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.
“August 20th, 2015:
SF Sheriff’s Statement: Quick Action by SFSD Sergeant Facilitates Resuscitation of Man Found Overdosed at SF City Hall
San Francisco, CA – Quick thinking on the part of a Sergeant in the San Francisco Sheriff’s Department (SFSD) saved the life of a man who was found unconscious and not breathing in a City Hall bathroom on Tuesday after an apparent drug overdose.
Sgt. J. Caramucci responded at about 11:30pm to a call from a facility custodian reporting that a man in his 30’s was unconscious in a bathroom stall. Sgt. Caramucci used a pocket knife to open the locked stall door and found the man unconscious, with a needle in his arm, and not breathing. He immediately called for paramedics, an Automated External Defibrillator (AED), and assistance from deputy sheriffs. The man was resuscitated by paramedics who arrived on the scene within four minutes of the Sgt.’s call. The man was transported to a hospital.
A liquid substance found later at the scene tested positive for heroin.
“We’re proud of our deputies for their swift and effective work in this case,” said Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi. “Overdosing in City Hall couldn’t be more emblematic of a resurgent drug crisis hitting San Francisco. Heroin usage is way up and existing treatment centers are not enough. Nationwide, reports suggest that we’re looking at a burgeoning public health and public safety crisis.”
“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
As seen in Civic Center last week:
Now the font on the side isn’t comic sans, but it seems a little bit comical to me:
Didn’t realize we had one of these. Perhaps we received a little Homeland Security money to pay for it, IDK.
I’m sure everybody was impressed at its debutante ball / first “MCU rally” in Sacramento a couple years back.
Next up, Know Your SFPD Command Posts – it’s sauce for the gander:
San Francisco Police Mobile Command One is huge, as you can see…
Click to expand
…as is Mobile Command Two:
As for Mobile Command Three, well, not so much. Via Bluoz:
Here’s what REDACTED says about REDACTED’s “DRUNK” license plate:
“I realize many people feel this says bad things about me. I feel that says bad things about them”
[UPDATE II: Alleged super-private personal information that was not actually super-private personal information but, in fact, was useful to prove to skeptical MSM-types that people can actually have a personalized license plate what spells out “DRUNK,” REDACTED. Boy, aren’t we touchy touchy! Awfully touchy for somebody having that on his license plate in fucking Marin, the world capital of drunk drivers. I guarantee that every cop that sees your plate does a double-take. And I thought you had posted a little ditty about your plate (because you had). But if you want to trade your exciting high-profile lifestyle ride for my boring, unnamed and aging Land Cruiser, well, let’s do it, if it would help you out if your shame spiral. In any event, REDACTED. (In mitigation, REDACTED is NOT the publisher of Gannett Co Inc’s The Bold Italic.)]
From the streets of San Francisco, the current status of SF:
Click to expand
Indeed, this is no place for a convertible!
Let’s hope that this driver doesn’t wind up on the Marin County Sheriff’s Public Booking Log any more than the average Marinite driver…
All right, here we go:, with excerpts:
“Chronicle Gets No Stars for Falsehoods About All Star Hotel
by Randy Shaw‚ Jan. 10‚ 2014
The heart of the story—-and title of the sfgate.com version, “Slanted Floors Hotel”—blamed THC for hotel’s floors “slanted so badly that people were falling down. “ But the article does not reveal that the All Star has never been cited by the city for “slanted floors.”
ALL RIGHT, BUT JUST BECAUSE THE ALL-STAR HAS NEVER BEEN CITED BY THE CITY, DOES THAT MEAN THAT THE ALL-STAR DOESN’T HAVE SLANTED FLOORS? THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THE FLOORS ARE SLANTED. SO, ARE THEY IRL? ALSO, WHO ARE YOU, RANDY SHAW, TO DETERMINE WHAT THE “HEART OF THE STORY” IS? _I_ DON’T THINK IT’S THE HEART OF THE STORY. AND I THINK THAT STATEMENT WAS ID’ED AS A STATEMENT IN THE RECORDS OF SFGOV. WELL, IS IT REALLY A STATEMENT IN THE RECORDS OF SFGOV? THAT’S WHAT YOUR DEFAMATION ATTORNEY (HEH!) WILL ASK ABOUT, RANDY SHAW
“San Francisco has many buildings with outstanding code violations impacting tenants lives, but the only news hook for writing about the All Star— which does not have such violations—was to attack a nonprofit operator.”
NOW WHAT KIND OF NONPROFIT OPERATOR IS THE TENDERLOIN HOUSING CLINIC – A GOOD ONE? I DON’T THINK SO. HERE’S SOME BACKGROUND, FROM A LONG TIME AGO: Randy Shaw’s Power Plays.
“I’ve seen a lot of bad reporting in my time, but the Chronicle’s attack on the THC (publisher of Beyond Chron) is among the worst.”
IS THIS HOW YOU ARGUE, RANDY SHAW?
“A reporter with no concern with facts, and a city editor unwilling to promptly correct admitted falsehoods, resulted in a prominent article defaming the hard working janitors, desk clerks, maintenance workers, case managers and management staff at the All Star Hotel.”
WELL, THAT’S LIKE YOUR CONCLUSION, MAN. TAKE IT TO COURT RANDY! BUT YOU’LL LOSE.
“The Chronicle’s core problem was that there are no outstanding code violations impacting tenants at the All Star Hotel.”
RANDY, I THINK _YOUR_ THE ONE WITH _THE PROBLEM_, RIGHT? AND ARE YOU SAYING THAT THE HOTEL IN QUESTION DOESN’T HAVE ANY CODE VIOLATIONS ANY MORE? WHY DON’T WE SEND AN INSPECTION TEAM TO LOOK FOR SOME? OH, WHAT’S THAT, RANDY SHAW SAYS THAT ALL THAT MATTERS ARE CODE VIOLATIONS CURRENTLY “IMPACTING” TENANTS? WHO MAKES THAT CALL? IS IT YOU, RANDY SHAW? HOW DOES THAT WORK?
“Chronicle reporters all have my email address and most my cell phone number yet this reporter failed to contact the person at THC who deals with media inquiries.”
RANDY, HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT _ALL_ REPORTERS AT THE CHRONICLE HAVE YOUR EMAIL ADDRESS? THE REPORTER CONTACTED YOUR ORG AND HE DIDN’T GET A RESPONSE, RIGHT? WELL, THAT’S WE HE WROTE, RIGHT?
“Nothing in the story refutes the statement by THC’s manager that all violations were addressed.”
THE HEART OF THE STORY IS ABOUT _PAST_ VIOLATIONS THOUGH, RIGHT? AND HOW LONG DID THAT PROCESS TAKE?
But then the Chronicle allows Eldon Brown, who has no technical expertise and has likely filed more DBI complaints than all of THC’s over 1700 tenants combined (32 alone in 2012-13), to raise fears of tenant safety by making baseless claims about an unstable building.
DOES ONE NEED TO HAVE “TECHNICAL EXPERTISE” TO FILE A COMPLAINT WITH DBI? THAT DOESN’T SOUND RIGHT. AND THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THE BUILDING IS UNSTABLE. WELL, IS IT? AND YOU ONLY HAVE 1700 TENANTS? AREN’T YOU THE LARGEST NONPROFIT IN SF? MAYBE WE SHOULD JUST STOP GIVING YOU MONEY, HUH RANDY SHAW?
“THC is reviewing its legal options.”
YOU’RE NOT GOING TO SUE ANYBODY, YOU BIG BLOWHARD.
HEY, RANDY SHAW. WHY DON’T YOU DO A BETTER JOB WITH THE MONEY WE GIVE YOUR ORG – HOW ABOUT THAT?