DOJ’s MOONLIGHT FIRE CASE GOING UP IN SMOKE?
For a new twist on misconduct by Justice Department lawyers, take a look at the “Moonlight Fire” case and the recent developments in the state and federal courts in California. To catch you up, read my articles on the New York Observer and on Fox News.
A former Assistant United States Attorney blew the whistle on the possible suppression and/or distortion of evidence by state and federal fire investigators and the attorneys for each who pursued a massive multi-million dollar action to recover “costs” and penalties from Sierra Pacific-one of the largest land-holders in the country. Sierra Pacific, upon discovering new evidence, is turning the tables on the Department of Justice. A state court judge has awarded $32 million against CAL fire-the state investigative agency. Now the feds are back in court and on the ropes to defend their actions.
Sierra Pacific is due to file an additional brief on January 15, 2015, to explain to senior federal District Judge Shubb how the government has committed what amounts to a fraud on the court. The government has 30 days to respond, and then Sierra Pacific has until March 9 to reply.
Judge Shubb largely ignored the Department’s outrageous attempt to knock all of the defense lawyers off of the case because they had read the affidavit and allegations of government attorney misconduct. He vacated an order for a hearing on the government’s motion. In a fair and measured approach, he wants to determine first that Sierra Pacific can seek to set aside the original settlement under the Federal Rule 60(d)(3). Stay tuned. . . .
Article corrected for due date of briefing @ 1:10 p.m. on 12/5 and further editted
2 Comments
WSJ has another article on the status of the case. http://www.wsj.com/articles/prosecutors-burn-down-the-law-1420242330 Wish I could say the allegations are “incredible”, but instead they seem entirely of a pattern.
How Can We Address this Unfair Travesty?
A Story of Unjust Justice
The overwhelming unchecked power of the prosecutor is the reason my 18 year old son was sentenced to 15 years in prison convicted of armed robbery. 10 of those years will be served in their entirety, no parole no probation. After researching mandatory sentencing, I have come to realize his story is not novel. In fact, it is common. My family was ignorant of the law and had limited financial resources. Upon further research, I discovered that a great deal of people who are incarcerated fall below the poverty line. For many days, I sat in court awaiting my son’s fate, and I watched the prosecutor decide who and how people would be sentenced as if she was a dictator. The judge was a rubber stamp, signing off on the prosecutor’s decision. In one case of armed robbery the young man shot the victim. The prosecutor decided to plea that case. The young man received a fraction of my son’s sentence, and he is eligible for parole and probation. My son was not so lucky. He was never even read his Miranda rights, and no one suffered any physical harm. I guess the most powerful person in that courtroom (the prosecutor) was having a bad day. The case was stamped and my child was taken.
Circumstances of my son’s case;
• No prior convictions
• At the time of the incident, he had just recently turned 17 years old
• The victim was not physically harmed
• There was another potential suspect that the jurors were not allowed to be aware of
• He was not read his Miranda Rights
• The only plea that was offered was a 15 year sentence with 10 years incarcerated and no parole
• He was only identified by his clothing and there was 5 other kids involved that were never investigated
• A jury of his peers consisted of 8 middle age white men, 3 black women, 1 white woman
• He was in possession of the victim’s phone, no weapon
I have disclosed this information not because I want my son to be exonerated but asking that he be afforded his true due process. I also want people to see that this punishment did not fit the crime. It is a tragic waste of human life. His sentence decided by one person, the person that controlled the courtroom…the prosecutor.