Wednesday, May 31, 2017

Borenstein: Despite illegally using funds, DA Peterson seeks re-election @FBI @StateBarCA @CalCourts ‏

No comments :
Rather than resign as he should, Mark Peterson, the Contra Costa district attorney who illegally used his campaign account as a $66,000 personal slush fund, plans to seek re-election next year.
Prosecutors working for him are understandably angry, exasperated and embarrassed. Many fear speaking up after witnessing the retribution Peterson inflicted on political opponents in the office after first winning election in 2010. Others have decided they cannot remain silent.
“His crimes have had a negative impact on the entire office,” says prosecutor Scott Cunnane. “A true leader would put the interests of the office above his own self-interest.”
The transgressions by the county’s top law-enforcement official were not minor bookkeeping errors. They were major violations of the state’s Political Reform Act, which aims to curtail government corruption by prohibiting candidates’ personal use of funds from campaign contributors.
Because of his behavior, “We lose credibility,” says prosecutor Chris Walpole. “If he remains DA, it sends the wrong message to the public. We’re supposed to wear the white hat. We’re supposed to be upholding the law and holding people accountable.”
An investigation by the state Fair Political Practices Commission found that from 2011-15 Peterson routinely dipped into his campaign account for approximately 600 personal expenditures totaling $66,372.
He used the campaign debit card for meals at restaurants, gasoline, clothing, movie tickets, hotel rooms, cellular telephone bills and other personal expenses. He also used cash withdrawals from the campaign bank account  for his own purposes and — perhaps most brazenly — transferred money from the campaign fund to his personal bank account.
Peterson said he considered the money a loan and repaid it. That, of course, ignores that the borrowing itself was illegal, as he should have known and as almost every candidate or elected official does know.
Moreover, more than half the repayment was made only after Peterson learned his campaign was randomly selected for a state audit — after he realized he was about to get caught. That’s when he ended the scheme and turned himself in to the FPPC.
In December, Peterson admitted his crime, apologized and agreed to pay a $45,000 fine to the state commission. Thus far, he still has his license to practice law and has faced no criminal charges.
Peterson told his staff last month about his re-election plans. He acknowledged that complaints have been levied with the state bar. As for criminal charges, his own prosecutors cannot pursue the case and the state Attorney General’s Office isn’t commenting.
“It’s well and good to apologize,” says prosecutor Kabu Adodoadji. “But it kind of misses the point …, the inherent contradiction of the chief law enforcement officer of this county suffering no consequences for criminal behavior.”
Peterson’s behavior undermines his own prosecutors, who worry that the case raises legitimate issues about a double-standard. Peterson has escaped criminal charges while his deputies pursue convictions of poor people for cases of welfare fraud or theft that involve far less money.
“If someone is convicted of welfare fraud, they don’t get to just pay a fine,” says prosecutor Nichelle Holmes. “Restitution is part of the punishment, but it’s usually tied to a misdemeanor conviction.”
Now defense attorneys are asking why their clients can’t get the Peterson deal: An apology and a fine with no criminal record.
None of this seems to faze Peterson, who ignored requests to answer questions. He instead sent a canned email statement of candidacy, saying he was proud of the work his office has done. “I want to continue this work and plan to run a vigorous re-election campaign,” he said.
Attorneys in his office say he has been frequently absent from the office since his campaign finance abuses were revealed in December. Behind the scenes, he has been working the phones seeking endorsements.
He won’t find much support in his office. As for other politicos, county Supervisor Karen Mitchoff says she told him she won’t make an endorsement now. Supervisor John Gioia said he won’t endorse Peterson now or later.
And Supervisor Candace Andersen, who says she believes in redemption, says she’ll back him. But then she adds, “I think it’s a rough road ahead for him. If it were me, I’d much rather leave on my own terms.”

Monday, May 15, 2017

Peterson: Illegal activity by Contra Costa DA casts his tenure as a lie

No comments :

Mark Peterson’s political future in doubt after civil grand jury recommendation that he be removed as DA


A snapshot, circa 2008-10. The Contra Costa County District Attorney’s office is in turmoil. Sexual assault charges levied against a prosecutor by a junior colleague. A workplace fistfight. A bruising, polarizing runoff election for district attorney. From the outside looking in, it was a nonstop pie fight.
Apparently it didn’t look much better from inside the bunker.
“It was like a war zone,” said a veteran prosecutor who requested anonymity in order to speak freely.AD




Mark Peterson won the election and the fourth-floor corner office in the DA’s building in Martinez. The pie fight raged on for a time as he continued to play politics in a series of promotions and demotions, some so blatantly partisan that a few staff members, alleging political payback, were awarded five-figure judgments by the county.
And then: quiet.
Whatever residual dysfunction there was in the office played out beyond the public eye. When Peterson ran unopposed for a second term as DA, he earned praise from inside and outside the building. Mostly for policy, but also for restoring the credibility of the office. The latter acknowledgement was not insignificant.
“You’d have to ask people how they feel now,” he said then, “but I think people feel pretty good about the direction we’ve taken the last four years.”
A current snapshot: The office is once again in an uproar. People are not feeling good about the direction of the office. Peterson, having been caught illegally withdrawing funds from his campaign account for personal use, is under fire. His candidacy for a third term is hitting headwinds. A civil grand jury has recommended he be removed from office. The seven-member Contra Costa County District Attorneys’ Association Board has unanimously recommended that its membership cast a vote of no confidence against Peterson.
Should Peterson resign? That’s not even a question. Of course he should. He is the top law enforcement official in the county. Yet he knowingly broke the law he is sworn to uphold, admitting his transgression only after he was caught. The ripple effect of his stunningly poor judgment is being felt as we speak.
There’s no unwinding this,” said another veteran prosecutor, who also requested anonymity. “I will tell you the vast majority of staff here are humiliated about this. Our families know about it. Friends know about it. Jurors have asked about it. We wear the white hat. We’re supposed to be the good guys.”
The district attorney’s actions don’t only resonate on a practical level. They make his entire tenure seem like a lie. The part about restoring the credibility of the office? The prosecutor who characterized the 2008-era DA’s office as a war zone pointed out that Peterson began illegally withdrawing funds in 2011, shortly after taking office. That conduct is both brazen and maddening. The guy who could have been known for rebuilding the office wound up dousing it in dishonor.
“He’s just so arrogant in the belief that he can do anything he wants,” the prosecutor said. “I’m glad the public is finally seeing why none of us supported him when he was running.”
Actually, the District Attorneys’ Association did endorse Peterson in early 2014, but that was a formality given he was running unopposed and there was no choice. There will be a choice next year — former Contra Costa prosecutor Patrick Vanier announced his candidacy May 4.
That means Peterson will be running against two opponents — Vanier, and the man Peterson claimed to be in 2010. That guy would have thrown the book at the man currently occupying the fourth-floor corner office.

Sunday, May 14, 2017

Walnut Creek Officer gunning to end my life. The MOU saved me.

No comments :
The City of Walnut Creek is 
Well Informed 
This has happened many times
DISTRICT ATTORNEY PETERSON MUST RESIGN
WHO MURDERED MY WITNESSES IN CONCORD IN 1989?

 

The Safeway Witness Murders - Officer Bergen stole about 50K in my equipment

No comments :
Subject: Cynthia Kempf
Job Title: Safeway Manager Railroad Ave Pittsburg CA
Incident: Take over robbery
DOD: June 1988
Cause of Death: Murder by execution

This is one that is very personal as we (friends and fiance) knew her via Safeway stores as she was the manager where my then finance and I shopped.

These also happened to be the same officers that I'd filed complaints on the endless thefts from my cabinet shop.

Without going into too much details but this robbery went south when from what I heard she'd recognized Bergen during the robbery.

I remember Bergen clearly - dark glasses even on shift, crystallized blue eyes and one truly bad cop

To this day I'll doubt that others didn't know more but when you read about how my truck was blown up you might consider I've been targeted.  The problem is when Dr. Fang was murdered I was discovered living in Danville and they were not happy to see me again.

Read the story from 1995

NOTE: I met with Candidate Mark Peterson under unofficial terms while assisting with his candidacy for office in 2010.  He never said that CMDR George Driscoll was the brother of my murdered friend Alicia Driscoll but he would definitely have known that my witness in Bennett v. Southern Pacific was murdered while he was deeply involved in Concord Politics and without a doubt Sheriff Livingston would know all about that murder.  

IN 2000, I was hired to work at Wells Fargo which is a long term Bershire Hathaway investment


http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Jury-Convicts-Former-Cop-Of-Murder-Slaying-3040059.php

Jury Convicts Former Cop Of Murder / Slaying occurred when he was on Pittsburg force

Published 4:00 am, Saturday, April 1, 1995
A former Pittsburg police officer was convicted Thursday of murdering an Oakley woman in 1988 while he was still on the police force.
The guilty verdict came after three of Eric Bergen's confederates -- including another ex-cop -- testified against him about a botched attempt to rob the Pittsburg Safeway store. The plan involved kidnapping assistant manager Cynthia Kempf, who knew the combination to the store's safe, but the plan was abandoned after a police patrol car was sighted.
Kempf, 28, was driven to the countryside and shot.
Bergen, 35, did not react as a Contra Costa County Superior Court clerk read the jury's verdicts finding him guilty of first-degree murder, attempted kidnapping for robbery and conspiracy in the slaying of Kempf on March 14, 1988.
Bergen, who faces life in prison when he is sentenced on May 1, testified that he was not involved, and his attorney said that the real killers were given immunity in exchange for implicating him.
Jurors, who deliberated for three days, hugged Kempf's tearful family outside the court.
Deputy District Attorney Larry Barnes said the crime was particularly grievous because it involved two renegade officers.
Kempf's mother, Merline Plants, told reporters that she was relieved that Bergen was convicted but shocked that a police officer murdered her daughter.
"Right or wrong, I think (police) should be held to a higher level of responsibility," Plants said. "When a police officer kills someone, it's the worst you can get."
Bergen was a SWAT officer on the Pittsburg force in the mid- 1980s, but he quit in June 1988 while under investigation for police brutality. Bergen admitted in court that he was guilty of police brutality and that he had robbed businesses after quitting the force.
Bergen has been in state prison since 1990 on a robbery conviction.
According to testimony, Bergen and his friend Mario Joe Salguero conceived a plot in early 1988 to kidnap Kempf and force her to open the store safe. Both Salguero and Bergen moonlighted as guards for Safeway.
Bergen's brother, Carl, was brought into the plan, as was Bergen's friend Pittsburg police Sergeant George Elzie.
Salguero, Elzie and Carl Bergen testified that Kempf was kidnapped in March -- after an unsuccessful try in February -- but that the robbery attempt went awry.
Salguero, who is serving a 17- year prison sentence for robbery, was given total immunity. Carl Bergen testified in exchange for a 10-year prison sentence, and Elzie, who was an officer until he was indicted last year, testified in exchange for a 12-year sentence.
Eric Bergen's attorney, Chris Weir, said he will appeal the convictions.