The somewhat political and infamous elder abuse case against a CEO, Skilled nursing Director, and the Director of Nursing, at the Kern Valley healthcare district, begins again today, Friday, Oct. 15, 2010 as the defendants will be "answering to the charges."
I'm calling the case political in the sense that we have had our California Attorney General, Jerry Brown, on TV, calling this case the worst he had ever seen. This was right on the heel of his announcement he was running for governor, and he used this case to get attention.
Well you got my attention Mr. Brown.
And certainly the small town aspect where many who have ties to the hospital financially, socially, or as a patient, have divided and still to this day have not shown the character to stand up and say "that's enough."
After an interesting preliminary hearing, not that I heard much, as they marched me out of there as quickly as possible. They used a double attack, one against my media release, and second they said I could potentially be a witness.
I'm not potentially a witness, I am a witness, there's a difference. I am only potential in the sense of the court case itself, but the rest is the "true story" of what I KNOW happened.
The DOJ or as I call them "dodge" the truth
The moment I left court in August during the preliminary hearing I felt a plea deal coming on. I could understand why former KVHD CEO, Pamela Ott would not want to have to face the emails and her phony resume, and many of the other crumbs left behind on her trail of deceit.
So, in an effort to gain more understanding, I sent off some questions to "Dodge the truth" and here are the responses.
(Oddly, I just went up to get a cup of coffee as I am deciding whether or not to go to court today, and as I was at the counter stirring in my creamer, I looked to the left and there was the state's main witness. (synchronicity of events once again)
We chatted for a few minutes and I reminded her today is the day the gang gets into court to begin the process for trial or more likely a plea deal.)
Would it be fair to say the preliminary hearing is concluded? Or is it underway until it's a trial? The preliminary hearing is over.
If the court has found sufficient evidence to proceed to trial, then is "assured" that there will be a trial? Nothing is assured. The defendants could always plead guilty to the entire information, or plead guilty to some portion of it through a plea agreement.
For instance, what kind of arraignment, we've already had one, what is this accomplishing?
Before, the defendants were arraigned on a "complaint". Now they will be arraigned on an "information". In California law, a defendant is charged with a crime one of two ways--either through a grand jury indictment, (in which case one goes straight to trial), or by a "complaint" filed by the prosecuting attorney. (Before 2000, this was done in the Municipal Court, but in 2000, the Municipal Court was merged into the Superior Court, so it all takes place in the same court.)
If the case goes to a grand jury, the prosecutor puts on witnesses and information before the grand jury, who tests the evidence and, if it feels it warranted, issues the indictment.
If the case starts by way of a complaint, the court must hold a preliminary hearing, in which the prosecutor puts on (some) witnesses in front of the judge, who tests the information, and if he or she believes that the evidence is present, the judge "holds the defendant to answer" for trial in the Superior Court. (In the past, all of this was done in the Municipal Court.) The prosecutor then files an "information" based on the counts that the judge in the preliminary hearing "held the defendant to answer for", (and any other evidence that comes out in the preliminary examination relating to crimes not formally charged in the original complaint), and the case is then set for arraignment on the "information" and at that time the defendants enter new pleas (of guilty or not guilty) and the case is then set for trial.
The second arraignment is required by law. A felony case may not proceed to a jury trial unless the evidence has first been tested, either by a grand jury or by a judge, and the evidence is found to be good enough to deserve a jury trial. This is to protect a criminal defendant from having to defend him or herself in a felony jury trial against bogus or worthless evidence.
(Note: this is the procedure for felonies. Misdemeanors don't require either a preliminary hearing or a grand jury indictment.)
If there is a trial what is the expected period before this takes place? Generally you never know, I know, but a guess, like a year? Will it be a trial by jury?
The jury trial will probably be set for sometime in the late spring. It doesn't have to be a jury--either side is guaranteed the right to a trial by jury--that's part of our Bill of Rights. But the defendants can waive that if they want to.
How many more hoops until the trial begins? Meaning what are the steps, or potential, common steps?
Prior to a jury trial there will likely be numerous motions. For example, the defendants may file a motion to set aside the judge's ruling to hold the defendants to answer, on the grounds that the judge made a mistake and that the evidence is NOT sufficient to deserve taking the defendants to a jury trial.
Can the DOJ add others or charge others regarding the same case? If say, some new evidence was revealed that others were involved?
The Department of Justice can always charge additional defendants if it discovers new evidence, subject to the statute of limitations.
Are any of the defendants still working, or using their license? If it takes a year to go to trial will any of the defendants still be allowed to work and which ones?
We are unaware of the defendants' employment status. Licensing actions against all the defendants are pending before their appropriate licensing boards.
How many witnesses were called by the state during the preliminary hearing? How many testified?
Three witnesses were called by the state during the preliminary hearing, and all three testified. They were the whistleblower, Licensed Vocational Nurse Holly Lightner, the DOJ medical consultant, Dr. Kathryn Locatell, and the BMFEA investigator, DOJ Special Agent Donny Fong. The defense called no witnesses.
The prosecution can use any witness it deems appropriate during the trial, subject to evidential requirements and rules of evidence.
Will the DOJ send out a press release any time soon?
The Press Office does not have plans to issue a press release at this time.
Thank you
(the fact that they aren't sending out a press release when my email box is full of "Brown" cases, I can only speculate that they don't have confidence or they want to bury this case as a mistake. So, expect something interesting today. But remember, this whole case stems from trying to hide and bury the truth, so I guess why should we end on a different note?)
The attorney's for the defense Donald Etra and William H Ginsburg
These two lawyers are the wild cards of this whole small time criminal case. Etra, who was an attorney for Ralph Nader and a guest at the White house during the George W. era, replaced the attorney for Dr. Hoshang Pormir last April.
Ginsburg's past is in no way less interesting, he was the attorney for "Monica Lewinsky" during the Clinton era, where we spent millions on attorney fees to do absolutely nothing.
Because of their presence in the case, Etra handling the criminal aspect, and Ginsburg handling licensing issues for Dr. Pormir, I can foresee the greater potential for a plea deal. Does the DOJ really have what it takes to go up against these two attorneys?
But at one point, and it is on my Youtube site, all of the defense attorneys appeared to be working together as they left in the same vehicle, not knowing I was in front with my camera like the paparazzi.
I also found out that these two attorneys came through our town and picked up records and were looking for information and references for their client, Pormir.
We will know later this morning what the outcome will be today, or if the defense wants a fight for their "innocent" clients, or the state wants to get out of this as fast as they can, as Mr. Brown, doesn't want to feed his gubernatorial rival a lobster dinner on the eve of the election.
Update later...
No comments:
Post a Comment