Gangsters With Badges LASD's Deputy Gang Problem Sheriff Alex Villanueva

Why Did the LA’s District Attorney’s Office Fail to Bring Charges Against Suspects in the Sheriff’s Bandito Assault Case? (The Problematic LASD Investigation Didn’t Help, Says a New Report)

Celeste Fremon
Written by Celeste Fremon

Why did the Los Angeles District Attorney’s office fail to bring charges against any of the the four LA County Sheriff’s Deputies who allegedly viciously assaulted several other sheriff’s deputies at a 2018 after hours party in front of approximately six dozen witnesses?

And when the LA County Sheriff’s Department investigated those same assaults, why did investigators  appear to studiously avoid asking witnesses about the deputy gang known as the Banditos, the influence of which reportedly had everything to do with the physical assaults that resulted in at least one deputy being choked into unconsciousness, and three others injured.

In a new report released this week ,  the LA County’s Inspector General’s Office probes these and other questions, and concludes that Sheriff Alex Villanueva “continues to promote a Code of Silence,” regarding secret societies of deputy sheriffs, such as the Banditos at the department’s East LA station, and other deputy cliques such as the Executioners located at the Culver City station.

The central purpose of the new report pertains to the investigation conducted by the LASD’s Internal Criminal Investigation Bureau (ICIB), in which, according to the OIG, department investigators “completely ignored evidence of the involvement of the Banditos which led to the assaultive conduct at Kennedy Hall.”

The infamous Banditos brawl

For those readers who may have forgotten, on September 28, 2018, the East LA sheriff’s station hosted an “off training” celebration party for new deputies at Kennedy Hall, a rentable event venue in East Los Angeles. After midnight, as the party was starting to wind down, multiple assaults occurred involving LASD personnel, much of it spilling into the hall’s parking lot.

Based on the Kennedy Hall incident, an eleven-count civil lawsuit was filed in September 2019, by the deputies identified as the victims in the incident report, with the original claim by the alleged victims, which is the first step in any such legal action, filed in mid March 2019.

The lawsuit details how the members of the Banditos engaged in a “pattern of intimidation and retaliation” against those who didn’t go along with their actions, or worse, became whistleblowers, as at least two of the lawsuit’s plaintiffs reportedly did in desperation.

The retaliation that resulted for those who ran afoul of the Banditos, according to the lawsuit, consisted of escalating harassment, ranging from verbal taunts or keying someone’s car, and the like, to putting deputies in physical danger by failing to provide back up on potentially perilous work call outs,  several instances of which the complaint details,.

One of the worst of these alleged no-back-up episodes reportedly occurred on September 19, 2018,  and resulted in two deputies from the East LA station being shot while on duty (albeit, fortunately, not fatally),  “because of the intentional failure of the Banditos to provide back up,” according to the complaint.

The Kennedy Hall fight, which occurred nine days later, allegedly started when members of the Banditos attempted to intimidate, then attacked multiple other non-Bandito deputies (all among the lawsuit’s plaintiffs), choking one into unconsciousness with his own shirt, knocking down and kicking a second deputy plaintiff also reportedly into unconsciousness, causing a concussion, beating and kicking still others who tried to come to the rescue of the first deputies.  And all of this done in front of a crowd of witnesses.

(WitnessLA broke the story about the Kennedy Hall assaults, and we have written many times  about deputy gangs, along with the expanding allegations in the still pending civil lawsuit.  We also broke the story of the existence of the Compton Executioners.)

ICIB steps in

After the Kennedy Hall incident, the ICIB investigation was launched to determine if any of the behavior by LASD personnel at the event violated the law.

It is this investigation that the new report by the Office of the Inspector General explores, along with a brief look at the LA District Attorney’s decision not to file charges relating to the Kennedy Hall assaults, pursuant to the LASD investigation.

Yet, although ICIB located seventy-three witnesses to the Kennedy Hall assaults, of which they recorded interviews with forty-six (after 23 declined to cooperate,) bizarrely, according to the OIG report, the ICIB investigators showed little  interest in asking the witnesses they interviewed anything about the Banditos in relationship to the assaults, even when the deputies brought the issue up themselves, and never mind that it was allegedly the  influence that the deputy gang had on the East LA station that had everything to do with the assaults that ICIB was investigating.

According to the OIG report, the deputies who agreed to be interviewed provided fairly consistent versions of the incident.  They identified the four named suspects as the instigators, who were described by some witnesses as engaging in “a pattern and practice of bullying and ostracizing younger deputies.  Other witnesses also described the four suspects “as being associated with the Banditos deputy clique.”

Yet, the OIG report describes how there was little or no follow-up, when the witnesses brought up the issue of the increasingly notorious deputy clique. ICIB only proactively asked one  witness if the suspects in the investigation were Banditos, states the report. In addition, ICIB neglected to ask if the bullying described was ordered by Banditos or whether this was a common practice of Banditos.

Further, although ICIB did ask numerous witnesses about tensions between older and younger deputies, there were no follow up questions about any association the older deputies might have with Banditos or any subgroup.

And when a sergeant explained that, actually,  the tensions were not between older and younger deputies but rather between those deputies who associated with the Banditos and those who did not, ICIB interviewers reportedly considered none of this worth probing.

Attorney Vincent Miller, whose eight clients brought the civil lawsuit against the county regarding the actions of the Banditos, agreedswith the OIG’s characterization of the department’s peculiarly incurious inquiry.

When LASD investigators talked to his clients, Miller told WitnessLA, “they aggressively and intentionally avoided bringing up the Banditos.”

In one instance, Miller said, he was with two of his clients as they were being interviewed, and happened to mention the topic of the Banditos to one client, at which point the sergeant who was interviewing the deputy quickly broke in.

“He said, ‘Oh, we’re getting beyond our scope.  That’s beyond our scope.'”

The OIG report is also critical of the fact that, when twenty-three witnesses declined to give any statement at all about the Kennedy Hall incident, ICIB investigators did not compel them to do so, despite the fact that, according to the OIG,  the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department Manual of Policy and Procedures (MPP)  gives ICIB the ability to compel witnesses to be interviewed — stopping short of the point of self-incrimination.  Yet the LASD investigators evidently saw no reason to attempt no such compelling.

No charges

On June 19, 2019, ICIB submitted its investigation to the Justice System Integrity Division unit of the LA District Attorney’s Office.

Nearly eight months later, on February 6, 2020, the DA’s office officially declined to file charges against the four suspect deputies, and put their reasoning into an official memorandum.

According to the OIG report, the main rationale the DA’s memo cited for declining to file a criminal case in the matter of the Kennedy Hall incident, was because “alcohol was involved, the area in question was dark, and thus the video [of the brawl] did not sufficiently capture the incident, contradictory statements were made by witnesses and parties involved, and all of the suspects and victims were all potentially biased.”

Therefore, concluded the DA’s memorandum, there was insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that any of the suspects committed any crime.

“The majority” of the DA’s memorandum “focused on inconsistencies in accounts by percipient witnesses,” wrote the OIG of the district attorney’s explanation for not charging, which the OIG did not find persuasive.

Instead the OIG report characterized these “inconsistencies” in the witness statements to be minor “and of the type inherent in criminal investigations with multiple witnesses.”

Yet, it didn’t seem to matter to the LA District Attorney’s office  that the “witnesses to the assaults at Kennedy Hall had identified the suspects and described what each of them did on the night in question.”

And even more “oddly,” the report continued,  the DA’s memorandum included footnote that “downplayed the involvement of the Banditos… ”

Here’s the DA’s footnote.

“Although there was some mention of a subculture ‘Banditos’ existing at the ELA station, the Banditos were not a focus of this investigation nor were the suspects identified as being part of this subculture. Furthermore, whenever mentioned, the Banditos were simply associated with a group of older, more senior deputies that simply ostracized younger deputies they felt were lazy. At no point in this investigation did any witnesses indicate that the Banditos were equivalent to a gang or any type of criminal enterprise.”

The OIG’s report found the DA’s footnote “concerning for several reasons.”

First, the report notes,  the “motive of the assault,” was the senior deputies imposing their standard on younger deputies. And “motive is a central element of every criminal case and requires detailed analysis.”

Also, although the DA’s memo seems to validate the existence and purpose of  the Banditos, “stating that no witnesses indicated that the Banditos were equivalent to a gang suggests a lack of thoroughness in reading the statements provided by ICIB, or lack of familiarity with Penal Code section 186.22, or both.”

(By Penal Code 186.22 ,the report refers to the so-called STEP Act, passed in 1988.  Section f, which the report reproduces, is the part of the statute that defines the term “criminal street gang.” )

The OIG report helpfully reproduces a series of excerpts from ICIB interview transcripts, and points to some of the relevant parts of various deputy statements that the DA appeared to simply ignore in order to arrive at its decision not to charge anyone.

“Deputy 1 clearly stated that Deputy 3, Suspect Deputy W, and Suspect Deputy X manipulated people ‘like a gang,'” the OIG wrote, “and an analysis of the totality of the statements provided to ICIB clearly shows that a gang type culture existed at the East LA Station and the Banditos were the group that exhibited that behavior.”

The bottom line, according to the OIG, is that department investigators, “should apply the same investigative practices to investigations relating to alleged gang behavior of deputies as would be employed in the investigation of a serious crime by a suspect who is not an employee of LASD.”

As to what the LA County District attorney’s office failed to do, or could have done differently, the OIG writes that, “having received what appears to be a purposefully perfunctory investigation by ICIB (which did not gather evidence of the motive behind the alleged assault at Kennedy Hall), the Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office (LADA) did not request statements be taken from the uncooperative witnesses or empanel a grand jury to compel statements.”

And so it was that no charges were brought.

The sheriff replies

On Monday, October 5, following the release of the story, Sheriff Alex Villanueva issued a statement about the OIG report via Instagram in which he suggested that Inspector General Max Huntsman and the report were “purely politically driven and an attempt to undermine the reputation of the Department.”

The report, he wrote, “alleges investigators did not conduct a thorough investigation into the Kennedy Hall deputy on deputy fight. This is false. Both criminal and administrative investigations were conducted where investigators interviewed over 70 involved parties and witnesses in the case.”

(According to to the report, although ICID investigators located 73 witnesses, they recorded interviews with 46. As stated earlier, most all of the rest reportedly declined to be interviewed.)

“The facts are,” the sheriff continued, “that immediately after taking office, I relieved the East Los Angeles Station captain of his command, overhauled the entire leadership of the station, and transferred 36 personnel.”

The sheriff’s claim to have transferred 36 Banditos-involved deputies from the East LA Station after the Kennedy Hall debacle has  been challenged as an overstatement of the actual number transferred.

Meanwhile, the 64-page civil lawsuit continues to move ahead.


We plan to make a couple of additions to this story, so watch this space.

The Banditos image at the time of the story is courtesy of attorney Greg Smith

61 Comments

  • A possible issue is that LASD’s Internal Criminal Investigations Bureau (ICIB) does not compel witnesses to give statements. That is likely because the roles of witness and suspect can switch or become blurred, and of course, criminal suspects can’t be compelled to give statements.

    I believe this is wrong-headed. Yes, mistakes can be made and witnesses can become suspects later down the road, but ICIB should take a stand and do the best they can to figured out who is who and compel statements.

    • No comment on the larger issue here, to be clear. With that said, ICIB cannot compel anyone (sworn, non-sworn, LASO employee, etc.) to provide a statement. Thus, I am unsure as to your point; e.g. “ICIB should take a stand and . . . compel statements.” They cannot. Full Stop. And, unless the Constitution is radically altered, will not be able to for the foreseeable future.

      • Wrong. They absolutely can compel witnesses to provide statements. The only statements excluded to the DA’s perusal are those of criminal suspects. Come on, mr attorney, where the heck are you pulling that nonsense from?

        • Totally false. All ICIB can do is compel a Deputy to show up, maximum; and that is questionable. Then the Deputy simply refuses (invokes) and the interview is over. It is a criminal investigation. 5A applies. Not sure if you are a lawyer but any lawyer will tell you the same. If it were different ICIB would compel everyone to give a statement, nobody could refuse. That obv does not happen, for good reason. They do not because they cannot. 5A privilege lies with the witness, NOT the investigating agency. Thus, even if the agency does not consider the witness a suspect, that is irrelevant. If the witness invokes it is over. That is the law. Sorry you do not agree with our Constitution.

        • PS.
          You may be confusing IA and ICIB. Not sure if you know the inside baseball here. If you do then there really is no excuse for you arguing ICIB can compel statements. If not, IA is Internal Affairs for the Sheriff’s Department. Deputies must provide statements to them. A Deputy can refuse by invoking 5A but that will be subject them to admin. punishment, which is legal. ICIB is Internal Criminal Investigations, part of the Sheriff’s Department, tasked with investigating alleged crimes within the Department. Like a police force within a police force. A Deputy never has to talk to them as I previously explained. Honestly man, this is really really basic stuff for attorneys and those in the weeds.

          • Sorry, still going to have to disagree. I’ve been out of the “weeds” as you say for a bit, so I checked with a couple colleagues still in the biz. It is not common to compel witnesses in criminal cases, but when they do, the script is flipped and they are administratively compelled. You know that means their statement is now immunized and if they disclose any criminal culpability, stop, Miranda, yadda, yadda. If not their statement is given to the prosecutor – no compelled statement is being used against the officer for the purpose of prosecution.

            I understand where you’re coming from, but if I’d have listened to cops’ counsel, I’d have been giving them complaints, notes, witness statements before interrogations as though the Pasadena decision never happened. LOL

          • To Dose, have whoever told you that call me. Under no circumstances can ICIB order a Deputy (or anyone else) to give a statement. IA can and they admin. compel. ICIB does not admin compel, not under the ICIB banner. On a side note, since you mentioned Pasadena, Orange County under Sheriff Corona did not follow Pasadena. Their IA did give us everything before every interview. It was crazy! In a good way, for us at least. Anyhoo, onward and upward to better things. Take care.

    • What ICIB should do and what ICIB didn’t do speaks for itself. You and other tenured deputies know damn well that ICIB sabotaged the investigation purposely.

      Just like the attempted murder on our fellow deputies in Compton last month, Investigative units in LASD always get to the center of criminal no matter how big or trivial and usually sooner than later unless they threaten the FBI.

      No excuses whatsoever for Alex and his lack of a thorough investigation basically because of his ELA Station connection.

  • Bunch of East La losers. Fake ass cops running around with gangster nicknames. Weak.
    Most of them have to compensate for their 5’3” stature anyway.
    What a joke of a station.

  • “The investigation by ICIB, did not delve into the allegations that a sub-culture
    existed at the East LA Station, as claimed in this lawsuit filed in September 2019.” -OIG Report

    Why the heck would ICIB look into this sub-culture for a criminal investigation? They were investigating a battery and possibly an assault with a deadly weapon. Most of this sub-culture isn’t relevant to the actual criminal investigation. Motive is not an element for those crimes unless you are adding a gang enhancement, which is a far stretch in this case. This portion should have been looked at by the subsequent administrative investigation.

    The issue with this case was intoxication of the suspects and witnesses, whether the suspects were acting in self defense, and whether you could prove charges in front of a jury.

    I am not defending LASD, but this OIG is horrible and doesn’t know criminal vs. administrative law. He doesn’t understand what actually goes on in a criminal investigation or has chosen to just mislead everyone with some of his latest reports. He is garbage, just like the BOS and Alejandro.

  • The Banditos are not unique when it comes to LASD infighting. Lest we forget the MCJ 3000 Boys, Pandora’s Box and even in the Sheriff’s Union (ALADS) which is still fighting a ongoing multi million dollar case.
    https://www.latimes.com/local/la-xpm-2014-apr-01-la-me-sheriff-union-battle-20140402-story.html

    No wonder the public can’t trust deputies who patrol their streets and communities when they fight and terrorize their own. LASD is a joke that is not funny.

  • All I can say is that back in the day at ELA a deputy held his own. If that “Bandito” bs was tried the result would have been a trip to the parking lot and an “airing of differences”. I’m at a loss to explain how things got so bad there. Perhaps because we are a kindler gentler Department. Haven’t heard from Burrito #1 lately AKA Bandito #1. You still rat packing fellow deputies Burrito #1. Look forward to ur response!

  • By the way Burrito is it true your leader is that deputy that worked EMS. I always heard him on the patch but never saw anyone in his back seat. He had a nice mustache though which I believe is a prerequisite to become a “Bandito”

  • Whatever anyone wants to take from articles and incidents like this is pretty much dependent on either their already set perceptions, mis-conceptions and will never change. If you believe “gang’s” are running rampant throughout the Sheriff’s Department and that all Deputy Sheriff’s are bad, nothing will ever change that. Sorry for you. I just ask those who believe that to remember not to blame any White person for believing all Black people are bad when they were the victim of a crime committed by a Black person. This line of reasoning can be applicable to any group (ethnicity, profession, gender, sexual orientation, age group, etc.) of course.

    Let s just stop with the broad brush strokes painting all of any one group as either “this or that”.

  • Huntsman appointed in 2013. First lawsuit involving the Bandidos filed in 2014. Second lawsuit filed 2015. Department and the IG’s Office well aware of Bandidos. The IG’s Office was establish to ensure groups like the 2000 and 3000 boys were handled, yet the Bandidos were still thriving in Sept 2018 and assaulting deputy rivals.
    Compelled statements and why the DA did not file are not the only questions. How could this happen yet again with the IG’s Office deeply imbedded within the Sheriff’s Department under McDonnell?
    It demonstrates the ineffectiveness of the Civilian Oversight Commission and the Office of Inspector General. They had what they wanted, complete access, yet still failed.
    For the IG’s Office and the COC to work they can not be political tools of the Board. Nor can they be co-opted by the Sheriff’s Department. Most members of the department did not see Huntsman ‘s Office as impartial, fair or consistent. Huntsman has politicized his office to the point of ineffectiveness. Department members are turning the the Courts not Huntsman for relief. That is telling.

  • Celeste, you mention that you will be making additions to this story in the coming days. One addition to consider or question to ask is why there is no mention of a “Formerly Retired Lieutenant” (who now likes making slanderous statements on his Facebook Live broadcasts with his Sweet Pea) who also attended the Kennedy Hall Off Training Party and what he told various members of the Banditos before the infamous beat downs began?

    Now that would be an interesting fact to highlight which might give some insight into why the ICIB investigation intentionally failed to delve into the Banditos under the current leadership.

    I’m just asking for a friend….

  • @ Surprisingly Not, B-I-N-G-O-!

    Another reason why some Law Enforcement Unions are vilified.
    Funny how things are hush-hush within, until exposed, then the lame excuses come out with the hope that no ones cares or remembers.

  • Seeking the Truth is on the right path. You need a investigative body that is ferreting out wrongdoing and bringing it to light. THEN you need a Sheriff who will fairly evaluate those findings and fix what needs to be fixed (I do believe in an independent Sheriff running an independent Sheriff’s Department, but the Sheriff needs to be open to valid criticism). Once they become adversaries, the “watchdog” might as well go howl at the moon. Unfortunately with this Sheriff, everyone might just as well go howl at the moon.

  • This is some factual information for all you new comers. Alex Villanueva was a complete nerdy joke at ELA Station. He was put on a bike team in tight green shorts and a white polo shirt and told to ride around the projects just to stay out of the way of patrol. He was wing nut who ran around trying to preach social justice. He literally was not allowed in the station after he left. So then he becomes sheriff on a fluke and is suddenly down with the Banditos. There’s the story everybody. I was there and can attest first hand how he got punked daily for his lunch money and now thinks he’s big man on campus. It’s a Bill Gates type story. Nerd makes it big. Suddenly becomes a tough guy!!!

  • Totally a lack of confidence in Sheriff Villanueva concerning the numerous and expensive scandals, which can always change but has not.

  • I am happy to hear so many challengers will take on Villanueva. Let’s not forget, all the LA County Chiefs sat on the sidelines because they believed McDonnell was unbeatable. The amateurish, inexperienced and according to many on this sight, dumb Villanueva took McDonnell on. Only Bob Lindsey joined him in the ring to take on the incumbent. The political establishment lined up behind McDonnell. No Chief had the courage to enter this fight. AV did and won.

    Villanueva sold himself to the progressives as their guy. I don’t think the left will line up behind any one candidate again. They’re are in a defund fight. I think it is fair to say they have buyers remorse. They don’t trust any cops. The County Unions will fall in line behind one candidate. No outside Chief has a chance to line up ALADS or PPOA. They experienced an outsider…. They will not do that again. There is really only one former insider with the County political connections and union background to make a serious run. I like that candidate and hope they step up.

    For now, I support AV with all his warts because I do truly believe the BOS are off their rocker. I just wish the LASD had a better champion.

    • @Seeking the truth- All I keep hearing is people talking about potential candidates to run against Villanueva. Well…let’s hear some ideas! I’m all open to hear who people in these comment sections have for candidates. Some will be good, some will be bad. Then we will have some great ones! So let’s start tossing around some names.

  • @CircleJ,

    You are 100% about the ELA Nerd. Even BiBi saw him that way. But she had no other options at ELA so she went for the dude with the bifocals

    Excerpt: (It was around this time that an undergrad at Cal State Los Angeles named Vivian Lopez was embedded with a Sheriff’s Department narcotics team during an internship. An undercover surveillance mission she attended was nearly botched when a deputy in thick bifocals showed up unannounced in a marked patrol car.
    “He’s gonna ruin it for us!” she recalled thinking. “Well, three years later, I marry the guy.”)

    https://www.mcall.com/la-me-alex-villanueva-profile-20181205-story.html

    • Lmao! Got to be the funniest post I’ve read on here about this fucking shit show!! Circling the drain seems appropriate!! Stop the madness!

    • @ AV Clown Show,
      Interesting article depicting how Alex was booted out of ALADS then went mission to decertify them.

      He did get the last laugh years later when ALADS gifted him with 1.3 million, poetic justice indeed!

      Ron Hernandez can take credit for that, LMAO!

  • The link AV Clown Show posted is filled with gems.

    This excerpt says a lot. Most importantly, it shows LT Villanueva is missing a few screws. 7 years on and nothing more than a line deputy and believes he can run the dept. 27 years later, he proves he wasn’t qualified then or now.

    The next year, the young deputy announced his candidacy against former Sheriff Sherman Block in the 1994 election, saying, as he does today, that he would improve deputy morale. He eventually abandoned the campaign but kept mulling another run.

    Is this not being demonstrated now by his unwillingness to work with other county depts and employees.

    His intense fixation and frankness have sometimes been off-putting in a department where social relationships are key, according to some who have worked with him.

    You don’t say?

    “I even had people who would not want to be near me because they thought Alex was a black cloud,” Vivian said.

    This is what the vast majority of the public believes. He did say he isn’t doing anything he didn’t campaign on.

    “aimed his message too much at deputies, so much so that he sounded like he was running to be president of the deputies’ union.”

  • News for Undersheriff Vivian, he is a black cloud. Now that the nerdy bifocals got his opportunity he squandered it because he has to be the smartest man in the room. Time to move on to the next endeavor. I believe AV reached his full potential as the WC at CRDF. He had quite a rep there.

  • Before the print of that article was even dry, the real shit show was beginning. That author can use that article as the “Forward” to his book on the disaster that befell a ship that was already sinking.

  • Does anyone know any of the details around the “alleged threat” and harrasermrnt by Sheriff AV against former LA County CEO Sachi Hami? If the evidence was so uncontrafutable and so overwhelming that the BOS felt it warranted a $1.5 million dollar settlements (gift) and LA County Taxpayer funded lifetime security detail, where is the police report and outcome of the investigation? Max Huntsnsn, ACLU, BOS, COC, WlA? Somebody? All this was done at a time when the BOS has been crying about budget shortfalls laying off Sheriff Department personnel. Yet Sachi Hami is allowed to not only retire with in the words of CF, a “big fat taxpayer funded pension” and $1.5++ million dollars parting gift/bonus.

    If someone wanted a smoking gun to attach to Sheriff AV was that not it? Wasn’t this the gotcha moment? Or are we just in a cycle of “let’s see what all we can throw at him and see what gains traction and hopefully sticks?

    Crickets on this one!

    Keep your head up Sheriff AV and the voters will decide come next election. That’s the way our political process works.

  • Would this be tolerated at Burger King or WalMart? What a great job. Don’t quit, boys, as it does not get better than this.

  • @Skeptic, you are right. Political hogwash on the part of the BOS and a gift of the taxpayer’s funds. (But Dems don’t look at it as real money, they think of taxpayers money like most folks think of monopoly money – easy come easy go). If there was a viable threat, or any real threat for that matter, there would have been a presser and they would have insisted the DA start an investigation “forthwith.” All nonsense.

    That doesn’t let AV off the hook for all the other stupid shit he’s done. You are picking the fly shit out of the pepper.

  • The Fat lady has not finished singing !the FBI is still doing there thing, they should have taken the criminal charges before the grand Jury, remember you can’t lie to the FBI!!!!!!

  • All of these nonsensical and fruitless gripes, accusations and grossly exaggerated claims against AV is getting old. It’s obvious that everyone of you critics have a personal animus towards him along with the BOS and crooked Huntsman. You’re all screaming in the same echo chamber which no one cares about. I’m definitely tired of it. Everything you all, including WLA gripe about are merely for self serving reasons. I’ve yet to hear anything about suggestions for the betterment of the department or the community. You’re all feeding into the anti law enforcement rhetoric and playing right in the hands of activists who want nothing more than to defund law enforcement and have some puppet in there doing their bidding for them like the previous clown.

    I applaud AV for standing up to these groups and doing what’s fair and what’s right.

    The CEO was given a severance payment and because they knew had it gone public, the tax payers would have been outraged. So they used AV as a scapegoat in the process without having any facts to support their claims. There were no documented complaints, government claims or facts to support the claims made by the county’s lawyer. When you have time, Google Skip Miller and you’ll see he’s as crooked as they come. The Pelicano case should speak for itself.

    Is AV perfect, absolutely not, but neither are any of you. He in my eyes is doing the best job possible considering the current anti police atmosphere and the bullshit attacks thrown at him from you. He has the complete support from his personnel, the hard working and law abiding citizens and the labor unions. Everyone else, aside from your tiny little circle supports him. We see the BS being pulled on him and see right through it. He’s the only one who comes on FB and rebuts the nonsense lodged against him with facts. But you’re so fixated to looking for faults that when the truth is presented, you turn a blind eye to it and find some other lie to twist.

    Whatever your agenda is, it’s obvious that it’s for your own personal reasons and nothing else. Sorry, you were let go, sorry you didn’t get the promotion you felt you deserved and sorry if you were relegated and sent off to earn your keep. But none of your bitching and crying is going anywhere, especially in this blog when you don’t even use your real names.

    Like I said in my previous post, you’re all underestimating AV. This is a man who pulled off a historic victory while being a complete no name, I can only imagine what his strategy will be for 2022. I personally don’t see anyone defeating him. Get your straitjackets ready, because most of you will be on 902A watch when he gets reelected.

    It also baffles me to what kind of a person or man, would say the shit you do about the man’s wife. If I was him, I’d use every resource available to find out who you are and confront you like a man. Talking shit about someone’s wife is completely out of bounds.

    Celeste, I love your selective monitoring of your blog. You on many occasions have reminded the posters on attacking or mentioning people’s significant others then deleted their post. Try exercising your rules and guidelines evenly and fairly. You as a blog monitor have that responsibility and obligation.

    Finally, I’m not sure about you all, but I firmly believe in Karma. All your hate and disdain you spew will ultimately come right back to you or your loved ones, one hundred times fiercer. Be careful what you wish for.

    AV Clown Show, you remind me of the O’Doyle family in the Billy Madison movie. I see a bad ending for you in the end.

    • “He has the complete support from his personnel, the hard working and law abiding citizens and the labor unions. Everyone else, aside from your tiny little circle supports him.”

      Where do you get this from? As far as personnel, I would say well over 50% of the folks I talk to think he ranges from quirky/harmless, to a complete joke that is taking the Department down the drain, with most falling towards the latter category. Unions, I guess, ALADS and Laspa, sure, maybe, although I hear ALADS is growing less impressed each day. PPOA I think is neutral to very concerned. As for citizens, neither you nor I know, unless you have some poll to quote? I do know the vast majority of letters and comments I’ve read, to the extent they are any kind of representation, show serious buyer’s remorse.

      AV’s win was not historic, other than in the sense that it was highly unusual. A petty man with a boulder sized chip on his shoulder won in a fluke by a confluence of several odd factors coming together in 2018. Alex has not borne up well under scrutiny (understatement font). I won’t bother to list his many, many failings, not that I think it would make any more of a difference than if you rattled off the vague and misleading list of “accomplishments” his supporters throw out. Like Trump, most folks have their opinion of AV, and not much by way of discussion on here will sway anyone.

      I am at a loss for your complaints about AV’s wife, I haven’t seen anything that would cause a man to go looking for payback, maybe I missed it? I will say, if you’re gonna go all “sweepea” on FB with your non-Department-employed spouse, you better be ready for some comments. That’s completely on him, as long as they aren’t the type that would cause a punch to be thrown. I feel like you owe Celeste an apology unless you have something concrete to offer that I’ve missed. Talking about things she’s publicly said or her history with the Department doesn’t measure up. Your righteous indignation seems a bit manufactured and makes me wonder if you’re quite as removed from the inner circle as you present.

  • @GoodGod. Someone struck a nerve. Good time for you to get a jump on it and tune up the resume. You’ll need it cause the no name incompetents will be sent packing! It’s just the way it is, or in your words, karma. Check back in history and you’ll see Peter Pitchess was banned from al facilities by Sherman Block. History has a tendency to repeat itself. karma.

  • I retired last year. My resume says Retired and enjoying life. You couldn’t pay me to be a cop these days.

    No nerve struck brother, just stating my opinion. It’s exhausting to see and hear the same stuff over and over again. Watching you guys post the same article links from the same LA Times article. I begin to wonder why AV is consuming so much of your lives. I’d give you credence if you were subjective and open for a mature dialogue. But you’ve proven to not be. Completely one sided. Should anyone suggest otherwise, they get bombarded with being a bootlicker, loyalist, suckass, etc. It’s like attempting to have a dialogue with ANTIFA.

    • @GG,

      Maybe you should try enjoying your retirement if reading about Alex Villanueva’s daily blunders and outright failures causes you so much discomfort and distress. You should probably stay on Sweat Pea’s shit talking Facebook page and just watch reruns of Alex’s FB Live B.S. sessions, as those should provide a nice safe place for your fragile image of your beloved LASD 1st Family.

      Meanwhile, exposure of The AV Clown Show disasters will continue, as an Idiot who continues to see himself as the smartest man in the room, will always remain and Idiot. These facts were laid out nicely in that article link that I previously provided; which apparently upset you so much. I guess the truth hurts now that everyone has been able to compare the Idiot’s present actions with his past.

      Here you go, feel free to read it again:

      https://www.mcall.com/la-me-alex-villanueva-profile-20181205-story.html

      You’re welcome.

      #WorstSheriffEver
      #RecallSheriffV
      #ShamefulSheriffV
      #1TermSheriffV
      #AdiosVillanueva

  • The CEO did the BOS dirty work in relation the the Sheriff’s budget. She regularly lied publicly about the Sheriff’s budget as the BOS expected and with the willful concurrence of the media. No investigative reporter have ever sat down with the Sheriff’s budget staff to get the the department’s side of the story than challenge the CEOs staff.

    Her illegal gift of public funds without and real challenge by the media is shameful. The only thing hurt by the Sheriff was the CEOs feelings. He refused to just go along!

    Remember this is the same board and media who jumped all over a random scam targeting the head of the County Counsel by the sheriff’s department. Everyone feigned outrage and horror. It turned out to be a common scam pulled on citizens all across the nation. No apologies from the board, the County Counsel or any real retraction from the media.

    So the money was a payoff for that dirty work. IMHO….

  • @Celeste,

    Just following up on this story that you posted. Were you able to ask and obtain any answers from Alex, or one of his many spinmeisters, on why then Candidate Villanueva attended the ELA “off training” Beatdown Party, and what speech he gave to those in attendance? It must have been a leadership message for the ages in order to motivate the actions that occurred afterwards. Funny that wasn’t covered in the ICIB or the IAB investigations? Seems like that would have been relevant.

    Sure would be nice to hear what he has to say now that he has had two years to come up with a lawyer prepared account. If not, I guess we’ll just have to wait for the deposition testimony to be released.

    I wonder how much this case will cost to settle in order to keep those facts suppressed on behalf of Mr. Transparency?

  • You’re no different than the crazy left trying to go after Trump. One day it’s the Russia collusion, then it’s the Moller report, then it’s his taxes then the impeachment, then it’s COVID.

    I see the same pattern here. Fail, Fail and Fail on all your attempts.

    Just a matter of time Mr. Clown. I’ve learned early on that you don’t poke the bear.

    Every action causes a reaction. Simple life lessons should never be forgotten or get lost during a foggy mental breakdown.

    As I said in my earlier post, you’re the O’Doyle family in the Billy Madison movie.

    Here’s a link for you.

    https://youtu.be/XVO3NJCPIoY

    • @GG,

      Thanks for the link as I had no clue what your O’Doyle family reference was about. Now that I have watched it, I have to say that was about one of the lamest Villanueva defense threats I have seen in nearly two years. Pretty sad if that’s the best you can come up with.

      Meanwhile, any thoughts on what Alex was doing at the beatdown party and what he had to say to the attendees? Anything?

    • @Adam,

      Are you referencing this question? “Meanwhile, any thoughts on what Alex was doing at the beatdown party and what he had to say to the attendees? Anything?”

      If so, what’s not true and what’s the easy answer?

      • It’s futile to ask any LASPA Attorney critical questions concerning Alex Villanueva.
        Did you really expect Adam Marangell to answer that question?

  • I can answer that question. He was there trying to be one of the boys. Prior to him being the Sheriff he wasn’t allowed in the building.

Leave a Comment