🧵
Asst Chief Filice (@rfSalinasPD),

I'd like to report crimes in your jurisdiction:

1. Louie Alejo (@SupervisorAlejo) took bribes from Mike Hackett of Casa Sorrento fame. (cocaine dealer and @maryrduan's soft spot) - it's on recording.

2. Dave Drew was involved in a fraud

* 2003

#DefundThePolice

A @MCoSheriff Sgt. Mike Richards asks newly elected Sheriff Mike Kanalakis for permission to fraternize with a convicted drug trafficker. #Sheriff Kanalakis gave it to him.

* 2010

A group of #corrupt local officials attached letters to the court during a "Certificate of Rehabilitation" effort which is the first step in a #Pardon process.

It was scandalous and partly caused Mike Kanalakis' loss to Scott Miller in 2010.

Fmr. @SalinasPD cop Joe

* 2010

Gunter was on board. So was two term sheriff Mike Kanalakis and soon to be fired Commander Mike Richards of the @MCoSheriff Department.

As was Supervisor John Phillips (a former DA and Judge) along with another @SalinasPD copper Gary "the grey fox" Edwards.

#Salinas

* 2010

and Mayor Dennis Donohue (who abruptly retired in 2012) - the fix was in.

But this #Pardon was not at all straight forward.

Dave Drew was a multiple time convicted felon with a huge rap sheet for narco and gun trafficking. He would need not only a willing Governor but

the Chief Justice of the #California State Supreme Court. This took planning, coordination and timing. It also took a handful of public relations consultants and @RepJimmyPanetta's dad's hand on all of this. This was big stuff.

In 2018 all that work paid off and a corrupt gov.

... it's not that hard to figure out who the corrupt fucks are in my community.

Mike Hackett is a convicted cocaine trafficker and major marijuana kingpin in Monterey County.

Monterey County supervisors claimed no felons would be working in "legal" #cannabis.

2/

Mike Hackett's @RiverviewFarms_ is being sued (again) for various torts.

In a nutshell people who do biz with Hackett later and often soon end up accusing Hackett of being a scumbag.

The lawyer representing Hackett is lying Larry Biegel a local criminal defense attorney.

3/

Jennifer Rosenthal is representing Riverview Farms.

Who is Jennifer Rosenthal?

She is a @RepJimmyPanetta campaign cash bundler.

Rosenthal is also a marijuana lawyer (of course) and represents a guy named Sal Palma Jr.

Junior's grandfather was also named Sal Palma.

4/

Sal Palma is a well known name in the @CityofMonterey. Palma co-owned the hotel where the Monterey Marriott now sits. Named the restaurant on top Ferrante's. Sal Palma also developed millionaire housing at Markham Ranch in Corral de Tierra where billionaire Bruce Taylor lives

5/

Sal Palma was a new immigrant to our community and a non-citizen. In the 1940's in his early 20's Sal Palma because a United States Citizen.

In his later 20's he was accused of sexual assault and arrested by @MontereyPolice.

Sal Palma was convicted. But, he was a new

Law society published some guidance recently on e-signatures...https://t.co/g70MUWg6K0 - some thoughts and comments...

👁‍🗨 Witnessing...they conclude that witnesses have to be "physically present" and you cannot witness somebody by video link. Probably correct as a matter of case law. It's a shame they aren't more forceful in their urge for change here...

The point in witnessing has always been evidential. So that if one person claims they didn't actually sign a document, you have somebody you can call upon to attest evidence that they did or did not. Also adds some formality to the process to make people think

When you're using e-signature, people's email addresses are being put into a system. You also have IP addresses, geolocations, timestamps all recorded when people actually go on to sign the document. Doesn't this add quite a lot of evidential value?

Physical presence would help avoid a scenario where somebody gains access to somebody else's email account, signs a document and then gets somebody to witness. If that witness were virtual, they wouldn't see the mischief that has occurred...is this not quite a remote risk though?

In court on the Aloha Coffee case, in which owner has refused to abide by mask rules, distancing rules. He’s telling the judge his rights are being violated and so is the Constitution.

“I have the right, the constitutional right, and a constitutional right can’t be converted to a crime. I do not consent to these hearings. I’m not going to be steamrolled.” Says he’s going to file a criminal case against the judge and DA.

He’s going to file, he says, with everyone from local DA and sheriff and the US Attorney. Judge Lydia Villarreal is being remarkably patient with him.

The point of today’s hearing is to decide whether a restraining order will become a preliminary injunction. He’s been operating without a health certificate since it was pulled in December.

“There’s no evidence of any wrongdoing on my part,” he says. Did I mention the part about the judge being patient? She’s being waaaay patient with him. He tried to disqualify her but doesn’t have an attorney and doesn’t know how to do it lawfully.

So strange that Law & Crime article questioning whether the Capitol rioters could be prosecuted for felony murder and it *never discusses* the most obvious predicate felony—burglary

https://t.co/cSFJzB5fwq via @lawcrimenews

As I will be teaching my first year criminal law students later this semester, felony murder is often a question of charging strategy for prosecutors. The defendant has often multiple felonies, some of which trigger felony murder and some of which don’t.

This article makes the classic mistake of analyzing only one possible underlying felony—sedition—and not the other, more mundane felonies, including burglary.
It’s the sort of error that loses students a lot of points on their final exam!

This basic error--misidentifying the relevant predicate felony--ends up affecting the other analysis in the article. For example, the author correctly points out that there are some other Qs that must be answered for felony murder to apply.

This analysis looks different if we are talking about burglary---which the Supreme Court defines not only as entering a building to commit a crime, but also remaining in the building.
That's going to make the "remoteness" inquiry pretty easy, not complicated as the article says.