EMERGING DETAILS: Why District Attorney Steve Cooley Wants NOTHING TO DO WITH (DUMPED!) Carmen Trutanich (Same Reasons He Sickened The REST of Us!)

GREAT POST ON WHY SALLY DUMPED HARRY, I MEAN WHY COOLEY DUMPED TRUTANICH. (Same shit that pissed off ZD and the rest of the city.) DOUCHETANICH!

EXCERPT FROM: Cooley Cools It With Trutanich – It’s Official, Trutanich “Not Up To The Job!” Posted on May 23, 2011

by losangelesdragnet

Although the Dragnet first reported the breakdown in the close relationship between LA District Attorney Steve Cooley and City Attorney Carmen Trutanich, it took a little time for the mainstream media to confirm the rumor.

It's over - rumored rift between Cooley and Trutanich confirmed

Rick Orlov at the Los Angeles Daily News reports that “Cooley became disenchanted with Trutanich shortly after he was sworn in.”

“”It was becoming clear, across the board, that (Cooley) did not believe Trutanich was up to the job,” said a Cooley political adviser.”

Orlov’s confirmation of the bust-up of the former bffs was also picked up by Kevin Roderick at LA Observed.

Both sources report that the bust-up occurred shortly after Trutanich was sworn into office. Readers will recall that Trutanich swiftly set about defining his administration as one of sound-bites and grandstanding, with Trutanich’s ill-fated accusation of “criminal aspects” to Anschutz Entertainment Group (AEG’s) handling of the Michael Jackson Memorial. This was equally swiftly followed up with Trutanich’s alleged threats to arrest Los Angeles City Councilwoman Jan Perry and a number of City employees over the granting of billboard permits at AEG’s new downtown movie complex.

Sources close to Trutanich said that they were “shocked” that within 3 days of taking office, Trutanich seemed to care little for a ‘head-to-toe” evaluation of the way the City Attorney’s Office could be improved, and was “obsessed” with taking on AEG over the Jackson Memorial with “little or no evidence of any criminal wrongdoing.”

Such internal disapproval surely found its way to Cooley, who probably also felt that Trutanich had become intoxicated with hogging the headlines instead of doing the job he was elected to do. Cooley is believed to have likened Trutanich’s antics to exceed even those of his “press release a day” predecessor Rocky Delgadillo.

The straw that probably broke the camel’s back is believed to have occurred in November 2010, when Cooley learned of Trutanich’s intention to run for District Attorney in violation of a sworn campaign pledge not to use the City Attorney’s Office as a springboard for higher office.

Apparently, Trutanich did not have the courage to reveal his intentions to Cooley, and Cooley only learned of Trutanich’s treachery when a longtime political aide informed Cooley that he had been hired to work on the Trutanich DA campaign.

Although Orlov reports that “Both sides say, for the record, there is no major rift between the two,” sources inform us on background that the pair “hardly speak” except when forced to appear at public events where both have been scheduled to appear.

READ MORE (continue)- See Original Post on L.A. Dragnet Blog

Assistant L.A. City Attorney David Berger Clarifies LA Times Article on Medical Marijuana And Discusses Future Of L.A. Medical Marijuana

"We made a commitment to the legitimate medical marijuana community that we would see that they could continue their mission and we are committed to that. Anyone who needs medical marijuana should be able to get it through a collective legitimately." - David Berger, Assistant L.A. City Attorney (ZumaShow.com)

Wow, newspapers should start to operate under the same journalistic standards as bloggers...at least the Zuma Report journalistic standard. We try not to play "gotcha" and try to take something out of context.

Zuma Dogg and many others from the medical marijuana community were alarmed by comments in the Los Angeles Times, this week, where Los Angeles District Attorney Steve Cooley was quoted as saying, "The vast, vast, vast majority, about 100%, of dispensaries in Los Angeles County and the city are operating illegally..."

To Zuma Dogg and others, this can be interpreted as feeling there should be NO medical marijuana being distributed, at all and you fundamentally reject the will of California State law as mandated by voters.

CityWatch - DA Cooley: All LA Pot Shops are Illegal

By Celeste Fremon (Posted first at WitnessLA.com) He said WHAT???? Yes, marijuana clinics need to be regulated, and, yes, the City Council has zero excuse for their positively absurd slow-dragging on the matter, but what in the world is this about? Here’s the opening of the LA Times article that explains the newest ill-considered initiative that appears to be coming out of the offices of Mr. Cooley and Mr. Trutanich. Los Angeles County District Attorney Steve Cooley said today that all the medical marijuana dispensaries in the county are operating illegally, and that “they are going to be prosecuted.” [See how it spins FURTHER out of control. Because now Cooley's out of context comments are being misquoted, because even LA Times said, "about all," not all.And then CityWatch reprints it, even further.]

And today, I received a call from someone from within the Medical Marijuana (Medi-juana) community saying that a "recall" was being discussed for certain elected officials and was hoping for my participation.

WELL, after being hot under the beanie over this for a couple days, and now it appearing to spin all out of control, I wanted to try to find out for myself the attitude of the D.A. and City Attorney's office on the matter and see how Cooley could be appearing (along with Trutanich) to be trying to shut down Medical Marijuana, against the will of California voters and State Law.

So I called the highly-respected, voice of reason, Assistant City Attorney David Berger (out of Trutanich's L.A. City Attorney Office), who has also worked in Steve Cooley's D.A. office.

Mr. Berger was with Mr. Cooley when he was quoted in L.A. Times and says the paper took the District Attorney out of context, since Cooley immediately clarified himself, but Times still printed the pre-clarification, "nearly 100%" comment that got ZD and others all in a tizzy.

Here are his comments from the phone conversation posted on the BlogTalkRadio widget on the right hand side of this blog:

"Just to set the record clear; I was present when Mr. Cooley made those remarks and he immediately corrected himself. He basically said he didn't mean all of them, he said, 'most' of them. And I can understand that would also would cause medical marijuana community, the legitimate community to have some concerns. Because it sounds like we're targeting everyone." - David Berger (10/13/2009 Zuma Show)

In the interview he goes as far as saying the Times took things, "out of context."

Something compelling Berger told me in the conversation that prompted this "on-air" interview (See BlogTalkRadio embedded player on right hand of this blog) that in a random check by Trutanich's City Attorney's office, high levels of pesticides were found in medical marijuana samples gathered by the office and tested by the FDA (not DEA, FDA). Signs of the pesticide mentioned in the interview indicates the marijuana was grown in Mexico or Texas. This would be in violation of State law. Along with some other issues.

I found this to be compelling and the final straw to ask if he could set the record straight with a phone call we could air on BlogTalkRadio. ZD found this to be VERY compelling and Berger replied, "This is not secret information. We made it available to L.A. Times and others." (Hear interview.)

But the main thing is to highlight THIS portion of the L.A. Times interview that kind of gets lost in the mix of the other comments: Cooley said he believes that under state law, collectives must raise their own marijuana and can only recoup their costs. "That's absolutely legal," he said. "We're going to respect that." But he said none of them currently do that.

(SEE LA TIMES GOES STARTING TROUBLE BY SAYING, "BUT HE SAID NONE OF THEM CURRENTLY DO THAT." Can you please post the unedited transcript of the interview?)

MEANWHILE, no way I can take any of THIS out of context. Thank you so much to David Berger for hopping on the Zuma Show LIVE call-in phone lines to help clarify. AND, ALTHOUGH HE DOES A GREAT JOB CLARIFYING AND EXPLAINING THE POSITION OF THE D.A. & CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE...it doesn't mean everyone is going to like it.

But the point is, the law enforcers of the city and county feel the State law is one thing, and what has been turned into a perversion of this law with 800-900 collectives in operation in L.A. City alone is something else.

Berger suggests putting "recreational marijuana" on the ballot if that's what the people want, but the law currently in place is NOT IT!

Full Audio Interview if you can't find BlogTalkRadio embedded widget on right hand side of this blog. You can hear all live streams and hear all previous episodes here on the blog.

City of L.A. LEGAL SHOWDOWN: Dowd & Venice Performers vs Carmen Trutanich's City Attorney Office (Smart Money is on Dowd & Street Performers!)

To: L.A. City Attorney Carmen "Nuch" Trutanich
Fr: Zuma Dogg, Concerned Citizen and City Treasury Protector
Re: Venice Beach Lawsuit(s) and Rocky Delgadillo's sloppy mess (Ordinance 42.15)
Dt: October 1, 2009 (The "I tried to tell you so" Day)

Dear Nuch,

First of all, the stuff mentioned below has to do with a bunch of sloppy legislation left over from Rocky Delgadilldo, and we all know what type of legislator that chump turned out to be. (See "inept Jackass" in Webster's)

And the first time I called to grill you, I mean say, "Hello" and ask you a few questions, early on in your initial campaign, to see what type of candidate you would be, the first thing you told me (and the first thing you mentioned in our YouTube video interview together) is that the City Attorney's office under Rocky Delgadildo had a reputation across town as a defendant who rolls over and settles, way too easily, and basically handed over a good portion of the city's treasury almost by design and on purpose. A real problem we are dealing with now, in budget talks.

HOWEVER, Zuma Dogg also knows that Nuch is also out to protect the city's treasury, and doesn't want to waste money and resources on a "no brainer" (for the plaintiff). In other words, YEAH, you gotta fight on the stuff you know you are right on, and take your chances because you can't be seen as an easy target. But at the same time, Sun-Tzu "Art of War" principals are followed at the same time and you don't want it to backfire when you are in the vulnerable position and can see a losing outcome. (Cut your losses.)

AND AS A CITY HALL WATCH DOGG -- Zuma Dogg is here to warn the City (and City Attorney) as I have every step of the way on everything else that is now playing out in real time (I'll save you the long re-cap list from pension money, to old, outdated DWP infrastructure vs Smart Growth Density, to City headed for bankruptcy if they don't address it, to...oops, wasn't going to list) HERE'S THE NEXT ONE...A BIGGIE! MILLIONS OF DOLLARS BIG!:

The City of L.A. (City Attorney's Office) is going to walk right into a legal buzz saw and end up costing the City of Los Angeles a whole lot more money in the long-run (not so long, actually) and once again, Dowd and Dogg will prove to City Hall that they are either too dumb, or too stubborn and combative for the city's treasury's own good. AND I URGE CITY ATTORNEY CARMEN "NUCH" TRUTANICH TO INVITE DOWD & DOGG OVER TO HIS OFFICE FOR ONE OF THOSE "OPEN DOOR POLICY" MEETINGS SO WE CAN LET HIM KNOW WHAT IS REALLY GOING ON, since I do not think he is getting good advice from his city attorney handling the matter who doesn't really know enough about the situation, in my opinion. (I was at a meeting today with the City Attorney, over this matter, which is prompting me to post this thread for many reason stated below.)

Well, three and a half years ago (April 4, 2006, but who's counting?), the legendary "Zuma Dogg" appeared in Los Angeles City Council chambers, for the City Council meeting, for the first time, along with Matt Dowd and Michael Hunt (who had already appeared for the previous month, before dragging me into all of this).

It was over "Ordinance" 42.15 at Venice Beach along the Ocean Front Walk ("Board Walk") and new laws that prevented many of the vendors and performers from being able to do, as protected under Federal Law and the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. (Something I have found City Hall is not too familiar with.)

Hunt and Dowd filed a lawsuit regarding some of the issues at the board walk and the way the city was handling the matter. A Federal Judge (Pregerson) ruled IN FAVOR of Hunt/Dowd and the city had to cough up $470,000, last month -- admits this budget crisis, into a FEDERAL ESCROW ACCOUNT, as the city appeals the decision that is almost certain to lose.

Zuma Dogg predicts that a settlement will be reached by BOTH PARTIES (Hunt/Dowd and the City Attorney's Office) by a 9th Circuit Court Mediator. (The Judge wants the parties to settle and does not want to rule.)

If he rules, it will most likely be in favor of Hunt/Dowd, and it will make it worse for the city, and the Judges are bending over backwards to prevent this, but the city is too stubborn and the judges are becoming more impatient and frustrated with the "doesn't have their act together" city. THESE JUDGES DO NOT LIKE LETTING HUNT/DOWD WIN! But they EVENTUALLY END UP RULING IN FAVOR OF THE PLAINTIFFS (the city lost to Carol Soble's ACLU lawsuit a long time ago, but they just wrote the check because it wasn't Hunt/Dowd). But they've lost TWICE, now. And they are going to lose in the 9th, so that's why they are going to settle with Hunt/Dowd for the FULL amount that the jury awarded and is already in escrow ($470,000, plus some more, to make the whole thing go away, including Hunt/Dowd, because if it goes to the Judge again, it's going to be expensive for the city). They just continue to under-estimate Hunt/Dowd, and their tenacity, not realizing they are not going to stop until the city "FIXES": the board walk.

AND TODAY, Zuma Dogg feels the City is about to walk right into another legal buzzsaw and hand it right over to Dowd (Hunt is not on this lawsuit) and the rest of the PERFORMERS on the lawsuit. And this time, it's going to go even WORSE for the city, because the LAST lawsuit that they lost to Hunt/Dowd was over "commercial vending" and although many complain that it IS commercial, Hunt/Dowd were able to argue in court -- AND CONVINCE A JUDGE AND JURY, that the city was wrong and they were right and that it is not commercial.

THIS LAWSUIT BY DOWD & VENICE PERFORMERS is a fundamental, basic FIRST AMENDMENT lawsuit, and is a much clearer "no brainer" to coin an overused phrase from the Council horse shoe.

ZUMA DOGG attended a meeting with Dowd, the other performers on the lawsuit and someone from the City Attorney's office, along with someone from Parks and Rec and an "Investigator" from Nuch's office who was there to keep track of the tone, vibe and overall eye on the people.

Matt Dowd was spokesperson for the 12 performers on the lawsuit and noted that although the city was claiming that the City made the correct amendments to the ordinance and that a judge would rule IN FAVOR of the ordinance...DOWD & DOGG are here to tell you, you should believe US when we tell you that they are wrong and either mis-informed or purposefully being stubborn: EITHER WAY...it is going to cost the city a lot more money. A LOT MORE! (Keep reading to find out why.)

Again, the City Attorney seems to think that the judge will rule IN FAVOR of the new ordinance, which would mean BAD NEWS for the Venice Performers. HOWEVER, Dowd kept referring to the previous lawsuit, where the judge said, "unless you define 'inextricably intertwined," (don't even come back to see me), to paraphrase. Federal Judge Pregerson feels the City's definition of "Inextricably intertwined" is vague.

In the meeting today where the City Attorney announce the City was going to ask the judge to dismiss the lawsuit, facially, Matt Dowd repeatedly asked the City Attorney, "Show us where the ordinance defines "inextricably intertwined." The C.A. kept trying to change the topic, but you would THINK if the city had done that, and the entire case was based on that (defining the overly-vague definition)...he would have held up the document he was referring to that was before everyone in the room and pointed it out and read it a loud.

AND, the City Attorney was only focused on that ONE little element from the overall case that also included other First Amendment violations, like all of Zuma Dogg's public comment violations by City Council, that the attorney did not even mention, or refer to.

I think the city is just running through their mechanical processes that Hunt/Dowd KNOW always ends up backfiring on the city. Because here is a problem for the city, right off the bat, perhaps, and this is just my opinion, and it's one of MANY things I want to bring to Nuch's attention before the City files for a facial dismissal:

YOU CAN NOT FILE FOR A FACIAL DISMISSAL JUST BECAUSE YOU DON'T LIKE A PREVIOUS DECISION AND THINK YOU CAN CHALLENGE IT IN COURT: A FACIAL DISMISSAL IS FOR A TOTAL SCREW UP IN THE LAWSUIT IN THE FIRST PLACE MAKING IT INVALID, OR WHATEVER.

So the judge is going to be mad, right off the bat, and he could just choose to rule (in favor of the plaintiffs) right then and there. (I could be wrong, and this is not the stuff I want to talk to Nuch about, before a decision is made, but it shows how they may be bungling everything, from top to bottom.)

Because the other thing is, the reason the City Attorney met with Dowd and the Venice Performers is because the judge REQUIRES both parties to get together to try and work it out first. BUT, the city attorney told Matt the meeting was to let us know they would be asking for a facial dismissal, he showed up -- not for a discussion toward a goal of remedy, and it wouldn't have mattered WHAT we said, the city attorney's decision had already been made and the city revealed itself as not at all interested in "fixing" the situation for the people of Los Angeles, but to simply use the court system as a bureaucratic hurdle machine to drag things out as long as possible, but it's going to end up costing the city millions and millions more.

IT'S GETTING WORSE AS WE SPEAK: First of all, Matt is talking about simply filing an injunction and then THE ENTIRE ORDINANCE IS OFF AND IT'S BACK TO EVERYTHING AND ANYTHNIG GOES UNTIL A JUDGE RULES. (And Zuma Dogg predicts a ruling AGAINST the city's general fund.)

Racketeering Amendment: Since the city attorney was so hard-headed and stubborn and his ears weren't working, only his mouth, and since he lied and said the private investigator was his "assistant," instead of being truthful when asked about the position of a city employee attending a city meeting:

Zuma Dogg was not happy to hear that the Judge Pregerson told the city to fix the performer's space situation, and Rocky's office felt that meant REDUCING the amount of performers spaces from 12 to 7 spaces. Remember Zuma Dogg and Matt warned the city during the council meeting on the record that this was creating a hostile environment for performers and someone DID eventually get stabbed over it all?

WELL, when that was brought up in the meeting, that sounded like "RACKETEERING" to Zuma Dogg (and others in the room agreed), because the city just went and sold an unlimited (non-fixed amount) of licenses to performers to perform in the spaces at the same time they restricted things...AND reduced the number of spaces. So all agree the lawsuit needs to be amended to include "racketeering" since the city KNOWINGLY continued to sell permits to people, knowing people were getting stabbed and it was overly crowded since they reduced the number of spaces.

I DON'T THINK NUCH HAS HAD TIME TO UNDERSTAND THE PAST THREE YEARS OF HISTORY AND THE PEOPLE INVOLVED DON'T EVEN SEEM TO KNOW WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT BASED ON WHAT I HEARD TODAY BASED ON WHAT I HAVE LEARNED OVER THE PAST THREE AND A HALF YEARS, SPECIALIZING IN THIS TOPIC WITH MATT (WHO HAS SPECIALIZED IN IT MORE THAN ANYONE ELSE IN THE CITY AND HAS ALREADY BEATEN THE CITY IN A MUCH TOUGHER CASE THAT MERELY PAVED THE WAY FOR THIS CASE).

So save a few million and have ZD and Dowd let you know what WE are seeing happen here and THEN make your decision.

I've said all along, the city would rather declare bankruptcy than have to write a check to Hunt/Dowd or Dowd/Venice Performers (even though they had no problem paying ACLU's Carol Sobel.) Hope they don't go bankrupt trying to prove that point.