Mediaboss Marketing

OK, just to be clear: Two Spokane County planning officials pleaded the Fifth Amendment you know, the one where you cant be compelled to give criminal evidence against yourself when asked in a public hearing if they had falsified planning documents to boost a new gas station over a legalhurdle.

But they didnt, were told, do anythingwrong.

Spokane Countys unofficial policy of approving developments and then hustling to get them grandfathered in before theyre undone took a turn this week that even the most conspiratorial-minded of critics might not have foreseen. A landowner

You have viewed 20 free articles or blogs allowed within a 30-day period. FREE registration is now required for uninterrupted access.

S-R Media, The Spokesman-Review and Spokesman.com are happy to assist you. Contact Customer Service by email or call 800-338-8801

OK, just to be clear: Two Spokane County planning officials pleaded the Fifth Amendment you know, the one where you cant be compelled to give criminal evidence against yourself when asked in a public hearing if they had falsified planning documents to boost a new gas station over a legalhurdle.

But they didnt, were told, do anythingwrong.

Spokane Countys unofficial policy of approving developments and then hustling to get them grandfathered in before theyre undone took a turn this week that even the most conspiratorial-minded of critics might not have foreseen. A landowner wants to build a gas station at Argonne and Bigelow Gulch roads, on land the county added to its growth management boundary last July. Unfortunately, the state invalidated that expansion last November, also invalidating the zoning under which the projects permit wasapproved.

If the application was completed between July and November, it would be considered vested and grandfathered in. The seeming abuse of vesting is the loophole the City Council tried to close in March undermined by Mayor David Condons veto because it essentially allows developers to take a side route around land-use laws with the county commissionshelp.

The latest allegation, if true, would amount to a whole new level of chicanery. The projects first Determination of Completeness was signed Jan. 27 of this year. Too late for vesting. Well after too late. And yet the project was moving forward with the countys blessing. Rick Eichstaedt, the attorney for neighbors challenging the project, inquired about this discrepancy. Within a couple of days, a new permitappeared.

Excerpt from:
Shawn Vestal: County permit clerical mishap raises eyebrows - Fri, 23 May 2014 PST

Two Spokane County building employees invoked their Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination this week in a case that accuses the county of improperly back-dating documents to allow construction of a gas station where a state board ruled it was notallowed.

The county workers testified Monday during an appeal before the county hearing examiner of a building permit application for a convenience store and gas station at Argonne and Bigelow Gulchroads.

Building Director Randy Vissia, one of the two county employees who invoked his Fifth Amendment rights, said he was advised to not answer questions by a county attorney

You have viewed 20 free articles or blogs allowed within a 30-day period. FREE registration is now required for uninterrupted access.

S-R Media, The Spokesman-Review and Spokesman.com are happy to assist you. Contact Customer Service by email or call 800-338-8801

Two Spokane County building employees invoked their Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination this week in a case that accuses the county of improperly back-dating documents to allow construction of a gas station where a state board ruled it was notallowed.

The county workers testified Monday during an appeal before the county hearing examiner of a building permit application for a convenience store and gas station at Argonne and Bigelow Gulchroads.

Building Director Randy Vissia, one of the two county employees who invoked his Fifth Amendment rights, said he was advised to not answer questions by a county attorney even though, according to Vissia, his employee, Julie Shatto, had done nothing wrong in approving the permit application as completed. Shatto also declined to answer questions at the hearing involving the date that the application was certified ascomplete.

Property owner and developer Stephen Smart, who was at the hearing to defend his project, said the appellant attorneys were acting like attackdogs.

Local residents and neighborhood groups appealed the county decision to let the project proceed, arguing the project was flawed on several grounds, including environmental review and applicationcompleteness.

Read the original post:
2 county workers take 5th - Thu, 22 May 2014 PST

SIOUX CITY | Statements made to police by a murder suspect on the night of his arrest will be allowed at his upcoming trial.

District Judge Jeffrey Poulson denied a defense motion to suppress, saying that police did not violate Juan Nino-Estrada's Fifth Amendment rights.

Nino-Estrada, 27, of Sioux City, is scheduled to stand trial Tuesday in Woodbury County District Court on two counts of first-degree murder and single counts of attempted murder and willful injury for the Nov. 7 shooting deaths of Michael Delgado, 35, of Sioux City, and Yolanda Valdez, 35, of Orange City, Iowa, at a house in the 500 block of West 27th Street. Nino-Estrada is also charged with shooting Luis Sanchez, of Sioux City. Sanchez survived.

Police have said that an altercation between Nino-Estrada and another man at the house escalated into the shooting.

Defense attorneys had filed the motion to suppress statements Nino-Estrada made shortly after his arrest and subsequent questioning at the hospital, where he was being treated for a gunshot wound, and then at the police station.

At a hearing earlier this month, officers Greg Rose and Josiah Fenceroy testified that they thought they heard Nino-Estrada mumble what sounded like the words "Fifth Amendment," while asking him questions at the hospital. They said Nino-Estrada was not questioned further until he was taken to the police station. There, Det. Mike Simons said he read Nino-Estrada his rights. Nino-Estrada said he understood those rights, Simons testified.

Poulson found that Fenceroy properly stopped questioning Nino-Estrada at the hospital, even though the suspect's words were unclear, and the questioning at the police station was done by two different officers after properly advising Nino-Estrada of his rights.

"Under the totality of the circumstances, the court finds defendant's right to remain silent was scrupulously honored," Poulson said in his ruling.

Poulson also ruled that police were within their rights to ask Nino-Estrada about the location of the gun used in a fatal double shooting without reading him his Miranda rights because finding the gun was a matter of public safety.

If found guilty as charged, Nino-Estrada would face a mandatory sentence of life in prison without parole.

Here is the original post:
Sioux City murder suspect's statements to be allowed at trial

PROVIDENCE, R.I. A lawyer for former House Speaker Gordon Fox told a judge Thursday more than 100 grand jury subpoenas have been issued in what he said he believes is a wide-ranging investigation by federal and state authorities that includes looking at the failed 38 Studios deal.

The attorney made the comments before Superior Court Judge Michael Silverstein as he sought to quash a subpoena issued to Fox for a range of documents related to ex-Red Sox pitcher Curt Schilling's now-bankrupt company. Silverstein is overseeing a lawsuit brought by the state's economic development agency over the $75 million loan guarantee it gave 38 Studios.

"We believe it's a wide-ranging investigation," attorney Albin Moser told the judge, adding that they don't know exactly what authorities are looking for.

The Providence Democrat resigned as speaker in March, a day after his Statehouse office and home were raided by investigators. Authorities have not said what they're investigating.

In his arguments, Moser cited Fox's constitutional protection against self-incrimination. Moser said he doesn't believe that a charge against Fox is merited with regard to 38 Studios, but that "we do believe that federal and state authorities are interested" in the company. He called their interest "a link in the chain of a possible prosecution" that triggers the ex-speaker's right to invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege.

Moser wouldn't say after the proceeding whether the subpoenas are from a state or federal grand jury and declined further comment.

A federal grand jury has been meeting relating to the raid on Fox's Statehouse office, and a federal grand jury has issued at least one subpoena to Providence City Hall, which was asked for records relating to Fox. A spokesman for the U.S. attorney's office would not comment.

While state police say their probe into 38 Studios is ongoing, it's not clear whether a state grand jury is investigating. A spokeswoman for the attorney general's office said she could not comment.

The judge is giving Moser more time to make his case to have the subpoena thrown out. Attorneys for Wells Fargo, which issued it, object. The company is among 14 defendants named in the state agency's suit, along with Schilling.

Also in court Thursday, an attorney for one defendant told the judge a potential witness who had a consulting agreement with 38 Studios told his attorney he intended to invoke the Fifth Amendment in response to a subpoena for deposition testimony. However, Michael Corso's attorney told The Associated Press that was false. The deposition is scheduled for May 22.

See original here:
Attorney: Defense told Corso will take Fifth

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

(CNN) -- Acting on a conservative battle cry and potentially triggering a court battle with the Obama administration, the Republican-led House voted Wednesday to hold former IRS official Lois Lerner in contempt of Congress for refusing to answer questions about her agency's targeting of conservative and other groups.

The 231-187 vote fell almost entirely along party lines, a decision that cut across three sharp divides: balance of power issues between the branches of government, political questions over the IRS scandal, and a Constitutional debate over Lerner's individual Fifth Amendment rights.

Lerner is in the middle of that trio. Until she retired last year, she ran the IRS division in charge of tax exempt status. An inspector general's report concluded her staff had inappropriately targeted Tea Party and other groups for extra scrutiny.

The term "progressive" was also flagged but the inspector general report indicated that conservative terms drew more attention from the IRS.

The Fifth Amendment question

For nearly a year, Lerner has refused House requests to testify on the matter, citing her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

Republicans insist that doesn't apply here, that she waived the right by first asserting her innocence when she appeared before the House Oversight Committee last May.

"Mrs. Lerner made 17 separate factual assertions before invoking her right to remain silent," proclaimed Rep. Richard Nugent, Republican of Florida, as he opened up Wednesday's debate. "You can't make selective assertions and still invoke your Fifth Amendment right."

Lerner's attorney, William Taylor, has dismissed that argument repeatedly and sent a statement rejecting it again Wednesday.

Read the original here:
GOP-led House votes to hold former IRS official in contempt