a step closer
a judge has ordered to unseal a trove of documents related to a DOJ corruption probe of LA city government, but will it reveal high-level officials who got away with federal crimes?
Following a judge’s tentative ruling, we could be one step closer to knowing more about the government’s criminal probe of the LA City Attorney’s Office and the Department of Water and Power, a case that failed to prosecute high-end lawyers and Democratic officials who were in charge of an illegal coverup. Last year, I raised questions about the unresolved nature of the closed investigation and what the government was hiding by blocking disclosure. Someone likely committed federal crimes, and prosecutors allowed them to walk.
Then, during his sentencing, former city lawyer Paul Paradis dropped a bombshell: The FBI in applications for search warrants said former City Attorney Mike Feuer lied to a grand jury when asked if he knew about an extortion payment ordered by one of his lawyers to conceal litigation collusion. This cut against what Feuer has been saying for years now: that he knew nothing about the extortion payment.
And that brings us to the latest fight in the five years since the scandal became public. Consumer Watchdog (also where I work) and the Los Angeles Times are seeking to make public 33 affidavits, including the FBI’s determination that Feuer appeared to commit federal crimes. Right now, though, everyone has to pretend like it’s not real.
Ahead of Friday’s hearing, U.S. District Judge Stanley Blumenthal, who was tasked with overseeing the criminal prosecution of the LADWP corruption probe, tentatively ordered the warrants to be unsealed, barring certain redactions. The government wanted to redact the names of uncharged third-parties and “purported” statements by the FBI saying Feuer lied to a grand jury. Consumer Watchdog argued that since the investigation is over, the public should know who the uncharged parties are, whereas the government argued the uncharged should have their privacy and due process rights protected.
It’s very different, though, if you’re a public figure, the judge ruled. A public official, or even a private one doing business with a public body, cannot escape the publicity of even baseless accusations. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled on this.
“The public interest in this case is particularly strong,” said the judge in his tentative ruling in favor of disclosure.
“The nature and scope of misconduct in this case, resulting in convictions of high-level public officials at two municipal agencies, raise serious questions about a culture of corruption,” ruled Blumenfeld in his tentative. “These questions warrant public scrutiny to determine the extent to which wrongdoers have been held accountable and the extent to which the affected agencies have been reformed. The need for scrutiny is only heightened where the corruption threatens the integrity of the judicial system and the safety of this nation’s infrastructure.”
Without disclosure of the identities of the public officials and others working for the city, the public would not be able to “properly evaluate the fruits of the government’s extensive investigation,” he said.
But wait. While the public’s right to access is pretty strong, it doesn’t extend to grand jury testimony. And that’s what Blumenfeld wanted to hear more about during Friday’s hearing. He narrowed argument to whether he should allow the FBI agent’s statements to be made public given they do not reference or disclose grand jury testimony. If the FBI did indeed say, “Mike Feuer testified falsely and perjured himself before a United States grand jury,” should that be redacted?
Jerry Flanagan, Consumer Watchdog’s litigation director, argued that the agent’s statements are his opinion and don’t actually reveal any grand jury information. And redacting it would breed more distrust of the public’s faith in how the corruption matter was handled.
“The public has a right to know what the government knew but chose not to prosecute,” said Flanagan.
Assistant United States Attorney Jamari Buxton, meanwhile, said the mere mention of grand jury testimony by the FBI agent would necessitate a redaction.
Blumenfeld then posed two hypothetical questions to the government. “If the line in the affidavit said, ‘Mike Feuer lied to the grand jury,’ does it get redacted?”
Buxton said, “Yes, because it mentions Mike Feuer testimony before the grand jury.”
The other hypothetical: “Andy Civetti says Mike Feuer is a liar.”
“No, it would not be redacted,” responded Buxton.
Blumenfeld, a former prosecutor, showed us where this can go. We could get back blocks of redactions that just say, “Mike Feuer is a liar,” while redacting any references to the grand jury or any context.
But…“The cat is out of the bag,” said Flanagan. Through Paradis’ comments, and the government moving to conceal those comments, there is little doubt that information exists. No one has called Paradis a liar following what he said.
On the issue of whether uncharged targets of the closed investigation should be made public, Buxton said it was just following Department of Justice policy of not naming uncharged third parties. He said there were around 5 to 10 non-public parties whose names are redacted.
“We’re not trying to hide anything from the public,” said Buxton.
Blumenfeld didn’t make his tentative final, and took the matter under submission. At the very end he talked about “wrongdoers” when mentioning a paralegal who made an extortion threat on then-city private counsel Paul Kiesel. Kiesel was ordered to make that payment by his superiors in the City Attorney’s Office.
“Wrongdoers should not be redacted,” said the judge.
It's like the Feds went to an all-you-can-eat buffet and just took one trip to the salad bar. Looking forward to learning what you see in these releases.
I have much more on him and them than you understand. Go to fraudbuster.org. My phone number is there. Call if you want to know. First look up Section 271 of the 2009 L.A. City Charter. Only the City Attorney can prosecute any misdemeanor committed in the City of L.A. The LADA has illegally prosecuted me and potentially millions of others along with refusing evidence and legal procedures in court on purpose for political, personal, and financial reasons. I am the one who organized stopping the original Measure J and with Celes King IV as the Congress of Racial Equality of California (CORE-CA} we were asked by the former officers of the Office of Public Safety (OPS) to eliminate that agency from its massive corruption. In 9 months we did just that. As they asked they are now in the LAPD. Do you want to know the real dirt as this is not big in people or money.