Judge Moon and Daniel Shinoff thought they had closed the Victoria Richart case when they handed over the last $1.6 million of a total of over $3 million taxpayer dollars spent on the Richart/Shinoff investigation of $305 of stolen palm trees.
But attorney Leon Page sued to find out if public money was given away improperly. So why doesn't the board majority simply reveal the truth about the deal? You don't need to pay a lawyer to do that. Oh, right. Because the deal WAS made improperly. The majority that was in cahoots with Richart doesn't want the public to know that they paid her $1.6 million to keep quiet about the board's role in the $1.5 million Richart/Shinoff palm tree investigation.
I think it's a good idea to find out what went wrong. I'm glad Leon Page sued. It's worth a few more public dollars to discover HOW $3 million was misspent by a public entity. Meanwhile, the board majority should either agree to testify in the Leon Page case, or they should resign--or both. It's likely that they will have to resign if and when the truth comes out.
A concerned citizen forwarded this email to me:
From: Leon Page
Date: Jan 31, 2008
Friends,
Perhaps some of you have watched the movie "Fight Club" starring Brad Pitt and Edward Norton. I love this movie.
There's a scene in the movie where the narrator, played by Norton, fakes a fist-fight with his boss. Norton rolls around on the floor of his supervisor's office, breaking glass tables, knocking down bookcases, kicking over chairs -- all on his own -- fighting with himself, while his boss stands there, in stunned bewilderment.
When co-workers come into the office to find out the source of the commotion, Norton's character is curled up on the floor, in front of the bewildered supervisor, pleading that the supervisor not hit him "anymore."
Of course, the whole scene was faked; the supervisor hadn't done anything at all. He was as completely mystified and was as completely innocent as the co-workers who burst in on them.
Norton's character subsequently threatens some sort of claim against the employer, and, in the next scene of the movie, we see Norton leaving his job with a smile on his face, a spring in his step, and with a shopping cart filled with various office supplies -- a computer, telephone, monitor, keyboard, etc.
Referencing the payout he gets from the company (undoubtedly in exchange for his promise not to sue on the phony claim), Norton's character says: "Telephone, computer, fax machine, 52 weekly paychecks, and 48 airline flight coupons....WE
NOW HAD CORPORATE SPONSORSHIP..."
The idea was that Norton, through an entirely phony claim, had frightened his employer into providing him with "corporate sponsorship" that would underwrite his subsequent activities.
That line -- "We now had corporate sponsorship" came to mind when I reviewed next week's agenda for the MiraCosta Board of Trustees.
Apparently, next Tuesday, the Board of Trustees will be taking action on a number of items relating to my lawsuit against the College.
In addition to spending more money on WHITE COLLAR CRIMINAL DEFENSE COUNSEL -- see action item no. 1 -- the College administration will also be voting on a proposal to require you, me, and the rest of the taxpayers to PAY FOR RICHART'S LEGAL DEFENSE IN MY TAXPAYER LAWSUIT.
Of course, Richart and the College were (and still are) adverse parties. Richart -- they tell us -- allegedly threatened to sue the College for "millions of dollars," apparently because of those unspecified "hostile comments" in local press reports.
Let's take another step back: I am now suing Richart on a single claim of unjust enrichment. That's it. If I win -- if I prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Richart was, in fact, "unjustly enriched" by the illegal settlement agreement because she, in fact, had no valid claims against the college to begin with --she'll have to return as much as $1.3 million to the College in restitution for her "ill-gotten gains."
So now, at next Tuesday's meeting, the College
> administration will be recommending that the
> Board of Trustees (meaning: the public) cover
> Richart's future legal bills in my lawsuit
> against her. In other words, the College
> administration wants us -- the public -- to
> underwrite Richart's legal defense so that she
> can then fight to keep the $1.6 million goodie
> bag that she took from the public as her parting
> gift.
>
> (Of course, the clause in the settlement
> agreement that calls for this particular
> indemnification benefit was not permitted under
> the terms of Richart's 2006 Employment Agreement.
> Nor is it allowed under Gov. Code Sections
> 53260, 53261. As such, it would be in my view
> yet another illegal gift of the public's money.)
>
> Anyway, the College administration apparently
> thinks that the College should now help Richart
> prove that she was, in fact, harmed by the
> College.
>
> "We've now got corporate sponsorship!!!"
>
> Only it's not some corporation paying the legal
> bills. It's sponsorship by you, me, and the rest
> of the taxpaying public so that Dr. Richart can
> battle in court to retain her $1.6 million bag of
> taxpayer booty...
ONE FINAL POINT: A reminder. Our hearing on our Motion to Compel Richart's deposition will be held tomorrow afternoon at 1:30 p.m. in Judge Nugent's courtroom at the Vista Courthouse. You have a First Amendment right to attend, should you so choose.
No comments:
Post a Comment