On March 24, Der Führer Former President Trump filed a 108 page federal lawsuit against former US Senator and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the Democratic National Committee and 26 other people and entities claiming they all claims conspired to undermine his 2016 campaign by falsely tying him to Russia. The lawsuit asks for more than $24 million in costs and damages.

In his federal lawsuit, Der Führer Trump names dozens he has accused during his 4 years in office years of orchestrating a “deep state” conspiracy against him. Those accused include Clinton, Clinton campaign advisors, former FBI Director James Comey and other FBI officials. He specifically identified retired British spy Christopher Steele and his associates who prepared a dossier on Trump’s business dealing with Russa and Russian President Vladimir Putin.

The lawsuit alleges in part:

“Under the guise of ‘opposition research,’ ‘data analytics,’ and other political stratagems, the Defendants nefariously sought to sway the public’s trust … They worked together with a single, self-serving purpose: to vilify Donald J. Trump.”

The federal lawsuit takes aim at Der Führer Trump’s main political opponents and highlights the grievances that he has complained about in the past. Trump claims Democrats and government officials perpetrated a “grab bag “of offenses, from a racketeering conspiracy to a malicious prosecution, computer fraud and theft of secret internet data. Many of the key elements of Trump’s far-reaching accusations in the lawsuit have previously been debunked by the Justice Department inspector general and by a bipartisan report from the Senate Intelligence Committee.

The civil suit alleges that Clinton and top Democrats hired lawyers and researchers to fabricate information tying Trump to Russia. It goes on to allege that they promoted the lies to the media and to the US government in order to destroy his chances of winning in 2016 Presidential election. Trump claims they were assisted by “Clinton loyalists” at the FBI, who abused their powers to investigate him out of political hostility towards him.

Trump claims that Clinton and the other defendants conspired to trigger an “unfounded investigation” by the FBI into potential Trump-Russia collusion in the 2016 election. Multiple federal judges upheld the legality of that investigation, which was later taken over by special counsel Robert Mueller and uncovered dozens of connections between Trump associates and Russian officials.

The investigation established that Russia intervened in the 2016 election to help Trump win, through a hack-and-leak operation against Clinton, and with a sophisticated disinformation campaign targeting US voters on social media. The probe also found that Trump’s campaign sought to capitalize on Russia’s interference, though it did not establish a criminal conspiracy between Trump aides and any Russians.

Links to quoted news source material are here:

https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/24/politics/trump-sues-hillary-clinton/index.html

PROBE INTO RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE WITH 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

In the morning of July 27, 2016, then candidate for President Der Führer Trump encouraged Russian hackers to find emails that had been deleted from Hillary Clinton’s private server that she used while serving as secretary of state.

“I will tell you this, Russia: If you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing … “I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.” Trump said at a press conference in Florida.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-russia-clinton-hack_us_5b48d9d0e4b0e7c958faf810

On July 27, 2016, Vladamir Putin and Russia were listening and heeded Trump’s call for help to get him elected President. According to the federal indictment of 12 Russian intelligence officers for their involvement in hacking the Democratic National Committee during the 2016 election, the Russian hacking occurred on July 27, 2016 and hours after Trump gave his press conference and encouraged Russian hackers to find Clinton’s emails.

TWO WAIVES OF INDICTMENTS

On Friday, July 13, 2018, the Justice Department announced charges against 12 Russian intelligence officers for hacking offenses during the 2016 presidential election.

https://www.abqjournal.com/1196225/12-russians-accused-of-hacking-democrats-in-2016-us-election.html

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein announced the indictments as part of the ongoing special counsel probe into potential coordination between the Trump 2016 campaign and Russia.

The Russians were accused of hacking into the computer networks of the Democratic National Committee, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and the presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton, and then releasing stolen emails on the internet in the months before the election.

In making the announcement Rosenstein said:

“The internet allows foreign adversaries to attack Americans in new and unexpected ways. … Free and fair elections are hard-fought and contentious and there will always be adversaries who work to exacerbate domestic differences and try to confuse, divide and conquer us.”

Rosenstein, who said he had briefed President Donald Trump on the indictment, said there was no allegation that the hacking altered any vote count or that any Americans were knowingly in communication with any of the Russian officers. The statement that the hacking did not alter any vote is laughable and what is important is that Trump asked for the hacking and Putin and Russia accommodated his request.

The indictment states that on July 27, 2016, the same day as Trump’s press conference, Russian hackers, “for the first time,” attempted to break into email accounts, including those used by Clinton’s personal office.

Notably, the indictment specifies that the hack happened in the evening, meaning the Russian officials could have done it after Trump’s press conference.

On December 17, 2019 Special Counsel Robert Mueller announced that 20 people and 3 companies had been charged in the investigation of Russian interference with the 2016 presidential election to help Trump get elected.

The charges included 4 former Trump campaign and White House aides and 13 Russians accused of participating in a clandestine social media campaign to sway American public opinion in the 2016 election to get Donald Trump elected.

SPECIAL COUNSEL INVESTIGATION COMPLETED

On May 29, 2019, US Justice Department Special Counsel Robert Mueller ended his two-year investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. He did so with a remarkable, 10-minute public statement taking no questions. Special Counsel Mueller announced he was closing the special counsel’s office saying “Our investigation is complete”, He announce his resignation and returned to private life.

You can view the statement in full here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdQypBnitXM

Mueller outlined 5 primary conclusions of his investigation and made it clear that the next steps belong to the United States Congress to decide to impeach, convict and remove President Trump.

The 5 major points made by Robert Mueller in his statement were clear:

1) Had he been able to clear the president on the question of obstruction, he would have done so, but he did not. Mueller noted the Justice Department’s longstanding policy against indicting a sitting president and said that his office was never able to even consider bringing charges against Donald Trump, either openly or under seal until Trump left office.

According to Mueller:

“We concluded that we would not reach a determination—one way or the other—about whether the president committed a crime. … Charging the president with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider.

As set forth in our report, after that investigation, if we had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said that.”

2) What happens now is up to the United States Congress. Mueller went out out of his way to describe how his investigation team had gathered and preserved evidence for future investigators, adding pointedly “The Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing.”

3) Americans should be deeply concerned by Russia’s broad and systemic interference with the 2016 election. According to Mueller, “There were multiple, systematic efforts to interfere in our election. That allegation deserves the attention of every American.” In his report, Mueller made cleat Russian efforts were aimed at hurting Democrat Hillary Clinton.

4) Mueller doesn’t intend to say anything further but if he testifies before congress, he will not deviate from his report and said:

“Any testimony from this office would not go beyond our report. It contains our findings and analysis, and the reasons for the decisions we made. We chose those words carefully, and the work speaks for itself. The report is my testimony.”

5) Mueller took deliberate issue with the accusations Trump and others have made that his investigation had been conducted by conflicted, angry Democrats on a witch hunt by saying:

“I want to thank the attorneys, the FBI agents, the analysts, and the professional staff who helped us conduct this investigation in a fair and independent manner. These individuals, who spent nearly two years with the Special Counsel’s Office, were of the highest integrity.”

https://www.wired.com/story/robert-mueller-breaks-silence-russia-investigation/

THE FULL LIST OF MUELLER INDICTMENTS AND PLEA DEALS

The two-year Mueller investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 Presidential election led to indictments and successful prosecution of 38 individuals, including many very close associates of Trump. Those indictments were:

1) GEORGE PAPADOPOULOS: former Trump campaign foreign policy adviser, was arrested in July 2017 and pleaded guilty in October 2017 to making false statements to the FBI. He was sentence to 14-days in jail sentence.

2) PAUL MANAFORT: Trump’s former 2016 Presidential Campaign Chairman, was indicted on a total of 25 different counts by Mueller’s team, related mainly to his past work for Ukrainian politicians and his finances. He had two trials scheduled, and the first ended in a conviction on eight counts of financial crimes. To avert the second trial, Manafort struck a plea deal with Mueller in September 2018, though Mueller’s team said that he later breached that agreement by lying to them. He was sentenced to a combined seven and a half years in prison.

3) RICK GATES: A former Trump campaign aide and Manafort’s longtime junior business partner, was indicted on similar charges to Manafort. But in February 2018 he agreed to a plea deal with Mueller’s team, pleading guilty to just one false statement charge and one conspiracy charge. He was sentenced to 45 days in prison and 3 years of probation.

4) MICHAEL FLYNN: Trump’s former national security adviser, pleaded guilty in December 2017 to making false statements to the FBI.

5) MICHAEL COHEN: In August 2018, Trump’s former lawyer pleaded guilty to 8 counts, tax and bank charges, related to his finances and taxi business, and campaign finance violations, related to hush money payments to women who alleged affairs with Donald Trump, as part of a separate investigation in New York that Mueller had handed off. But in November, he made a plea deal with Mueller too, for lying to Congress about efforts to build a Trump Tower in Moscow.

6) ROGER STONE: In January 2019, Mueller indicted longtime Trump adviser Roger Stone on 7 counts. He accused Stone of lying to the House Intelligence Committee about his efforts to get in touch with WikiLeaks during the campaign and tampering with a witness who could have debunked his story. He was convicted on all counts after a November 2019 trial.

MANAFORT and GATES were charged with a series of offenses related to their past work for Ukrainian politicians and their finances. PAPADOPOULOS and FLYNN Both admitted making false statements to investigators to hide their contacts with Russians. COHEN admitted making false statements to Congress.

7) RICHARD PINEDO: This California man pleaded guilty to an identity theft charge in connection with the Russian indictments and has agreed to cooperate with Mueller. He was sentenced to 6 months in prison and 6 months of home detention in October 2018.

8) ALEX VAN DER ZWAAN: This London lawyer pleaded guilty to making false statements to the FBI about his contacts with Rick Gates and another unnamed person based in Ukraine. He was sentenced to 30 days in jail and has completed his sentence.

9) KONSTANTIN KILIMNIK: This longtime business associate of Manafort and Gates, who’s currently based in Russia, was charged alongside Manafort with attempting to obstruct justice by tampering with witnesses in Manafort’s pending case last year.

10 to 23) 13 RUSSIAN NATIONALS AND THREE RUSSIAN COMPANIES: All were indicted on conspiracy charges, with some also being accused of identity theft. The charges related to a Russian propaganda effort designed to interfere with the 2016 campaign. The companies involved are the Internet Research Agency, often described as a “Russian troll farm,” and two other companies that helped finance it. The Russian nationals indicted include 12 of the agency’s employees and its alleged financier, Yevgeny Prigozhin.

24-38) 12 RUSSIAN GRU OFFICERS: These officers of Russia’s military intelligence service were charged with crimes related to the hacking and leaking of leading Democrats’ emails in 2016.

The link to the unedited and fully quoted news source is here:

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/2/20/17031772/mueller-indictments-grand-jury

A ROADMAP FOR IMPEACHMENT BUT NOT REMOVAL

Despite the fact that the special counsel’s report on Russian interference did not come to a conclusion as to whether President Trump obstructed justice, the Mueller Report did disclose at least 10 “discrete acts” in which Trump may have “obstructed justice”. Mueller left it up to congress to decide for themselves if there was obstruction of justice.

Any one of the 10 acts could form the basis of impeachment by the Democratic Controlled US House of Representatives, but not necessarily result in a conviction by the Republican US Senate. The Mueller Report says the 10 instances of potential obstruction of justice can be divided into “two phases, reflecting a possible shift in the president’s motives.”

The first phase of obstruction of justice took place before Trump fired FBI Director James Comey after Trump had been reassured by Comey he was not personally under investigation. After Comey was fired by Trump and after Mueller’s appointment as special counsel, the report states Trump realized or knew he was under investigation for possibly obstructing justice, and he changed course and became more aggressive to discredit the investigation.

The Mueller report states:

“At that point, the president engaged in a second phase of conduct, involving public attacks on the investigation, non-public efforts to control it, and efforts both in public and private to encourage witnesses not to cooperate with the investigation.”

CBS News did an exceptional summary of the 10 times Trump may have obstructed justice. Following are the 10 times Trump may have obstructed justice quoting a CBS News article with the link below:

1.”THE CAMPAIGN’S RESPONSE TO REPORTS ABOUT RUSSIAN SUPPORT FOR TRUMP”

“The first instance of possible obstruction detailed in the report occurred during the 2016 campaign, when questions first “arose about the Russian government’s apparent support for candidate Trump. The report states that while Mr. Trump was publicly skeptical Russia had released emails from Democratic officials, he and his aides were also trying to get information about “any further Wikileaks releases.” The report also notes that despite Mr. Trump’s insistence he had no business connections to Russia, his namesake company was trying to build a Trump Tower in Moscow. And once the election was over, Mr. Trump “expressed concerns to advisers that reports of Russia’s election interference might lead the public to question the legitimacy of his election.”

2.”CONDUCT INVOLVING FBI DIRECTOR COMEY AND MICHAEL FLYNN”

“The second instance involves Mr. Trump’s first national security adviser, Michael Flynn, who left the administration just weeks into Mr. Trump’s presidency after he misled FBI agents and top administration officials — including Vice President Mike Pence — about his conversations with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. Flynn had said he had not discussed sanctions on Russia with Kislyak, a lie that Pence and others then repeated. The day that Mr. Trump found out Flynn had lied to Pence and the FBI, he had dinner with Comey, whom he asked for “loyalty.” Mr. Trump then secured Flynn’s resignation on Feb. 13, 2017. “Now that we fired Flynn, the Russia thing is over,” he told an outside adviser, who disagreed with the president’s assessment. That same day, Mr. Trump had another meeting with Comey and encouraged him to stop investigating Flynn. “I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go,” Mr. Trump said. The president then asked Deputy National Security Adviser K.T. McFarland to draft an internal memo “stating that the president had not directed Flynn to discuss sanctions with Kislyak. McFarland declined because she did not know whether that was true, and a White House Counsel’s Office attorney thought that the request would look like a quid pro quo for an ambassadorship she had been offered.”

3.”THE PRESIDENT’S REACTION TO THE CONTINUING RUSSIA INVESTIGATION”

“The third instance involves then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who was debating whether to recuse himself from the Russia investigation in February 2017, as well as Comey. Mr. Trump asked White House Counsel Don McGahn to talk Sessions out of recusal,and became angry when Sessions announced he would recuse himself on March 2. The president then asked Sessions to “unrecuse” himself. After Comey testified to Congress that there was an FBI investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election, Mr. Trump reached out to his CIA and NSA directors to help “dispel the suggestion that the President had any connection to the Russian election-interference effort.” Comey had told Mr. Trump he wasn’t under investigation, and, against Mc Gahn’s advice, the president twice called the FBI director to ask him to say that publicly.”

4.”THE PRESIDENT’S TERMINATION OF COMEY”

“The fourth instance stems from Mr. Trump’s decision to fire Comey, which directly led to Mueller’s appointment. Mr. Trump decided to fire Comey in May 2017 — days after the FBI director declined to tell Congress that Mr. Trump wasn’t under investigation. After Mr. Trump dismissed Comey, the White House insisted he had done so at the recommendation of the Department of Justice. In reality, Mr. Trump had not consulted with the Justice Department before deciding to fire Comey. In conversations that followed, Mr. Trump indicated the Russia investigation was the real reason he had let Comey go: “The day after firing Comey, the president told Russian officials that he had ‘faced great pressure because of Russia,’ which had been ‘taken off’ by Comey’s firing. The next day, the president acknowledged in a television interview that he was going to fire Comey regardless of the Department of Justice’s recommendation and that when he ‘decided to just do it,’ he was thinking that ‘this thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story.’”

5.”THE APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COUNSEL AND EFFORTS TO REMOVE HIM”

“The fifth instance revolves around Mr. Trump’s reaction to Mueller’s appointment. Upon hearing the news that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein had tasked Mueller with investigating the Russia matter in May 2017, the president privately declared it was “the end of his presidency.” Mr. Trump then demanded Sessions’ resignation, although he did not accept it at the time, and told aides Mueller had conflicts of interest that should preclude him from acting as the special counsel. It was then reported in June that Mueller was investigating Mr. Trump for obstruction of justice, prompting the president to publicly attack Mueller and the Justice Department. Within days of the first report, he told Mc Gahn to tell Rosenstein that Mueller had conflicts of interest and must be removed. Mc Gahn ignored the request, explaining that he would rather resign.”

6.”EFFORTS TO PREVENT PUBLIC DISCLOSURE OF EVIDENCE”

“The sixth instance stems from the June 2016 meeting between top campaign aides and “a Russian lawyer who was said to be offering damaging information about Hillary Clinton as ‘part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.’” Mr. Trump told his aides “not to publicly disclose the emails setting up the June 9 meeting, suggesting that the email would not leak and that the number of lawyers with access to them should be limited.” Donald Trump Jr., who had been present at the Trump Tower meeting, wrote a press release saying “the meeting was with ‘an individual who [Trump Jr.] was told might have information helpful to the campaign’” — a line that was edited out about the president. Mr. Trump’s personal lawyer then denied to reporters the president had “played any role” in Trump Jr.’s statement.

7.” FURTHER EFFORTS TO HAVE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TAKE CONTROL OF THE INVESTIGATION”

“The seventh instance has to do with Mr. Trump’s repeated attempts to have Sessions “reverse his recusal.” Mr. Trump asked Sessions to do this in the summer of 2017. The following December, Mr. Trump told Sessions he would be a “hero” if he took control of the investigation. Additionally, in October 2017, the president asked Sessions to “take [a] look” at investigating Hillary Clinton.”

8.”EFFORTS TO HAVE MCGAHN DENY THAT THE PRESIDENT HAD ORDERED HIM TO HAVE THE SPECIAL COUNSEL REMOVED”

“The eighth instance concerns Mr. Trump’s efforts to get Mc Gahn to dispute press accounts that the president had instructed him to try and get rid of Mueller. In early 2018, Mr. Trump told White House officials to tell Mc Gahn to rebut the stories, but Mc Gahn told the officials the stories were true. Mr. Trump then personally appealed to Mc Gahn, telling him in an Oval Office meeting to deny the reports. In the same meeting, the president also asked McGahn why he had told the special counsel about the president’s efforts to remove the Special Counsel and why McGahn took notes of his conversations with the president,” the report states. “McGahn refused to back away from what he remembered happening and perceived the president to be testing his mettle.”

9.”CONDUCT TOWARDS FLYNN, MANAFORT”

“The ninth instance stems from Mr. Trump’s response to the prosecutions of Flynn and Paul Manafort, his former campaign chairman, as well as an individual whose identity was redacted. “After Flynn withdrew from a joint defense agreement with the president and began cooperating with the government, the president’s personal counsel left a message for Flynn ‘s attorneys reminding them of the president’s warm feelings towards Flynn, which he said ‘still remains,’ and asking for a ‘heads up’ if Flynn knew ‘information that implicates the president,’” the report states. When Flynn’s counsel reiterated that Flynn could no longer share information pursuant to a joint defense agreement, the president’s personal counsel said he would make sure that the president knew that Flynn’s actions reflected ‘hostility’ towards the president. Meanwhile, Mr. Trump praised Manafort during his “prosecution and when the jury in his criminal trial was deliberating. At one point, he praised Manafort as “a brave man” who refused to “break.”

10.”CONDUCT INVOLVING MICHAEL COHEN”

“The tenth and final instance of potential obstruction concerns Mr. Trump’s behavior toward Michael Cohen, his onetime personal lawyer. Mr. Trump profusely praised Cohen when he remained loyal to the administration, at one point personally calling to encourage him to “stay strong,” only to criticize him viciously when he began cooperating with the government. After the FBI searched Cohen’s home and office in April 2018, the president publicly asserted that Cohen would not ‘flip,’ contacted him directly to tell him to ‘stay strong,’ and privately passed messages of support to him,” the report states. Cohen also discussed pardons with the president’s personal counsel and believed that if he stayed on message, he would be taken care of. But after Cohen began cooperating with the government in the summer of 2018, the president publicly criticized him, called him a ‘rat,’ and suggested that his family members had committed crimes.”

The link to the full unedited CBS News report here:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/obstruction-of-justice-10-times-trump-may-have-obstructed-justice-mueller-report/

A link to a related blog article is here:

https://www.petedinelli.com/2019/05/30/mueller-did-not-clear-trump-could-not-indict-trump-up-to-congress-or-voters-to-remove-trump/

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

It is downright bizarre that Trump would now file a federal lawsuit, unless it is his attempt to distance himself from his association and admiration of Vladimir Putin and the invasion of Ukrain by Russia. The problem is that the general public has a very short memory. Trump’s and his associates’ dealings with Russian over the years can only be considered some of the darkest days of this country when a President of the United States actually curried favored with a known enemy of the United State and its democracy.

Der Führer Trump’s filed federal lawsuit against Hillary Clinton, the Democratic National Committee and 26 other people and entities claiming they all conspired to undermine his 2016 campaign by falsely tying him to Russia was very quickly labeled as frivolous and without merit. Like the 56 federal lawsuits file by Trump in states to contest the 2020 Presidential election, the lawsuit will likely be thrown out for lack of evidence, but that does not mean his party and his cult followers will not believe what he has alleged.

The lawsuit may be frivolous, but the damage Der Führer Trump has done to our democracy may never be repaired as he is allowed to continue his assault on many levels, aided by the Republican party, to destroy it at its very core.

Twice the traitor Trump was impeached, and twice the Republicans failed to go to the defense of our democracy by convicting him. The Republican Senate failed to impeach even when they themselves witnessed firsthand how he orchestrated a full assault on the capitol on January 6, 2020 to stop the certification of Joe Biden as President.

There is little doubt that the seeds of enablement to Vladimir Putin’s war on Ukrain were sown during the 4 years Trump was in office.

A “KING MAKER” is defined as “a person who has great power and influence in the choice of a ruler, candidate for public office, business leader, or the like.”

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/kingmaker

ALBUQUERQUE’S ASPIRING “KING MAKER”

All 70 House seats are on the ballot this year with two year terms. The Senate are 4 year terms and is up every 4 years, with the next cycle in 2024. Democrats have grown their majority in the House from a 38-32 advantage over Republicans in 2017 to 45-24 this year, plus one independent. At least 3 Democrats lost primary challenges over that period. On the Senate side, Democrats have held their numbers roughly steady, but five anti-abortion incumbents lost to challengers in 2020, moving the Senate Democratic caucus to the left. Democrats have a 26-15-1 edge in the Senate.

Enter newly elected Albuquerque City Council District 1 Democrat Louie Sanchez. Sanchez is a retired APD cop and now an insurance salesman. Sanchez has never run in a partisan race. His non partisan city council race was the first time he has ever run for office. It is believed that Sanchez has never been actively involved in the Democratic Party and has never served in grass roots positions such as a precinct and ward chair. His limited exposure to politics is believed to be in charge of Mayor Marty Chavez’s police protection detail when Sanchez was an APD police officer. He worked directly out of the Mayor’s Office.

PAC FORMED

On March 14, Sanchez announced a new political action committee, or PAC, called the Working Together New Mexico PAC that will back “moderate” Democrats in a host of contested primary races. With his announcement, and less than 3 months on the city council , Sanchez is saying he wants to be a “King Maker” in New Mexico Politics.

The Working Together PAC is registered as an independent expenditure committee, and for that reason it cannot coordinate with any other candidate’s campaign. Sanchez does not define what he means by “moderate” nor what the litmus test is to get the financial support of the PAC. However, based on the Sanchez votes and actions on the City Council, he likely means a plethora of conservative Republican causes that are contrary to Democratic core values and that support corporate interests over the working class.

Councilor Sanchez went so far as to announce Working Together New Mexico intends to support challengers taking on at least 2 incumbents in the New Mexico State House. The New Mexico Legislature has grown more progressive over the past 4 years as challengers defeated 8 Democratic incumbents and it is something Sanchez ostensibly does not like.

According to Sanchez, the PAC will push to elect “commonsense” Democrats in races for 6 House seats, 2 statewide offices and a Bernalillo County Commission District. Sanchez did not disclose the names of the other candidates for the New Mexico House, the 2 statewide offices nor the county commission. It is unknown if any endorsement will be made in the Bernalillo County Sherriff’s race which has 12 candidates running. Given the fact that Sanchez is an ex cop, it’s more likely than not an endorsement will be made in the Bernalillo County Sherriff’s race. The PAC’s financial backers will be made known next month when the first financial reports are filed.

Sanchez had this to say in forming the PAC:

“It’s time for politicians to stop pandering to the far extremes and start solving our multitude of problems at home in New Mexico. … [The PAC looks forward to financial] support from fellow commonsense Democrats and the business community from around the state.”

Sanchez does not identify what it takes to be a “common sense Democrat”. Using the term “common sense” is a ploy taken out Republican playbooks to promote anything they propose believing the term gives the cause credibility in voters minds. Sanchez does not say if the business community around the state include Republican owned businesses, let alone if they have any common sense.

The link to quoted news source material is here:

https://www.abqjournal.com/2479331/pac-to-intervene-in-contested-democratic-races.html

SANCHEZ BENEFITED FROM PACS HIMSELF

Democrat Louie Sanchez qualified and was given $41,027 in public finance for his City Council District 1 race against Democrat Lan Senna who also qualified for $41,027 in public finance.

In District 5, Republican Dan Lewis qualified for public finance and was given $50,489, as was his opponent incumbent Democrat Cynthia Borrego.

In District 9 Republican Renee Grout qualified for public finance and was given $41,791 in public finance as was Democrat opponent Rob Grilley.

It should come to no surprise that City Councilor Louis Sanchez has formed a PAC to give financial support to candidates he wants elected to the New Mexico House and other offices of his choosing. Sanchez himself knows just how effective PACs can be at raising campaign donations in that he benefited from two such PACs in his 2021 municipal election.

Based on Sanchez’s own experience with PAC’s when he ran for city council, it is likely his PAC will have significant Republican donors. There were 2 major measured finance committees that were formed to promote city council candidates and who opposed incumbent Democrat City Councilors Lan Sena and Cynthia Borrego who both lost on November 2.

The two measured finance committees were Albuquerque Ahead and Healthy Economies Lead to Progress. Both PAC’s had significant Republican donors. The 2 finance committees were successful in ousting Democrat Incumbent City Councilor Lan Sena with the election of Louis Sanchez and ousting Democrat Cynthia Borrego with the election of Dan Lewis.

HEALTHY ECONOMIES LEAD TO PROGRESS

Healthy Economies Lead to Progress was the largest PAC of the 2 measured Finance Committees formed to raise contributions for City Council candidates.

The Chairperson was identified as SIMON (SCOOTER) T. HAYNES and the Treasurer was identified as JULIA L. MACCINI. Both Simon T. “Scooter” Haynes and Julia Maccini are conservative Republicans who ran and lost in June, 2021 for the Board of the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District (MRGCD).

Haynes is a developer who owns a real estate and construction business based in Albuquerque. Julia L Maccini is believed to be an attorney and believed to be the Development Coordinator at SCM Partners, LLC a limited liability corporation.

The manner in which donations were spent by Healthy Economies Lead to Progress depended on donor designation and the PAC donors lean heavily Republican. The donations were made to support the following City Council candidates:

District 1: Democrat Louie Sanchez who defeated incumbent Democrat City Councilor Lan Sena.
District 5: Republican Dan Lewis who defeated Democrat incumbent City Councilor Cynthia Borrego.
District 7: Republican candidate Lori Lee Robertson who made into the runoff and who was defeated by Democrat Tammy Fiebelkorn.
District 9: Republican candidate Renee Grout who made it into the run off and who defeated Democrat Rob Grilley Jr.

MAJOR DONORS IDENTIFIED

Donations made to PAC’s come with donor expectations and beliefs that the PAC will be spending the donations to help candidates they support and that share their philosophy on issues that the candidate if elected will advocate for them or support, that is why the donations made to Healthy Economies Lead to Progress merit review. The donations made to HEALTHY ECONOMIES LEAD TO PROGRESS come from known Republican donors and interests.

The 7TH, 8th, 9th and 10th finance reports filed with the Albuquerque city Clerk reveals the following major contributors to Healthy Economies Lead to Progress:

7th Report

NEW MEXICO RESTAURANT ASSOCIATION (Carol Wight): $20,000
COMMERCIAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS NM: $18,639.22
JOHNSON COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE, LLC: $4,000

8TH FINANCE REPORT

COMMERCIAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS NM: $10,000
PREMIER DISTRIBUTING COMPANY: $5,000
STEVE MAESTAS: $5,000 ( two $2,500 donations)
ANGELA WILLIAMSON: $2,000
TITAN PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LLC: $1,000

9TH FINANCE REPORT

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS FUND: $64,000
NEW MEXICO RESTAURANT ASSOCIATION: $10,000
PETROYATES, INC.: $10,000
ABC POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE: $5,000.00

10TH FINANCE REPORT

According to the 10th Campaign Finance Report filed by Healthy Economies Lead to Progress on November 1 for the time period of October 23 to October 29 the measured finance committee raised $29,587.00 and had an ending balance of $87,864.62 that was used for the two city council runoffs. Major donors include:

REAL ESTATE COMMUNITY POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE: $20,000.00
NEW MEXICO NAIOP PAC: $1,500
SHERMAN MCCORKLE: $1,000 EDITORS NOTE: McCorkle has been a Republican political operative and insider for many decades.

ALBUQUERQUE AHEAD

Albuquerque Ahead raised $34,900. The cash contributions were spent to promote conservative Republican candidates, Dan Lewis, Renee Grout and Lori Lee Robertson, and conservative Democrat Louis Sanchez. The finance reports do not indicate with precision the exact amounts spent on behalf of each candidate.

PAC HIRES JAMES HALLINAN AS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

Sanchez announced that Working Together New Mexico hired as the PAC’s executive director James Hallinan who is the principal owner of two political consulting firms “Intersection Strategies” and “Purple Strategies, LLC. To quote LinkIn, Purple Strategies, LLC is an

“Aggressive public relations, legal communications, crisis management, government affairs, and political campaign management expert with a winning record of election campaigns in 2021, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2014, 2012, 2010 … . After winning four statewide elections in 2018, [James Hallianan] started [his] first company, Intersection Strategies, bringing [his] unique skills and experience to the legal, corporate, government, professional sports, and law enforcement industries across the United States.”

https://www.linkedin.com/in/james-hallinan-a1389712

According to the “Intersection Strategies” web page:

“Intersections Strategies, LLC was founded by James Hallinan shortly after his successful 2018 election cycle in which he served as the campaign communications director for Governor Lujan Grisham and Lt. Governor Howie Morales, campaign general consultant for Attorney General Hector Balderas, and campaign general consultant for State Auditor Brian Colón. Hallinan previously served as communications director to New Mexico Attorney General Hector Balderas … James has also worked for and closely with countless elected officials … including … New Mexico Speaker of the House Brian Egolf, former New Mexico Lt. Governor Diane Denish, former Albuquerque Mayor Martin Chavez, and many members of Congress, attorneys general, statewide elected officials, state legislators, and local elected officials.”

The “Intersection Strategies” web page contains no references nor testimonials from the elected officials mentioned.

The link to the web page is here:

https://intersectionstrategies.com/#about

2021 ALBUQUERQUE MUNIPAL ELECTION

James Hallinan was the campaign consultant for City Council Candidate Louie Sanchez in his successful campaign to unseat City Council Progressive Democrat incumbent Lan Sena in the 2021 municipal election. According the campaign finance reports filed with the City Clerk, Sanchez paid James Hallinan $16,679 for his work on his campaign.

In the 2021 municipal election, Hallinan was also involved with the PAC that supported Sheriff Manny Gonzales for Mayor over incumbent Mayor Tim Keller. During the 2021 municipal election, James Hallinan was the campaign manager for the measured finance committee known as “Save Our City”, the PAC headed by Sam Vigil, whose wife was killed in the early morning hours on her way to the gym by a fugitive from Mexico who was in the country illegally. According to the city clerk’s online campaign finance records for the 2021 municipal election, Hallinan was paid $60,680 for his campaign services for “Save Our City”.

NO STRANGER TO CONTROVERSY

James Hallinan is the Democratic political consultant who alleged that then candidate for governor Michelle Lujan Grisham poured water on his crotch and grabbed him during a staff meeting. Hallinan claimed the assault happened during a senior staff meeting held at Representative Deborah Armstrong’s home in the summer of 2018. In one news report, Hallinan said:

“She took a water bottle and dumped it on my crotch and then slapped and grabbed me in front of everybody. … It really fucked me up.”

Hallinan waited more than a year to come forward and claimed there was a reason for that saying:

“Her campaign manager convinced me not to report it to law enforcement, convinced me not to quit the campaign because I tried.”

NM State Representative Deborah Armstrong was asked if she saw the alleged assault on Hallinan in her home and she had this to say:

“I never witnessed any such thing.”

The Governor’s Office labeled Hallinan’s claims as “bizarre and slanderous”. The Governor and her staff denied the incident ever happened. The Governor’s Press Secretary disputed all of Hallinan’s claims, saying his time working with the campaign was “marked by frequent inappropriate and unprofessional behavior. Hallinan was so unprofessional … he was not offered a job in her administration.”

Hallinan sued the governor and an out of court settlement of $150,000 was reached paid by the Lujan Grisham for Governor Campaign. No taxpayer money was used to pay the settlement in that the incident occurred prior to Lujan Grisham being elected Governor. The Governor’s Office said the settlement was paid due to the expense of litigating business disputes, to prevent any distraction during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic and to avoid major distraction to the Governor and her staff.

The link to the full KRQE report quoted and entitled “Man accusing Governor of sexaual abuse speaks out” is here:

https://www.krqe.com/news/albuquerque-metro/man-accusing-governor-of-sexual-abuse-speaks-out/

RADIO HOST ACCUSES HALLILAN OF EXTORTION

On November 19, 2021, the Albquerquerqu Journal reported that Albuquerque police investigated a local radio host’s complaint that James Hallinan tried to recruit her as a client or he would “expose private information” about a member of her family. Hallinan was named in an August 13 Albuquerque Police Department investigation report that cites “extortion,” “harassment” and “libel” as the potential offenses being reported by the radio host.

The Albuquerque Police Department released the offense report to the Albuquerque Journal in response to a request under the state Inspection of Public Records Act and in turn the Journal reported on the investigation. According to the Journal article, the police report details exchanges Hallinan had with Alyson Lamanna, cohost of “In the Morning with Jackie, Tony and Donnie” on 100.3 The Peak. Lamanna goes by Jackie on the show. According to the police report, Hallinan texted Lamanna at 10 p.m. and offered his services as a crisis manager. Hallinan told Lamanna that negative news about one of her relatives’ alleged involvement in online pornography was about to break “publicly at [some] point and within iHeartMedia corporate.”

Lamanna responded to Hallinan’s text that she didn’t know what he was talking about and told him “do not text me again.” Hallinan sent another text telling her he was surprised by her “aggressive” response and he texted:

“I can only imagine how you must feel … I was simply giving you a heads up and offering my services, and still am, in order to mitigate this situation as much as possible. It’s what I do for a lot of powerful and famous people around the country.”

According to the Journal report, Hallinan sent another set of texts on August 10th and he said:

“Hope you guys get a few winks tonight. … I felt you were very unprofessional and rude to me today when I gave you a heads up.”

Lamanna replied: “Do not contact me again.”

According to the Journal report, Hallinan took to Twitter to say he was hearing rumors iHeartMedia, owner of the radio station, was going to suspend Jackie and her husband, Tony, over “mounting allegations” that involved the relative. Officials from iHeartMedia in Albuquerque did not respond to a request by the Journal for comment.

The Albuquerque police officer wrote in his report that he responded to the iHeartMedia building in response to Lamina’s complaint that Hallinan was “threatening” her “by text messages to pay or they would expose private information about the caller.” The APD officer wrote:

“The continued texts and Twitter posts were done by Mr. Hallinan as he is knowingly pursuing a pattern of conduct that is intended to annoy, seriously alarm or terrorize another person, and that serves no lawful purpose. The conduct must be such that it would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress and, in speaking with Miss Lamanna, she was in substantial emotional distress.”

The police report said the case was forwarded to APD’s Central Impact team, which investigates crimes not covered by other specialty units. At the time of the Journal report, Gilbert Gallegos, a police spokesman, said the investigation was ongoing. The final disposition of the investigation is unknown and it has not been reported on by the Journal.

You can read the full Albuquerque Journal article quoted entitled “Radio host accuses strategist of extortion” at this link:

https://www.abqjournal.com/2447688/radio-host-accuses-strategist-of-extortion-ex-apd-officer-affirmed-the-woman-was-in-substantial-emotional-distress.html

DEMOCRAT CANIDATES OPPOSED BY WORKING TOGETHER NEW MEXICO SPEAK OUT

Working Together New Mexico has already endorsed and is getting involved in two Democratic New Mexico House primary races. Those House races are District 40 and District 46 in Northern New Mexico.

NEW MEXICO HOUSE DISTRICT 40

New Mexico House District 40 is a northern New Mexico house district. Democrat first term State Representative Roger Montoya is being challenged by former state Rep. Joseph Sanchez. House District 40 stretches from the outskirts of Española and Chimayó to the Colorado border. The Secretary of State has lists Gerald Steven McFall as the Republican candidate but the Secretary of State also lists him as a Republican candidate for the northern congressional seat. It is more likely than not that the Democrat will win the race come November 8.

In Democratic New Mexico House District 40 state Representative Roger Montoya of Velarde is facing a primary challenge from former Representative Joseph Sanchez, who has been endorsed by Working Together New Mexico to unset State Representative Roger Montoya. Representative Montoya for his part takes issue with Working Together New Mexico getting involved with his race and said this:

“My votes reflect the people, the needs, and the hearts and minds of rural New Mexico. ”

Montoya said he has stood up to progressives in his party when they go too far and he describes his record as “moderate”, yet the PAC is opposing his candidacy. Montoya points the fact that he voted against legislation to establish a clean fuel standard, a proposal that died on a tie vote this year, and it was considered a major setback to the progressive agenda.

NEW MEXICO HOUSE DISTRICT 46

New Mexico House District 46 is a northern New Mexico house district and includes Pojoaque and parts of northern Santa Fe, Española and Chimayó. Two term progressive Democrat Representative Andrea Romero has drawn 3 democratic primary challengers and one Republican challenger. Democrat Henry Roybal is a well-known moderate Democrat Santa Fe County Commissioner.

Working Together New Mexico has also announced that it is supporting challenger Santa Fe County Commissioner Henry Roybal. Representative Andrea Romero of Santa Fe. A third candidate, Ryan Erik Salazar, is also running for the Democratic nomination. Incumbent Democrat Representative Andrea Romero said she is not at all surprised to see “conservative forces” in the state lining up to support one of her opponents and she had this to say:

“Our politics and ideas couldn’t be more different. … I’m proud to run on my progressive Democratic values against corporate interests funding Mr. Roybal.”

The link to the Journal article quated entitled “PAC to intervene in contested democratic races” is here:

https://www.abqjournal.com/2479331/pac-to-intervene-in-contested-democratic-races.html

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

The antics of City Councilor Louie Sanchez forming a political action committee to promote “moderate Democrats” falls under the category of “Stupid Is As Stupid Does”. The city of Albuquerque is often vilified in the New Mexico legislature, especially in rural parts of New Mexico, often coming in on the short end of the stick when it comes to funding of major projects, such as the centralized homeless shelter and major issues, such as crime legislation, affecting the city.

Albuquerque is viewed as the major source of many of the state’s problems, such as rising crime rates and homelessness. Now we have “big city” City Councilor Louie Sanchez who wants to stick his nose into Democrat New Mexico legislative politics that will likely result in even more resentment towards the city, especially if the Democrat incumbents prevail.

Three-month tenured City Councilor Louis Sanchez would serve his constituents much better if he would just learn his own job duties and responsibilities first. He has no business sticking his nose into Democratic races and establishing a PAC to unseat elected Democrats that no doubt know far more about their Districts than Sanchez and his PAC could ever hope to know or understand. But then again, Sanchez has hired a firm with extensive experienced in “opposition research” to run his PAC and do his bidding and his dirty work for him to disparage Democrat incumbents.

Republican City Council Dan Lewis and Democrat Louie Sanchez with their antics and votes have become the “Twiddle Dee” and the “Twiddle Dum” of the Albuquerque City Council. They have replaced Isaac Benton and Pat Davis in Keller’s Democratic “Burque Wonderland”.

This blog article is an in-depth report on the status of the legislation and other goings on of Republican Dan Lewis and his Democrat In Name Only colleague Louie Sanchez.

CITY COUNCIL CONSERVATIVE ALIGNMENT

After the December 7, City Council runoff election, the city council is split 5 Democrats to 4 Republicans, but ideology split 5 conservatives to 3 progressives and one moderate. The breakdown by name is as follows:

Democrats

District 1 Conservative Democrat Louie Sanchez
District 2 Progressive Democrat Isaac Benton
District 3 Moderate Democrat Klarissa Peña
District 6 Progressive Democrat Pat Davis
District 7 Progressive Democrat Tammy Fiebelkorn

Republicans

District 5 Conservative Republican Dan Lewis
District 4 Conservative Republican Brook Bassan
District 8 Conservative Republican Trudy Jones
District 9 Conservative Republican Renee Grout

Although the City Council is split 5 Democrats and 4 Republicans, Conservative Democrat Louie Sanchez has allied himself with Conservative Republicans Dan Lewis and Renee Grout with all 3 pledging to hold Mayor Tim Keller and his administration accountable for their actions. Prior to being sworn in for a third term on January 1, 2022, Republican City Councilor Dan Lewis declared he would be the next city council President.

On January 10, at the very first meeting of the city council, Lewis failed in his bid to become city council President losing to Democrat Isaac Benton. Notwithstanding his loss as council President, Dan Lewis introduced 4 resolutions designed to carry out his threat and personal vendetta to hold the Keller Administration accountable for what he perceives has been bad policy.

Now considered by many as Democrat In Name Only, District 1 Conservative Democrat Louie Sanchez has aligned himself extensively with Dan Lewis on major votes and has conducted his own personal vendetta against Keller appointees. Sanchez has supported Republican efforts to set back and obstruct progressive policies accomplished over the past 4 years and you can expect more over the next 4 years.

STATUS ON LEWIS SPONSORED LEGISLATION

On January 10, at the very first meeting of the new Albuquerque City Council, newly sworn in District 5 Republican Dan Lewis announced the introduction of 4 major resolutions he is sponsored . The resolutions are summarized and how they have fared are as follows:

A RESOLUTION REPEAL OR LIMITING MAYORAL AUTHORITY DURING A PUBLIC HEALTH EMERGENCY

Early in the COVID-19 pandemic when Democrats had a 6 to 4 majority, the council expanded the Mayor’s authority during a public health crisis. On March 10, 2022, the Albuquerque City Council voted to narrowly reverse the City Councils 2020 action. The Council passed legislation on a 5 to 4 vote, with Republican Councilors, Dan Lewis, Brook Bassan, Renee Grout, Trudy Jones and lone Democrat Louie Sanchez voting in support and all 4 remaining Democrats voting no.

The council voted to revoke Mayor Tim Keller’s power to do such things as ordering closures of streets or places of mass gatherings, canceling city events and reallocating up to $1 million in the city budget. Under the enacted ordinance, the Mayor was relegated only with the ability to merely make “advisories and recommendations.” Councilor Dan Lewis proposed the changes, saying Keller had hardly invoked his powers and mostly deferred to orders issued by New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham’s administration. Keller’s Chief Operating Officer Lawrence Rael opposed the change saying the administration had used the newly revoked procurement flexibility and needed the ability to move quickly.

Keller ultimately vetoed the legislation. Overriding a mayoral veto takes 6 votes, but only 5 councilors supported the override during the March 21 city council meeting and they were Republicans Bassan, Grout, Jones, Lewis and Democrat Sanchez.

Keller argued in his veto message that the public health emergency powers allowed his administration to take “innumerable actions … to protect the residents and employees of the City.” He cited emergency leases with the hotels that the city used to quarantine first responders exposed to the virus and to shelter people who are homeless, the expeditious purchase of personal protective equipment, and more. In his veto message Keller wrote:

“There is ample evidence that civil emergency powers were effective and are needed.”

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/new-mexico/articles/2022-03-10/albuquerque-council-votes-to-rein-in-mayors-crisis-powers

https://www.santafenewmexican.com/ap/albuquerque-council-votes-to-rein-in-mayors-crisis-powers/article_ad6ad126-6fbb-553a-b168-c1c2b2a7dc46.html

A RESOLUTION BARING THE CITY FROM MANDATING COVID-19 VACCINES FOR THE MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT WORKFORCE

Lewis initially said the bill answered concerns from police officers and firefighters. It is well settled law that private business can impose vaccine mandates to protect their workforce and the public they interact with. The city is no different. Unvaccinated police and fire officers can easily catch and spread the virus endangering public health, safety and welfare.

Notwithstanding, on March 21, the Council passed legislation on a 5 to 4 vote , with Republican Councilors, Dan Lewis, Brook Bassan, Renee Grout, Trudy Jones and lone Democrat Louie Sanchez voting in support and all 4 remaining Democrats voting no. The resolution bars the city from mandating that employees get the shot and from penalizing those who do not.

Lewis himself admitted the city could not control what the federal or state governments might ultimately require, but said the legislation would demonstrate that the local government itself would not impose a vaccine standard and he said:

“Our policy will not be to mandate vaccines on our city employees and would give them the peace of mind (that) they wouldn’t have to make a decision between taking a vaccine they may not want or need and their jobs.”

Democrats City Councilors Pat Davis, Isaac Benton, Tammy Fiebelkorn and Klarissa Peña voted in opposition, and rightly so saying the city should not cede its ability to regulate its workforce because the public relies heavily on services and having “the staff available to them.” Not requiring inoculation of city employees and then allowing those same city employees to deal with the general public no likely creates a liability issue for the city if a member of the public becomes infected with COVID by a city employee.

The anti-vaccine legislation for city employees was not needed. It was sponsored by Lewis for show and headline. Mayor Tim Keller had suggested a vaccine policy earlier this year, announcing in January his administration would roll out a vaccine-or-test requirement to comply with federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration rules. Keller then backtracked after the U.S. Supreme Court blocked those OSHA rules. Keller could veto the legislation, and 6 votes would be needed to override the veto. A veto override is not likely given the 4 democrats who voted no.

The link to quoted news source material is here:

https://www.abqjournal.com/2481514/city-council-votes-to-prohibit-employee-vaccine-mandates.html

A RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE CITY ADMINISTRATION TO CONSIDER AND “TO THE EXTENT ADVISABLE,” PUSH TO RENEGOTIATE THE TERMS OF THE FEDERAL COURT APPROVED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT (CASA)

On March 10, 2022 the Albuquerque City Council passed a resolution directing city officials “to the extent advisable” to “petition” to reopen and renegotiate the Court Approved Settlement Agreement mandating the reforms of the Albuquerque Police Department. The council resolution passed on an 8-to-1 vote with City Councilor Tammy Fiebelkorn the only councilor to vote against the resolution.

The city council resolution says the “petition” should address recommendations contained in a released by U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland on September 13, 2021, including putting a cap on how much an independent monitor overseeing court-mandated reforms can be paid and assessing ending the monitorship after 5 years. The problem is the Garland recommendations apply to future consent decrees and have no binding effect on the City’s Court approved settlement agreement.

The settlement mandates 271 reforms of APD after a federal investigation found that APD engaged in a pattern of excessive use of force and deadly force and had a “culture of aggression.” Lewis was on the city council when the settlement was negotiated and he failed in his oversight of APD as APD deteriorated.

The resolution enacted by the city council for the city to renegotiate “to the extent advisable” the Court Approved Settlement Agreement is a reflection of sure ignorance on the part of the City Council and the reforms mandated. It is the epitome of meaningless fluff. It reflects that the city council does not have a basic understanding of the court process nor the true meaning of a federal court order.

During the March 10 council meeting, City attorneys would not answer questions about the process to renegotiate the agreement and what factors are being considered. Instead, all questions were referred to APD. The fact that the City Attorney would not answer any questions about the process to renegotiate the settlement agreement and what factors can be considered at best was an ignorance of the practice of law on the part of the city attorney office and at worst legal malpractice for the city attorney’s failure to properly advise its client the City Council.

Chief Medina either made it up or lied when he told the city council that he had been “assured by the Federal Monitor” that the next report on APD’s progress would be different than recent ones and not as harshly critical of the department’s progress. The Federal Monitor is an officer of the court, does not and cannot report to Medina and as such cannot give any such assurances.

The Federal Monitor must follow the evidence dealing with compliance levels. Chief Medina’s comment “I want to keep all options on the table” likewise is laughable. Medina has no options at this point in time other than bringing his department into compliance with the settlement terms and conditions.

Simply put, there is nothing to negotiate. The city and the DOJ entered into a binding court order settlement agreement on what APD needs to do to come into compliance before the case can be dismissed. Because the settlement is a court approved order, any and all changes, even if agreed to by the Department of Justice and the city, must be approved by the Federal Judge.

DAN LEWIS PRIOR FAILURE OF APD OVERSIGHT

The Albuquerque City Council plays a crucial oversight role of the Albuquerque Police Department (APD) including controlling its budget. Dan Lewis did nothing when he was on the city council before when it comes to Albuquerque Police Department (APD)reforms. Lewis never challenged the Republican Berry Administration nor the APD command staff in public in any meaningful way demanding compliance with the Department of Justice (DOJ) consent decree reforms. Each time the Federal Court appointed Monitor presented his critical reports of APD to the City Council, Lewis remained silent. Lewis declined to demand accountability from Mayor Berry and hold the APD command staff responsible for dragging their feet on the reforms.

When Federal Monitor James Ginger made a presentation to a city council committee Lewis was presiding over, then City Council President Dan Lewis asked Dr. Ginger “Who is ultimately responsible for failure to implement the reforms an overseeing APD?” When Ginger said “The City Council” Lewis snorted and chortled uncomfortably with other counselors with a stupid expression of disbelief on his face.

Lewis often likes to take credit for bringing the DOJ to the city with his sponsorship of a resolution enacted by the City Council. The truth is Lewis had very little to do with it or nothing at all to bring the Department of Justice to the city.

The DOJ came to the city because minority community stakeholders who had been victimized by APD and lobbied aggressively and effectively to get the DOJ to come to the city. Even as a City Councilor, Lewis did not attend a single federal court hearing on the Federal Monitor’s reports to find out what APD’s position was on the monitor’s reports.

SUBSTITUTE RESOLUTION TO REPEAL 3/8 OF 1% GROSS RECEIPTS TAX ENACTED 4 YEARS AGO

Councilor Dan Lewis has introduced a substitute resolution calling for the repeal of a 3/8 of 1% gross receipts tax increase the city implemented four years ago. The original resolution was to repeal the entire quarter cent tax enacted 4 years ago by the council. The Lewis substitute tax resolution would cut the tax to 1/4 of 1%. That would effectively save consumers 10 cents for every $100 spent on most goods and services.

Least anyone forget, 4 years ago Mayor Tim Keller signed off on the tax that was primarily dedicated to public safety breaking a campaign pledge not to raise taxes without a public vote, even for public safety. The tax was enacted 4 years ago on 8-1 bipartisan vote as the city was facing a 40 million deficit and severe budget cuts.

Keller made the pledge not to raise taxes unless voted on during a debate for Mayor with Dan Lewis. The council’s 2018 tax required that the city spend at least 60% of tax proceeds on public safety and that expired two years ago. Keller won the 2017 runoff against Lewis by a decisive landslide by securing 60,219 votes or 62.20% against Dan Lewis who secured 36,594 or 37.8% of the vote.

The tax repeal would have an estimated collective impact of about $22 million to $24 million a year. Lewis argues that the money is not needed. Tax revenues have been climbing dramatically, so the tax initiated in 2018 could still bring in nearly as much money as it did then even by reducing the percentage. Lewis served a full 8 years on the counsel before the tax was enacted and voted to cut spending and budgets, including police, to avoid tax increases which were needed to avoid deficits.

The Keller Administration for its part has said that it is not the time to cut taxes. The Keller administration told a city council finance committee that the city recently signed off on a new police union contract that raises police officer salaries significantly with 8% raises which will increase the city’s annual police department costs by $12.8 million. Further, inflation is increasing as is gas prices and the city will have to deal with both within a few months. Inflation will affect everything from construction projects to labor, and higher gas prices are in store for usage of the city’s fleet of vehicles, including police units and fire emergency units.

https://www.abqjournal.com/2470950/city-cfo-worst-time-possible-to-cut-taxes.html

On February 7, it was reported City Councilors Isaac Benton and Pat Davis filed a competing tax bill that would keep the tax intact, but designate it for specific purposes. Under the Benton-Davis bill 60% of the tax collected would go to public safety and 40% for affordable housing. Davis said the legislation is not a direct response to Lewis’ January tax-cut proposal, but rather the result of conversations going back to last year. Davis said the proposal aligns with the tax’s original intent, when the council passed the increase in 2018 and it required that at least 60% of the receipts go to public safety. That stipulation expired after two years.

Both tax bills are still pending before the city council. Notwithstanding, city hall observers’ belief that Democrat Louis Sanchez will support the Republican Lewis tax repeal, joining the 4 Republicans, over the tax bill sponsored by Democrats Benson and Davis.

https://www.abqjournal.com/2468227/councilors-introduce-competing-tax-proposal-ex-after-tax-hike-repeal.html

REPEAL OF PLASTIC BAG BAN RESULTS IN VETO

In 2019, the City Council passed the Albuquerque Clean & Green Retail Ordinance ordinance making it illegal for grocers and other stores to distribute single-use plastic bags at checkout. The ban was to start January 1, 2020 but Mayor temporarily suspended the ban early in the COVID-19 pandemic. Mayor Keller reinstated the enforcement of the ordinance.

On March 7, 2022, the City Council voted 6-3 to repeal the Clean & Green Retail Ordinance. The vote came over very vocal opposition from members of the public who spoke during the meeting. Many called it a step backward and questioned why the Council was making a decision before the city completed its ongoing study into the ban’s impact or why leaders were reconsidering it at all given the city’s other pressing concerns like crime and homelessness.

Republican Councilor Brook Bassan, who sponsored the repeal bill, said Albuquerque residents should be able to use plastic bags if they want and said:

“People should have the choice of what they want to do; people should have the option to decide what’s best for them.”

If you follow Bassan’s argument to a logical conclusion, she must also believe you should have the choice to dispose of your car’s “oil change” oil in your backyard, buy cancer causing weed killers and even buy fireworks at the height of the fire season.

Republican City Councilors Dan Lewis, Renee Grout, Brook Bassan and Trudy Jones voted along with Democrats Louie Sanchez and Klarissa Peña to repeal. Democrats Isaac Benton, Pat Davis and Tammy Fiebelkorn voted against the repeal.

On Friday, March 29, Mayor Keller vetoed the City Council’s repeal of the Albuquerque Clean & Green Retail Ordinance. Keller’s veto forces the matter back onto the council’s next agenda. It will take 6 votes to override the veto and preserving the ban. At least one councilor who voted to repeal must change their mind since the repeal passed 6-3. Keller addressed the likelihood of a veto override in his veto message saying:

“I write to you not taking lightly the Executive Veto power and also with the acknowledgment that this veto may not ultimately stand.”

In his veto message, Keller asks the city council to consider ways to improve the ordinance rather than “outright repeal”. Keller says the ordinance provides the Solid Waste Department the flexibility to make adjustments and said:

“For decades the dedicated staff at Solid Waste led the recycling efforts in New Mexico. The City of Albuquerque started curbside recycling in 2012, and the sustainable innovations that started at Solid Waste continue to this day.”

The links to quoted news sources are here:

https://www.abqjournal.com/2477132/city-council-repeals-plastic-bag-prohibition.html

https://www.abqjournal.com/2483531/mayors-veto-attempts-to-preserve-plastic-bag-ban.html

https://www.kob.com/albuquerque-news/mayor-keller-vetoes-repeal-of-albuquerques-plastic-bag-ban/6432391/?cat=500

OTHER OBSTRUCTIONIS ANTICS AND RESOLUTIONS

“Twiddle Dee” Lewis and “Twiddle Dum” Sanchez have been very active in other areas trying to prove dominance on the city council and to promote their personal agendas of vindictiveness.

DEMANDING TO CONFIRM THOSE ALREADY CONFIRMED TO CARRY OUT PERSONAL VENDETTA

Mayor Tim Keller was sworn in for his second term on January 1. Mayor Keller chose not to replace Chief Administrative Officer Sarita Nair, Chief Operations Officer Lawrence Rael, City Clerk Ethan Watson, City Attorney Esteban Aguilar, APD Chief Harold Medina and Albuquerque Fire and Rescue Chief Gene Gallegos. All 6 of Keller’s top executives continued to do their jobs after Keller was sworn in. The council confirmed all 6 during Keller’s first term and each was approved by a unanimous vote.
City Councilors Republican Dan Lewis and Democrat Louis Sanchez were also sworn in on January 1st . Within weeks after Lewis and Sanchez were sworn in, they began to demand that Mayor Tim Keller again nominate Nair, Rael, Watson, Aguilar, Medina and Gallegos so they could hold confirmation hearings and be allowed to vote to reject them for the positions they held. The councilors say the City Charter requires a fresh confirmation in a mayor’s new term.

The City Charter requires the council’s “advice and consent” for just a few positions the mayor appoints. Those positions are Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) , Deputy CAOs, Police Chief, Fire Chief, City Clerk and City Attorney. The City Charter provides that appointees requiring city council approval “shall be presented to the Council for confirmation within 45 days after the Mayor takes office.” The City Charter contains no provisions mandating that the Mayor nominate his top ranking executives a second time so that a newly elected city councilor can confirm.

City Council President Isaac Benton has gone along with Lewis and Sanchez saying the confirmation dispute is worth pursuing as he believes voters who approved the initial City Charter and subsequent amendments sought to vest the council with the authority to help determine who holds some of the municipal government’s key jobs. Benton had this to say:

“We are supposed to be [the balance of power] – a separate, but equal part of the city government.”

Mayor Keller disputed the city council’s right to another confirmation vote, but forwarded City Clerk Ethan Watson and City Attorney Esteban Aguilar Jr., for another vote. Both have held the roles since Keller’s first term and previously went through council confirmation. Keller said the charter differentiates the clerk and attorney from the other positions, specifically stating that the clerk and attorney appointments “shall be for a term that coincides and terminates with the term of the Mayor making the appointment.” It does not use the same language for the other positions.

In the interest of compromise, Mayor Keller forwarded the names of Chief Administrative Officer Sarita Nair, Chief Operations Officer Lawrence Rael, APD Chief Harold Medina and Albuquerque Fire and Rescue Chief Gene Gallegos in the form of an “executive communication” that required that they all be confirmed with a single vote, not separate votes and as a “package deal”.

On March 11, Mayor Tim Keller announced in a statement that Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) Sarita Nair resigned her position. Nair has been the city’s chief administrative officer since late 2017 when she was confirmed by a unanimous city council vote. No reasons were given for her sudden resignation and the city and Nair declined all requests to interview CAO Nair.

A city spokesman did say that Nair’s name being submitted for another confirmation vote had nothing to do with her resignation. Confidential sources have said that Sarita Nair did not have the confidence and support of Democrat City Councilors Isaac Benton and Pat Davis. When you add Republican’s Dan Lewis and Renee Grout and “Democrat In Name Only” Louis Sanchez to the mix, it’s likely that CAO Sarita Nair would not have been confirmed.

https://www.petedinelli.com/2022/03/12/abqs-city-chief-administrative-officer-sarita-nair-resigns-from-200000-job-no-reasons-given-for-departure-are-there-any-others/

City Councilor Dan Lewis had this to say about his demand that all the names be submitted a second time:

“I’m going to always defend the authority of the council, and any authority that has been given to it by the charter and the people of the city.”

Dan Lewis was elected to the city council for a second term in 2013, the same year that Replican Mayor Richard Berry was elected to a second term. Republican Mayor Berry did not submit relevant reappointments for confirmation a second time, despite a request from then-council President Ken Sanchez to do so. Not at all surprising Dan Lewis kept his big mouth shut then and did not “defend the authority of the council” and said nothing at the time no doubt because it was a Republican Mayor that he needed to curry favor with but now he says something because he is dealing with a Mayor that beat him in a runoff in 2017.

CONFIRMATION HEARINGS USED TO INTIMDATE AND SHAME

It became painfully obvious that the only reason “Twiddle Dee” Lewis and “Twiddle Dum” Sanchez demanded Keller’s top executives previously confirmed be re submitted for a second time for confirmation was to try and shame and intimate them and to vote against them.

On March 7, City Clerk Ethan Watson was confirmed on a 7-2 bipartisan vote of the city council. “Twiddle Dee” Lewis and “Twiddle Dum” Sanchez crossed examined Watson over his job performance during the 2021 municipal election. Both Lewis and Sanchez questioned Watson’s impartiality in administering the city’s taxpayer-funded public campaign finance system, ignoring the fact that Watson is license attorney and as such an officer of the court who has taken an oath of office himself.

Lewis focused on Watson’s move to reject mayoral candidate Manuel Gonzales’ application for the money on the grounds he’d submitted fraudulent documentation, questioning if he’d applied the same scrutiny to Keller’s campaign. Lewis ignored that a state judge ultimately upheld Watson’s decision. Lewis at one point became very condensing and mean spirited when he asked Watson “how we can trust you moving forward in future elections?”. This coming from Dan Lewis who engaged in smear tactics and lies against his opponent incumbent Democrat Cynthia Borrego to get elected saying she was in favor of “sanctuary city polices” and the releasing of violent criminals. Dan Lewis paid Republican Political Operative Jay McClusky to run his campaign.

Not at all surprisingly, Sanchez claimed his own 2021 city council campaign race against incumbent Lan Sena was treated unfairly by Ethan Watson, even though Sanchez won the race. It was Sanchez who proclaimed he was the rightful city councilor to have been elected and demanded that Watson swear him in before the term he was elected began on January 1, 2022. Sanchez wanted to vote against legislation that was pending and sponsored by outgoing City Councilor Lan Sena and his demands were essentially an effort to shame former City Councilor Lan Sena.

The link to quoted news source material is here:

https://www.abqjournal.com/2478932/city-clerk-is-reconfirmed-despite-litany-of-questions.html

SANCHEZ’ GETS A NASTY PUSH BACK FROM APD CHIEF HAROLD MEDINA

According to a March 14, 2021 KRQE News 13 Investigative report, over the course of one year, APD Lieutenant Jim Edison was paid $242,758 which consisted of a base pay and overtime pay. To put this staggering amount into perspective, hourly based pay for APD Lieutenants in 2020 and 2021 was $40 an hour or $83,200 a year. In other words, Edison was paid $159,558 in overtime in addition to his $83,200 base pay resulting in $242,758 paid in the one year reviewed. Edison was paid upwards of 3 times his base pay all because of overtime which is paid at the rate of time and a half.

APD sergeants and lieutenants, although management, are allowed to be members of the police union. Under the police union contract, they are required to work a 40-hour work week and are then are paid time and a half for all time reportedly worked over their 40 hour work week hours. Overtime pay must be approved in writing by supervising personnel and in advance where possible.

The March 14 KRQE News 13 Investigative report on the Lt. Edison overtime pay comes after 6 prior audits resulted in 17 findings and recommendation made to stop the overtime pay abuse. On October 26, 2020 the Internal Audit Department also released a performance audit that found over $400,000 paid in overtime to 4 police officers. The release audit found that 4 APD Officers claimed over 2,000 hours of paid overtime, paid at the rate of time and a half, during the fiscal year of July 1, 2019 and ending June 30, 2020.

The 2021 special audit found there was an absolute failure by APD command staff to carry out and implement the changes needed to solve the overtime problem. The released audit also identified that certain APD police union contract terms and conditions are in violation of the Federal Labor Standards Act and that the police union contract has contributed significantly to the overtime pay abuse by rank-and-file police officers.

Deputy Chief Smathers was given a written reprimand and a one day suspension for his failure to oversee the timesheets of APD Lieutenant Jim Edison which resulted in $159,558 in overtime paid.

APD Police Chief Harold Medina bent over backwards to defend Deputy Chief Smathers saying the one-day suspension was appropriate. Medina had this to say:

“Up here on the fifth floor of the Police Department, the executive staff, we’re so busy that to go through the fine details of looking through somebody’s timesheets is not something that we’re going to be carving out time for. … Jim Edison deceived Deputy Chief Smathers and Deputy Chief Smathers took accountability for that and was disciplined.

The biggest thing that Deputy Chief Smathers did wrong is he had faith and belief in Jim Edison. Jim Edison betrayed that trust. And it’s very difficult for me to paint a negative brush on Deputy Chief Smathers for being a good leader, respecting his people, listening to his people and believing in his people.”

During the March 21 City Council meeting, the March 14 KRQE News 13 Investigative report on the Lt. Edison overtime pay abuse was brought up. City Councilor Louie Sanchez saw it as an opportunity to score some points and try and hold the Keller Administration accountable for its actions. APD Chief Harold Medina was not present. Sanchez had this to say:

“When I was a young police officer I was told your time sheet was the single most important item that you deal with as a police officer every single day of the week. . . That it needs to be accurate 100% percent. It’s a legal document so it has to be 100% accurate. . . The comment that we don’t have time for that [says] you don’t have time to do your job. So I need to get an explanation why we don’t have time to check timesheets. …”

APD Chief Harold Medina was not about to have any freshman City Councilor, even if he is a retired APD police officer, question his management of APD. On March 25, Medina went out of his way to write a letter to Councilor Sanchez, attaching it to a press release no less, that took issue with Sanchez’s comments and responding to the news report. Medina wrote Sanchez in part:

“I did not attend Monday’s City Council meeting, but I would like to take the opportunity to respond to the question you directed at me about a recent news story. …

Frankly, that approach to the job is the type of culture we have been changing since I have been Chief. I want officers to excel at investigations and produce effective criminal complaints that lead to the prosecution of criminals. Officers must be 100% accurate when they arrest suspects of violent crimes and take someone freedom away. A time sheet, while important to document an officer’s work, should not be an officer’s top priority.”

Medina’s letter to Sanchez and attaching it to a press release was an act of disrespect to an elected official and violates city council protocol. Medina should have asked to speak before the next city council meeting and answer whatever questions Sanchez has about the time sheet fraud and abuse and any other questions he may have about APD’s management.

When Medina tells Sanchez “I want officers to excel at investigations and produce effective criminal complaints that lead to the prosecution of criminals. Officers must be 100% accurate when they arrest suspects of violent crimes and take someone freedom away. A time sheet, while important to document an officer’s work, should not be an officer’s top priorty” Chief Medina is essentially saying to APD officers you can violate the law when it comes to overtime pay card fraud so long as you are enforcing the law and making arrests.

The blunt truth is that if Sanchez is genuinely concerned about APD overtime time card fraud and abuse, he needs to do more than ask questions of Medina to garner publicity. Sanchez as a retired APD Officer more likely than not actually witnessed or was aware of the years of overtime pay abuse by APD. Now that he is on the City Council, he can do far more than ask questions of a disrespectful APD Chief.

Sergeants and Lieutenants have proven time and time again, year after year, they are the biggest source of excessive and abusive overtime pay. Sanchez can demand removal of the management positions of Sergeants and Lieutenants from the collective bargaining unit making them at will and not allowed to claim overtime. On April 1, the Keller Administration will be releasing the 2022-2023 city budget. It is during the budget process that the council needs to ask the hard questions of APD and to get results when it comes to the overtime pay fraud and abuse.

The link to a related blog article is here:

https://www.petedinelli.com/2022/03/21/another-day-another-apd-overtime-dollar-scandal-apd-lieutenant-paid-159558-in-overtime-in-2021-400000-overtime-paid-to-4-sworn-in-2020-initiate-civil-collections-criminal-time-card-fraud-act/

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

Now that the 4 resolutions City Councilor Dan Lewis introduced have essentially made it through the city council with some limited success, especially with the help of City Councilor Sanchez, there is no doubt Lewis is on the “prowl” to scrounge up even more legislation to undercut both the Democratic majority and Democrat Mayor Tim Keller.

Four of the most likely resolutions that can be expected from Dan Lewis include the following:

1. A resolution advocating late term abortion prohibitions as was placed on the 2013 municipal ballot and which failed. Should Roe v. Wade in fact be overturned by the United States Supreme Court, which is expected in June, it is more likely than not right-wing Republicans Dan Lewis and Renee Grout will seek to have abortions outlawed within the city by declaring no licenses to do business within the city shall be issued to any health care provider corporation such as Planned Parenthood that offers late term abortions. Without a license to do business, the city planning department could order the closure of the business.

2. Repeal of the city’s immigration friendly policy that Dan Lewis and City Council Renees Grout falsely label as sanctuary city during the 2021 municipal election.

3. Opposition to or perhaps repeal of the city’s minimum wage ordinance.

4. Reduction in social service programs to help the homeless and the poor, including a scaling back of the Gateway Homeless shelter operations.

5. Advocate the reduction in the size of city government and eliminate new departments and programs created by Mayor Keller by denying funding for such Departments as the “Office of Equity and Inclusion” that deals with immigrant relations.

Dan Lewis has already made it known privately that he intends to run for Mayor again in 2025, perhaps again against Tim Keller. With that in mind, it is clear he intends to be as disruptive as possible on the city council in order to generate the news coverage he so covets. He will be very successful if Democrats like Louie Sanchez allow it to happen, unless of course Twiddle Dee and Twiddle Dumb knock each other out by bumping into each other running to be in front of the news cameras.

Adrian Avila is accused of allegedly killing 2 people in two separate Albuquerque shootings. Avila is accused in two shootings that occurred 6 months apart. The first is an August 2020 case where a teen was killed during a gun robbery. The second is a February 2021 case where a man was killed in front of his home by his brother’s kidnappers.

APD Detectives believe Avila is one of 4 people involved in the shooting of Donnie Brandon at Sandia Vista Park and was charged in early March in the case. Avila was also charged in December 2021 for the February 2021 murder of Elias Otero-Garcia. APD says Adrian Avila shot and killed EliasOtero-Garcia during a robbery. The Bernalillo County District Attorney office filed 2 motions to have Adrian Avila held in jail pending trial while he awaits trial on charges of murder, kidnapping and armed robbery.

Under the law, the prosecution has the burden of proof to make the case that a defendant charged with a violent crime is too dangerous to release from jail pending trial. After an evidentiary hearing, 2nd Judicial District Judge Stanley Whitaker ruled that prosecutors had credible evidence to charge Adrian Avila for the crimes, but prosecutors did not prove “no conditions of release could protect the community.”

Second Judicial District Judge Stan Whitaker granted Avila’s release on strict conditions, including GPS monitoring and a curfew. In addition to wearing a GPS ankle monitor, Whitaker ordered that Avila remain under house arrest and be allowed to leave his mother’s home only to attend a charter high school and for educational purposes. Judge Whitaker’s decision to release Adrian Avila on house arrest with a GPS monitor pending trial drew immediate sharp criticism from APD Chief Harold Medina. APD then took to social media the vilify the court’s decision.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Judge Whitaker is the presiding Judge over the District Courts Criminal Division. District Judge Stan Whitaker is one of the most experienced trial judges on the bench today. He has a very distinguished career and is respected by the New Mexico bar. Judge Whitaker is a Sandia High graduate and earned his law degree from the University of New Mexico School of Law in 1989. He was a civil litigator with two different Albuquerque law firms before going to work in the Family Crimes Unit of the Bernalillo County District Attorney’s Office, where he prosecuted child abuse cases. Judge Whitaker first came to the Second Judicial District Court as a Domestic Violence Commissioner in the Family Court Division. He left the district court to work as an Assistant U.S. Attorney for the District of New Mexico as a trial attorney. He returned to District Court in 2006, accepting an appointment as a Family Court Judge and a year later, he moved to the Criminal Division and has served there now for 15 years.

CHIEF MEDINA AND APD ENGAGES IN SOCIAL MEDIA PROPAGANDA TO VILIFY A JUDGE

APD Chief Harold Medina for his part had this to say during a TV interview:

“These people are accused of killing somebody and we’re counting on an ankle bracelet to protect the community. … [Adrain Avila is] at the root of gun violence. … [His release is] ridiculous.”

The link to the news interview is here:

https://www.kob.com/albuquerque-news/albuquerque-teen-accused-of-2-murders-released-with-gps-ankle-monitor/6425548/?cat=500

On Thursday, March 22, at 2:07 pm, APD posted on its official FACEBOOK page a photo of Defendant Adrian Avila with the following post:

“A judge released a murder suspect from jail today on an ankle monitor. Adrian Avila is charged for 2 separate murders. Think about that. Two murders. This suspect is at the root of the gun violence we’re seeing in Albuquerque and the record number of homicides.

At the same time, we are getting reports of violent suspects cutting off their ankle monitors and left to roam the streets until we re-arrest them. This is beyond upsetting. This jeopardizes the safety of our community, including our officers.”

On March 22, APD posted on its TWITTER account a photo of Defendant Adrian Avila with part of the same text:

“A judge released a murder suspect from jail today on an ankle monitor. Adrian Avila is charged for 2 separate murders. Think about that. Two murders. This suspect is at the root of the gun violence we’re seeing in Albuquerque and the record number of homicides.”

APD also posted a follow up TWEET:

“This is beyond upsetting. This jeopardizes the safety of our community, including our officers.”

FACEBOOK COMMENTS REVEAL VILIFICATION OF JUDGE

As of March 28, APD’s FACEBOOK post had over 2,200 overwhelmingly “angry emoji” reactions, over 1,900 shares and over 718 comments. The overwhelming majority of the comments were negative, derogatory and attacks on the judge in the case. Below are just a few of the posted public comments on the judge:

Judges who release dangerous criminals need to be held accountable if they commit any crimes!

Obviously, this judge is a friend of his family. This kind of corruption needs to stop.

THE DEFENSE RESPONDS

Criminal defense Attorney Ahmad Assed, who represents Adrian Avila said it is not the law that has failed but law enforcement and the prosecutors who have failed to prove their case and that his client is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Assed argued in his response to the prosecution motions to detain pending trial that the prosecution’s evidence against Avila in the August 2020 homicide is circumstantial evidence and based largely on cellphone and Snapchat account records that don’t reliably establish his involvement. In other words, there is no direct evidence such as eyewitness testimony nor forensic evidence such as fingerprints and ballistic testing linking him to the crime.

Assed said this about his client:

“[My client has] no criminal history, no history of failure to appears, he’s got a family that he’s associated with that are law-abiding citizens, hard-working folks, he reached out to law enforcement and sought out the turn-in on his own, and quite frankly conditions have never been in place where we can say he’s ever violated conditions of the court. … We don’t decide cases based on innuendo and DA’s closing arguments geared toward the eye of the media. That was the whole deal today, was just those notion of a closing argument or opening statement for the media’s purposes. It’s not for the court or the judge to discuss the details of the case. The judge must follow the law, and the law clearly requires the state to act. If the state does not act, and in this case, the state did not act, the court must follow the law.”

With respect to Chief Medina, attorney Assed said Medina’s comments were “irresponsible and reckless” statements having the potential to poison a jury pool and raise questions about APD’s ability to investigate crimes objectively and he said this:

“It’s outrageous for Albuquerque’s chief law enforcement officer, who wasn’t even at the hearing, to make a knee-jerk comment that is purely reactionary and pandering.”

Attorney Assed added that Chef Medina and he personally negotiated Avila’s surrender to APD. There was no disclosure if Medina ever asked Assad that his client be held in jail pending trial, yet Medina objects when a judge makes a finding that there was insufficient evidence to hold the accused in jail pending trial.

https://www.kob.com/albuquerque-news/albuquerque-teen-accused-of-2-murders-released-with-gps-ankle-monitor/6425548/?cat=500

https://www.abqjournal.com/2481710/apd-slams-judge-for-releasing-man-facing-2-homicide-charges.html

APD Spokesman Gilbert Gallegos was asked why Medina believed Avila was the root of gun violence. In response, Gallegos said there is probable cause to believe Adrian Avila committed 2 homicides, and the community has a right to be concerned about the release of someone who faces such serious charges. Gallegos in a statement wrote:

“Mr. Assed is entitled to his opinion. He is a defense attorney and he is understandably concerned about the murder charges against his client. … Chief Medina is focused on the safety of the community and getting justice for the murder victims and their families.”

https://www.abqjournal.com/2482782/attorney-for-murder-suspect-alleges-apd-chief-libeled-his-client.html

DEMAND FOR RETRACTION

On March 24, 2022, Ahmad Assed, the attorney for Attorney for Adrian Avila wrote a demand letter to Mayor Tim Keller demanding a retraction of the APD FACEBOOK posts and statements made by APD Chief Harold Medina on the subject of Mr. Avila’s pretrial release. The letter state’s Medina’s inflammatory statements were distributed widely through APD’s social media channels, including Facebook and Twitter, and that the statements constituted libel subjecting the City of Albuquerque, APD, and Chief Medina to suit under the New Mexico Tort Claims Act.

The Assad letter is remarkable in its content and states in part as follows:

“According to APD’s Facebook page, [the FACEBOOK post] was shared approximately 1,800 times. Some comments … advocated for “street justice” against Mr. Avila, which can only be interpreted as calls for violence against a young man, presumed to be innocent, who had proven to the court that there are a set of conditions that that can keep the community and other people safe while he is on release. This is consistent with the law that governs pretrial release. …

APD must retract this statement, not only because it subjects itself to legal consequences otherwise, but also in the interest of preserving public confidence in its ability to protect our community.”

You can review the entire unedited Assad letter at this link:

https://www.kob.com/kobtvimages/repository/cs/files/2022_03_24%20Letter%20to%20Mayor%20re%20APD%20statement.pdf

ALBUQUERQUE CRIME RATES IN A NUTSHELL

According to the 2020 FBI Unified Crime Reports:
Albuquerque has a crime rate of 194% higher than the national average.
Albuquerque’s Violent Crime Index for 2020 is 346% of the national average.
Albuquerque Property Crime Index for 2020 is 256% of the national average.

https://crime-data-explorer.app.cloud.gov/pages/explorer/crime/crime-trend

APD AND DISTRICT ATTORNEY NOT GETTING THE JOB DONE

APD statistics for the budget years of 2019 and 2020 reflect the department is not doing its job of investigating and arresting people. APD felony arrests went down from 2019 to 2020 by 39.51% going down from 10,945 to 6,621. Misdemeanor arrests went down by 15% going down from 19,440 to 16,520. DWI arrests went down from 1,788 in 2019 to 1,230 in 2020, down 26%. The total number of all arrests went down from 32,173 in 2019 to 24,371 in 2020 or by 25%.

In 2019 APD had 924 full time police. In 2020, APD had 1,004 sworn police or 80 more sworn police in 2020 than in 2019, yet arrests went down during the first year of the pandemic. APD’s homicide unit has an anemic clearance rate of 36%. The police union falsely proclaims officer’s hands are tied by the DOJ reforms and are afraid of doing their jobs for fear of being disciplined.

The Bernalillo County District Attorney office currently has the highest voluntary dismissal rate in its history and indicts less than half what it would indict 10 years ago. Plea agreements with low penalties are the norm. Data given to the Supreme Court by the District court revealed overcharging and a failure to screen cases by the District Attorney’s Office contributes to a combined whopping 65% mistrial, acquittal and dismissal rate.

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

There is no doubt that APD Chief Harold Medina and APD Public Information Officer Gilbert Gallegos knew exactly what they were doing with their social media propaganda release attacking the judge. They knew their social media campaign would generate extreme hostility and mistrust towards the judge by the public and those who support APD. Their intent was to disparage the judge and his credibility. Based on the spike in views, the hostile comments and shares, it worked.

The condescending drivel and very dismissive remarks by APD Spokesman Gilbert Gallego’s questioning the motives of the defense attorney and to prop up and defend Medina’s comments merit repeating:

“Mr. Assed is entitled to his opinion. He is a defense attorney and he is understandably concerned about the murder charges against his client. … Chief Medina is focused on the safety of the community and getting justice for the murder victims and their families.”

Before Chief Medina and his public relations flack Gilbert Gallego single out and question the job performance of any judge, or for that matter a defense attorney, and question what motivates them, they both need concentrate on making sure APD is doing its job done. By the statistics, that is not what is happening. APD is not making felony, misdemeanor and DWI arrests, nor solving homicides, yet they want to blame the courts for all the crime in Albuquerque and “one suspect … at the root of the gun violence.”

It’s drivel like this coming APD Spokesman Gilbert Gallegos that reflect what is so very, very wrong with APD on so many levels. “Getting justice for the murder victims and their families” does not mean APD has the right to vilify a judge. It does not mean APD has the right to engage in libel and slander nor violate people’s rights of due process of law by talking and acting like “judge, jury and executioner”.

IRRESPONSIBLE HYPERBOLE

From a public information standpoint, there is no problem with law enforcement giving interviews and posting on social media information regarding law enforcement initiatives, the status of an investigation and even arrests. However, when it comes to pending criminal prosecutions, APD has no business posting on social media anything that will jeopardize the successful prosecution of a case and anything that vilifies a judge who must decide that case.

Medina and APD posting on social media to express “opinions” regarding a judge’s decision to release a defendant pending trial, no doubt with the assistance of paid public relations flack Gilbert Gallegos, was irresponsible hyperbole to inflame the public against the court and in a real sense it placed the judge in harms way.

Medina’s remarks in general stepped over the line, but then again, Medina has never cared for constitutional rights of individuals. This is the very same police chief that has a nefarious past of killing a 14-year-old having a psychotic episode who was brandishing a BB gun in a church and who years later gave the order to use “deadly force” on a veteran suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder that a jury and judge awarded $10 million after finding that the deceased was only a threat and a danger to himself.

Chief Medina, APD and spokesman Gilbert Gallegos have a misunderstanding of their role when it comes to criminal prosecutions. The police role is to investigate, gather evidence, interview witnesses, conduct forensics if necessary and prepare a case for prosecutors, prepare final supplemental reports and forward the completed cases to the District Attorney Office who then reviews the reports and then decide on the charges.

Once a person is charged with any felony, especially a violent felony, the case is no longer in police hands nor in their control. Once a person is charged, it’s the prosecutors and the courts that take over and must do so without interference from police. The last thing any successful prosecutor wants are police commenting on the merits and status of a case in public social media outlets that may have an impact on the jury pool and jury selection.

Once a person is charged and arrested, constitutional rights of due process of law and the courts must be respected. Medina and APD with their social media propaganda vilifying a judge for releasing Adrian Avila pending trial reflect that they have the philosophy of being “judge, jury, and executioner”.

CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS MUST BE RESPECTED

The criminal justice system in this country and this state has never been perfect and never will be. The criminal justice system at all levels is only as good as those who are responsible to make it work and succeed.

Under the United States and the New Mexico Constitutions, all accused of a crime are guaranteed the right of due process of law no matter how heinous or violent the crime. In criminal trials, with no exceptions, any defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by the prosecution. A person is also entitled to post bond and it is the prosecution, the state, that has the burden of proof to establish why a person should be held in custody until trial.

Imbedded in our constitution also is how justice is served, to ensure and to protect all of our constitutional rights of presumption of innocence, due process of law and requiring convictions based on evidence. The corner stone of our criminal justice system is requiring prosecutors to prove that a person is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt before a jury and in a court of law.

The courts are also strictly prohibited by the Code of Judicial conduct from ever commenting on pending cases, especially criminal cases and in the press. Anything a judge says about a pending case must be strictly confined to the courtroom and then a judge must also perform their job in a fair and impartial manner. Rulings, including the denial of bail and holding an accused must be based on evidence and not speculation and emotional appeals. A judge making comments to the press will likely result in the Supreme Court suspending a judge and perhaps remove them from office.

It is Police Officers the likes of Harold Medina with their constant vilification of the courts when they do not like a decision rendered that is dangerous. Medina knows the courts are limited to what they can say in public and that the courts cannot defend themselves. He knows it’s a lot easier to blame the courts for his department’s failure to make arrests, investigate a case and prove a case in a court of law.

Chief Medina, APD and APD Spokesman Gallegos taking to social media to inflame the general public and vilify a judge for releasing a defendant pending trial was irresponsible. It is a practice that they need to knock off immediately.

It’s a practice Mayor Tim Keller should not tolerate from his Chief let alone a public relations flack like Gilbert Gallegos as APD spokesperson. Mayor Tim Keller should order APD to take the FACEBOOK and TWITTER posts down immediately on Adrian Avila and mandate that APD confine its social media release activities to the department and not pending court cases.

_________________________

POSTSCRIPT

At the epicenter of the controversy regarding the release of Adrian Avila pending trail is the “Public Assessment Tool”. Following is an explanation of the tool and how it is used by the courts.

ROLE OF THE JUDICIARY

It is Judges who are required to make the critical decision after a person is charged with a crime about whether to release the person pending trial. That decision is made at the time of arraignment when an accused is bought before the court, the accused is informed of the charges and constitutional rights and enters a plea of not guilty or guilty. The arraignment usually includes arguments of conditions of release and bail.

Under the American system of justice, there’s a presumption that defendants are innocent until proven guilty. It is Article II, section 13 of the New Mexico Constitution that guarantees that those accused of a crime are entitled to be released from custody while awaiting trial, except in limited circumstances. There is a failure of the pretrial system if low-risk nonviolent defendants who are entitled to be released are nevertheless detained in jail simply because they cannot afford bail.

“Judges place a priority on two considerations when making pretrial release or detention decisions:

1. Whether the defendant will commit a crime, particularly a violent crime, if released, and whether the person will return to court.

2. If a defendant is to be released, judges decide whether to impose certain restrictions on the individuals, such as requiring an electronic monitor to track their location.

It runs counter to our constitution to require non-violent, low-risk offenders to spend long periods of time in jail pending trial. It is also potentially damaging to a defendant. Pretrial detention can cause defendants to lose their jobs or housing, preventing them from caring for their family or paying their bills.”

https://www.nmcourts.gov/court-administration/pretrial-release-and-detention-reform/public-safety-assessment-for-pretrial-release-and-detention/

PUBLIC SAFETY ASSESSMENT TOOL

When money bail is a condition of release, many low-risk defendants are kept in jail because they cannot afford the bail bond. At the same time, high-risk defendants, such as repeat violent offenders who pose an elevated public safety risk, are often released if they can afford bail.

Public safety is a serious concern for judges, who must balance fairness with protecting our communities when making pretrial detention or release decisions. To mitigate the risk to all New Mexico communities and defendants, members of the state’s criminal justice system and the courts implemented the Public Safety Assessment (PSA) tool.

Under the New Mexico Constitution, people charged with a crime have a right to bail, except in limited circumstances. The law provides for the pretrial release of a defendant under the least restrictive conditions necessary to protect community safety and assure the defendant will return to court.

The Public Safety Assessment tool (PSA) provides a reliable, evidence-based information system to assist judges as they consider whether a defendant should be released to protect the public while awaiting trial. The PSA tool, using information related to a defendant’s age, criminal history, and current charge evaluates the likelihood that a defendant will commit a new crime, commit a new violent crime, or fail to appear for their court hearing if released before trial. With information from the PSA, judges can make informed decisions that are evidenced based and not speculation nor conjecture.

The criminal justice system in order to be effective must focus on protecting the public while safeguarding citizens’ rights. Objective, research-based information about the public safety risks posed by a defendant can ensure fairness in pretrial release decisions while making our justice system more effective and efficient. Local governments can save taxpayer money if judges can better identify defendants who do not need to be jailed before trial because they pose a low threat to public safety.

Judges in the Second Judicial District Court, the Bernalillo County Metropolitan Court and in the district and magistrate courts in San Juan County in the Eleventh Judicial District can use the PSA’s objective data as part of the information they consider in pretrial release decisions made soon after a defendant is arrested and charged with a crime. Court staff prepares an assessment for each criminal defendant, which is provided to judges as well as the prosecutor and defense counsel before that defendant’s initial appearance in court known as “arraignment”.

PSA RECOMMENDATIONS DO NOT SUPERCEDE JUDICIAL DISCRETION

The PSA measures the likelihood that an individual will commit a new crime, particularly a violent crime, upon release, as well as the likelihood that he or she will appear at a future court hearing. The risk assessment considers nine factors related to a defendant’s age, criminal history and current charge that research has shown accurately predict risk. The tool then generates risk scores for each defendant. This information, along with other pertinent facts from a defendant’s case, is provided to judges to assist in their pretrial decision making. The PSA does not use information that is considered potentially discriminatory, such as a person’s ethnic background, income, level of education, employment status, neighborhood, or any demographic or personal information other than age.

While the PSA can be a helpful informational tool, it is important to note that judges always have the final say in every decision. the PSA tool does not replace the judges nor impede a judge’s discretion or authority in any way. The decision about whether to release or detain a defendant and under what conditions always rests with the judge. Judges have the final say on whether or not to release a charged defendant pending trial. It is not at all mandatory or required that a Judge follow the recommendation made in the PSA report and judges are 100% free to exercise their own discretion. The PSA does not replace a judge’s discretion and does not supersede other information, including any special circumstances pertinent to a case and charges against the defendant.

THE NINE FACTORS IN PUBLIC SAFETY ASSESSMENT OF AN ACCUSED

The PSA is designed to promote public safety and to ensure that the criminal justice system operates in a fair and efficient manner. It uses 9 factors that research has shown are the strongest predictors of whether a defendant will commit a new crime, commit a violent crime, or fail to return to court if released before trial. The factors are:

1. Whether the current offense is violent.

2. Whether the person had a pending charge at the time of the current offense.

3. Whether the person has a prior misdemeanor conviction.

4. Whether the person has a prior felony conviction.

5. Whether the person has prior convictions for violent crimes.

6. The person’s age at the time of arrest.

7. How many times the person failed to appear at a pretrial hearing in the last two years.

8. Whether the person failed to appear at a pretrial hearing more than two years ago.

9. Whether the person has previously been sentenced to incarceration.

RISK SCORES PRODUCED

Using the information gleaned for the 9 factors and applying them to a charged defendant, the PSA produces two risk scores:

First, it predicts the likelihood that an individual will commit a new crime if released pending trial.

Second, it predicts the likelihood that a charged defendant will fail to return for a future court hearing.

The PSA tool also “red flags” defendants that it calculates present an elevated risk of committing a violent crime.

The PSA risk scores fall on a scale of one to six, with higher scores indicating a greater level of risk. This neutral, reliable data can help judges gauge the risk that a defendant poses.

Links to quoted and relied upon source material are here:

https://www.nmcourts.gov/court-administration/pretrial-release-and-detention-reform/public-safety-assessment-for-pretrial-release-and-detention/

https://www.nmcourts.gov/court-administration/pretrial-release-and-detention-reform/public-safety-assessment-for-pretrial-release-and-detention/

https://www.nmcourts.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Frequently-Asked-Questions-About-the-Public-Safety-Assessment-Updated-2-17-2020.pdf

On March 18, 2022, Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham and the New Mexico legislative leadership announced that the New Mexico Legislature will be called into a special session to take up measures of economic relief and take up a revised supplemental “junior” spending bill for capital investments. The governor and legislative leadership worked on and agreed to parameters for a revised spending bill, including ensuring that projects are appropriately budgeted as recurring or non-recurring funding. As it stands, the agenda includes just two items:

1. Economic relief to blunt the increased price of gas and
2. A $50 million supplemental spending package.

The Special Session is scheduled to begin on April 5 and will likely be a two day session.

SIZE AND SCOPE OF TAX REBATE STILL BEING DECIDED

The governor and lawmakers approved an $8.5 billion budget during the 2022 legislative session that ended on February 17. As the nation’s No. 2 oil producer, New Mexico is enjoying a revenue boom, with reserves projected at roughly 29% of annual spending, or around $2.5 billion. The exact way on how to spend the extra money flowing into state coffers, or to place it in reserves for future use, is at the center of debate.

During the 2022 legislative session, a round of tax rebates pasted. The rebates are set to be distributed soon after July 1, the beginning of the fiscal year. The approved legislation calls for a $250 rebate for adults who make less than $75,000 annually, or $500 for married couples filing jointly who make less than $150,000.

Tax rebates have emerged as the likely strategy to help New Mexicans afford gas prices that now exceed $4 a gallon. According to AAA, the average price of regular-grade gasoline in New Mexico is up to $4.140, a 19% jump over a month ago and a whopping 44% increase over a year ago.

It is reported that Legislators are discussing rebate checks of $250 to $400 per tax filer, or double that for couples filing jointly. This is a significant increase over what lawmakers were considering earlier which was $110 to $160 per taxpayer. The precise size, scope and timing of the rebate checks, including whether to impose an income limit on those eligible, are still under discussion.

On March 23, Senate Finance Committee Chairman George Muñoz, D-Gallup, said that he is preparing a proposal for rebates of $300 per individual, or $600 for a couple filing jointly. He estimated it would cost the state about $455 million. The checks, Muñoz said, should go out as soon as the legislation is signed into law. Munoz said:

“Now’s the time. … People are planning summer trips.”

Democratic Representative Christine Chandler of Los Alamos, chairwoman of the House Taxation and Revenue Committee said she favors sending checks to every taxpayer rather than imposing an income requirement on the next round of checks. she cautioned that the contents of the proposal are still a matter of debate and she had this to say:

“The focus of the rebates is to soften the blow of high gas prices and some other inflationary things going on right now. … That pretty much applies to everyone across the board.”

High gas prices and strong government revenue have triggered debates in state capitals across the country. In California, Gov. Gavin Newsom has proposed debit cards of $400 or $800 to help vehicle owners with gas prices. Alaska, by contrast, issues dividends each year to full-time residents based on the investment earnings on mineral royalties – resulting in dividends of $1,114 per person last year.

https://www.abqjournal.com/2482189/size-scope-of-planned-tax-rebates-unresolved.html

“JUNIOR” SPENDING BILL

On March 9 was the deadline for Governor Michell Lujan Grisham to sign into law, or to veto legislation enacted by the 2022 New Mexico 30-day legislative session that ended on February 17. The Governor announced that she vetoed SENATE BILL 48, known as the Junior Bill, that would have spent a little over $50 million in state projects. Supplemental spending bills, called “junior” budget bills, usually surface in years when the state is flush with windfall funding as is the case this year. The spending is far smaller than what’s outlined in the main state budget that authorizes $8.5 billion for spending on education, health care and other purposes.

Senate Bill 48 vetoed by the governor would have authorized about $25.2 million in one-time spending and another $25.2 million in ongoing spending. The money would have gone to a wide-ranging set of programs and priorities picked by lawmakers. Among the proposed items were law enforcement equipment, efforts to help homeless animals, student speech and debate clubs, medical equipment, meals on wheels for homebound residents and public safety programs and funding for food bank services in the East Mountains. Lawmakers have not taken up a supplemental spending bill in over 10 years before 2019, when an oil and gas boom resulted in surpluses.

https://www.nmlegis.gov/Sessions/22%20Regular/final/SB0048.pdf

https://www.governor.state.nm.us/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Senate-Executive-Message-No.-50.pdf

The Governor’s veto of Senate Bill 48 has resulted in a very public clash between lawmakers and the Governor. There was a growing number of New Mexico legislators who who expressed support for calling themselves into “extraordinary session” through an emergency procedure that would allow them to override Governor Lujan Grisham’s veto of a $50 million spending bill. Convening such a session requires support from three-fifths of each chamber of the Legislature. Democrats in the House and Senate, who have solid majorities in both chambers, meet privately to debate whether to pursue an extraordinary session.

The end result is that the “new and improved” Junior Bill will be essentially the same spending bill vetoed by the Governor but will be modified to deal with her original concerns.

The Governors Office said the economic relief measures are still under development. Lujan Grisham spokeswoman Nora Meyers Sackett had this to say:

“The governor is committed to delivering economic relief to New Mexicans while maintaining fiscal responsibility. Our conversations with legislative leadership and state finance experts on the details of what that relief will look like are ongoing.”

GOVERNOR AND LEGISLATORS RESPOND TO SPECIAL SESSION CALL

Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham had this to say in her statement announcing the Special Session:

“As prices remain high nationwide, it is clear that we must act swiftly to deliver more relief to New Mexicans. Across the state, families are facing hard choices: can they afford to take their kids to school, to drive to work, to buy baby formula. It is our responsibility to do what we can to ease that burden. In this time of global and economic instability, we are taking action as one state government to protect New Mexicans’ paychecks and deliver additional relief and financial security.

“My administration has worked with this Legislature and Democratic leadership to great success, joining efforts to solve problems and deliver critical support and investments for New Mexicans, including half a billion dollars in tax relief this year alone. I look forward to continuing our work to deliver pragmatic and productive solutions that benefit New Mexicans, and I appreciate the Legislature’s agreement in prioritizing transparency and accountability in this and future sessions.”

Majority Leader Peter Wirth had this to say in a statement:

“Having a special session is a win-win for New Mexicans. … We will provide much-needed relief from high fuel costs and fund fifty million dollars in projects that will benefit communities across the state. New Mexico has had great accomplishments the last four years through the leadership of Governor Lujan Grisham working collaboratively with the legislature. This special session will be a continuation of that effort and will have a tangible, positive impact on New Mexicans.”

Senate President Pro Tempore Mimi Stewart had this to say in a statement: :

“We can all be very proud of the transformational budget that was just passed and signed. The programs and projects funded through the “junior bill” represent smaller but no less critical additions to the overall budget and I am happy we have an opportunity before us to revisit those appropriations and renew the commitments we made to our constituents to fund these important community needs.”

Speaker Brian Egolf had this to say in a statement:

“New Mexicans are counting on us to work together to provide critical funding for community projects that will make a real difference in their lives,” said “A special session will allow us to follow through on dozens of our planned local community projects and proactively assist New Mexicans with rising fuel prices.”

House Majority Leader Javier Martínez had this to say in a statement:

“Despite the fact that our state has unprecedented revenues, too many people are still hurting and rising gas prices are only making things worse. This special session, we have an opportunity to bring investment directly to every community in the state with the critical community projects in the Junior Bill and provide much needed relief for working New Mexicans who are facing rising gas prices.”

House Majority Whip Doreen Gallegos had this to say in a statement;

“By working together in a special session, we can take pressure off New Mexicans who are struggling with the sudden increase in gas prices. … Our communities are counting on us for the local investments in the Junior Bill that will help people across the state right away.”

Senate Minority Leader Greg Baca, a Republican from Belen, called the decision to hold a special session a political stunt and said in a statement:

“This special session is nothing more than a desperate attempt by the Governor to salvage her bid for reelection. … Her vindictive veto of a reasonable spending bill to fund law enforcement equipment, senior centers, aftercare programs, and other needs is inexcusable.”

https://www.kob.com/albuquerque-news/governor-calls-special-session-to-address-spending-bill-gas-prices/6422664/?cat=513

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

The ugliness and nastiness reflected by Senate Minority Leader Greg Baca comments are to be expected from all the Republicans. Senate Minority Leader Greg Baca is no doubt just angry and resentful that he and the Republicans are relegated to sitting on the sidelines and not at needed at all to call a special session. What Baca wanted was an “extraordinary session” in an election year as a means to embarrass the Governor and he did not get it.

The special session is indeed a win-win proposition for both the Governor and the New Mexico Legislature.

Adrian Avila is accused of killing two people in two separate Albuquerque shootings. The first happened in August 2020. Investigators believe Avila is one of four people involved in the shooting death of Donnie Brandon at Sandia Vista Park and was charged in early Mach in the case. Avila was charged in December 2021 for the February 2021 murder of Elias Otero-Garcia. APD says Avila shot and killed Otero-Garcia during another robbery. The Bernalillo County District Attorney office filed two motions to have Otero-Garcia held in jail pending trial while he awaits trial on charges of murder, kidnapping and armed robbery.

Under the law, the prosecution has the burden of proof in to make the case that a defendant charged with a violent crime is too dangerous to release from jail pending trial. After an evidentiary hearing, 2nd Judicial District Judge Stanley Whitaker ruled that prosecutors had credible evidence to charge Avila for the crimes, but they did not prove “no conditions of release could protect the community.” Judge Whitaker granted Avila’s release on strict conditions, including GPS monitoring and a curfew. In addition to wearing a GPS ankle monitor, Whitaker ordered that Avila remain under house arrest and be allowed to leave his mother’s home only to attend a charter high school and for educational purposes.

Judge Whitaker’s decision to release Otero-Garcia on house arrest with a GPS monitor pending trial drew immediate sharp criticism from both District Attorney Raul Torrez and APD Chief Harold Medina.
Bernalillo County District Attorney Raúl Torrez had this to say:

“I think it’s frankly astonishing that somebody can stand accused of not just one, but two separate murders, pretty violent acts they’re brought before the court and they’re put back out on the streets. … All I can say is if we’re not successful at detaining people that are accused of two separate homicides, who are we going to be able to detain under this framework. … We strongly disagree with the Court’s assessment that GPS monitoring is sufficient to protect the community from someone like Adrian Avila, who stands accused of not one, but two violent homicides. ”

Torrez said his office will appeal the Judge Whitaker’s decision, which will likely fail. In order for a reversal, Torrez will have to prove that Judge Whitaker abused his discretion in releasing Adrian Avila when in reality there was no abuse of discretion and Whitaker’s decision was within the confines of the law. It was the prosecution that failed in its burden of proof. The prosecution would be better served if they filed a motion to reconsider Otero-Garcia’s arrest and APD investigate more to established dangerousness.

APD Chief Harold Medina for his part had this to say:

“These people are accused of killing somebody and we’re counting on an ankle bracelet to protect the community. … [Adrain Avila is] at the root of gun violence. … [His release is] ridiculous.”

Medina said he understands monitoring those accused of property crimes, such as car theft, but said “there’s a line in the sand”that comes with violence. Medina acknowledged judges are following guidelines but argued that those guidelines, like the Arnold tool, which scores a defendant’s risk of flight or new crime, need to be changed.

THE DEFENSE RESPONDS

Criminal defense Attorney Ahmad Assed, who represents Adrian Avila, said it is not the law that has failed but law enforcement and the prosecutors who have failed to prove their case and that his client is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Assed argued in his response to the prosecution motion to detain his client pending trail that the prosecution’s evidence against Avila in the August 2020 homicide is circumstantial evidence and based largely on cellphone and Snapchat account records that don’t reliably establish his involvement. In other words, there is no direct evidence such as eyewitness testimony nor forensic evidence such as fingerprints and ballistic testing linking him to the crime.

Assed said this about his client:

“[Adrian Avila has] no criminal history, no history of failure to appears, he’s got a family that he’s associated with that are law-abiding citizens, hard-working folks, he reached out to law enforcement and sought out the turn-in on his own, and quite frankly conditions have never been in place where we can say he’s ever violated conditions of the court. … We don’t decide cases based on innuendo and DA’s closing arguments geared toward the eye of the media. That was the whole deal today, was just those notion of a closing argument or opening statement for the media’s purposes. It’s not for the court or the judge to discuss the details of the case. The judge must follow the law, and the law clearly requires the state to act. If the state does not act, and in this case, the state did not act, the court must follow the law.”

With respect to Chief Medina, attorney Assed said Medina’s comments were “irresponsible and reckless” statements having the potential to poison a jury pool and raise questions about APD’s ability to investigate crimes objectively and he said this:

“It’s outrageous for Albuquerque’s chief law enforcement officer, who wasn’t even at the hearing, to make a knee-jerk comment that is purely reactionary and pandering. ”

Attorney Assed added that Chef Medina and he personally negotiated Adrian Avila’s surrender to APD. There was no disclosure if Medina ever asked Assad that Adrian Avila be held in jail pending trial, yet Medina objects when a judge makes a finding that there was insufficient evidence to hold the accused in jail pending trial.

https://www.kob.com/albuquerque-news/albuquerque-teen-accused-of-2-murders-released-with-gps-ankle-monitor/6425548/?cat=500

https://www.abqjournal.com/2481710/apd-slams-judge-for-releasing-man-facing-2-homicide-charges.html

INTRODUCTION

This blog article is an in-depth discussion of bail bond reform and the critical role that judicial discretion plays in protecting the public. The article also discusses what is referred to as the “Arnold Rule” which is a matrix tool used by the courts identifying those factors that are considered in holding an accused pending trial. Several studies have shown the Arnold tool has an impressive success rate and the state’s pretrial detention system is, in general, effective in most cases. It’s the exception and not the rule that has proven problematic for the courts when it comes to public perception.

BAIL BOND REFORM

On November 8, 2016, the “New Mexico Denial of Bail Measure” was approved by New Mexico voters by a landslide vote. The constitutional amendment largely eliminates the former system of money bail bonds. The constitutional amendment allows the courts to deny pretrial release to defendants charged with a felony only if a prosecutor proves by clear and convincing evidence that no release conditions will reasonably protect the safety of any other person or the community. The amendment also prohibits the courts from denying pretrial release for defendants who are not considered dangerous and do not pose a flight risk. The change was viewed as necessary to prevent low-level defendants from being kept in jail because they lacked money to post bail. As a result of bail bond reform, bookings at the Bernalillo County jail plummeted from 38,349 in 2010 to 17,734 in 2020.

“In June 2017, the New Mexico Supreme Court issued Rule 5-409 of the New Mexico Rules of Criminal Procedure for the District Courts that governs preventive detention in the District Courts. The court may order pretrial detention only if the defendant is charged with a felony and the prosecutor files a motion for pretrial detention that states the specific facts supporting the motion. The prosecutor may file a motion for pretrial detention at any time, but the hearing on the motion must be held within five days of filing or the arrest of the defendant based on the motion.”

“The court rule spells out the defendant’s rights, which include the right to appointed counsel. The prosecutor has the burden of proving “by clear and convincing evidence that no release conditions will reasonably protect the safety of any other person or the community.” If the prosecutor fails to meet this burden, the court follows the provisions to issue an order setting the conditions of release. If the court finds that the burden has been met, the court must file written findings of the specific facts that explain the detention. The court also must expedite the trial date for any defendant detained pending trial.”

https://www.ncsc.org/~/media/Microsites/Files/PJCC/PJB%209%20-%20Preventive%20Detention%20Brief%20FINAL.ashx

TORREZ BEGINS DRUM BEAT BLAMING THE COURTS

In May, 2019, District Attorneys throughout the state argued the changes to the bail bond laws, as well as rules imposed by the New Mexico Supreme Court, made it way too difficult for them to prove to a judge that a defendant poses a threat to the public justifying that a violent felon be denied bail and be held in custody pending trial. Bernalillo County District Attorney Raul Torrez for his part voiced the opinion that it is way too difficult for prosecutors to establish that an accused violent felon is a danger to the public and that there are no conditions of release that can reasonably protect the public. It was at this time that Torrez began beating his drum for “rebuttable presumption” to hold an accused charge with a violent crime until trial. Torrez was quoted as saying at the time:

“For a community that’s dealing with crimes of violence, if you have a loaded firearm readily accessible to you in connection with a felony crime, … [when charged with a violent crime you] should be subject to rebuttable presumption [that you are violent and a danger to the public]. How am I going to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Charles Manson couldn’t be put on some supervision? … Theoretically, if you put him on GPS and had a guy walk around with him all day long that was armed, maybe. … Most jurisdictions have three things: dangerousness, flight risk, or obstruction of the criminal justice process [such as intimidating a witness, threatening somebody] … Those last two are gone, they’re not in our constitutional amendment.”

https://www.abqjournal.com/1318399/da-to-unveil-new-pretrial-detention-proposal-ex-some-defendants-would-have-to-prove-they-should-be-released-pending-trial.html

FALSELY ACCUSING THE COURTS FOR INCREASING CRIME

In May, 2019, District Attorney Raul Torrez also accused the District Court and the Supreme Court’s case management order (CMO) for being the root cause for the dramatic increase in crime and the dismissal of cases. The Supreme Court issued the order mandating disclosure of evidence within specific time frames and to expedite trial. Torrez challenged the case management order before the New Mexico Supreme Court and also took action against an individual judge claiming the judge was requiring too much evidence to prove that a defendant was too violent to be released with bond.

On September 15, the Administrative Office of the Courts issued the results of a report to take sharp issue with recent proposals to change the bail bond system. The study was conducted by the University of New Mexico (UNM). The report supports the proposition that the existing system does not endanger the public. The UNM study reviewed 10,289 Bernalillo County felony cases from July 2017 to March 2020 in which defendants were released from jail while awaiting trial. The statistical findings were decisive and reported as follows:

Of the cases analyzed, only 13 were arrested for a first-degree felony while on pretrial release, or about 0.1% of the total. 19% of felony defendants released from jail pending trial, 1,951 of 10,289, were arrested for new criminal activity during the pretrial period. Most of those arrests were for fourth-degree felonies and misdemeanors, including property, drug and violent crimes. Fewer than 5% of defendants, or up to 480, released pretrial were arrested for new violent crimes. Of the cases analyzed, 95.3% were not arrested for violent crimes during the pretrial period.

Artie Pepin, director of the Administrative Office of the Courts, had this to say about the study:
“The evidence from research clearly shows that the great majority of people released pending trial are not committing new crimes. … Objective research validates the pretrial justice improvements under way in New Mexico. Blaming judges and courts for crimes highlighted in news accounts does nothing to make anyone safer.”

Jennifer Burrill, then the president-elect of the New Mexico Criminal Defense Lawyers Association had this to say about the “rebuttable presumption against release”:

“That basically means [the Governor, Keller and Torrez] are sacrificing … constitutional rights for their own political career. … We continue to ask the Legislature to make sure whatever decisions are made are based on evidence and not some kind of knee-jerk reaction, because that does not make the problem better. … That’s the same thing that we need to ask of our leaders on this situation.”

The link to quoted source material is here:

https://www.abqjournal.com/2429583/courts-pretrial-release-doesnt-fuel-violent-crime.html

REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION FAILS

Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham joined District Attorney Raul Torrez and Mayor Keller to support a “rebuttable presumption against release” in crimes including first degree and second-degree murder, voluntary manslaughter, and sexual exploitation of children. The Governor made “rebuttable presumption against release” a part of her anti-crime legislation that she placed on the 2022 legislative 30-day short session.

During the 2022 New Mexico 30-day session that ended on Thursday, February 17, all legislation failed to enact the rebuttable presumption of being violent to permit jailing until trial. However, as a substitute crime bill was enacted and signed into law by the Governor. The crime bill as enacted expands surveillance of criminal defendants as they await trial with 24-hour monitoring of ankle-bracelet tracking devices. It mandates the courts to provide greater supervision of defendants by requiring courts to share ankle monitoring data with law enforcement agencies upon request. It requires the courts to turn over GPS monitoring data to police and prosecutors during a criminal investigation to allow better tracking of pretrial defendants on electronic monitoring in an effort to prevent a charge defendant awaiting trial from committing another crime. The goal of the GPS monitoring is keep close tabs on a charged defendant to prevent them from committing another crime.

https://www.abqjournal.com/2471031/tax-cuts-crime-package-sent-to-governor.html

ROLE OF THE JUDICIARY

It is Judges who are required to make the critical decision after a person is charged with a crime about whether to release the person pending trial. That decision is made at the time of arraignment when an accused is bought before the court, the accused is informed of the charges and constitutional rights and enters a plea of not guilty or guilty. The arraignment usually includes arguments of conditions of release and bail.

Under the American system of justice, there’s a presumption that defendants are innocent until proven guilty. It is Article II, section 13 of the New Mexico Constitution that guarantees that those accused of a crime are entitled to be released from custody while awaiting trial, except in limited circumstances. There is a failure of the pretrial system if low-risk nonviolent defendants who are entitled to be released are nevertheless detained in jail simply because they cannot afford bail.

“Judges place a priority on two considerations when making pretrial release or detention decisions:

It runs counter to our constitution to require non-violent, low-risk offenders to spend long periods of time in jail pending trial. It is also potentially damaging to a defendant. Pretrial detention can cause defendants to lose their jobs or housing, preventing them from caring for their family or paying their bills.”

https://www.nmcourts.gov/court-administration/pretrial-release-and-detention-reform/public-safety-assessment-for-pretrial-release-and-detention/

JAILING LOW RISK OFFENDERS COUNTER PRODUCTIVE

Researchers have found that the longer a low-risk defendant is jailed awaiting trial, the greater likelihood that person will reoffend.

“In misdemeanor cases, pretrial detention poses a particular problem because it may induce otherwise innocent defendants to plead guilty in order to exit jail, potentially creating widespread error in case adjudication. While practitioners have long recognized this possibility, empirical evidence on the downstream impacts of pretrial detention on misdemeanor defendants and their cases remains limited. … [Researchers have found] that detained defendants are 25% more likely than similarly situated releases to plead guilty, 43% more likely to be sentenced to jail, and receive jail sentences that are more than twice as long on average.

Furthermore, those detained pretrial are more likely to commit future crime, suggesting that detention may have a criminogenic effect. These differences persist even after fully controlling for the initial bail amount as well as detailed offense, demographic, and criminal history characteristics. Use of more limited sets of controls, as in prior research, overstates the adverse impacts of detention. A quasi-experimental analysis based upon case timing confirms that these differences likely reflect the causal effect of detention.”

The link to download research study quoted is here:

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2809840

PUBLIC SAFETY ASSESSMENT TOOL

When money bail is a condition of release, many low-risk defendants are kept in jail because they cannot afford the bail bond. At the same time, high-risk defendants, such as repeat violent offenders who pose an elevated public safety risk, are often released if they can afford bail.

Public safety is a serious concern for judges, who must balance fairness with protecting our communities when making pretrial detention or release decisions. To mitigate the risk to all New Mexico communities and defendants, members of the state’s criminal justice system and the courts implemented the Public Safety Assessment (PSA) tool.

Under the New Mexico Constitution, people charged with a crime have a right to bail, except in limited circumstances. The law provides for the pretrial release of a defendant under the least restrictive conditions necessary to protect community safety and assure the defendant will return to court.

The Public Safety Assessment tool (PSA) provides a reliable, evidence-based information system to assist judges as they consider whether a defendant should be released to protect the public while awaiting trial. The PSA tool, using information related to a defendant’s age, criminal history, and current charge evaluates the likelihood that a defendant will commit a new crime, commit a new violent crime, or fail to appear for their court hearing if released before trial. With information from the PSA, judges can make informed decisions that are evidenced based and not speculation nor conjecture.

The criminal justice system in order to be effective must focus on protecting the public while safeguarding citizens’ rights. Objective, research-based information about the public safety risks posed by a defendant can ensure fairness in pretrial release decisions while making our justice system more effective and efficient. Local governments can save taxpayer money if judges can better identify defendants who do not need to be jailed before trial because they pose a low threat to public safety.

Judges in the Second Judicial District Court, the Bernalillo County Metropolitan Court and in the district and magistrate courts in San Juan County in the Eleventh Judicial District can use the PSA’s objective data as part of the information they consider in pretrial release decisions made soon after a defendant is arrested and charged with a crime. Court staff prepares an assessment for each criminal defendant, which is provided to judges as well as the prosecutor and defense counsel before that defendant’s initial appearance in court known as “arraignment”.

PSA RECOMMENDATIONS DO NOT SUPERCEDE JUDICIAL DISCRETION

The PSA measures the likelihood that an individual will commit a new crime, particularly a violent crime, upon release, as well as the likelihood that he or she will appear at a future court hearing. The risk assessment considers nine factors related to a defendant’s age, criminal history and current charge that research has shown accurately predict risk. The tool then generates risk scores for each defendant. This information, along with other pertinent facts from a defendant’s case, is provided to judges to assist in their pretrial decision making. The PSA does not use information that is considered potentially discriminatory, such as a person’s ethnic background, income, level of education, employment status, neighborhood, or any demographic or personal information other than age.

While the PSA can be a helpful informational tool, it is important to note that judges always have the final say in every decision. The decision about whether to release or detain a defendant and under what conditions always rests with the judge. Judges have the final say on whether or not to release a charged defendant pending trial. It is not at all mandatory or required that a Judge follow the recommendation made in the PSA report and judges are 100% free to exercise their own discretion. The PSA does not replace a judge’s discretion and does not supersede other information, including any special circumstances pertinent to a case and charges against the defendant.

THE NINE FACTORS IN PUBLIC SAFETY ASSESSMENT OF AN ACCUSED

The PSA is designed to promote public safety and to ensure that the criminal justice system operates in a fair and efficient manner. It uses 9 factors that research has shown are the strongest predictors of whether a defendant will commit a new crime, commit a violent crime, or fail to return to court if released before trial. The factors are:

1. Whether the current offense is violent.
2. Whether the person had a pending charge at the time of the current offense.
3. Whether the person has a prior misdemeanor conviction.
4. Whether the person has a prior felony conviction.
5. Whether the person has prior convictions for violent crimes.
6. The person’s age at the time of arrest.
7. How many times the person failed to appear at a pretrial hearing in the last two years.
8. Whether the person failed to appear at a pretrial hearing more than two years ago.
9. Whether the person has previously been sentenced to incarceration.

RISK SCORES PRODUCED

Using the information gleaned for the 9 factors and applying them to a charged defendant, the PSA produces two risk scores:

First, it predicts the likelihood that an individual will commit a new crime if released pending trial.

Second, it predicts the likelihood that a charged defendant will fail to return for a future court hearing.

The PSA tool also “red flags” defendants that it calculates present an elevated risk of committing a violent crime.

The PSA risk scores fall on a scale of one to six, with higher scores indicating a greater level of risk. This neutral, reliable data can help judges gauge the risk that a defendant poses.

Links to quoted and relied upon source material are here:

https://www.nmcourts.gov/court-administration/pretrial-release-and-detention-reform/public-safety-assessment-for-pretrial-release-and-detention/

https://www.nmcourts.gov/court-administration/pretrial-release-and-detention-reform/public-safety-assessment-for-pretrial-release-and-detention/

https://www.nmcourts.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Frequently-Asked-Questions-About-the-Public-Safety-Assessment-Updated-2-17-2020.pdf

SOBERING STATISTICS

The final tally of murders Albuquerque for 2021 is 117. It shattered the previous 2019 record by 36 murders. 97 of the homicides involved guns. The dramatic increase in homicides and robberies is drug related and involves guns.

The link to quoted source material is here:

https://www.abqjournal.com/2458296/remembering-some-of-2021s-homicide-victims-in-abq-ex-total-

ALBUQUERQUE CRIME RATES IN A NUTSHELL

According to the 2020 FBI Unified Crime Reports:

Albuquerque has a crime rate of 194% higher than the national average.
Albuquerque’s Violent Crime Index for 2020 is 346% of the national average.
Albuquerque Property Crime Index for 2020 is 256% of the national average.

SOURCE:

https://crime-data-explorer.app.cloud.gov/pages/explorer/crime/crime-trend

Albuquerque has made the top 100 list of most dangerous cities 5 years in a row. Neighborhood Scout’s provides comprehensive database of real estate data and compiles a listing of what it considers are the 100 most dangerous cities in the United States based on violent crime rates and population. Over the last 5 years, the city has gone from the low rank of #74 to a rank of #21. Following is Albuquerque’s rankings out of 100:

2021: #21 Ranking
2020: #23 Ranking
2019: #25 Ranking
2018: #50 Ranking
2017: #74 Ranking

https://www.neighborhoodscout.com/blog/top100dangerous

NEW MEXICO CRIME RATES

In 2021 and into 2022, New Mexico continues to have a higher-than-average crime rates across the board. New Mexico has the second-highest violent crime rate in the US, behind Alaska with 8.4 incidents per 1,000. In a recent poll of New Mexico residents, 56% of respondents named gun violence as a top safety concern and above the US average of 53%.

The link to news source material is here:

https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/fbi-releases-2020-incident-based-data

https://crime-data-explorer.app.cloud.gov/pages/explorer/crime/crime-trend

https://www.safewise.com/blog/safest-cities-new-mexico/

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

Given the sobering statistics of murders and violent crime, it is not at all surprising that the general public is looking to their elected officials, prosecutors and judges to come up with solutions. The criminal defense bar cannot simply stand on the sidelines but need to also assist and help the criminal justice system full fill its obligation to provide due process of law, protection of constitutional rights as well as to protect the public.

Under the United States and the New Mexico Constitutions, all accused of a crime are guaranteed the right of due process of law no matter how heinous or violent the crime. In criminal trials, with no exceptions, any defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by the prosecution. A person is also entitled to post bond and it is the prosecution, the state, that has the burden of proof to establish why a person should be held in custody until trial.

Imbedded in our constitution also is how justice is served, to ensure and to protect all of our constitutional rights of presumption of innocence, due process of law and requiring convictions based on evidence. The corner stone of our criminal justice system is requiring prosecutors to prove that a person is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt before a jury and in a court of law.

A negative perception of the courts is created when judges release violent felons and not holding them for trial without bond. It’s common knowledge that Judges are concerned about their disqualification rates, appeals and reversals and how they are perceived by the Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission. Judges are reluctant to make decisions and hold off on making the hard decisions to avoid controversy.

Whether true or false, the courts are viewed as part of a much bigger problem of causing spiking violent crime rates. That negative perception is aggravated when individual judges are perceived by the public to be way too lenient in releasing violent felons and not holding them for trial without bond. Prosecutors and law enforcement officials across the state repeatedly slam judges and the court system for letting out those accused of violent felonies, particularly when they re-offend.

The courts are also strictly prohibited by the Code of Judicial conduct from ever commenting on pending cases, especially criminal cases and in the press. Anything a judge says about a pending case must be strictly confined to the courtroom and then a judge must also perform their job in a fair and impartial manner. Rulings, including the denial of bail and holding an accused must be based on evidence and not speculation and emotional appeals. A judge making comments to the press will likely result in the Supreme Court suspending a judge and perhaps remove them from office.

It is prosecutors like Raul Torrez and Police Officers like Harold Medina with their constant complaining and whining about the criminal justice system being broken that undermines the credibility of the courts. They both know the courts are limited to what they can say in public and that the courts cannot defend themselves. They both know it’s a lot easier to pander to the public and blame the courts for their own failures to prove a case “beyond a reasonable doubt”.

The criminal justice system in this country and this state has never been perfect, nor will it ever be, but it is not broken. The criminal justice system does have its flaws and a number of inequities, but to say that it is a broken system is just plain ignorance or political opportunism at its worst. The criminal justice system at all levels is only as good as those who are responsible to make it work and succeed. It is way too easy to declare the system “broken” when problems identified within the criminal justice system would go away if the stakeholders would just do their own jobs and concentrate on doing their jobs in a competent manner.

The Public Safety Assessment tool and the Arnold Metric the courts use to apply it should never be a replacement for sound judicial discretion. The PSA reports should not be a “crutch” used by Judges who simply want to use it to avoid making controversial decisions. The PSA reports cannot provide a 100% accurate report as to whether a defendant poses a safety or flight risk, that is why it is not mandatory and allows for judicial discretion. Judges need to rely upon their common sense, their own perception of a defendant and use their judicial discretion to keep the public safe and ensure due process of law and justice is also served. It is always a fine balancing act.

THINKING OUT OF THE BOX

Prosecutors, Judges and defense attorney for that matter, have the right and should think out of the box. They cannot ignore the demands of a community to be kept safe, especially in light of the city’s high violent crime rates. Conditions of release are always subject to review by the court and can be changed or modified at anytime.

Perhaps when it comes to those charge with a violent felony, the prosecution, the defense and the courts could rely on the Arnold matrix tool to release a charged defendant during the day on a GPS monitor but also mandate that they turn themselves in at night for 8 hours of confinement with sleeping accommodations to be released the next day again on a GPS monitor.

As time progresses, and trials are being delayed to unreasonable length of time by the prosecution, conditions of release could be modified to full house arrest. The New Mexico legislature could also help by funding the Department of Correction to build or even lease centrally located holding facilities with minimum security operated by the New Mexico corrections department and the probation and parole department.

It’s called thinking out of the box and not relying upon a matrix as a crutch to avoid making a hard decision to confine or not to confine pending trial.