The owner of a Washington, D.C.-based campaign firm and a former San Diego police detective are accused of conspiring with a foreign national to illegally inject more than $500,000 into San Diego political races, including the 2012 mayoral contest, according to the U.S. Attorney’s Office. Ravneet Singh, 41, founder of ElectionMall Inc., was arrested Friday by FBI agents and is charged alongside his company and Ernesto Encinas, 57, the former detective, with conspiracy to commit offenses against the United States. According to Tuesday’s complaint, Singh and Encinas helped a Mexican businessman donate hundreds of thousands of dollars to San Diego candidates. Under federal law, foreign nationals are prohibited from making contributions to election campaigns in the United States at any level. [...] The complaint identified the political candidates involved only by number — 1 through 4. A confidential source close to the investigation told U-T San Diego that Candidate 1 is San Diego County District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis, Candidate 3 is former Mayor Bob Filner and Candidate 4 is former mayoral contender Nathan Fletcher.It's doubtful that Dumanis, Fletcher, and Filner will be prosecuted. They likely have plausible deniability that they didn't know anything about the illegal contributions. But it's certainly interesting which politicians the businessman thought would be worth investing a lot of money in. What did he expect to get in return? Dumanis was notoriously soft on corruption in the case of Encinitas Mayor Dan Dalager, giving him a slap on the wrist for the kitchen appliances, and failing to prosecute entirely the more serious issues of the undisclosed six-figure loan and the California Community Bank "consulting" deal. UPDATE: The LA Times identifies the illegal donor as Susumo Azano, a Mexican citizen living in Coronado. Internet searches show Azano to be in the business of homeland security technology. The Times reports that the plotters wanted to replace Police Chief Bill Lansdowne with their own choice, presumably to approve contracts for Azano.
Wednesday, January 22, 2014
Dumanis, Fletcher, Filner received illegal campaign funds
Big breaking story in the U-T:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Follow the money...
ReplyDeleteDumanis should be forced out of office on corruption charges. She let Dalager slide because he was a dupe for bigger interests, She is the DA and people expect integrity and impartiality - neither of which she possesses.
ReplyDeleteYeah, if the dupe for bigger interests focused on the salvation of a nice flower pot on Neptune and the illegal action of borrowing money from a bank. (When was it again that became illegal?) Dan lost my vote for one reason - thinking a Redevelopement Agency for Leucadia was a good idea. As far as receiving a good deal on kitchen appliances on clearance for scratch and dent, count me just as guilty. Banks dare not loan me money - so I got that goin for me.
ReplyDeleteThat flower pot was nice, now it's just a wall, next to an unsafe parking lot and beach access. Oh well some can't see the forest for the trees. I guess that explains the 101.
DeleteYeah, I generally agree Fred. Except he was "allegedly" trading favors at the bank, using the fact that he was a councilman as pull. In other words, he doesn't get the consulting gig at the bank if he's not on council. Not sure where the truth lands on his whole banking stint, but even the whiff of conflict there ruled him out in my eyes.
ReplyDeleteThat and the fact he was always proud that he didn't read a lot of the background on items he was voting for. In the words of Dean Wormer "Fat, Drunk and Stupid is no way to go through life son". In other words, if you're proud of not doing your job as a councilman, maybe you shouldn't be doing it....
Dan was helpful at that bank when me and another board member of L101 wanted to come out with "Leucadia Bucks" - our own local currency (in denominations of $3 bills.) Other cities have legally created their own currency and have prospered. Especially when tourists never redeem them but want to keep a souviner. Also, a place in San Diego makes paper with tree seeds embedded in it. So on each bill it would say "Visit Leucadia - where trees grow on money!". Pretty cool idea, not only for growing new trees as a novelty, but making the bills less likely to be redeemed. The bank board seemed intrigued, but we left with "We'll call you". I'm still glued next to the phone with my engraving plates.
DeleteInteresting article, but if they only label the candidates 1-4, and 1,3, and 4 are Filner, Fletcher and Dumanis, wouldn't 2 be Demaio? Why would they leave that out?
ReplyDeleteI mean, am I missing something. I know Papa Doug loves cryin' Carl, but come on. I really am dubious about anything the UT prints these days, thanks to their over the top opinion pieces and Manchester's fabulous email exchange from several years ago with Scott Peters on Peters' vote on the Dole property.
http://www.kpbs.org/news/2012/sep/27/port-commissioner-u-t-coming-after-us/
#2 is said to be a 2012 candidate for federal office. Presumably Congress. Peters, Vargas, Bilbray?
DeleteWCV
I think it's Vargas....
DeleteI read it was Vargas.
DeleteFrom the San Diego Free Press today:
ReplyDeleteThe Story Behind Those Illegal Campaign Contributions in San Diego
by DOUG PORTER on JANUARY 22, 2014 · 2 COMMENTS
in BUSINESS, COLUMNS, COURTS, JUSTICE, MEDIA, MEXICO, POLITICS, THE STARTING LINE
By Doug Porter
The big story today concerns the dark side of campaign finance. A complaint unsealed in federal court yesterday indicates that law enforcement agencies are building a case around illegal contributions made by Mexican businessman Susumo Azano to candidates in recent San Diego elections.
You can log onto the Free Press for the rest of this article, as this blog cannot take that many characters in one post.
Hey Fred - go on over to Dalager's for your kitchen-gate cooked dinner. Sounds like you ascribe to the adage "When all else fails, lower your standards".
ReplyDeleteDon't forget that Dan also had that $100,000 unreported loan from Dan Shelley and was then the lone yes vote on a project to reduce fees that involved people who had bought the property from Shelley.
ReplyDeleteAlso don't forget that Bonnie Dumanis refused to prosecute deputies when a house on Rubenstein was improperly entered and the host arrested at a fund raiser for Francine Busby. The county was then sued and lost
And $1.2 Million of our tax dollars went to the victims...
DeleteHad the cop known how to conduct himself and Busby come forward at the scene and Dumanis not tried to whitewash the whole thing, taxpayer dollars would have been saved, now wouldn't they?
DeleteBlaming the messengers (victims) is just pathetic.
Not blaming the victims. They were wronged. It should have been handled better by both sides, and the individuals were well within their rights to not divulge their age (gasp!) and should not have had their home entered by the Sheriff.
DeleteBut they could have demanded an apology and cleared their name without the windfall now couldn't they? They cross the line from victim to opportunist on the surface of it. Now if they had medical bills to pay and therapy etc then i would change my tune, but none of the coverage of the settlement goes into that detail.
10:01-Unfortunately the two women ended up overnight in the Vista jail because of the fact they would not give the officer, who did not disclose he was a cop until after he entered the home, their ages. It was not Busby's home so what was she supposed to do? I was at this event and saw first hand the 5 police cars, the helicopter, etc. all because at 8PM in tyne evening Francine Busby was using a microphone ask all in the home could hear. It wasn't particularly loud. A man, hiding in the bushes, (not even a resident of the local community) decided to call the cops and say there was too much noise and the cop should come and break it up. Adding to this, after the women gave their names and said they were the owners of the home, the cop INSISTED on their ages. That was none of his business, and he could have easily found out if it was so important. The women were given no food, slept in a cold cell and did have both physical and psychological bills. So, please get your facts correct if you think that the cops should have said "oh sorry". Also, do you have any idea how much this cost the taxpayers. 5 cars, a helicopter, and God knows what else. As I saw it I could't actually believe what I was seeing.
DeleteYes, it was a terrible injustice and wrong. The Sheriff admitted so. And, no, just saying sorry was not enough. A public apology was deserved. Improved training for the Sheriff was in order. I couldn't believe it when i read it either. And that they at first defended their actions added insult to the original wrong.
DeleteWhat they could have done though is explain to the Sheriff that their neighbor is an antagonist. That the volume is not that loud but they will keep the volume down. And that they were born in 1947. Would that have been so hard? It would have saved them a night in Vista.
And $1.2 Million? I guess because it was tied into a potential civil rights argument, but i had a hard time understanding that payout.. still do.
Point well taken 10:41. However, if you had been there you would have realized that everyone was in shock and probably didn't think as well they could have under different situations. I don't think they thought they needed to state their age, and certainly did not think they would end up overnight in a cold jail cell. Perhaps 1.2 million was a bit steep, but on the other hand, did anything change after that. The cops still pull this kind of stuff. And, by the way, the so called neighbor who called the police, didn't actually live in the neighborhood. Personally I think it was a disgruntled Republican and a hater of lesbians. However, I am only speculating on that.
DeleteAgreed. Probably why it was a potential civil rights issue. Too bad the Sheriff became that guy's tool. The only thing worse than a self righteous victim is a self righteous, overly officious, Sheriff with a gun (or pepper spray..).
DeleteSo if they had given their ages would they have ended up in jail?? Seems to me that's a small detail to avoid all the hullabaloo.
DeleteDrLorri- as a republican and a lover of lesbians I am offered by your comment.
DeleteBusby ran outside, hid in the shrubbery, called her handlers for advice, and did not come forward at the scene to defuse. Eye-witness account.
Delete12:02-If you weren't there, I think you may have heard incorrectly. However, believe what you want. 11:37-If you meant you were "offended" by my comments, please tell me why. I'm certainly not saying that all Republicans are anti-gay, I am just suggesting that the sheriff may have had other motives regarding this. Heck, Bonnie Dumanis is "gay". And she is definitely a Republican. She is also in hot water over the latest "scandal" in San Diego. And the scandal is both Republican and Democrat-how's that for fairness?
DeleteSo the owners of the home got $1.2 million from the county after the event? I'd be willing to go the can for one night for that kind of dough.
DeleteBTW, This whole event, the media's run with it, and people's shock and awe over the media's run with it are a great example of the 24 hour news cycle. The only real story here are the homeowners making some serious bank due to their stupidity, the Sherriff's stupidity, and the neighbor in the bushes stupidity. When a cop asks you a question, you answer.
Dumanis hasn't proven to be that great of a DA, I think we can do better..
3:08-You are obviously not a fan of the US Constitution, especially the 1st, 4th and 5th Amendment.
Delete12:02 was there.
DeleteI am, I get the legal ramifications of all the actions involved that last night. But in every situation, cooler heads can and should prevail. I give my name and age to the cop, get them out of my house, and then later I nail them for illegal entry.
DeleteI totally get that, my friends dad was beaten by the LA County Sherriff back in the 80's. My point in a nutshell is, I prefer not to spend a night in Vista jail. The cops blew it, no question, but I prefer not to risk the beating an armed officer can give you. That's my point here...
4:20, You high?
ReplyDeleteFred, am I reading you right? You're excusing or minimizing Dalager's offenses?
Deletehttp://www.utsandiego.com/news/2011/Feb/09/former-encinitas-mayor-dan-dalager-pleads-guilty/
8:09
ReplyDeleteDan's offense for a conflict of interest regarding a planter was at best a misdemeanor. The planter was beautiful next to Beacons and the rest of the council should have been embarrased voting to have it removed. That combined with a slow news day in San Diego and voila, Richard Nixon is suddently on the Mayberry council with a Kitchen-gate conspiracy to secretly save a planter. Not excusing Dan for a conflict of interest. And not excusing the rest of the council that night for choosing the wrong thing but they won. So enjoy the blank wall as you drive by and if you're wallking, go to the far end to sit down if you're tired.
He plead guilty, was sentenced with a slap on the wrist while the max penalty was much heavier. Then there was the unresolved issue of the $100K low-interest loan. Sounds like more than a planter!
DeletePerhaps.
DeleteI agree with Fred. The planter was an improvement for the intersection and should be allowed. Bad call by City Staff and a split vote by City Council.
ReplyDeleteWhat does San Diego corruption have to do with Encinitas? We have enough of our own corruption why do we need to post about SD?
May I say employees union buying off votes in early 2000s in order to get their windfall 35% increase in pensions approved in one signal vote for a split City Council meeting with very little public notice?
Stocks, Christy Guerin and Dalagers vote that one night cost taxpayer hundreds of millions of dollars. They should be in jail or at least run out of town with feathers on…..
Agreed 5:55, lots of rehashing of the past that can't help us now. Danny is out of office, he's still a nice guy around town and we wish we had that planter back.
DeleteGood point on the pensions, that's where we really got sold down the road.
Now, back to my spot in the bushes down in Cardiff, lol....
5:55 and 3:15,
DeleteThanks for sayin' so (even if we are the only three people on here who prefered the planter).
The San Diego DA seems far away, but we in North County are still under their wing and the less corruption there the better for the entire county.
Bonnie ran on "cleaning house" at the DA's office, and Pfingst left it a mess. She asked me to be in her TV commercial and I was in a crowd of fans cheering for her. (Hollywood, meet San Diego)
But when I brought the following things to her attention after she was elected regarding a certain SD Deputy District Attorney and detective for the Carlsbad PD, she instead told us to "get an attorney". We tried, no one will touch it. And I would be remiss if I didn't cover the whole subject - so to those who could care less, skip it (at the risk of getting carpel tunnel syndrome scrolling down.)
In 1992, Mr. Phingst approve a trip for a prosecutor and two CPD detectives to go to Texas to retrieve hair from a suspect in the Susan Taylor murder case. The reason? To compare her hair samples to that of "hair from the clutched fist of the victim". But there were multiple major problems with what transpired after that, that were all centered on one piece of evidence. In chronological order those were:
1. The "hair from the clutched fist of the victim" was not in their possession when the authorities left for San Antoinio, but it was MISSING FROM EVIDENCE according to CPD records in Feb 92. Still the trip in June of that year was funded. The suspects hair was collected for the comparison test.
2. The Arrest Warrant (AW) for the suspect late the following year states that in June 92, the suspects hair was forensically compared to "the hair from the clutched fist of the victim". That was impossible. That evidence was not available in June and wasn't found until that September.
3. The AW also claims that Criminalist Rose Neth of the SD Sheriff's Crime Lab concluded in June 92 that the suspect's hair and the "hair from the clutched fist" were SIMILAR IN ALL RESPECT. That wasn't true either and Neth wasn't happy about it because within her report she concluded DIFFERENCES in the two samples.
4. When the hair was finally found in Sept of 92 by a CPD sergeant, it was in an undercover car assigned to (of all people) the arresting officer himself. It had been "missing" 8 months.
5. When push came to shove before a judge who was upset about "material misstatements" in the AW, and what a defense lawyer called "falsified evidence" to fabricate probable cause to arrest, the Deputy DA claimed: "I've never even seen the June 92 test before" - tossing the hot potato to the arresting officer. But the prosecutor admitted that hair evidence WAS the Probable Cause within the AW and also signed it swearing it was all true and correct. The suspect was arrested when then her title changed to the "defendant".
6. Feb. 94, one defense lawyer accused the prosecution of Falsified Evidence, Perjury and Outrageous Governmental Misconduct because of the fraudulent AW. The judge that day released the first murder suspect of his 20 year career on her Own Recognizance pending her Preliminary Hearing where he could better review the case to make a decision to throw it out or not. But artfully, the prosecutor made an end-run around that hearing by taking the case to the grand jury for an indictment. (Indictments subvert Preliminary Hearings altogether). Consequently, the case went to different judges and a different lawyer where the previous prosecutorial shenanigans were covered up.
7. At the same Feb. 94 hearing (the bail review), the prosecutor verbally fabricated yet another forensic test to the judge claiming the clutched fist hair had been compared to another suspect's hair and had exonerated him. But that suspect's hair was never compared and wasn't even collected until 3 months after the prosecutor's claim.
Delete8. Authorities needed a good reason for the missing hair evidence to be found in the detectives car and said that "at some point in time" the detective checked out ALL of the evidence in this case (including the hair), drove it to the prosecutors office in Vista so the prosecutor could review it. The problems with that story are:
a. The det. swore to the grand jury that:
* He checked out the hair from evidence
* He drove the hair to Vista
* He lost the hair in his car
b. But he instead swore to the trial jury
* He did not check out the hair from evidence
* He did not drive it to Vista
* He had no idea who put it in his car
Both of those hearings were led by the same prosecutor who witnessed these major discrepancies re/ the same single piece of evidence.
9. April 94, Senior Molecular Biologist Paula Yates of Cellmark Diagnostics (a.k.a. now as "Orchid") was flown all they way from Maryland to be a witness for the prosecution against the suspect at the grand jury. Citing a PARTIAL DNA test she performed, she swore that the suspect "could not be excluded as the possible source of the DNA found in the hair in the hand of the victim. Consequently, her testimony powerfully aided indicting the suspect.
10. Only one month after Yates helped indict the suspect however, her THOROUGH DNA test came out with the opposite conclusion - that the suspect "IS EXCLUDED AS THE SOURCE OF THE DNA FOUND IN THE HAIR OF THE VICTIM" - meaning the hair in the hand was proven NOT to be that of the suspect. But the damage of the arrest and indictment was already done. They set the case in gear going forward to trial and the falsified and misleading forensics were never challenged by a later defense lawyer - or anyone else since for that matter.
11. At the defendant's Motion for a New Trial, the judge was obviously curious why a former judge had released the defendant of her Own Recognizance. He asked the prosecutor if the exonerating DNA hair test had been done prior to the defendant's release from custody. Twice the prosecutor said "Yes". But that was not true. The reasons for the OR release were "material misstatements" in a shoddy arrest warrant and the judge's preference in the defendant's view of the facts. Something the prosecutor probably would not want the trial judge to review.
With all those discrepancies provable and in black and white, one would think a red flag would go up and a DA would take action. But instead, Ms. Dumanis ended up awarding "Prosecutor of the Year" to Thomas Manning (for entirely different reasons of course).
http://sdddaa.net/thomas-manning/
"Top Cop Deals with Frustration" from the Blade Citizen is no longer online, but it was a story of the CPD officer who won the "Top Cop of they Year" award for solving the Susan Taylor murder.
For those reasons I hesitate to again campaign for our current DA. Unless of course Pfingst resurfaces, but even then it might be a dilemma. .
Maybe Fred and Dan are dumb and dumber~!
ReplyDeleteMaybe 6:23 is anonymous for good reason.
ReplyDelete6:23-
ReplyDeleteKarma is coming your way jackass.
Fred- I love you but your comments are getting as long winded as Lyn's so can we shorten it up a bit and stop focusing on the stupid roundabouts and past history? Thanks
ReplyDelete5:48 was a charm school dropout.
ReplyDelete5:02 OK. How's this: Lying bad.
ReplyDeleteTo Fred from 5:02-YES! That's the idea. Still love you after all these years:)
ReplyDelete12:33, ty
ReplyDeleteHow about this one:
ReplyDeleteFred's smart and good for Encinitas.
Lynn is the opposite!
That about sums it up.
No trolling. She's welcome to her opinion. I heard Fred is doing a version of Yes' "Roundabout" for charity, all on Kazoo...
ReplyDeleteShe is welcome to her opinion….even though it doesn't make sense and is bad for Encinitas.
ReplyDeleteTalk about trolling… how could you say negative things about dear Fred. Because of your crappy comments, I think Karma will be catching up with you in awhile.
ReplyDeleteFred gets annoying.
ReplyDelete2:12
ReplyDeleteYou haven't seen my Cher impersonation.
At Lips?
DeleteLynn is deeply committed to and knowledgeable about the community of Encinitas. Whether that's good or bad is a matter of opinion. She holds the City Council and staff accountable and often knows more than they do. Yes, she gets very wordy. Generally speaking, people who stand to gain from hyper-development in Encinitas don't like Lynn, while those who are against that approach and for maintaining small-town character cheer Lynn on. Keep up the good work, Lynn!
ReplyDeleteWithout Lynn we would have deceit and corruption growing at city hall. Lynn does know way more than those who are suppose to be running the show. I applaud Lynn for her efforts.
ReplyDeleteLynn is that rare citizen that is informed of the facts and holds the civil servants accountable for their actions. Unfortunately, she is one out of a thousand - that is why government is so corrupt - no oversight. She should be on the City Council.
DeleteDumanis didn't prosecute Dalager because they were birds of a feather - both crooks on the take!
ReplyDelete