Once Again Beaumont City Council is being Framed by Their Own ‘Trusted’ Staff.
Beaumont City Council Meeting June 7, 2016
Agenda Item 3.e. Resolution Authorizing Payment of Lawyers’ and Consultants’ Legal Fees: http://www.ci.beaumont.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/27646
Both the Law Firm of Slovak Baron Empey Murphy & Pinkney and the Law Firm of Stradling Yocca, Carlson & Rauth have committed multiple State and Federal Felonies in their short time in the City of Beaumont.
As Acting City Attorney; the Law Firm of Slovak Baron Empey Murphy & Pinkney has destroyed Government Records, Forged Government Documents, Obstructed Justice, Perjury, Federal Felony Municipal Bond Fraud, and Falsified Invoices to funnel $1 Million out of the City.
As Bond Counsel; the Law Firm of Stradling Yocca, Carlson & Rauth have committed Perjury, Fraud, and Federal Felony Municipal Bond Fraud.
Now Pinkney wants Council to pass a Resolution to pay the Law Firms’ Criminal Defense.
Pinkney incorrectly cites California Government Code 995.9. as his justification for wanting the City to pay a Criminal Attorney. 995.9. is a provision for witnesses and government workers that were doing what Council directed. It would be understandable if Council agreed to pay for Bob Sherwood’s Legal Defense since he was only following Staff and Council’s orders.
A very telling line in 995.9 is: “… The public entity may defend or indemnify only if it is determined by the public entity that the action being brought against the witness is based directly upon the conduct which the public entity requested of the witness related to the witness’ testimony or provision of evidence.”
Once again; the Beaumont City Council is being framed by their own ‘trusted’ Staff.
If Council Approves paying for the Law Firms’ criminal defense they are acknowledging that they gave direction to the Lawyers to destroy government documents, commit fraud, obstruct justice, and circumvent State and Federal Laws to commit Federal Municipal Bond Fraud.
Does Council’s Approval negate the Lawyers’ criminal acts.
No, of course not. Nothing is going to keep Pinkney, Lena Wade, Forbath, and the other Lawyers that participated in Felony Bond Fraud out of Prison.
But aside from using Taxpayer money to pay their legal fees; what this document does is remove all ‘I was unaware’ or ‘I was uninformed’ excuses and wrap that rope firmly around the Beaumont City Councilmens’ necks.
Instead of worrying about their Lawyers and Consultants’ Criminal Attorney fees it would be wise if the Members of the Beaumont City Council asked themselves how they plan to pay for their own Criminal Attorney Fees.
California Government Code 995.9: “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, upon a request made in writing to a public entity, the public entity may defend or indemnify or defend and indemnify any witness who has testified on behalf of the public entity in any criminal, civil, or administrative action. The decision of the public entity to defend or indemnify or defend and indemnify such a witness shall rest within the sound discretion of the public entity and may be based on any relevant factors, including, but not limited to, whether the provision of defense or indemnity would serve the public interest. The public entity may defend or indemnify or defend and indemnify the witness only if it is determined by the public entity that the action being brought against the witness is based directly upon the conduct which the public entity requested of the witness related to the witness’ testimony or provision of evidence. The public entity has the discretion to provide a defense alone apart from indemnity, and the public entity may offer to defend or indemnify or defend and indemnify while reserving all rights to subsequently withdraw these offers upon reasonable notice.
Neither defense nor indemnification shall be provided if the testimony giving rise to the action against the witness was false in any material respect, or was otherwise not given by the witness with a good faith belief in its truth; nor shall representation or indemnification under this section be offered or promised unless the action has been commenced and the witness has requested the public entity to act for the witness’ benefit under this section. The public entity shall not be liable for indemnification of a defendant witness for punitive damages awarded to the plaintiff in such an action. If the plaintiff prevails in a claim for punitive damages in an action defended at the expense of the public entity, the defendant shall be liable to the public entity for the full costs incurred by the public entity in providing representation to the defendant witness.”