EAST BAY CITIZEN. EVERYWHERE SINCE 2009

Wednesday, June 26, 2013

Alameda County D.A. Won't File Charges Against Oakland Councilmember Brooks

The statute of limitations for prosecuting Oakland Councilmember Desley Brooks for allegations of 12 violations of the City Charter has passed, said Alameda County District Attorney Nancy O'Malley.

On the heels of a civil grand jury report criticizing Brooks and the City Council's inaction over the matter, O'Malley told the San Francisco Chronicle Wednesday says the alleged wrong-doing occurred too long ago for her office to act.

O'Malley would not comment on whether there was sufficient evidence against Brooks, the Chronicle reported.

The Oakland city auditor's report released last March, also included an alleged violation against Councilmember Larry Reid. But, it was the allegations that Brooks personally and repeatedly interfered with city staff in the building of a teen center in her district that caught the attention residents, other council members and Alameda County grand jurors.

The grand jury report released Monday singled out the allegations against Brooks, albeit not by name, and described an atmosphere among council members as being "mayors of their own districts." The report also called on Oakland City Auditor Courtney Ruby to release her report to the City Council and for the city to more greatly fund its public ethics commission.

Last month, both Ruby and Council President Kernighan agreed to put the issues detailed in the city audit on the back burner in light of more pressing needs, such as the budget and continuing problems at Oakland PD.

4 comments :

Brooks can do the honorable thing and RESIGN!

By MW:

Desley Brooks is a high ranking, influential, and powerful person.

So therefore the Alameda County's DA's office did what it normally does in such situations involving the big boys, and which is pretend to study the situation, and then, and after going through its choreographed charade of having pretended to look into the matter, did exactly what it had intended to do all along, and which is after awhile declare it had found a reason not to prosecute.

In other words the DA's office secretly came up with its "conclusion" first, and which was not to prosecute. However to make it look good and its "investigation" to supposedly be "legitimate," therefore it went through its choreographed and scripted charade of pretending to "investigate" the matter, before finally making its public announcement that it was not appropriate to prosecute.

In other words the big boys, and especially in the San Francisco area, usually act like a sleazy mafia, and therefore almost always protect and put the fix in for each other.

The statute of limitations thing is a load of crap. What this means is that the DA decided that she would treat the matter as a misdemeanor and not as a felony. If she was going to consider it a felony the statute of limitations has not passed. Not by a long shot.

It's true then that the DA goes after some people, but let's the ones with a political office off, which is why they continue to misbehave. What kind of message does it send? It tells Alameda County politicians that they can do illegal things and get off with some cheesy mention in a lame grand jury report with absolutely no teeth.

Horrible government in AC. We need a new DA. One with ethics.

is anyone but me wondering who brought this issue to the civil grand jury in the first place? let me guess : santana ... via one of her minions

Post a Comment