Thanks Bobby - They don't realize that the contempt of felons is how good cops measure their performance.
Carreon isn't so bad. He says he attended law school with Sotelo but admits no experience as the target of a corrupt prosecutor. Carreon simply doesn't know any better.
The bottom line - When Marxists, socialists, predators, heterophobes, reconquistadors and other misfits love me as much as they adore Obama, I'll start to worry.
Thanks for writing! cb
Clark,
Don't you love it when morons try to attack you personally, rather than addressing the important issues you discuss!
Carry-on, Carreon.
Yup, the three-judge appellate panel and 9th Circuit all worked very hard to cover up for a LAPD officer. You have a remarkable imagination.
Since the LAPD had already dismissed all of the charges and deputy city attorney Hand was accused of more than 100 counts of misconduct against innocent men, the charges should have never been filed in the first place. When I complained about Hand's misconduct the case was transferred to Sotelo.
The fact is that, unlike me, the appellate court found Sotelo AND Judge MacBeth guilty of judicial and prosecutorial misconduct. Like Mike Nifong, Sotelo should have been disbarred for his politically-driven misconduct.
The fact that Sotelo now sits as a Compton judge in judgment of others is, at best, a perversion. If one of my own trainees behaved like him, I would have made sure that he was as far from roles of authority as possible. Unfortunately, the California State Bar has a very low standard when it comes to integrity and virtue.
As someone who has spent a career observing human behavior, it appears to me that Sotelo suffers from a combination of anti-white racial prejudice and what is commonly known as a "little man syndrome."
That said, I appreciated my experience with Sotelo because he taught me more about abuse of power and corruption than the LAPD ever could. Without Sotelo's example, I would not have known how to prepare for the kind of corruption I continue to investigate today.
Thanks for writing.
What the court called prosecutorial misconduct was not egregious misconduct of the sort that is usually required to turn over a criminal conviction. The main gist of the decision is that the prosecutors referred to the Rodney King case a number of times -- hmmm -- that makes you wonder just how poisonous that name is. The defendant's lawyer failed to make timely objections and failed to move for a mistrial after the remarks to the jury were made, so that suggests how un-exciting these remarks were. It seems the appellate courts were looking for some way to get a reversal for this police defendant, and found prejudice such as would never have been found in attempting to overturn the conviction of your usual citizen-defendant.
Commenting by HaloScan
