St.Paul,MN News

SharonsVideo Bar

Loading...

Saturday, June 16, 2007

Reporters Priviledge Joshua Wolf 226 Prison Days


Andy Driscoll We would volunteer to help you, UTube etc. but the city stole my car & trailer without tickets, probable cause etc. http://sharon4council.blogspot.com/


Mon is the Fed Compell Hearings A-DemCompell33






Minnesota Media Organizations Petition State Supreme Court to Create Presumption of Camera Access to Trials

SUNDAY NIGHT AFTER YOUR FATHERS DAY CELEBRATIONS, TUNE INTO TRUTH TO
TELL @9:00 PM for:

Hosts Andy Driscoll and Craig Cox will discuss Minnesota Immigration Matters
with the Humphrey Institutes Katherine Fennelly; State Senator Patricia
Torres Ray; Minneapolis Councilmember Gary Schiff; Kim Hunter, Immigration
Lawyer; along with journalists Abdi Aynte of the Somali Press, Marco
Fernndez Landoni, Editorial Director for the Latino Communications Group,
and KFAI News Director Lauretta Dawolo.

KFAI is at 90.3 FM Minneapolis/106.7 St. Paul and streaming at KFAI.org.
This show will also be archived at
<<http://www,kfai.org/node/682>>

Listen in, and we may open the phones to listeners with questions.

STAY TUNED FOR OUR BIG NEWS.

Andy
--
Andy Driscoll, Producer/Host
Truth to Tell co-host: Craig Cox
KFAI Radio, Minneapolis/St. Paul
651-293-9039 / Fax: (same, call ahead) / Cell: 651-492-2221
email: andy@driscollgroup.com
--
CivicMedia/Minnesota
Creating Communications & Public Policy Content for Public Engagement
835 Linwood Ave.
St. Paul, MN 55105
--
NOW ONLINE: <<http://www.kfai.org/node/2435>>

A 2-HOUR DISCUSSION OF THE STATE OF TWIN CITIES AND MINNESOTA MEDIA. We
explore the recent purchase of the Star Tribune by a private equity firm,
the subsequent excision of 140 jobs there, and the rapid changes in the
print news business from newsroom to press room, from classroom to
neighborhood and constituent (ethnic) news organizations.

All archived Truth to Tell programs here: <http://www.kfai.org/node/682>.

Our shows can also be heard at TWIN CITIES DAILY PLANET Single-Payer Health
Care
<http://www.tcdailyplanet.net/node/4064> and the
Central Corridor here: <http://www.tcdailyplanet.net/node/4265>, which will
soon be televised by Saint Paul Neighborhood Network (SPNN).

------ End of Forwarded Message


Andy Driscoll
Crocus Hill/Ward Two, St. Paul
Info about Andy Driscoll: http://forums.e-democracy.org/contacts/andydriscoll



Friday, June 15, 2007

Federal Rules-Sinrod-FBI RICO

Sinrodlaw

Federal Bureau of Investigation - Top Local News

Federal Bureau of Investigation - Los Angeles Field Division - Press Release - Department of Justi

Department of Justice SealDeparatment of Justice

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

JUNE 13, 2007

WWW.USDOJ.GOV/USAO/CAC

CONTACT: THOM MROZEK

PHONE: (213) 894-6947

FAX: (213) 894-5377

OWNER OF NUMERO UNO MARKETS ARRESTED ON FEDERAL RACKETEERING INDICTMENT
THAT ALLEGES MURDERS, CORRUPTION AND HARBORING OF ILLEGAL ALIENS

The owner of the Los Angeles-based Numero Uno supermarket chain, his brother and two associates alleged to be part of a racketeering conspiracy have been taken into custody during a two-day operation that also resulted in the seizure of approximately $1.25 million in cash and more than 60 vehicles.

The supermarket owner, George Torres, was arrested yesterday at his Arcadia residence without incident. George Torres, 50, was in United States District Court this afternoon, making his first court appearance, at which time he was ordered held without bond pending another court appearance next Wednesday. George Torres is accused in an indictment with providing an associate with a handgun and instructing him to murder a gang member who had killed a security guard at a Numero Uno store, among other criminal acts.

The 59-count indictment outlines a wide swath of criminal conduct allegedly committed by a criminal enterprise headed by George Torres. Those offenses include murder, solicitation of murder, bribery of a public official, harboring illegal aliens and tax violations.

According to the indictment, Torres and his brother ordered various murders and assaults to maintain control of the criminal enterprise. The murders allegedly ordered by Torres include a fatal drive-by shooting of a Primera Flats Street gang member in May 1993, which was ordered in retaliation for the death of a Numero Uno security guard. The indictment also alleges that George Torres ordered the February 1994 murder of a gang member who demanded a "tax" from a Numero Uno Market and the murder of a former employee who allegedly stole $500,000 from a Numero Uno Market.

The indictment, which accuses a total of eight defendants of violating the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), was unsealed today and announced by George S. Cardona, Acting United States Attorney in Los Angeles; J. Stephen Tidwell, Assistant Director in Charge of the FBI in Los Angeles; Timothy J. Landrum, Special Agent in Charge of the DEA in Los Angeles; and Debra D. King, Special Agent in Charge of IRS-Criminal Investigation.

According to the indictment, George Torres currently owns 11 markets in the greater Los Angeles area and, to expand his business, allegedly exercised strict control of his organization and associates, intimidated and murdered potential witnesses against the enterprise, and used the markets to facilitate fraud and tax violations.

George Torres and his brother were arrested yesterday morning. Six additional members or associates of the Torres enterprise named in the indictment have been arrested or have agreed to surrender themselves tomorrow morning to federal authorities. The defendants charged in the indictment are:

  • George Torres, who is charged with racketeering, conspiring to violate RICO, violent crime in aid of racketeering (VICAR), "honest services" mail and wire fraud and conspiracy to harbor illegal aliens;
  • Manuel Torres-Ramos, 53, of Arcadia, George Torres's brother, who was also arrested yesterday and is charged with racketeering, conspiring to violate RICO and conspiracy to harbor illegal aliens;
  • Steven Torres, 26, of Downey, who is George Torres' son and is charged with VICAR, has agreed to surrender tomorrow;
  • George Luk, 58, of Beverly Hills, a member of the Los Angeles Convention and Exhibition Center Authority Commission, who is charged in the RICO conspiracy and five counts of "honest services" mail and wire fraud, was arrested this morning;
  • Steve Carmona, 39, of Pico Rivera, a former commissioner with the Los Angeles Central Area Planning Commission, who is charged in the RICO conspiracy and five counts of "honest services" mail and wire fraud as well as one count of loan fraud, was arrested this morning;
  • Gloria Mejia, 57, of Montebello, who is charged with conspiracy to harbor illegal aliens, has agreed to surrender tomorrow;
  • Mario Solano Garcia, 52, of Los Angeles, who is charged in the RICO conspiracy, has agreed to surrender tomorrow; and
  • Carlos Monterroso, 51, of South Gate, who is charged in the RICO conspiracy, has also agreed to surrender tomorrow.

In addition to the arrests yesterday and today, law enforcement authorities executed five search warrants at residences, Numero Uno markets and warehouses.

The indictment alleges that Torres was using his business, Numero Uno Markets, as a corrupt organization, and that he used the assistance of public officials—including former Los Angeles Area Planning Commissioner Carmona and current Los Angeles Convention and Exhibition Center Authority Commissioner Luk - to obtain valuable licenses and permits for Torres' businesses in return for monetary kickbacks and lavish gifts.

"The greed of these criminals has infiltrated our communities and businesses, bringing violence to our streets," said DEA Special Agent in Charge Timothy J. Landrum. "Those arrested in this investigation are part of an organization that has brought crime, violence and drugs to our street corners in order to bolster their personal wealth. These recent enforcement events show that the continued cooperative efforts between federal, state, and local law enforcement result in criminals at every level of society being brought to justice."

"Corruption, fueled by drug trafficking and murder, penetrates all levels of our society, as exemplified by Torres' alleged use of public officials in attaining wealth for himself and in furtherance of his criminal enterprise," said J. Stephen Tidwell, Assistant Director in Charge of the FBI in Los Angeles. "This case was unique in that multiple agencies penetrated separate facets of the Torres criminal enterprise, including narcotics and corruption, and worked together to gather evidence against Mr. Torres and his associates. The FBI and our partners are clearly committed to exposing public officials who offer privilege to those engaging in criminal activity in exchange for personal gain, at the expense of deserving honest citizens"

The indictment specifically charges the Torres brothers with racketeering activity, a crime that, as charged, carries a statutory maximum sentence of life in prison. he Torres brothers, along with Carmona, Luk, Garcia and Monterrosso, are also charged with conspiring to violate RICO.

George Torres and Steve Torres are also charged in one VICAR count, and Steve Torres is charged in another VICAR count. Both VICAR counts carry a maximum statutory sentence of three years in prison

George Torres, Carmona and Luk are each named in six counts of honest services mail and wire fraud, a charge that carries a maximum possible penalty of 20 years in prison.

The Torres brothers, along with Mejia, are also charged with conspiring to harbor illegal aliens, a count that carries a sentence of up to 10 years in prison for each alien in respect to whom the violation was committed.

Carmona is charged with loan fraud, a charge that carries a maximum penalty of 30 years in federal prison.

George Torres and Mejia are also charged with conspiring to defraud the government by failing to file payroll taxes. And George Torres is named in 55 counts of failing to pay federal income tax on behalf of employees.

Debra D. King, Special Agent in Charge of IRS-Criminal Investigation in Los Angeles, stated: "George Torres' indictment on RICO related charges including violent crime and conspiracy, as well as immigration-related counts, mail and wire fraud, employment tax charges, and criminal forfeiture, is indicative of the success of a multi-agency task force approach in the investigation of criminal organizations. The indictment and arrest of Torres, as well as the substantial criminal forfeiture count included in the indictment, bring to a close a long-term investigation into his criminal activity and serve to disrupt and dismantle Torres' criminal organization."

The indictment also contains forfeiture allegations. The United States Marshals Service is in the process of seizing the Numero Uno supermarkets and other assets owned by Torres.

California Department of Justice, Bureau of Narcotic Enforcement, Special Agent in Charge William Telish stated: "The arrests of George Torres and his associates have resulted in a severe disruption to a multi-faceted criminal organization responsible for murder, racketeering, extortion and other felonious crimes. The eradication of this criminal conspiracy will improve the quality of life for numerous Californians."

An indictment contains allegations that a defendant has committed a crime. Every defendant is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty in court.

This case is the result of a multi-faceted investigation by HIDTA, the High-Intensity Drug Task Force Area. Multiple agencies have been involved in the investigation, including the Drug Enforcement Administration; the Federal Bureau of Investigation; IRS-Criminal Investigation Division; U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Alcohol, Firearms and Explosives; the Los Angeles Police Department; the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department; the Baldwin Park Police Department; the Azusa Police Department; the Bell Police Department; the Bell Gardens Police Department; the United States Marshals Service; and the California Department of Justice's Bureau of Narcotics Enforcement.

FBI Home Page

ce

Sinrod on the Internet

Sinrod speaks on where the law and technology intersect. See the video at YouTube.com

Sinrod speaks on what C/Net dubs as the next big thing - digital rights management (DRM). See the video at Video.Google.com

Thursday, June 14, 2007

City St.Paul RICO violationsSteve Magner

Steve Magner St. Paul Code - Google SearchCity
  • 1st RICO law suit against City of Saint Paul
  • 2nd St. Paul RICO lawsuit
  • 3rd RICO lawsuit against City of St. Paul
  • Certificate of Occupancy supplements
  • Castle Coalition, Eminent Domain Reform
  • Attorneys-Cop Corruption Watchdog2007
  • St.Paul Police(RICO)
  • Free Speech, False Allegation1
  • SPSO-Contract07
  • Post a Comment On: A Democracy

    "City of Saint Paul Attempting To Withhold Evidence In RICO Suits."

    41 Comments -


    Show Original Post


    Collapse comments

    Bob said... United States District Court - District of Minnesota
    United States District Court - District of Minnesota

    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
    Frank J. Steinhauser, III, et. al., Civil No. 04-2632
    JNE/SRN
    Plaintiffs,
    v. JOINT MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
    City of St. Paul, et. al.,
    Defendants.
    Sandra Harrilal, et. al., Civil No. 05-461
    JNE/SRN
    Plaintiffs,
    v.
    Steve Magner, et. al.,
    Defendants.
    Thomas J. Gallagher, et. al., Civil No. 05-1348
    JNE/SRN
    Plaintiffs,
    v.
    Steve Magner, et. al.,
    Defendants.
    Plaintiffs in Frank J. Steinhauser, III, et al., Plaintiffs Sandra Harrilal and Steven R. Johnson in Sandra Harrilal, et al., and Plaintiffs in Thomas J. Gallagher, et al., through their
    Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 41 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 1 of 9

    2
    undersigned counsel, submit this Joint Memorandum of Law in support of Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Discovery.
    INTRODUCTION
    Plaintiffs’ and Defendants’ counsel conferred on March 12, 2007, regarding the Defendants’ failure to provide answers to interrogatories and responses to discovery requests by discovery due dates of March 1, 2007 and March 2, 2007.
    The Court’s Scheduling Order includes a deadline for serving and filing non-dispositive motions of March 15, 2007. Because Defendants’ have failed to provide answers to interrogatories and responses to document requests before the non-dispositive motion deadline, Plaintiffs have filed the present motion in order to preserve their right to enforce the discovery Rules related to Defendants’ failure to comply with the http://www.mnd.uscourts.gov/local_rules/local_rules.pdf

    Rules and related to any further non-compliance by Defendants.
    FACTS
    Plaintiffs’ counsel in the Gallagher, et al., case served Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents via personal service, hand delivery, to Ms. Seeba at her offices on January 30, 2007. Affidavit of Matthew Engel dated March 15, 2007, Ex. A.
    Defendants failed to serve Answers to Interrogatories and Responses to Document Requests within the 30 day period allowed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(3) and 34(b). See Engel Aff., paragraph 3.
    Plaintiffs’ counsel in the Steinhauser, et al., and Harrilal, et al. cases served Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents via personal service by hand
    Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 41 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 2 of 9

    3
    delivery, to Ms. Seeba at her offices on January 31, 2007. See Affidavit of John R. Shoemaker dated March 15, 2007, paragraph 2 and Exhibit “A,” thereto.
    Defendants failed to serve Answers to Interrogatories and Responses to Document Requests within the 30 day period allowed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(3) and 34(b). See Aff. Shoemaker, paragraph 3.
    On March 9, 2007, Counsel for the Steinhauser and Harrilal Plaintiffs forwarded a letter to Defendants’ counsel by facsimile transmission noting the failure of Defendants to timely respond to the served discovery requests and scheduling a conference to discuss the matter in an attempt to obtain responses without Court involvement. See Aff. Shoemaker, paragraph 4, and Exhibit “B,” thereto.
    On March 12, 2007, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 (a)(2)(A), counsel for the Plaintiffs conferred in good faith with Ms. Seeba, attorney for Defendants, in an attempt to resolve the discovery dispute regarding Defendants’ failure to respond to Plaintiffs’ requests for production of documents and interrogatories within the time permitted by the Rules. See Shoemaker Aff., paragraph 5.
    During the meeting on March 12, 2007, Ms. Seeba made clear that Defendants’ responses to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests and answers to interrogatories would not be served on Plaintiffs before the non-dispositive motion deadline of March 15, 2007. See Shoemaker Aff., paragraph 6.
    Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 41 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 3 of 9

    4
    Plaintiffs’ counsel informed Ms. Seeba that due to the deadline of March 15, 2007, for filing and serving motions to compel discovery, Plaintiffs found it necessary to prepare a motion to compel for filing by the deadline. See Shoemaker Aff., paragraph 7.
    Plaintiffs’ counsel agreed to allow Defendants’ counsel to serve answers to interrogatories and responses to requests for production of documents by March 30, 2007, with Plaintiffs seeking to obtain a hearing date on the motion to compel for a date after the middle of April, 2007. See Shoemaker Aff., paragraph 8.
    Ms. Seeba indicated that certain documentation subject to the Plaintiffs’ requests for documents would be available for review by Plaintiffs’ counsel starting March 17, 2007, and additional documentation would be made available for review on a continuing basis over the remainder of March 2007 and into early April 2007. See Shoemaker Aff., paragraph 8. Plaintiffs agreed to perform interim document review sessions as Defendants’ counsel obtained documents from the various departments within the City of St. Paul. See Shoemaker Aff., paragraph 8.
    On March 13, 2007, for the Gallagher Plaintiffs forwarded a second letter to counsel for Defendants concerning Defendant’s failure to serve complete discovery responses and confirming discussion of counsel during the March 12, 2007 conference. See Engel’s Aff., paragraph 8, and Exhibit “ B,” thereto.
    On March 14, 2007, Counsel for the Steinhauser and Harrilal Plaintiffs forwarded a follow-up letter to counsel for Defendants concerning Defendant’s failure to serve complete discovery responses before the non-dispositive motion deadline and confirming the
    Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 41 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 4 of 9

    5
    discussions of counsel at the March 12, 2007 conference. See Shoemaker Aff., paragraph 9 and Exhibit “C,” thereto.
    STANDARD OF REVIEW
    Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) permits discovery into any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the claim or defense of any party. Information sought in discovery need not be admissible at trial, so long as it appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1) (West 2007).
    Interrogatories may relate to any matters which can be inquired into under Rule 26(b)(1), and the answers may be used to the extent permitted by the rules of evidence. Fed.R.Civ.P. 33(c) (West 2007).
    Requests for production of documents may relate to “any designated documents…which constitute or contain matters within the scope of Rule 26(b)…” Fed.R.Civ.P. 34(a) (West 2007).
    ARGUMENT
    Plaintiffs in Steinhauser, et al., Harrilal, et al. and Gallagher, et al. seek to compel Defendants to serve Responses to Plaintiffs' Requests for Production of Documents and Answers to Interrogatories. Rule 33(b)(3) provides that answers to interrogatories shall be served within 30 days of service. Rule 34(b) provides that responses to requests for production of documents shall be served within 30 days of service. Fed.R.Civ.P., 33 (b)(3) (West 2007).
    Rule 37(a)(2)(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a party may
    Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 41 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 5 of 9

    6
    motion the Court for an Order compelling another party to properly respond to discovery requests. Fed.R.Civ.P., 37 (a)(2)(a) (West 2007).
    Rule 37 requires certification that the party seeking an order to compel discovery attempted to resolve the discovery dispute by meeting and conferring with the opposing counsel, or at least attempting to meet with opposing counsel to discuss the relevant issues before filing the motion. Local Rule 37.1 also requires the same efforts to resolve the dispute.
    Plaintiffs have complied with the requirements of Rule 37. See Aff. of Engel and Aff. of Shoemaker.
    The Defendants failed to respond by March 1, 2007, for the Gallagher discovery requests and by March 2, 2007, for the Steinhauser and Harrilal discovery requests. Additionally, Defendants failed to provide answers to the interrogatories and requests for production of documents by the non-dispositive motion deadline of March 15, 2007 set forth in the Court’s Pre-trial Scheduling Order.
    As a result, Plaintiffs’ counsel was forced to bring the present motion in order to preserve Plaintiffs’ rights to receive from Defendants written responses to the subject discovery requests and to ensure that those responses comply with the discovery rules.
    At this time, Plaintiffs seek from Defendants complete responses to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests including formal written answers to all interrogatories and formal written responses to each of the document requests.
    Because Defendants have not served their answers and responses by the time of the filing of this motion, Plaintiffs’ are unable to address any eventual objection by Defendants or
    Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 41 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 6 of 9

    7
    the inadequacy of any response. When Defendants do submit their discovery responses, Plaintiffs anticipate that Defendants may present certain objections to Plaintiffs’ interrogatories and document requests.
    Plaintiffs submit that Defendants have waived their right to objection to fully answering each interrogatory due to Defendants’ failure to answer the interrogatories and serve any objections they may have had by the deadline for service of their answers under Rule 33.
    Rule 33 (b)(3) and (4), provides that the party upon whom the interrogatories have been served shall serve objections within 30 days after the service of the interrogatories and any ground not stated in a timely objection is waived unless the party’s failure to object is excused by the court for good cause shown. Fed.R.Civ.P. 33(b)(3) and (4)(West 2007).
    Plaintiffs further submit that Defendants have waived their right to make any objections to Plaintiffs’ requests for production of documents by not complying with Rule 34 of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure.
    Rule 34 (b) provides that if a party desires to object to a request for documents, or any part thereof, the objecting party must state the reasons for such objection in its written response within 30 days of service upon that party of such document request. Fed.R.Civ.P. 34(b) (West 2007).
    Plaintiffs’ counsel have made clear to Defendants’ counsel their intent to preserve Plaintiffs’ right to object to Defendants’ answers to interrogatories and responses to requests for production of documents when and if Defendants finally serve their discovery responses.
    Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 41 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 7 of 9

    8
    Rule 37 (a) (4) provides that, “[i]f the motion is granted or if the disclosure or requested discovery is provided after the motion was filed, the court shall, after affording an opportunity to be heard, require the party or deponent whose conduct necessitated the motion or the party or attorney advising such conduct or both of them to pay to the moving party the reasonable expenses incurred in making the motion, including attorney’s fees.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(4)(A) (West 2007). Certain limited circumstances are set out in Rule 37 (a)(4)(A) where the Court is authorized to forgo an award of costs and fees to the movant. Id.
    Plaintiffs seek reimbursement for the expenses and attorney’s fees incurred herein as a result of Defendants’ failure to comply with the Rules.
    CONCLUSION
    For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiffs request that their motion to compel discovery be granted. Plaintiffs also request an award of the Court for reasonable attorney fees and costs in bringing this motion.
    Respectfully submitted,
    THE ENGEL FIRM, PLLC
    Dated: March 15, 2007 By: s/ Matthew A. Engel
    Matthew A. Engel (Attorney Lic. #315400)
    11282 86th Avenue North
    Maple Grove, Minnesota 55369
    T: (763) 416-9088
    F: (763) 416-9089
    Attorney for Plaintiffs Gallagher, et. al.
    SHOEMAKER & SHOEMAKER, P.L.L.C.
    Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 41 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 8 of 9

    9
    Dated: March 15, 2007 By: s/ John R. Shoemaker
    John R. Shoemaker (Attorney Lic. #161561)
    Centennial Lakes Office Park
    7701 France Avenue South, Suite 200
    Edina, Minnesota 55435
    (952) 841-6375
    Attorneys for Plaintiffs Steinhauser, et. al. Attorneys for Plaintiffs Harrilal, et. al.
    Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 41 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 9 of 9

    9:44 AM