It’s a special summer Friday edition of SJI’s open forum, where visitors to the site—including hard-core regulars and newbies—set the topics of discussion. What’s on your mind?
San Jose Inside
San Jose Inside (https://www.sanjoseinside.com)
San Jose Inside (https://www.sanjoseinside.com)
The writer of San Jose Revealed
Thought his id was concealed
Then someone nervously squealed
That Cindy’s wounds were not healed
From The Lantern’s light, she feeled
Her mask would be unpeeled
So now, alas, the site is sealed
It’s poisonous pen never again to wield
On a positive note, I like today’s Merc editorial:
http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_12901823
I give the President a lot of credit for doing this! Bravo!
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-07-24-cambridge-police-gates_N.htm?csp=24&RM_Exclude=Juno
So why is it that John Galt, alleged despiser of the Government, PAYS his parking ticket fines when he gets them, while President Obama, who IS the Government, blows them off?
‘Splain THAT one Lucy.
Let’s say I’m a salivating attorney who has convinced a family, one devastated by the murder of its patriarch, to pursue the only deep pockets available in the case, those of the bank that owns the property on which the murder occurred. What possible purpose would I have for paying $14,000 to a “security consultant” whose only apparent qualification was that he was uniquely-situated to access confidential information from both the investigating and prosecuting agencies? Would it be:
—to gather evidence and track down witnesses? No, that’s the job of a private investigator, the kind attorneys hire everyday at modest rates.
—to insure the safety of my client(s)? No, personal security is handled by licensed and reasonably-priced security firms.
—to protect the legal rights and interests of my client(s)? No, that’s my job.
—to obtain confidential evidence, evidence not known or available to the bank’s attorneys, through the security consultant’s personal and professional contacts?
Did I hear someone shout BINGO?
As a retired police command officer the “security consultant” in question would have considerable opportunity to seek information by abusing his friendships and privileges at the police department. Reason enough to raise the specter of a conflict-of-interest. But as the husband of the district attorney prosecuting the case, a person with unlimited access to the evidence and unlimited importance to those on the prosecution team, the conflict-of-interest becomes undeniable. But it gets worse. When you realize that as the husband of someone whose office hires scores of retired cops for highly-coveted, generously-compensated investigator positions, and whose favor is sought by second career-shopping investigators and commanders of all ranks—perhaps even those working or supervising the case in question, then it becomes obvious that this “security consultant” is so infected with conflict-of-interest that he should, in all criminal matters, be under strict quarantine for the duration of his wife’s term.
If you’ve ever done business with an attorney you know that they don’t pay for services without the expectation of seeing at least a hundredfold return on their investment. In this case, my guess is the attorney figured his $14,000 investment was good for more than that, at least a million or two from the unfairly disadvantaged bank he was suing. One can only wonder if future considerations had been promised.
This whole affair stinks so bad I expect Jerry Brown to catch a whiff.
Oh great. Here’s another example of politics trumping common sense:
http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_12909245?nclick_check=1
“In this hyper-stressed economy with soaring unemployment, it is irresponsible for the City Council to blithely reject an opportunity to stimulate the economy, create jobs and protect tax dollars by contracting with the lowest bidder.”
Has anyone else been reading the new San Francisco Chronicle? A month or so ago they switched to a high-tech printer in Fremont (I think ), and the paper is now wrinkle free, with lots of color photographs. Of course, that alone is not reason just to read a paper, but this paper continues to have multiple stories that do not appear in the Mercury. Basically, you get more for your money.
While the Chronicle is not perfect, it certainly is better than the Mercury. The Mercury needs to either get its act together, or just go out of business.
Aren’t SJ parks supposed to be smoke-free? If so, how about enforcing it at Music in the Park so us non-smokers can breathe free?
#6—who voted to toss the low bid and start all over? I guess Cindy & SBLC won that battle. Check the campaign contribution reports of all in favor of starting over again. Follow the money.
#5-Fin Fan,
I’m deeply disappointed in DA Carr and her husband. I had no idea the Hosseini family was using him. Talk about re-victimization. Geech~
Guess I’m a little slow today, K #10—just how did Mrs. Hosseini’s lawyer’s use of John Carr re-victimize her?
JMO- Don’t feel bad, I’m sick and a bit slow myself today.
To answer your question, the stress of having to deal with this mess on top of their loss is pretty much something this family doesn’t need right now. Also, the family has been working with Carr to get justice and now everything has been put on hold. Since Carr stepped down, the new judge assigned to the case may also be backing off because her husband knows Carr’s. Where is the justice for the Hosseini in delaying this case just because Carr and her husband used bad judgment? I’m also concerned the defense may call for a mistrial or use this situation to get their clients out of trouble. As an attorney you know first hand the trick of the trade.
Another friend of mine whose son in law was murdered went through a horrible experience when this murderer filed a lawsuit claiming, the photo buttons the family wore during the trial unfairly prejudiced the jury. The scum almost got out of jail behind that nonsense!
JMO’C,
In addition to the impact on the criminal case (as explained by Kathleen in #12), consider:
As the injured party, Mrs. Hosseini came to place her trust in an attorney to see to her interests, which I would define as the right to seek civil redress, and have it done in a manner consistent with both the law and the honorable reputation of her family. In other words, what she expected from her attorney was lawyerly skill and sound ethics.
From my seat, beyond the tragedy of losing her husband to murderous thugs, Mrs. Hosseini now finds her interests entangled in the seemingly unethical alliance between her attorney, a law enforcement insider, and the district attorney herself—an alliance of greed that would never have come to light were it not for the concerns of the widow herself, and one that may well end up in a criminal court of law.
Now these are funny. Enjoy!
http://www.mercurynews.com/columns/ci_12924837
Thank you Fin Fan, very well said, and very much true.
#12—there won’t be a mistrial, K, since there hasn’t been a trial yet. There can only be a mistrial if the trial is in progress when something happens.
I woke up enough to think it through, and lots of bad things can happen, which will be painful to the Housseins.
There will be delays in the criminal trial. The criminal defense lawyers will undoubtedly move to disqualify SCC D.A. Dolores should not oppose that motion. Unfortunately, that puts it in the hands of the Cal. Attorney General, whose criminal prosecutors have been notoriously ineffective for a long time. They have lost several slam dunk cases. As bad as L>A. City attorney, who lost the OJ case and the McMartin case. [But the two idiot prosecutors who lost the OJ case got big book deals. Go figure.]I don’t know the makeup of the AG’s criminal prosecutors today, so perhaps they’ve hired someone who can actually try a criminal case well.
There will also be fallout in the civil case against the bank; but I have less of a problem with that, since I do not think very highly of the case, from what I’ve heard so far. The theory is that the bank had some sort of duty to protect Mr. Hosseini, who was foolish enough to withdraw large sums of cash from the bank and take it unescorted to his store. I feel for the Housseini familiy’s loss, but what Mr. Husseini did is just plain stupid.
It is NOT the bank’s responsibility to escort every customer who withdraws large amounts of cash to their ultimate destination, or to provide security 24/7 for folks foolish enough to engage in regular withdrawals of large amounts of cash…or to have security for anyone who withdraws any amount of cash, for that matter.
So, now we’ll have a lot of legal wrangling by criminal and civil defense attorneys requesting that John Carr cough up every note he took, the names of every person he spoke with; and the depositions will go on forEVER, with the end in view that all John’s work be excluded as evidence from both the criminal and civil trials.
Take a long nap—it will be years before either case gets to trial. That IS re-victimization. I apologize for my previous stupidity.
FF #13—yeah, I guess I should make sure my brain is engaged before I write in the a.m.
JMO- I agree Vahid was not being very smart in his choice to withdraw large sums of cash, without taking some serious precautions. That is what comes of being too trusting in a world with someone who banks on that type of naivety.
The sad thing regarding the bank in question is that prior to Vahid’s murder, they had been robbed multiple times. They did not install cameras, nor did they hire Security Guards to protect not only customers, but also their own employees. Cameras would have certainly assisted the Police is rounding up the actual killers, and driver. What a sad state of affairs this is.
Fin Fan is right on about the need for victims to depend on the DA to protect them and seek justice on their behalf. Criminals have so many rights compared to victims that something like this hurts them even more.
And JMO, the bad things you’ve sited are only half of what could and will happen to my friends thanks to DA Carr and her husband.
I love your kindness and compassion John. On behalf of the animals, thank you.
WOW! I never thought this guy would write something like this! May wonders never cease!
“Navarrette: Prof. Gates hasn’t learned much from his ‘teachable moment’”
http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_12931273
It’s ridiculous.
And it speaks volumes about the values of the people of San Jose.
Dead possums on the road. Dead squirrels. Dead skunks. Dead racoons. And this evening- Mrs. Galt attempting to console an East Indian family over the death of their Bichon Frise that died in her arms after having been struck by a speeding driver on a quiet residential street.
There’s NO excuse for running over animals on residential streets.
If you hit an animal, you were driving too f***ing fast.
“Older white males hurt more by this recession”
By Dennis Cauchon, USA TODAY
http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/employment/2009-07-29-oldermales_N.htm?csp=24&RM_Exclude=Juno