A few weeks a strange series of incident occurred involving what should have been a routine medical marijuana case. In most counties, medical marijuana is a rather straightforward issue. As long as the individuals have valid medical marijuana cards, the state and local law enforcement does not get involved. However, our understanding is that Yolo County, despite state law and county orders, refuses to recognize state law, only federal law.
So, three individuals were arrested transporting medical marijuana to a dispensary. They all have valid 215 medical marijuana cards. Several people have told the Vanguard that in any other county there would have been no arrest.
Attorney David Dratman appeared as a friend of the court, initially not representing anyone officially. Deputy DA Ryan Couzens, attempted to argue at this point that the $1 million bail written on the defendant’s paperwork at the jail was not a mistake, and that it should be upheld.
Judge Janine Beronio attempted to figure out how the bail got set for a $1 million when the schedule was $100,000. Turns out it was a mistake, and she ordered it corrected. However, Mr. Couzens tried to argue that Judge Beronio had no authority to correct the mistake.
Mr. Dratman had to pull out transcripts and penal codes to argue that she could change it to the correct bail schedule. Judge Beronio got angry with Mr. Couzens and argued that she could indeed correct the mistake.
At this point Mr. Couzens went further into his bag of tricks and asked for a 1275 hold, based upon the amount of marijuana that had been involved in the transaction. A 1275 hold is a means by which the prosecutor can put a hold on the acceptance of bail until it can be shown that the bail was not feloniously obtained. This is an improvement on old laws, and the burden is now on the prosecutor to establish probable cause that some portion of the bail was feloniously obtained before a magistrate can place a hold on a person’s release on bail.
The burden is now very high in order to obtain such a hold. In this case, Mr. Dratman objected, arguing that there was no basis for it. After discussion, Judge Beronio denied the 1275 hold.
That is when things got even more interesting. When the defendants showed up in court the following Thursday afternoon, Judge Beronio disclosed that there was an affidavit in the file and an order signed by Judge Basha that had imposed a 1275 hold. Someone from the DA’s office, apparently not a lawyer, had filed a request with Judge Basha without mentioning Judge Beronio’s denial of the 1275 hold.
When Judge Basha geot word of what happened, he became very angry, believing that someone had attempted an end-run. There are a lot of theories as to what happened. One is that the prosecutor simply tried an end-run around Judge Beronio’s ruling by filing the motion with Judge Basha.
What happened officially is that YONET (Yolo Narcotics Enforcement Team) went to Judge Basha and asked for a 1275 hold on their own. They even put an officer on the stand testifying that that is what happened.
Defense Attorney David Dratman would not comment on the situation to the Vanguard. However, there seems a good deal of skepticism as to whether YONET would involve themselves in this way and why would they go to Judge Basha, who presides over family law court? The entire incident is bizarre.
Presiding Judge Rosenberg got involved at this point, and struck the 1275 affidavit to remove the hold. Judge Beronio then released all of the defendants on supervised OR (own recognizance).
The next hearing in this case is schedule for September 27.
This case has already had a number of strange machinations. The fact that it would be ending up in state court is strange. The mistake on the bail schedule adds to the problem. The DA’s office is always trying to keep people in custody, so that part is not that strange, but how Judge Basha, who presides over family law court, would get involved is very bizarre.
Would YONET really have filed a 1275 motion to a Judge that was not involved in this case, on their own, without any direction from the DA’s office? While I would say it bears investigation, that is not likely to occur.
Once Judge Rosenberg, the presiding judge of the courts, took over the matter, he handled it almost entirely in chambers. Once they got the defendants released on supervised OR, the attorneys involved no longer had an interest in making waves over the matter.
The bottom line is that this case is worth watching for a number of reasons. Why Yolo County is wasting scarce resources on a case that is lawful under California law is anyone’s guess. This is another example of why the public ought to be skeptical when the DA’s office and law enforcement in this county cries poverty.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
“….how Judge Basha, who again presides over the family law court would get involved is very bizarre.”
Judges rotate coverage of court business when the court is not in session. Likely, Judge Basha,although on a Family Court assignment, had “the OD” at that time.
There’s absolutely nothing bizarre about family court judge, former county council, Steve Basha, unsurping the authority of another judicial officer in order for DA Reisig to convict.
Steve Basha, long ago demonstrated that his ethics are similar to a common criminal street gang. Basha can’t uphold the law nor judicial oath; and while Basha pretends to be whip lashed Basha knowingly interfered with another judge’s ruling.
As we have argued, the Hon. Steve Basha, is nothing less than a criminal dawning a robe that was handed to him. Steve Basha, as county council, knowingly authorized Yolo to appt now Sac probation chief, Don L. Meyer, out from under a fabricated felony PC 832.5 investigation. Basha then used the appointed position and later the judicial appt to conceal these criminal facts along with the impotent former supervisor, now judge, Dave Rosenberg.
Basha would never had been appointed unless Basha knowingly participated in acts as council that demonstrated that Steve Basha is nothing more than a patsy for county officials. Anything to get the judicial appointment, eh, Steve Basha.
Infact, these marijuana “offenses” are nothing compared to the threats, obstruction, concealment and fabrication of a multi count felony investigation on behalf of state foster youth; BUT Yolo county doesn’t have to recognize state law.
Rosenberg, will assure again this year that the county grand jury does not investigate these criminal allegations (5th year in a row).
Steve Basha is the kind of state judge that we’d all be better off with out. The Yolo court appears not have one judge that upholds the law, canons, & protects the public interest.
See CV06-581; filed in the Yolo court that outlined the criminal scheme that Steve Basha fueled and never wants to see daylight.
Yolo County Board of Supervisors
625 Court Street
Woodland, California 95695
October 13, 2009
Jacob Tyler Wallace
1210 N. Cherokee Avenue Apt. 316
Hollywood, California 90038
323-309-3115
Re: Government Code 27641: Accusation Against California attorney acting as Assistant County Council, Daniel Carl Cederborg State Bar # 124260 for the subversion of GC 27641 filed against Cederborg’s superior county council and acting CAO, Robyn Truitt Drivon & Judge Steve Basha; Drivon’s former boss. Brown Act violation; violated Article 1; Rules Governing Meetings; Sec.2-1.101; Sec 2-1.113; Sec 2-1.208.
Allegations:
1)ACC Cederborg advised the supervisor’s to meet and address GC 27861 filed September 11, 2009, which was an undisclosed meeting held by local elected officials to avoid public scrutiny by holding secret “workshops” and “study sessions.” That resulted in the county council flipping the GC 27641 into a ‘claim’ against the county now being handled by Yolo Human Resources.
2)ACC Cederborg told Wallace by phone on October 12, 2009 (530-666-8277) that Yolo had already investigated now Sacramento Probation Chief, Don Meyer, for the subversion, concealment and the production of a falsified law enforcement investigation by a subordinate Teri Hall, days before Yolo county appointed CPO Don Meyer. The facts refute that.
3)ACC Cederborg told Wallace that Yolo had no liability as Yolo did not know of CPO Don Meyer’ alleged criminal acts before the appointment and that the acts took place in another county anyway. The facts refute that.
4)ACC Cederborg told Wallace that the allegations against CPO Don Meyer had been lawfully investigated outside of Yolo. The facts refute that.
5)ACC Cederborg told Wallace that the Yolo board chair, McGowan and CAO, Robyn Truitt Drivon can privately decide on what matters appear on the BOS agenda as received correspondence. The complaint was filed against Robyn Truitt Drivon and the GC 27641 never appeared as official received correspondence as of Oct 13, 2009. The facts refute that. But the GC 27641 was in fact acted upon anyway.
6)ACC Cederborg told Wallace the GC 27641 included several supervisor’s and was fatal as the board had no quorum to act but ACC Cederborg then stated the GC 27641 had been acted upon. How would the ACC know that before a public hearing? Cited supervisor’s never had the chance to publicly oppose that allegation or disqualify themselves. ACC Cederborg’s acts continue to conceal the allegations against Truitt and Judge Steve Basha.
Page 2 GC 27641 Filed Against Assistant County Council, Daniel Carl Cederborg
October 13, 2009
7)Wallace received a phone call from Yolo Risk Assessment Manager, Hugo Martinez, on Friday, October 2, 2009 (530-666-8425). Mr. Martinez stated that he had no authority to make the call nor the authority to address the GC complaint and was doing so due to the mistake of another county employee. Mr. Martinez participated in an in depth conversation and stated the county had 90-days to respond. Mr. Martinez was a tool used by ACC Cederborg to subvert the public disclosure and public handling of the GC 27641 complaint; where ever that may have led.
8)Daniel Carl Cederborg, Yolo County Council subordinate addressed allegations against the county council. Cederborg should have recused himself for a conflict of interest and should have allowed the accusations to be cited as official board correspondence, publicly discussed and acted upon per Yolo county’s Article 1; Rules Governing Meetings and the Brown Act. No written response has been received to date though ACC Cederborg stated Human Resources had responded in writing.
9)ACC Cederborg’s attempt to have the GC 27641 flipped into a claim against the county; counters a civil & penal code false claims act suit(s) CV06-581 filed in the Yolo superior court in 2006, where Yolo and Calaveras official’s (CV 32550) jointly hired the law firm of Angelo, Kilday & Kilduff with public funds to dismantle the suit(s) after the grand jury and an earlier GC 27641 complaint was subverted.
Jake Wallace
DPD: However, our understanding is that Yolo County, despite state law and county orders, refuses to recognize state law, only federal law.
DPD: Why Yolo County is wasting scarce resources on a case that is lawful under California law is anyone’s guess.
The case in question not withstanding, The DA is UNDER NO OBLIGATION TO RECOGNIZE STATE LAW, because there is a federal ban on marijuana. It doesn’t matter that california passed medical marijuana. The state had no business doing so because it came into direct conflict with existing federal law. The state cannot simply establish medical marijuana just because it sounds politically correct in California. just because california got away with it and the feds didn’t step in, doesn’t make the law valid.
The weird thing about all this is that the “law and order” types who insist on prosecuting marijuana laws are the best thing the drug gangs have going for them. They keep the markets high and efficient.
If I ran a drug gang, I would send the DA a box of cookies and a thank-you card.
I know of many instances of Yolo County law enforcement respecting state law regarding medical marijuana (6 plants and/or up to 8 oz. for personal use). The difference here may be the large quantity and the fact that it was being transported for sale.
Just what is happening up in Woodland? Really strange that the officers would get involved in a case where the people were already arrested and already passed to the Court? Really weird that the Asst. DA wouldn’t know that YONET officers were contacting another Judge with a petition regarding his case?
dmg: “The bottom line is that this case is worth watching for a number of reasons. Why Yolo County is wasting scarce resources on a case that is lawful under California law is anyone’s guess. This is another example of why the public ought to be skeptical when the DA’s office and law enforcement in this county cries poverty.”
I have no doubt the DA is trying to discourage the proliferation of medical pot shops in Yolo County, as has occurred in LA and Sacramento.
Who funds YONET? By that, I mean, who makes the decision in Yolo County to direct money toward their efforts? Is it the Sheriff? The Board of Supervisors? Is the funding coming directly from the state?
It seems to me if the money funding YONET is due to a policy decision, then the person/group in the county making that choice should end YONET’s funding, if they (or we the people) think YONET is not serving the best interests of the county.
I want to make clear that I don’t know enough about this issue to recommend YONET’s funds be cut off. I just think that would be a smart policy decision if the body funding them thinks they are not serving the public’s best interests.
Rich,
YONET is funded, at least in part, by the Byrne-Justice Assistance Grant, which falls under the USDOJ. The County and its participating cities allocate these funds for the purpose of narcotic enforcement in Yolo County, by way of a “task force.” I believe there is a Memorandum of Understanding in which the cities agree to allocate their monies to the County, which then reallocates it to the DA’s office (who oversees YONET). The DA’s office in turn utilizes said monies to fund YONET and I believe at least one prosecutor whose job is to vertically prosecute major narcotics crimes.
I think the citys’ council members vote to approve the allocation of their JAG funds to Yolo County. I don’t know who makes the decision on the County level, but I assume it’s the BOS.
JAG monies can be used for other criminal justice purposes, not just law enforcement and prosecution programs. One alternative, which I support, would be to use the JAG monies (or some of it anyway) to help fund the County’s diversion (for ‘criminal drug offenders’) or alternative sentencing programs. Drug treatment programs desperately need additional funding.
Interestingly, the BOS had considered requiring those taking part in the diversion program and other “Drug Court” programs to pay for their own drug tests and other court mandated programs they are required to attend or participate in. After both PD Olson and Sheriff Prieto weighed in and warned the BOS of exactly how dire the consequences would be, they decided not to go ahead with that plan. Suffice it to say that these programs need additional funding throughout the state and perhaps the JAG funding is one way of addressing these budgetary problems “Drug Courts” are facing.
Super, thank you.
Judge Basha is not the family law judge. He is the children dependency and delinquency judge. As such he is a regualarly sitting superior court judge when he was probably the judge on call for warrants that particular day. Thats how it happened. Earlier we had a case where the juvenile division of the D.A.’s office filed a criminal complaint in the memorial park case and Mr. Cousins filed the same charges directly in adult court against the same child defendants. That also ended up in Judges Basha, Rosenberg and commisioner Berronio’s courts and was resolved in the defendants favor