VENOMOUS anti-LAPD, anti-government rhetoric, to urge the children in the class to view the police as criminals, and disseminate outright FALSEHOODS AND LIES concerning many aspects of life, especially in the seminar they ran on sexual responsibility and education. It is not in the least surprising, to myself or any of my colleagues who have sat through these ridiculous seminars, to hear this story today. While I am sure that in many ways Alex probably meant well, we have to be far more vigilant, THIS MEANS YOU LAUSD AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS, who we set out as role models for our children.
Please, before you comment, try to sit through six of their seminars without your stomach churning in disgust.
Posted by: crissyo | June 24, 2009 at 07:05 PM
I’ll have a little more on this tomorrow Celeste.
What Robbie or Reggie think about anything is notanything I care about or will comment on any longer.
SureMire, I guess it’s your habit to ignore reality. You’re a paranoid schizophrenic, SureMire, whose politics are obviously born out of some buried infantile trauma. You hide from reality, constructing a hostile world to justify your own incapacity for love and compassion. Go ahead, SureMire, live in your dark, lonely world. The rest of us will extend our hands in faith to Alex Sanchez.
“I’m not the tree-hugger type…”
I for one am so glad to see the elevation of SureFire’s dipshit, victimized-old-white-guy cliches against the host and random commenters here from “cop-haters” to “tree-huggers.”
What a transparent, dyspeptic dick. (And he calls ME “geriatric.”)
I’m wondering if, given his experience and concerns, SureFire has ever rationalized behaviors or questioned the process in cases where cops where accused of transgressions, prior to their convictions. Since he’s obviously Fair and Balanced, I’m sure he’s never done any such thing and never comments on the quality of an investigation, a prosecutor’s case or the actions of a judge before the jury has come to a verdict. Because he’s…uh…not a tree-hugger. And the Sanchez case is obviously air-tight with no room for discussion or defense.
There’s nothing like watching an eminently fair and finely balanced opinion-monger with no agendas or resentments dispensing his product.
“I’d defend a friend in a heart beat once I knew the truth behind their actions and agreed with them”
That is exactly what Celeste has done and yet you continue to attack her – not just her conclusions, which is totally fair, but her motives: “Guess that’s ok if one of the guys who is suspected in putting the crime into action is your pal.”
I’ve read everything Celeste has posted on this case Mavis, show me where she’s given the idea at any time Alex could truly be guilty. It’s all about Real and law enforcement’s, not Sanchez. It’s all about the take on what was said and people who I feel have a certain agenda whose first reaction will always be to believe the guy with the shady history.
Celeste can feel whatever way she wants but her feelings that she posts here are the exact opposite of what I’ve felt in 30 plus years of dealing with gangsters and other scum. She wrote the following.
———-
There is this irritating myth that people like me who see the humanness in someone, don’t see their sometimes catastrophic downsides. That’s preposterous. I go to their funerals and accept their collect calls from prison, and know the women who are now left having to raise their kids without fathers—because some guy with good qualities, for one reason or another, couldn’t manage to let the good in himself win out, and thus hell followed after.
————
Whatever “good qualities” these guys have are in my opinion an act. Where Celeste believes some couldn’t let the good in them win out, I don’t believe good exists in countless numbers of them, I’ve been up close and seen their bad behavior way to much to but into their supposed “goodness”. I’m not so easily fooled and I base that on the thousands of contacts I’ve had and when those contacts are with the same people, whose funerals Celeste sometimes ends up going to or collect calls she accepts, I can make an informed decision that evil is what exists in them, good isn’t to be found. I disagree with her take and feel because of her unlimited (it seems) compassion she’s a bit blinded.
Be real Mavis, does someone have some type of “good” in them because they might be nice to their kid or come off as “a very, very likable, winning guy who has come from a bad past to do a lot of very good work”. Hell I know cops who have scammed us all and the cop haters here would be the first to talk about them but gangsters, who have pulled the same type of stunts and worse are to be seen differently?
With me it’s also a matter of respect for certain good people involved in this investigation that have a career built on honesty and integrity whose motives have nothing to do with any type of “payback” as stated by the human asswipe Hayden. They simply want to see what they believe to be people involved in some serious crimes over many years answer for them.
“I’ll have a little more on this tomorrow Celeste.”
I can’t wait…
From SureFire :
What Robbie or Reggie think about anything is notanything I care about or will comment on any longer.
Notice how Robbie changed his name to Ben Dover right after SureFire say’s he will no longer respond to Robbie.
I’m not responding to anyone with the I.Q. of a Raider fan. I don’t agree with Mavis or Celeste much but they don’t fit that description. Who responds to my posts is no big deal to me.
Don’t you guys love how Sure Fire defines “good”? Who are you to see the “good” or lack thereof in anyone, Sure Fire?
“Who responds to my posts is no big deal to me.”
Which is why you’ve spewed so much hysteria, self-pity and gutter-sniping about Celeste running a “cop-haters” blog in these comments.
I’ll respond to you one time Reg you gutless mother-fucking bitch. Cop haters like Robbie Bitch and DQ Bitch post here and put their venom out with barely a protest, and never from your mother-fucking bitch ass so that signals silent approval to me.
Calling out the hate of bitches like them has gotten old though, just like dealing with a decrepit fuck like you and if the statements are allowed and not attacked every time than it feeds that hate.
End of mother fucking story with you bitch.
Yeah – that’s the end of your story all right. Thanks again for the revealing response. You don’t have an ounce of self-awareness, do you little man ?
Does SureFire have a blog I can visit? I’d love to read up on his take on issues.
Please dial back the spate of swearing.
#17. Rob Thomas and “Ben Dover” are not the same person. Although you’re right, “Ben Dover” is not a real name, I can tell you at least that much. But those posts are not put up by the person who used the handle, Rob Thomas.
They’re put up by someone else who enjoys twisting a few tales in an argument such as this one.
Not that it matters, but just for the sake of accuracy.