_____________________________ _____________________________ _____________________________

Socialize

Mayor Pro Tem Barrows Battery Hearing Results in Mandate from Judge

By Brian Hews

Cerritos Mayor Pro Tem Bruce Barrows appeared before the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office in Bellflower last Friday for an Office Hearing regarding allegations of criminal misconduct of Penal Code 242 Battery against resident Jay Gray, Los Cerritos Community Newspaper can confirm.
Barrows and Gray both attended, at separate times, the formal hearing at 10:30 a.m. before Hearing Officer A. Knight in a 3rd Floor Hearing Room at the Flower Street facility for the District Attorney’s Office.

Gray confirmed that both he and Barrows attended the dual sessions, but did not elaborate on specific details.
Both Barrows and Gray were directed to appear at the hearing to determine if a formal criminal complaint and charges are to be filed against suspect Barrows.
Barrows was accused of grabbing Gray after a city council budget session back on June 5 outside the city council chambers. “Barrows grabbed me, and threw me, and yanked at my jacket and neck tie,” Gray told LCCN after the incident took place. Gray caught Barrow’s ire after he made public comments about various city priorities for the upcoming fiscal year. Gray in turn was accused of Disturbing the Peace by Barrows.
Barrows attended the meeting with an attorney, LCCN was told, and Gray attended the meeting without legal representation.
Both were mandated to bring a copy of the formal complaint notice, and any documents, pictures or witnesses that were “deemed” necessary to assist the District Attorney in reaching a determination on the case that was filed by members of the Cerritos Sheriff’s Department. Barrows’ complaint against Gray was dismissed.
Sandi Gibbons, spokesperson for the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office would not comment on the specifics of the Barrows hearing on Monday afternoon. “We don’t comment about what takes place in Office Hearings,” Gibbons said. “We can say that normally in cases such as this, the suspect involved is usually mandated to a program such as community service work, or other programs such as anger management,” she said.
“Hearings like this are to resolve disputes,” Gibbons said. She also confirmed that in Office Hearing matters, the suspect “must do what is required by the hearing officer in an allotted amount of time, or if they fail to do so, the criminal case will continue through the legal system.”
According to the police report, obtained and published by Los Cerritos Community Newspaper, Barrows said that during an argument with Gray outside Chambers, he got angry and called Gray an a**hole and after that Gray said, “you may think that, but your wife supports me”.
At the June 11, 2012 Council meeting Barrows contradicted his statement in the police report and said “Gray made some extremely offensive comments about my wife and that is when I called him a**hole.”
Greg Berg, Director of Community Services for the City of Cerritos had spoken at the Council meeting in public on the incident (at the insistence of Barrows), but attempted to distance himself from the matter on Monday afternoon in an interview with LCCN.
“I am not going to comment about the matter any further, this does not involve the city of Cerritos,” he said.
Cerritos Councilwoman Carol Chen, an ardent support of Barrows said the incident was “not her concern, and it shouldn’t be the concern of Los Cerritos Community Newspaper.”
City spokeswoman Annie Hylton said “the city has no official comment on the matter at this time.” Barrows has not returned repeated calls to Los Cerritos Community Newspaper regarding the incident.
A copy of the hearing summons can be found at loscerritosnews.net.

Click here to see the LA DA website explanation of the hearing.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Comments

comments

Powered by Facebook Comments

43 Responses to Mayor Pro Tem Barrows Battery Hearing Results in Mandate from Judge

  1. Virginia Reply

    July 26, 2012 at 8:43 am

    Just the fact that he ‘touched’ a person in anger is enough to put him out of office..and, yes, it is the business of the local community newspaper….Why would council members support him…by supporting him you support his actions….Please, mayor, quietly step down.

  2. Don't shoot the messenger Reply

    July 24, 2012 at 8:36 am

    Mr. Hews, don’t this Res Ispa person divert from the real issue. That is the control, power and perverted influence certain city leaders in Cerritos wield with contempt and disrespect for the community.
    Barrows and his actions, Pulido with his in-actions at ABC and now city hall. One would have to assume with alleged perverts teaching at our schools, principles getting demoted for reporting death threats and residents being attacked by council members there is bigger picture here.
    With all that’s gone on and and all that has been written I am reminded of the phrase, “Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
    Mr. Hews, there are more stories to be written and Res Ispa and his kind are just a distraction from the stories that need to be told to those with an open mind, those that care and those willing to change the direction of our community for the better.

  3. Res Ipsa Reply

    July 23, 2012 at 8:23 pm

    As I stated in my earlier comment Mr. Hews, I omitted nothing. What I did do was illustrate a possible result that your title does not account for.

    You stated above quite unequivocally that a person involved in this process “either performs community service or other things or it goes through the court system”. An admonishment is neither of these things. Nor is it a mandate. And yet the DA’s office stated that this is one of the possible outcomes of this office hearing.

    So what many of your readers, myself included, would like to know, is why have you printed this headline without offering any tangible evidence. Had you decided to title this article “Mayor Pro Tem Barrows attends DA Office Hearing” that would have been an accurate printing of the news. However you chose this particular phrasing of words but failed to provide any evidence in support.

    Since you seem to be a student of latin, the phrase veritatem dies aperit seems to be appropriate here.

  4. Res Ipsa Reply

    July 23, 2012 at 4:44 pm

    There are no insults here Mr. Hews, just genuine surprise. An admonishment, as you correctly defined, is a warning. A warning, by definition, is not a mandate. Your title says that a judge (incorrect as we discussed) issued a mandate. Yet the quote you provided from the DA’s office states that an admonishment is a possible outcome.

    So how can you print that a mandate was issued without any supporting evidence, when there are other possible ouctomes?

    • Brian Hews Reply

      July 23, 2012 at 4:49 pm

      You omitted the word guilty, he is guilty of battery…that should he be guilty of the same fault for which he has been admonished, he will be punished with greater severity.

      • Res Ipsa Reply

        July 23, 2012 at 5:27 pm

        I didn’t omit anything Mr. Hews. I simply illustrated a possible outcome.

        You published here that a mandate was definitively issued and yet you have discussed with me in detail, a possible result that is not mandate. You can’t have it both ways.

        Either you had the necessary evidence at the time you printed this article to justify such a title, or you printed a headline with no factual support.

        Since myself, nor Mr. Greet, nor Mr. Yee cannot find any such evidence in this article, there is little room for conjecture as to which possibility is correct.

    • Brian Hews Reply

      July 23, 2012 at 5:42 pm

      Interesting what the latin version of your user name is Mr. Ipsa:

      Res Ipsa: Latin for “the thing speaks for itself,” a doctrine of law that one is presumed to be negligent if he had exclusive control of whatever caused the injury even though there is no specific evidence of an act of negligence, and without negligence the accident would not have happened.

  5. Don't shoot the messenger Reply

    July 23, 2012 at 3:19 pm

    Res Ispa, I think you can take the same comments for yourself.
    Res Ispa, Where are your moral values? Burn a newspaper, because of a headline you disagree with or hold public officials (ABC school district’s alleged fabrication of evidence, Barrows’s alleged criminal battery)accountable for the conduct?
    Mr. Greet and Re Ispa your self-serving motives and twisted morals are crystal clear.

  6. Don't shoot the messenger Reply

    July 23, 2012 at 3:10 pm

    Mr. Greet, can you please explain yourself.
    Why so hard on the newspaper and not a word on Mr. Barrows’ conduct? After all Mr. Barrows seems to have publicly admitted to a criminal act and for lack of a better word is under investigation by the DA for that criminal act. After all, headline or not, the body of Mr. Barrows’ public statement does support censure and removal from office. Wouldn’t you agree?
    Mr. Greet, your lack of discussion on the conduct of Mr. Barrows sickens some residents as does the inaction of the entire city council.
    Tell us Mr. Greet, why is it okay not to discuss the alleged criminal conduct of an elected official and then turn-around and complain about the headline of a news paper.
    Mr. Greet, you seem to want to protect Mr. Barrows. Do you support the fabrication of evidence by the ABC School district?
    Mr. Greet, where do you draw the line on public mis-conduct?
    Tell us Mr. Greet, do your moral values find that an alleged misleading headline is a greater moral outrage than the alleged criminal actions of an elected official or school district?
    Finally, Mr. Greet, when you begin your sentence, “with all due respect,” let’s be honest, you really have no respect for the community or rule of law – do you?

    • John B. Greet Reply

      July 26, 2012 at 7:55 pm

      @Don’t: You should avoid making unfounded assumptions about what I do or do not have respect for. As a retired police officer I can assure you that I have immense respect for both the rule of law and for the communites that the law is intended to serve.

      My comment, here, addressed what I believe to be a fairly misleading title.

      I have offered no comment, in *this* comment section, about what I think of the altercation between Barrows and Gray. I have made those feelings known in the comment sections of a previous article here. Since you felt compelled to pre-judge me so harshly, I’ll leave it to you to seek out my previous comments on the matter and educate yourself about the facts on that score.

      You know absolutely nothing about me other than what you have read in the comments section of this particular article. Yet on that basis alone you have chosen to condemn me for thoughts and beliefs that I neither think nor believe.

      In the future, I would encourage you to seek a bit more factual information before you leap to such erroneous and ignorant conclusions.

  7. Brian Hews Reply

    July 23, 2012 at 2:51 pm

    Mr. Ipsa that is not true. Words from the LA DA’s website make it very clear.
    da.lacounty.gov/arbitration.htm
    Arbitration
    Certain minor criminal matters are sometimes handled most effectively in a non-courtroom setting. By addressing these criminal matters properly and swiftly through an arbitration-like process, the District Attorney’s Office can often prevent them from becoming more serious. That is the basis of the Hearing Officer Program, a program that efficiently resolves disputes, warns and advises persons that their actions are illegal, and collects restitution when appropriate.
    Adult Office Hearings
    Adult cases – such as neighborhood disputes, petty theft, trespassing, loitering, regulatory violations that are technical in nature, and batteries that do not result in serious injuries – may be referred to an office hearing. Hearings give all parties involved the opportunity to be heard and aim to resolve the criminal matter out of court. Office hearings are conducted in District Attorney facilities and are informal proceedings. At the conclusion of the hearing, the hearing officer gives his or her recommended resolution. Outcomes may include, but are not limited to, admonishments, restitution orders, counseling, and stay-away directives.

    • Res Ipsa Reply

      July 23, 2012 at 4:06 pm

      You seem to be terribly confused Mr. Hews, because the language you just cited is exactly what I stated above.

      Even ignoring the fact that you have not presented any evidence as to the actual outcome in this case, your title is false because it states that a judge issued a mandate. A judge did not do anything in this matter for the simple fact that this matter was not before a judge.

      As Mr. Greet said above, words matter, and a hearing officer is not a judge. Due to this I’m left wondering why, since you so readily can provide the details of these informal office hearings, did you not accurately state the facts as they are.

      • Brian Hews Reply

        July 23, 2012 at 4:14 pm

        Mr.Res:

        Quote from DA’s site “At the conclusion of the hearing, the hearing officer gives his or her recommended resolution. Outcomes may include, but are not limited to, admonishments, restitution orders, counseling, and stay-away directives.”

        No where does it state that the person at the hearing is or can be acquitted….something will happen…. exactly what the DA told us over the phone and what we reported in the paper.

        • Res Ipsa Reply

          July 23, 2012 at 4:24 pm

          Then I suggest you read your own language Mr. Hews. I would have thought that someone who worked in journalism would understand what an admonishment is.

          That and you still haven’t corrected the title of your article to reflect the fact that there was no judge involved in this process.

          • Brian Hews Reply

            July 23, 2012 at 4:33 pm

            ADMONITION. A reprimand from a judge to a person accused warning him of the consequences of his conduct, and intimating to him, that should he be guilty of the same fault for which he has been admonished, he will be punished with greater severity.

            And please stop the insults.

  8. John B. Greet Reply

    July 22, 2012 at 7:58 pm

    With all due respect, Mr. Hewes, words mean things and the most reasonable interpretation of the words you chose to use to entitle this article was that a Judge had, in fact, issued a mandate following Barrows’ battery hearing.

    While this may eventually prove true, nothing in the body of your aticle supports that specific conclusion other than a general reliance on the assurance that all such hearings result in some sort of mandate.

    It would appear that you wrote the headline in the way that you did so as to catch the reader’s eye and encourage him or her to read on. That’s fine, catching the reader’s eye is your bread and butter after all.

    Unfortunately, most serious readers, once tempted by your choice of words, then expect you to deliver more in the way of specific facts. You don’t appear (yet) to have any that relate to the disposition of this specific hearing.

    A less…er…imaginitive…headline might have been “Mayor Pro Tem Barrows’ Battery Hearing Expected to Result in Mandate from Judge.”

    • Brian Hews Reply

      July 23, 2012 at 9:21 am

      We got the quote from the DA, this is what happens after hearings like Barrows went to. It is extremely interesting how people (on Barrows side) are overlooking the fact he did assault a resident and nothing happened to him (from the city), while Crowley got censured and resigned…

      • Res Ipsa Reply

        July 23, 2012 at 2:39 pm

        Respectfully, Mr. Hews, you did not get any such quote from the district attorney. They, of all people, understand the difference between a judge in a criminal proceeding and a hearing officer in an informal hearing. You have either mistakenly or intentionally created it all on your own. There is no judge involved in this process, nor does this take place in a courtroom. Yet despite these facts, you decided to print this headline and create this inference anyways despite the fact that it is false.

        Even more troubling, your response to Mr. Greet seems to indicate that you believe that the actions of those you report on can excuse you from accurately reporting what occurs.

        On the contrary, there is never an excuse for inaccurate reporting, regardless of the topic at hand.

  9. Hollywood can't make this stuff up Reply

    July 15, 2012 at 10:21 pm

    Is this a City Council made up of twisted priorities?
    Does anyone really find it surprising that no city council member would speak out against one of their own?
    You have the City Council dodging the issue of banning sex offenders from city parks, but jumping on the band wagon for a police helicopter.
    You have a city with a high day-time property crime rate and the city’s response is to support two additional traffic motorcycles.
    You have Councilman Mark Pulido, who sat on the ABC school board, while according to Principle Blagden, a kindergarten teacher was allowed to return from a leave of absence after two charges of lewd and lascivious behavior. Blagden was later herself put on administrative leave and demoted after she filed a police report, after that same teacher made death threats. It gets worse, this paper is also reporting that the court found the ABC School District fabricated evidence against Blagden.
    You have Councilman Joseph Cho who likens the rights of sex offenders with every other resident.
    Can anyone explain the thought process coming from city hall?

  10. Mr.Cerritos Reply

    July 14, 2012 at 12:04 pm

    You guys, don’t get it. None of the other council members made comments or have made comments on this subject because of the recommendations of the City of Cerritos trough the City of Cerritos City Manager. Why hasn’t the city manager done anything about this problem, let alone comment on this issue. The problems with the City of Cerritos Management are huge. The CCPA could be a great asset to the city instead of a burden. The City of Cerritos should and have been asked to look into other ways of marketing the CCPA, lower ticket prices and try to attract new shows that the residents want(like maybe a survey of different shows residents would like to see at the CCPA. I say having Councilman Burrows censored is just the start. The city needs a new City Manager who will take pride in running the city, and not let other influence’s, like, Mrs. Denise Manoogian, who only care about a paycheck,and will run the city into bankruptcy. The City of Cerritos residents deserve better

  11. John Q. Public Reply

    July 13, 2012 at 6:49 pm

    To Jame Yee and Res Ispa,
    You are stating that the LCCN headline is “misleading.” Okay, let’s give you the benefit of the doubt, for the moment. Now, based on YOUR own definition of misleading — what do you call Mr. Barrows’s conflicting comments? Some might call it lies. Lying to police or lying to the public. Which is it? Tell us how do you spin your hero’s words on these facts? And let us all not forget, the OFFICIAL suspect is Bruce Barrows not the LCCN.

  12. Cerritos Resident Since 77 Reply

    July 13, 2012 at 5:35 pm

    I have a perfect solution. Everyone in Cerritos needs to call District Attorney Steve Cooley and demand that CRIMINAL CHARGES be filed on Councilman Barrows.

    Barrows only cares about being a big shot and keeping his lifetime pension and taking all those trips to China and Europe.

    As far as a Recall…yes….I would sign up for that on a petition.

  13. Jose Reply

    July 13, 2012 at 5:26 pm

    Thank you Los Cerritos News for keeping the community so well informed, we finally have a “REAL” newspaper in town.
    Regarding the Bruce Barrows matter,he appears to be an unstable man who has lived off the taxpayers long enough.
    Mr. Barrows should do the honorable thing for our good city and resign.
    If not,he should be recalled.

  14. Mad Reply

    July 13, 2012 at 3:12 pm

    To Mr. Wood:

    You are wrong.

    Barrows admitted committing this act and this is WHY the District Attorney took the LEGAL action to have this matter brought before a Hearing Officer, ie: Judge A. Knight.

    It amazes me that you condone and support Barrows and his actions. I have lost all respect for you. You are an appointee on Barrows, just like that Jim Yee.

    Barrows is the problem, and anyone who comes to his defense has no credibility whatsoever. Just SEEING this document makes me SICK to my stomach. How dare our city council for not talking about this in public.

    Look what happened in the Eileen Blagden case with Stowers Elementary and the ABC Unified School District. The TRUTH always comes out….

  15. Burbank City Official Reply

    July 13, 2012 at 2:56 pm

    I know Bruce Barrows, and I knew sooner or later his temper would get the best of him. He is the President of the California League of Cities here in LA County.

    If this happened here in Burbank, this would have been handled much differently, and yes, many would have demanded that he resign from office.

    I feel sorry for the community of Cerritos. How is it possible for anyone to question if Mayor Barrows was the suspect in this battery/assault case.

    How can anyone defend his actions, including any sane/legitimate attorney. This is a bad stain on all local city councilmen and women here in Southern California.

  16. Allen Wood Reply

    July 13, 2012 at 2:53 pm

    Whatever happened to “innocent until proven guilty”? Since when did LCCN qualify to become judge and jury in this or any case? This hearing was only to see if there was any evidence that even warranted pursuing a case.

    • Brian Hews Reply

      July 13, 2012 at 3:30 pm

      Allen that is not true. Words from the LA DA’s website make it very clear.
      da.lacounty.gov/arbitration.htm
      Arbitration

      Certain minor criminal matters are sometimes handled most effectively in a non-courtroom setting. By addressing these criminal matters properly and swiftly through an arbitration-like process, the District Attorney’s Office can often prevent them from becoming more serious. That is the basis of the Hearing Officer Program, a program that efficiently resolves disputes, warns and advises persons that their actions are illegal, and collects restitution when appropriate.

      Adult Office Hearings

      Adult cases – such as neighborhood disputes, petty theft, trespassing, loitering, regulatory violations that are technical in nature, and batteries that do not result in serious injuries – may be referred to an office hearing. Hearings give all parties involved the opportunity to be heard and aim to resolve the criminal matter out of court. Office hearings are conducted in District Attorney facilities and are informal proceedings. At the conclusion of the hearing, the hearing officer gives his or her recommended resolution. Outcomes may include, but are not limited to, admonishments, restitution orders, counseling, and stay-away directives.

      • Res Ipsa Reply

        July 13, 2012 at 4:04 pm

        Its interesting that you referenced the DA’s website Mr. Hews because it clearly states that 1) these are informal proceedings, 2) they are not presided over by a judge.

        So my question to you is, why did you state that this was a formal proceeding and that a judge issued a mandate when a 5 second search demonstrates this is not true?

        Do you not fact check things that you publish?

        • Brian Hews Reply

          July 13, 2012 at 4:52 pm

          What part of this do you not understand?

          At the conclusion of the hearing, the hearing officer gives his or her recommended resolution.
          Outcomes may include, but are not limited to, admonishments, restitution orders, counseling, and stay-away directives.

          • Res Ipsa Reply

            July 13, 2012 at 5:11 pm

            I understand it completely. Its says that the hearing officer has a wide latitude to determine an appropriate resolution. It also says that this is not a formal proceeding and its not presided over by a judge.

            I think the issue that many here are having is that since you weren’t able to get these facts correct, and you didn’t provide any evidence as to the specifics of what happened here, this article is, to quote Mr. Yee, misleading.

        • Mad Reply

          July 13, 2012 at 5:19 pm

          Hey Dipsa:

          You and your CLIENT BARROWS are BOTH becoming a total joke.

          The community needs to start a RECALL on Barrows…starting at the NEXT CERRITOS CITY COUNCIL MEETING.

          Get your heads checked by a PROFESSIONAL.

          Get Mentally Evaluated over at College Hospital.

          Why are you PROUD of BARROWS doing this?

          Why don’t you admit that Barrows was RIGHT and ANY ELECTED OFFICIAL should be ALLOWED to HAUL OFF AND ASSAULT any one they WANT, for any given REASON.

          Take your so-called law book and stick it. Fuentes is right….

    • Watch the video Reply

      July 13, 2012 at 11:12 pm

      Mr. Wood, (are you the same Allen Wood appointed by Bruce Barrows?) take a couple of minutes and watch the video that LCCN posted. How do you get LCCN or anyone else is acting as judge or jury when Barrows admitted it on camera. What more evidence do you need to pursue a case?
      If you are the same Allen Wood who sits on Republican committees, let me ask you what happen to the Republican “Tough on Crime” stance?

  17. Stan Klecha Reply

    July 13, 2012 at 1:24 pm

    Term limits is the bottom line .. Bruce served on
    the Cerritos Council once before .. coming back for another eight years is not right .. Yes the
    voters voted him in after serveral tries .. once is
    enough ..the longer they stay on the Council the
    more their attitude changes ..they think they are
    above the law of the land .. Norwalk has the same
    problems .. no term limits there .. and two or more civil suits against the city .. guess who
    paid.. the tax payers ..

  18. Shadow Parker Reply

    July 13, 2012 at 12:37 pm

    “We can say that normally in cases such as this, the suspect involved is usually mandated to a program such as community service work, or other programs such as anger management,” she said.
    “Hearings like this are to resolve disputes,” Gibbons said. She also confirmed that in Office Hearing matters, the suspect “must do what is required by the hearing officer in an allotted amount of time, or if they fail to do so, the criminal case will continue through the legal system.”

    Looks like this statement from the District Attorney says enough. I am totally shocked that this has been “swept” under the rug from our leaders at Cerritos City Hall. If this happened to a member of the Los Angeles City Council it would be on the FRONT PAGE of the LOS ANGELES TIMES.

    As a matter of fact, I hope the LA Times can follow up on this. What a damn shame…

    • Res Ipsa Reply

      July 13, 2012 at 1:11 pm

      I’m not sure that they will. “Normally” and “usually” dont pass for facts at the LA Times.

  19. Barrows For Congress Reply

    July 13, 2012 at 11:19 am

    It is obvious that Mr. Resa Ipsa is the Criminal Defense Attorney for Bruce Barrows. Wait a minute? Barrows had to hire a CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY? Can LCCN get the name of Barrow’s “legal representation.” Keep digging

  20. Thanks LCCN Reply

    July 13, 2012 at 10:43 am

    Mr. Yee, no one should ever condone violence from our elected officials, and no one should be allowed to get away with this. I am glad Los Cerritos Community Newspaper is talking about this. We need to thank our media for keeping us informed. Remember, no one would have known about the corruption inside the Los Angeles County Hall of Administration if it wasn’t for Mr. Hews and Mr. Economy

  21. Mad Reply

    July 13, 2012 at 10:38 am

    I do not get you people. Barrows assaulted a resident and you are defending him. He admitted it, denied it, went to to court and got mandated to serve community service. If a Cerritos employee did this they would be fired immediately. Take the blinders off.

  22. Total Recall Reply

    July 13, 2012 at 10:27 am

    I am so so angry after reading this. How can Barrows get away with this? How can we, the voters get him out of office? All he cares about are his trains, and travelling all over the world and now roughing up residents.

    Jay Gray is the VICTIM.

  23. James Yee Reply

    July 13, 2012 at 10:24 am

    The title to your article is misleading. I had expected to read about the mandate, but your article only quotes a DA spokesperson who said that a mandate is normally the result. She did not say that one was issued. Please stop using titles that are sensationalistic. When you do so, your newsworthiness is greatly diminished. Good journalists report the facts and only the facts.

    • Brian Hews Reply

      July 13, 2012 at 10:28 am

      Not true, the DA was very clear, you either perform community service or other things or it goes through the court system that was a direct quote.

      • Res Ipsa Reply

        July 13, 2012 at 10:54 am

        No, Mr. Yee is correct, this title is misleading. Your own article clearly states that the DA declined to comment on this matter. The fact that an individual must comply with what the hearing officer requires does not mean that the hearing officer requires something in every case or in this case. On the contrary, it is not unheard of for items like this to be dismissed.

        Additionally, this is a non-criminal informal administrative proceeding that does not take place in a courtroom. It is presided over by a hearing officer, not a judge. So to say that a judge did anything in this case is patently false.

        Very shoddy reporting indeed.

        • Mad Reply

          July 13, 2012 at 11:13 am

          Mr. Ipsa or whatever your name is….the DA denied to say anything? Yes! He referred the paper to Ms Gibbons who is authorized to speak on behalf of the DA, you moron. I still don’t get you! He assaulted a resident and admitted it on a police report, denied it on camera, then went to court WITH A LAWYER. That is not something you do if you are not guilty!!!

Have a comment?