As part of its punishment, it was barred from selling CA lottery tickets.
Well, looks like it’s back in the LOTTO biz now. See?
IDK, I don’t think California should even have a lottery.
“Sheriff Mirkarimi Confirms Valid Driver License
San Francisco, CA – Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi today announced that the matter regarding his driver license has been resolved.
“I used the public phone numbers for the DMV and traversed their process. I found them to be efficient and helpful, and after explaining the matter and filing the proper paperwork the matter has been resolved.”
Sheriff Mirkarimi was informed for the first time on Monday that the DMV had suspended his driver license, except for his ability to drive for his employment duties, for a failure to file an accident report. In fact, the Sheriff immediately reported the accident to his insurance company as well as to SFSD personnel. He was informed by his insurance company that the matter would be processed. The Sheriff learned only yesterday that his insurance provider did not file a report with the DMV as he believed. That report has now been filed.
Neither the Sheriff nor his insurance company had been notified by the DMV or any other entity regarding a license suspension or restriction. The Sheriff’s insurance coverage has remained uninterrupted.
Sheriff Mirkarimi was involved in a non-injury accident on 10/2/14. There was no damage to the City car that the Sheriff was driving but there was claimed damage to the other car. He provided his personal insurance information to the other driver as there was no City insurance information accessible in the City car.
Sheriff Mirkarimi will work with City administration on completing any remaining requirements.
I don’t know, I tell people to be sure to file their SR1 form with the DMV all the time, but nobody seems to care all that much about it. They say, “I’ll let my insurance company take care of that.” That doesn’t exactly match the rules – oh well.
Anyway, here’s the latest on this one.
“Statement on the Status of Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi’s Driver License
San Francisco, CA — Sheriff Mirkarimi has only learned today, through press inquiries, that the DMV suspended his license — except for his ability to drive for his employment duties — for his failure to properly report an accident. Neither the Sheriff nor his insurance company has ever been notified by the DMV or any other entity regarding a license suspension or restriction.
Sheriff Mirkarimi was involved in a non-injury accident on 10/2/14. The accident took place while he was driving his City vehicle. The non-injury accident resulted as the Sheriff was merging with other traffic to avoid a closed lane. There was no damage to the City car but there was damage to the other car. The Sheriff traded information with the other driver, including insurance information. He provided his personal insurance information to the other driver as there was no City insurance information accessible in the City car.
The Sheriff immediately reported the incident to his insurance company as required. Sheriff Mirkarimi was informed by his insurance company that they would take care of the matter. He has confirmed with his insurance company that his coverage has always remained in effect.
Sheriff Mirkarimi received a citation for a traffic violation by a San Francisco Police Officer in June. The Sheriff was not advised of any license suspension or restriction at that time. This citation has been resolved.
Sheriff Mirkarimi is working immediately to resolve the issue of his restricted license. He has contacted his insurance representatives to determine why the proper report was not submitted to the DMV. Sheriff Mirkarimi is expediting the resolution of the matter.”
A new release:
“San Francisco Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi Responds to Mayor Ed Lee’s Call to Rescind ICE Contact Policy
San Francisco, CA ― San Francisco Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi today delivered his response to Mayor Ed Lee’s July 14, 2015, letter [referenced here in the Examiner] calling on the San Francisco Sheriff’s Department to rescind its policy regarding contact with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
“This tragedy spotlights the need for legal clarity at every government level,” stated Sheriff Mirkarimi. “This matter requires an open and honest conversation about the legislative intent and meaning of San Francisco’s ordinances and how they comport with everyday enforcement of laws leading to deportations.”
In his response, printed in its entirety below, the Sheriff asserts that the Mayor’s request raises legal conflicts; the Sheriff asks for an open and immediate discussion, via a Board of Supervisors committee hearing, to resolve the conflicts, provide clarity, and produce a workable and fair ordinance.
July 15, 2015
The Honorable Edwin Lee
City Hall, Room 200
San Francisco, CA 94102
Dear Mayor Lee:
I received your July 14, 2015 letter regarding the San Francisco Sheriff’s Department’s (SFSD) Federal Immigration communications policy. Your letter does not provide legal clarity regarding my department’s duty under city law. Your request to immediately rescind the policy contributes to the confusion and conflict between the Sanctuary City Ordinance (Administrative Code 12H.2) and the Due Process For All Ordinance (Administrative Code 12I). I urge a resolution of these conflicts so that there is a consistent and uniform understanding of the laws.
Finger pointing around this tragedy serves no purpose other than election year politics. It would serve the public interest to have an immediate open discussion of the Sanctuary City Ordinance and the Due Process For All Ordinance. I propose that you and I and other stakeholders come before a committee hearing with the Board of Supervisors so that a resolution of the conflicts can be achieved in a meaningful and transparent way.
Your request to rescind the policy and require the SFSD to contact federal immigration officials would eviscerate the city’s Due Process For All Ordinance, an ordinance I supported and which you signed into law. Historically, the only reason for SFSD to notify federal immigration officials of an individual’s release has been in relation to honoring an immigration detainer. This practice has been curtailed by the Due Process For All Ordinance and the federal court ruling that any detention for the release of an individual to federal immigration officials without probable cause violates the Due Process Clause and the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
At present, the only request for notification SFSD has received from federal immigration officials is contained in the detainer form which the Due Process For All Ordinance prohibits SFSD from honoring, absent limited circumstances.
The only reason to now notify federal immigration officials of an individual’s release would be to facilitate the release of the individual to the federal immigration officials. This would completely circumvent the requirements and intent of the Sanctuary City Ordinance, the Due Process For All Ordinance and lead to unconstitutional detentions.
In 2013, my office worked closely with the City Attorney’s Office and the Board of Supervisors before and after the Due Process For All Ordinance was implemented to provide guidance on its provisions and effects. SFSD alerted representatives from the City Attorney’s Office, the Board of Supervisors and you of provisions of the Ordinance that posed operational and procedural problems. In early 2015, I met with the Deputy Secretary and Secretary of Homeland Security separately on two occasions to confirm San Francisco’s laws and procedures. I also expressed concern about the legality of the detainer/notification process.
I shall continue to ensure that SFSD policy as it relates to federal immigration issues is consistent with city, state, and federal laws. I therefore request legislative direction to reconcile the conflict inherent in your proposal versus city legislation prohibiting ICE detainers except in specific circumstances. Your request would require the Board of Supervisors to amend the Administrative Code as it relates to cooperation with federal immigration officials and honoring detainers.
In addition to clarifying city law, other solutions should be considered. One such solution is to propose that an Administrative Law Judge review immigration detainers and provide a warrant or finding of probable cause for those persons who federal immigration officials seek to detain.
I will continue to cooperate with any amendments to city legislation by the Board of Supervisors. I look forward to working with all city representatives including the Board of Supervisors and the City Attorney’s Office to provide legal clarity to these sensitive and complex issues.
cc London Breed, President of the Board of Supervisors
Board of Supervisors
Here’s today’s release from the SFSD:
“San Francisco Sheriff’s Department Statement Regarding Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez
The San Francisco Sheriff’s Department (SFSD) is deeply saddened by the tragic death of Ms. Steinle and offer our sincere condolences to her family and friends.
Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez was booked into the San Francisco County Jail from federal prison on a local drug-related warrant on March 26, 2015. On March 27, 2015, Mr. Lopez-Sanchez was in San Francisco Superior Court on local charges which were dismissed by the court. SFSD began confirming that Mr. Lopez-Sanchez’s federal prison time had been completed. At the time Mr. Lopez-Sanchez was booked, federal transportation orders reflected two conflicting release dates. SFSD verified that Mr. Lopez-Sanchez completed his federal prison sentence and was lawfully released from federal prison March 26, 2015. Once the SFSD confirmed that Mr. Lopez-Sanchez’s federal prison time had been completed and that he had no active warrants, he was released from San Francisco County Jail on April 15, 2015.
When Mr. Lopez-Sanchez was booked into the jail, there was no active Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) warrant or judicial order of removal for him. There was an ICE request for his detention. Once Mr. Lopez-Sanchez’s local criminal charges were dismissed, San Francisco Ordinance 130764, approved by the Board of Supervisors and signed by Mayor Ed Lee in October 2013, deemed him ineligible for extended detention. This also comports with the San Francisco Sheriff’s Department Policy on immigration detainers.
While over 300 municipalities throughout the state and country, including the City and County of San Francisco, have amended their policies regarding ICE detainers, ICE has not changed its policies or procedures to reflect that detainers are requests and not a legal basis to hold an individual. Courts including the Oregon Federal District Court in Miranda-Olivares v. Clackamas County (No. 3:12-cv-02317-ST) have ruled accordingly. In instances where a warrant or court order is obtained, individuals would be returned to ICE for deportation proceedings.”
Attended by Nancy Pelosi, Ross Mirkarimi and John Avalos.
(In years past, protests like these have taken place at the Chinese Consulate at Geary and Laguna. I wonder how Nancy Pelosi’s cell phone(s) would have done against a Man In The Middle (MITM) hack attack coming from inside the consulate, which of course is the locus of spycraft in Northern California. My GMail got hacked several hours after I checked out a Tibetan protest while carrying a Galaxy S1 years ago – this was the only time Google has ever contacted me about its concerns over possible hacking. Coincidence or not, I take out the battery of my new(er) phone when I’m walking about the area, which isn’t all that much these days, since, you know, there are fewer protests there these days. Even at this one yesterday, I was just passing through and happened to notice all the commotion. Needless to say, this kind of thing is very off-message for area “friends” of the Consulate, such as Ed Lee and the powerful and influential Rose Pak.)
ONCE MORE UNTO THE BREACH, DEAR READERS, ONCE MORE:
“Assembly race between Chiu, Campos finally picks up steam. The showdown between Supervisors David Chiu and David Campos in the race to represent San Francisco in the state Assembly may be just about to get a lot more interesting.
WELL, YES THE RACE IS MORE BORING-ER THAN AVERAGE, SURE. BUT NEVIUS, NOTHING’S REALLY CHANGED LATELY AND YOU KNOW THAT, NEVE. NOW, WHY WOULD NEVE WANT TO ANNOUNCE NEWS WHEN THERE REALLY ISN’T ANY NEWS?
1. HE MORE OR LESS NEEDS TO HAVE NEWS ELSE HE DOESN’T HAVE MUCH OF A REASON TO WRITE ON THIS TOPIC.
2. HE STRONGLY SUPPORTS ONE CANDIDATE OVER ANOTHER, SO HE WANTS TO DRAW ATTENTION TO AN ISSUE HE THINKS IS HELPFUL TO HIS CANDIDATE.
3. AND, MOST IMPORTANTLY, CW NEVIUS IS STILL UPSET, VERY UPSET OVER ROSS MIRKARIMI STILL BEING THE ELECTED SHERIFF OF SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY AND HE WANTS TO METE OUT PUNISHMENT TO THOSE WHO DEFIED CW NEVIUS AND THE POLITICAL FACTION OF CW NEVIUS
OH, BUT I INTERRUPTED, PLEASE CARRY ON, NEVE
Chiu, the current president of the Board of Supervisors, had a double-digit lead in polls as recently as February. But lately the margin has been closing, indicating that Campos’ aggressive attacks are having some effect. In response, Chiu may go on the offensive.
BOY, WITH WHOM HAVE YOU BEEN TALKING, NEVE? SOMETIMES IT WOULD HELP IF YOU JUST CAME OUT WITH THINGS INSTEAD OF IMPLYING THAT YOU’RE ALL-KNOWING AND ALL-SEEING, JUST SAYING.
The problem is that Chiu, with an early lead in the polls, has preferred to sit back and talk policy while Campos has gone on the attack.From the start, Campos has painted Chiu as the pawn of big developers and an untrustworthy politician who was elected as a progressive but then moved to the business-friendly middle of the road. Chiu has responded with … well, not very much.
MAN, NEVE, YOU SEEM TO THINK ALL THE ELECTEDS IN YOUR NEW HOME OF SAN FRANCISCO ARE A BUNCH OF PANSIES, HUH? LIKE THEY TELL _YOU_ HOW MUCH PROP B SUCKS , BUT YOU CAN’T QUOTE THEM ON IT BECAUSE THEY, UNLIKE YOU, ARE BIG PUSSIES, RIGHT? AND YOU’RE THE JUNKYARD DOG WHO WON’T BACK DOWN FROM A FIGHT, RIGHT? SO, WHY DON’T YOU RUN FOR OFFICE, NEVE? IT’S NOT SO CRAZY AN IDEA IS IT? YOUR FORMER FELLOW ESTABLISHMENT SPOKESPERSON KEN GARCIA WAS BEING RECRUITED TO RUN FOR SUPERVISOR AND IT STILL MIGHT HAPPEN, SO WHY NOT YOU, NEVIUS? THEN EVERYTHING WOULD BE PERFECT!
He even announced early in the campaign that he wouldn’t be bringing up one of the real wedge issues between the two – the reinstatement of Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi after domestic abuse allegations.
OH HERE WE GO, THIS IS THE WHOLE POINT OF THIS NEW BIT FROM NEVE. NOW LET’S TRAVEL BACK IN TIME TO 2012 FOR THIS HAM-FISTED, BONE-HEADED EFFORT FROM THE NEVIUS:
“The Board of Supervisors finally hearing the official misconduct charges for suspended Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi sounds like a cause for celebration. Finally, everyone gets some closure on this long, strange soap opera. Don’t bet on it. It’s not that Mirkarimi is expected to have much of a shot to win reinstatement. All the smart money at City Hall is predicting an 11-0 vote against his case. That way everyone has some political cover. An ideological vote – John Avalos or David Campos voting for Mirkarimi to confirm far left credentials – isn’t likely. This is a vote that people will remember, and if someone like Campos has designs on the state Assembly, it could come back to bite him.“
SEE HOW THAT WORKS? 2012 NEVIUS PINED FOR “CLOSURE.” WHY? BECAUSE HE GENUINELY THOUGHT HIS POLITICAL FACTION WOULD WIN AND ROSS MIRKARIMI WOULD HAVE TO LOSE HIS JOB. BUT ACTUALLY, THE “SMART MONEY” WAS WRONG AND THIS 11-0 SLAM DUNK OF A VOTE WENT THE OTHER WAY. IT’S HARD TO TELL HOW HARD NEVIUS WAS SPUN ON THIS ONE. HE BECAME SO INVESTED IN THIS POLITICAL ISSUE HE BELIEVED WHAT HE WANTED TO BELIEVE. HE ENDED UP MISLEADING HIS READERS, ON PURPOSE OR NOT. NEVIUS DOES THIS KIND OF THING ALL THE TIME AND HE NEVER ACKNOWLEDGES HIS ERRORS, HE JUST MOVES ON TO THE NEXT ISSUE. ANYWAY, NOTE THE THREAT HE MADE AGAINST CAMPOS BACK IN 2012. WELL NOW, NEVIUS IS WORRIED THAT HIS THREAT MEANS NOTHING. SO HE NOW REALLY, REALLY WANTS TO MAKE GOOD ON HIS THREAT. YOU SEE, REPORTER NEVIUS ISN’T SERVING HIS READERS, HE SERVING HISSELF. BUT I DIGRESS, PLEASE CONTINUE NEVE.
Chiu voted against reinstatement, and Campos – despite avowed support for domestic violence prevention organizations – voted in favor.
SO THE QUESTION WAS WHAT TO DO ABOUT MIRKARIMI’S CONVICTION, IT WASN’T ACTUALLY ABOUT DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IRL, OF COURSE
There was a school of thought that said the Mirkarimi hearings at the Board of Supervisors was old news, but it has continued to come up in public forums. Chiu’s camp has gotten the message, and he is beginning to press that issue in debates. To which his supporters say: “Finally.” Chiu is a cautious and deliberative politician, but some of his backers have told him he needs to take the gloves off. Mirkarimi, who was reinstated in October 2012, could be a winner for him.
OF COURSE, NEVIUS HIMSELF IS A “CHIU SUPPORTER,” AND A STRONG SUPPORTER AT THAT.
Campos has an explanation for his vote, but it is complicated. He says he felt Mirkarimi’s behavior – grabbing his wife’s arm hard enough to leave a bruise – did not fall within the legal definition of “official misconduct.”
IT’S NOT COMPLICATED AT ALL, NEVIUS. THAT’S WHY THE PRESIDENT OF THE ETHICS COMMISSION, WHO’S WAAAAAY SMARTER THAN YOU, NEVIUS, AND WHO HAS BACKBONE, RECOMMENDED THAT MIRKARIMI SHOULD KEEP HIS JOB.
So, to the dismay of women’s groups, he supported reinstatement.
GEE NEVE, IF YOU DON’T AGREE WITH A POLITICIAN, WHAT YOU DO IS SUPPORT AN OPPONENT OR SUPPORT A RECALL, RIGHT?
Look for Chiu to maintain his professorial demeanor while his campaign hits Campos on opposing new housing and bashing the tech industry.
HOW WOULD YOU WRITE THIS IF YOU WERE A NEUTRAL AND DETACHED JOURNALIST, NEVE? HOW WOULD YOU WRITE THIS IF YOU WERE A MEMBER OF THE SAME POLITICAL FACTION AS DAVID CAMPOS?
And Mirkarimi will be coming up at every opportunity.
HEY NEVIUS, WHAT HAPPENED TO “CLOSURE?” AHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Campos will come back with accusations of backroom deals and complaints that Chiu isn’t a friend to rent control interests.
“RENT CONTROL INTERESTS?” WHAT DOES THAT MEAN, NEVIUS? ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT PEOPLE WITH RENT CONTROL?
And by the way, he will ask Chiu, why are you endorsing Kim?
OH, SO YOUR VENDETTA IS AGAINST JANE KIM AS WELL? OH MY. AGAIN, WHAT HAPPENED TO CLOSURE, DUDE?
And we’re off. A race. Finally.
UH, NEWSFLASH, NEVIUS. DAVID CHIU WILL WIN BOTH RACES WITH OR WITHOUT YOUR EFFORTS.
OH WHAT’S THIS, CW NEVIUS HAS A STINGER! FOLLOW HIS LINK IF YOU WANT TO READ IT, BUT IT WAS ACTUALLY A “QUOTE OF THE WEEK” FROM HEATHER KNIGHT FROM LAST YEAR. CHECK IT:
“I am not running for mayor, and I will not run for mayor unless Willie Brown and Rose Pak form a ‘Run, Art, Run’ committee.”
DOES THE NEVIUS THINK HE HAS A FRESH QUOTE? I CAN’T TELL, OH WELL.
Well, you know, the rich, home-owning, millionaire NIMBY ladies of NOPNA (the number one homeowner’s association in the Western Addition) had steam coming out of their ears a few years back when they realized how hopeless their plan of keeping Tar-ghey from infecting their “NoPA” neighborhood was becoming.
Mervyn’s Heights is now Target Tor and NoPA (North of the Panhandle) is now SoTA (South of Target). See?
Lots of produce here – a surprising amount.
And the amount of traffic is up, way up. Just like people said would happen. We’ll have to see how things shake out. I myself saw a fender bender on Masonic that prolly wouldn’t have occurred but for the Target Grand Opening yesterday.
Oh, and the traffic lights have been jiggered with, for better or worse. These days, peds at Masonic and Anza need to wait for a looong red light and then after that they need to wait for southbound traffic to turn left. In effect, the peds are going “last.” This kind of thing was considered unacceptable by the SFBC down at Masonic and Fell not too long ago. Mmmm…
Anyway, I can’t figure why some chain stores in SF are good and others are bad – I can’t find consistency in Planning is what Im saying,
But here it is.
Expect more, pay less.
I’m not up to speed on this issue.
If I were to be in a situation involving a missing family member, would I be well-advised to hire a PR flack? IDK..
And does Mayor Ed Lee typically say that SFGov is to blame for a death at such and early stage? No he doesn’t.
Here’s the press release, just issued. (Sorry, no OCR.)