Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Sheriff Michael Carona

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Sheriff Michael Carona

    As some of you know, the Orange County Sheriff Michael Corana has been indicted on various serious federal charges that portray him as a greedy, arrogant person with little regard for the law when it applies to him...

    This isn't something new, it's finally out in the open though and he is innocent until proven quilty....but when the DOJ comes after somebody they usually win about 90% of the time, regardless of rank or stature" Think Enron execs, michael vick"

    My question is.....Can a LE Department effectively and CREDIBLY enforce the law when they're boss is hand-cuffed in a federal court? If yes explain please, and if no, and if there is no political will to throw him out of power(he refuses to resign) Then what about the deputies? would they(or you) demand he atleast steps aside, if only temporarily, so someone can focus they're entire time to fighting crime and not a federal indictment?
    Last edited by Aco275RGR; 11-05-2007, 07:58 PM. Reason: Forgot something

  • #2
    Like any other elected "official" he's in until such time as
    1) The voters remove him from office.
    2) He resigns.
    3) He's convicted of a felony and disqualified to hold the elected office.

    Too bad he only cares so much about himself. If he really cared about the department, he'd resign and spare the working deputies all this grief and drama.
    "I'm not fluent in the language of violence, but I know enough to get around in places where it's spoken."

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Aco275RGR View Post
      My question is.....Can a LE Department effectively and CREDIBLY enforce the law when they're boss is hand-cuffed in a federal court? If yes explain please, and if no, and if there is no political will to throw him out of power(he refuses to resign) Then what about the deputies? would they(or you) demand he atleast steps aside, if only temporarily, so someone can focus they're entire time to fighting crime and not a federal indictment?
      While I was aware of the indictments, I was unaware that the Sheriff's trial was already in progress. I was also unaware that his conduct in court was so egregious that it was necessary for the court to order that he be handcuffed. When did this come about?

      In any case, within the department their is an organizational structure and a chain of command. In the sheriff's absence the department will continue to operate effectively.

      As Pulicords said, the position of Sheriff is an elected one. The winner can only be removed through death, resignation or a felony conviction, which disqualifies him from holding public office. Absent those circumstances, those who attempt to remove him or demand that he step aside would be putting their own self interests above the law (which, I believe is what the Sheriff is on trial for doing).

      As far as whether the department can be credible - well credibility is in the eye of the beholder. What will be hardest for the department is dealing with someone like yourself who has distorted the facts and created a no win situation for the deputies to deal with. In you anger over this situation your post has suggested that the Sheriff is currently sitting handcuffed in court when we know that's not the case. That's simply not fair of you. You then implied that the Sheriffs Department will not be able to maintain credibility unless the deputies themselves violate the law by throwing the Sheriff out of office when the grounds for doing so legally don't exist yet. So, it's not ok in your book for the Sheriff to break the law, but you want the deputies to break the law and violate the sheriff's rights. Under the circumstances you propose, there is no way for the department to maintain its credibility. If the deputies take no action then they are (in your book) acquiescing to the Sheriff's alleged misconduct. But if they do what you want, they are violating the Sheriff's rights and engaging in misconduct themselves. Either way, you have created a no win situation for them.
      Going too far is half the pleasure of not getting anywhere

      Comment


      • #4
        What will be hardest for the department is dealing with someone like yourself who has distorted the facts
        The Sheriff is currently sitting handcuffed in court when we know that's not the case
        Below is a link to a local southern california news outlet...play close attention to the first paragraph.

        http://cbs2.com/local/local_story_305071221.html



        Absent those circumstances, those who attempt to remove him or demand that he step aside would be putting their own self interests above the law
        How is bringing credibility back to the prestigous position of SHERIFF putting someones self intrests above anything? That is what i was asking you guys....would you tolerate a stubborn leader under intense fire from the federal branch of justice to remain in office, be a HUGE distraction and a stain on the department? and if NO, would you agree that his own people need to ask him to step aside.

        I does not necessarily have to be permanent, it could be temporary while he deals with his federal indictment and all those felony charges. I do not see how smooth operations can move when EVERYBODY every where he goes will be thinking about his situation....How exactly can he speak at say, a conference dealing with low level corruption, and conspiracy?

        I'm not trying to start a fight, but i HIGHLY doubt the federal government really wants or needs to go after a innocent SHERIFF...what the heck do they get out of it except a huge embaressment and possible lawsuit?

        BTW: What laws exactly am i asking the deputies to break and become criminals?

        Comment


        • #5
          The employees of the Sheriff's Department could do all the asking they'd want, but it wouldn't make any difference. As previously posted, The Sheriff (Corona) is an elected official. Just like a mayor, governor, city council members or county board of supervisors, or members of congress, elected officials can remain in office after felony charges have been filed, but a conviction hasn't been obtained.

          If a deputy sheriff was formally charged with a felony offense, the sheriff could legally fire him or simply suspend (with or without pay) the employee until the criminal charge was adjudicated and an administrative investigation (proving wrongful conduct) was completed. That's what usually occurs, but obviously this isn't a typical situation. If the sheriff decides he's going to stay in office (pending the trial verdict), little can be done, short of a recall election.
          "I'm not fluent in the language of violence, but I know enough to get around in places where it's spoken."

          Comment


          • #6
            [QUOTE=Aco275RGR;1007038]How is bringing credibility back to the prestigous position of SHERIFF putting someones self intrests above anything? That is what i was asking you guys....would you tolerate a stubborn leader under intense fire from the federal branch of justice to remain in office, be a HUGE distraction and a stain on the department? and if NO, would you agree that his own people need to ask him to step aside.

            I does not necessarily have to be permanent, it could be temporary while he deals with his federal indictment and all those felony charges. I do not see how smooth operations can move when EVERYBODY every where he goes will be thinking about his situation....How exactly can he speak at say, a conference dealing with low level corruption, and conspiracy? /[QUOTE]

            As far as distractions are concerned, of course this is an embarrassment. But I doubt that anyone in the department is saying, "I am so beside myself over this matter that I just can't bring myself to respond to calls, arrest criminals or investigate crimes any more." Rest assured, its still business as usual.

            In your initial post you indicated that the entire Sheriff's Department had lost credibility due to the acts of the Sheriff. After several people responded, you switched gears and indicated that instead, it was just the Sheriff who had lost credibility and now you're talking about his inability to speak at conferences on corruption and conspiracy. It seems like you keep changing the dynamics of your question, which makes me lose any incentive to continue trying to answer you. As I said before, credibility is in the eye of the beholder. You're just going to have to make do with that.

            As far as asking the sheriff to step down - all the public has are allegations of wrongdoing with no offer of proof by the prosecution. This doesn't even come remotely close to meeting the criteria for removal from elected office, so asking the sheriff to step down would be inappropriate at this time. It would be like the members of o.com asking you to step down from your job because they thought you were wrong to suggest the sheriff's deputies should denounce their boss. Its a great political gesture and makes a good headline, but it just isn't done.
            Going too far is half the pleasure of not getting anywhere

            Comment


            • #7
              If the sheriff believes he is innocent, or if he just believes he can beat the rap, he won't resign because he'll remain in office when the trial is over. If he thinks he's guilty, there is no benefit to him resigning, as he continues to collect his pay and benefits until he is forced from office because of the felony conviction. I submit that anyone who has done what he is accused of doing isn't going to have a lot of heartache over what damage this is doing to his agency.

              I'm remembering former Federal District Court Judge Harry Claiborne, who was convicted of tax fraud and spent time in a federal prison. Federal judges are appointed for life, and only Congress can remove them by impeachment. He could have "done the right thing" and resigned., but he continued to collect his full salary and bennies while a federal inmate, so what was in it for him? I'll never forget the image I saw on TV of Harry walking down the aisle to the well of the House of Representatives, wearing jail khakis and escorted by two deputy U.S. Marshals, so he could testify at his own impeachment trial. He was impeached and removed from office, but it literally took an act of Congress to do that.
              Tim Dees, now writing as a plain old forum member, his superpowers lost to an encounter with gold kryptonite.

              Comment


              • #8
                During his first appearance in Federal Court he had to surrender to the U.S. Marshall's Office in Santa Ana. Irrespective of his political position, the USMS has a policy that ALL FELONS SHALL be handcuffed, until such time as bail is assigned and met, while making appearances before a magistrate. Not only was he handcuffed, he was locked up in a holding cell for a couple of hours until bail could be posted. His tie, belt, etc were removed while in lockup as policy also dictates.

                He made a plea appearance yesterday (11/5) and a plea of not guilty was rendered. In the interim, movement has been made to have the administrative command staff take over all daily operations when the Sheriff is unavailable due to appearances.

                One note: Both of his former associates (Jaramillo and Haidl) have turned on him. His alleged co-conspirator/mistress is expected to turn on him as is the Attorney pal.

                There is going to be a long road of travel before all is said and done in Orange County.
                Be courteous to all, but intimate with few, and let those few be well tried before you give them your confidence!

                [George Washington (1732 - 1799)]

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Aco275RGR View Post
                  How is bringing credibility back to the prestigous position of SHERIFF putting someones self intrests above anything? That is what i was asking you guys....would you tolerate a stubborn leader under intense fire from the federal branch of justice to remain in office, be a HUGE distraction and a stain on the department? and if NO, would you agree that his own people need to ask him to step aside.
                  I recall the days of Daryl Gates in the early 90's. He would tell his folllowers that, "Hey, they're trying to get at you, through me - I'm here to protect you!" Like many children of a dysfunctional family, the true believers rallied around their sick father. I didn't buy into it for one minute.

                  The problem is, always, whether it's Daryl Gates, Richard Nixon, Saddam Hussein, Kenneth Lay (the Enron chief), Bernie Parks, Mike Carona, or ____(fill in the name of turd who's risen to top of the bowl)____, they are always surrounded by "Yes" people, who laugh at their jokes, tell them their ideas are the better ones, keep outsiders with differing views away from them, and keep the myth of their perceived power alive.

                  No one, in Carona's inner circle will have the cajones to say, "Gee, boss, for the good of the organization, you should step down." Anyone who does, would be demoted, fired, or organizationally buried deeply.
                  "You're never fully dressed without a smile."

                  Pain is inevitable, suffering is optional.

                  Three things I know for sure: (1) No bad deed goes unrewarded, (2) No good deed goes unpunished, and (3) It is entirely possible to push the most devoted, loyal and caring person beyond the point where they no longer give a 5h!t.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by SgtCHP View Post
                    During his first appearance in Federal Court he had to surrender to the U.S. Marshall's Office in Santa Ana. Irrespective of his political position, the USMS has a policy that ALL FELONS SHALL be handcuffed, until such time as bail is assigned and met, while making appearances before a magistrate. Not only was he handcuffed, he was locked up in a holding cell for a couple of hours until bail could be posted. His tie, belt, etc were removed while in lockup as policy also dictates.
                    I understand. But that was just to enter a plea and Carona was released after that. The wording of Aco's initial post implied that the actual trial (which will be weeks, if not months long) was in progress, that Carona was being compelled to sit through the entire trial in cuffs (which is only reserved for combative defendants) and that no one was running the department in the Sheriff's absence. I just found it annoying.
                    Going too far is half the pleasure of not getting anywhere

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      edit. Not LEO
                      Last edited by FarmTruk; 11-07-2007, 10:31 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by L-1 View Post
                        I understand. But that was just to enter a plea and Carona was released after that. The wording of Aco's initial post implied that the actual trial (which will be weeks, if not months long) was in progress, that Carona was being compelled to sit through the entire trial in cuffs (which is only reserved for combative defendants) and that no one was running the department in the Sheriff's absence. I just found it annoying.
                        Umm...i'm not sure where the word "trial" ever came up in my original post...The word INDICTED did however make it's way into my original post. I must be one briliant, creative, vague writer to convince anyone that my original post implied a TRIAL was in progress.

                        I'm not sure what i have done to offend you.


                        In other news, On monday the Sheriff of Orange County found him self surrounded by career criminals such as gang members and violent thugs while he entered his pleas of not guilty to multiple felonies....after which he went on to continue running the department....Like someone said earlier, if he is guilty of what he has done(and the evidence is compelling) he couldn't careless about what he is doing to his position or the department.
                        Last edited by Aco275RGR; 11-06-2007, 06:44 PM. Reason: none

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Aco275RGR View Post
                          Umm...i'm not sure where the word "trial" ever came up in my original post...The word INDICTED did however make it's way into my original post. I must be one briliant, creative, vague writer to convince anyone that my original post implied a TRIAL was in progress.
                          Actually, your post read, "My question is.....Can a LE Department effectively and CREDIBLY enforce the law when they're boss is hand-cuffed in a federal court? " The implication was that the Sheriff was no longer available to manage day to day operation of his department because he was sitting manacled in a courtroom somewhere for a prolonged proceeding. After all, if he had just entered a plea and been released, he would have been back at his desk to run things, wouldn't he?

                          Originally posted by Aco275RGR View Post
                          ....if he is guilty of what he has done(and the evidence is compelling)....
                          Once again you confuse me. While an indictment has been released containing many damning allegations, I am not aware of any evidence that has been made public in support of those charges. So far they are just allegations and nothing more. It's early enough in the game that I doubt even Carona's attorney have received all the evidence under their discovery motions (and they would be the first ones to get it).

                          Few cops will condemn Carona without first seeing the evidence, which has not been made public. You seem to interpret that as support for him, which it is not. It's simply remaining neutral. Until the federal prosecutor actually makes his case, most cops are simply going remain neutral and refrain from rushing to judgment without the evidence.
                          Going too far is half the pleasure of not getting anywhere

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Well, it looks like he IS doing what is the right thing to do and will take a leave of abscence...good for the department and him.


                            While an indictment has been released containing many damning allegations, I am not aware of any evidence that has been made public in support of those charges.
                            I think a look at his past actions are valid enough:

                            Issuing badges and guns and even powers to arrest to cronies(like Hidle, the business man that allegedly bought his office)

                            Appointing Hidle(a businessman with 0 LE experience) as assistant sheriff?

                            Helping Hidle's son in a GANG RAPE charge by using his own lawyer and dragging the poor victims name through the mud(apparently thinking this would overcome a VIDEO TAPE those thugs made of the rape)

                            Now, i'm not a smart man or even coherent...but what kind of sheriff would even want to be associated with a case such as a GANG RAPE in defense of the thugs who did it? unless of course the boys father and the sheriff had a "close" relationship?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Aco275RGR View Post
                              Well, it looks like he IS doing what is the right thing to do and will take a leave of abscence...good for the department and him.
                              I'm happy that you will sleep much easier tonight. After belittling him for so long, I hope you will write Carona a nice note commending him for doing the right thing.

                              Originally posted by Aco275RGR View Post
                              I think a look at his past actions are valid enough:

                              Issuing badges and guns and even powers to arrest to cronies(like Hidle, the business man that allegedly bought his office)

                              Appointing Hidle(a businessman with 0 LE experience) as assistant sheriff?
                              With the consent of the County Board of Supervisors, Haidl was appointed as a civilian (non-sworn) assistant sheriff. If you're going to hammer Carona for that one, then in all fairness, you need to hammer those members of the Board of Supervisors that voted to approve his appointment as well.

                              Originally posted by Aco275RGR View Post
                              Helping Hidle's son in a GANG RAPE charge by using his own lawyer and dragging the poor victims name through the mud(apparently thinking this would overcome a VIDEO TAPE those thugs made of the rape)

                              Now, i'm not a smart man or even coherent...but what kind of sheriff would even want to be associated with a case such as a GANG RAPE in defense of the thugs who did it? unless of course the boys father and the sheriff had a "close" relationship?
                              I'm not sure I even understand that one. Are you suggesting that if an attorney represented Carona, he couldn't represent any other clients because of they were guilty, it might embarrass Carona? How does an attorney earn a living if he is prohibited from representing other clients? How is Carona compelled to accept responsibility for the actions of any past or future clients his attorney may have? I just had an attorney do my living trust. If later on that attorney represents a murderer, must I somehow bear responsibility for how that defendant is represented?

                              I'm not sure what any of this has to do with proving the indictment.

                              Again, every time one of your issues is addressed you keep switching gears and changing the subject. This makes it really hard to keep up with you, so I'm going to stop now.

                              As I said to another poster several weeks ago, best of luck with your quest and please let me know when you reach El Toboso.
                              Going too far is half the pleasure of not getting anywhere

                              Comment

                              MR300x250 Tablet

                              Collapse

                              What's Going On

                              Collapse

                              There are currently 7608 users online. 438 members and 7170 guests.

                              Most users ever online was 26,947 at 07:36 PM on 12-29-2019.

                              Welcome Ad

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X