Thread: Feds want $5.4 million back from S.F.

[quote=NoBueno]

Originally Posted by Ex_OC

Originally Posted by NoBueno

Originally Posted by "Ex_OC":2abi9pmh

This is PERFECT TIMING after Mayor Newsom's sanctuary city ad campaign announcement!

I would soooo love to be a fly on Newsom's office right now and see the look on his face. LOL! A MasterCard moment! I love it!

Absolutely! Maybe he can check into rehab again for thirty days until this blows over.

This is what happens when you intentionally do what's wrong, both legally and morally. It comes back to bite you!

The mayor was in rehab for 30 days???? For what??

Here's the link. Not sure if it was inpatient or outpatient treatment he received, or the duration. Looks like this article says it was outpatient treatment.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...G4ENV8B514.DTL[/quote:2abi9pmh]

Well, that explains a lot, NoBueno. HE IS BACK TO DRINKING AGAIN! He is making public policy while drunk!

[quote=Ex_OC][quote=NoBueno]

Originally Posted by "Ex_OC":1tdf96b4

Originally Posted by NoBueno

Originally Posted by "Ex_OC":1tdf96b4

This is PERFECT TIMING after Mayor Newsom's sanctuary city ad campaign announcement!

I would soooo love to be a fly on Newsom's office right now and see the look on his face. LOL! A MasterCard moment! I love it!

Absolutely! Maybe he can check into rehab again for thirty days until this blows over.

This is what happens when you intentionally do what's wrong, both legally and morally. It comes back to bite you!

The mayor was in rehab for 30 days???? For what??

Here's the link. Not sure if it was inpatient or outpatient treatment he received, or the duration. Looks like this article says it was outpatient treatment.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...G4ENV8B514.DTL[/quote:1tdf96b4]

Well, that explains a lot, NoBueno. HE IS BACK TO DRINKING AGAIN! He is making public policy while drunk![/quote:1tdf96b4]

Well, I would be alarmed to learn that he has been making his most recent policies while sober! I think you would almost have to be under the influnce of something to make the decisions he has made recently, especially in the way of his sanctuary for illegal invaders policy.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... 100953.DTL

S.F. topped border counties for crime grantJaxon Van Derbeken, Chronicle Staff Writer
Saturday, April 5, 2008

San Francisco's $3.7 million federal grant to help fight border crime in 2006 was the largest awarded to any county in four states bordering Mexico, according to a federal audit that found the city was not entitled to any of the funds.

City officials have not explained why a city 500 miles from the state's southern border would have prosecuted more than 2,000 cases for the federal government that were related to drug gangs and crimes near the border in a three-year period.

The audit, which was released this week and challenged all $5.4 million that the city received from 2004 to 2006, raises questions about the basis for the city's request for funding under the Southwest Border Prosecution Initiative.

Federal officials who challenged San Francisco's grants were told that the city simply made an "estimate" of the number of cases it handled on behalf of the federal government, the audit found. In a footnote, the audit quoted city officials as saying that the grant requests were not based on "actual cases."

Federal officials also suggested in the audit that San Francisco's apparently inflated grant requests robbed other jurisdictions of money that was supposed to help them fight drugs and crime on the federal government's behalf.

In the 2006 fiscal year, smaller amounts were awarded to compensate much larger counties close to the border, including San Diego, San Bernardino and Los Angeles counties, the audit found.

The offices of San Francisco District Attorney Kamala Harris and Mayor Gavin Newsom have not responded publicly to questions raised by the federal audit, saying only that they are cooperating with the investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice.

Federal authorities have declined to release detailed findings or correspondence associated with the audit, citing the ongoing nature of the case. Federal officials say they will ask San Francisco to repay the $5.4 million the city has received as part of the program, but they have not determined how to go about it.

The program, launched in 2000, is designed to help local jurisdictions pay for prosecuting cases they were saddled with as part of federal efforts to combat crime in states bordering Mexico.

The program requires applicants to keep three years of records on file to show that they were handling local prosecutions referred to them by federal prosecutors or agencies, a requirement that San Francisco did not comply with, according to the audit.

The audit also said the city increased its grant request from $40,000 in 2004 to $1.7 million the next year and $3.7 million in 2006. The city's grant was more than San Diego's $2.5 million, San Bernardino's $2.5 million or Los Angeles' $1.9 million under the program that fiscal year.

Alameda County received $10,000 that year, Contra Costa County $60,000, San Mateo County $86,000 and Santa Clara County $13,000, according to the audit.

The grant requirements indicate that the federal government need only receive an e-mail each quarter of the year that details how long the cases were taking to handle. The longer the case was in the system, the more the agency could seek, up to $10,000 for each case that languished longer than 90 days.

Erica Derryck, a spokeswoman for Harris, said the cases San Francisco cited in seeking grant money were legitimate.

"The cases submitted for reimbursement were actual prosecuted cases," she said. "What is in question is whether or not the prosecuted cases submitted were eligible for reimbursement under the federal program guidelines."

The program requires that for a county to get money to house and prosecute offenders, the agency must have some sort of referral from federal authorities and be handling them on behalf of the authorities.

After checking a sample of the lists and finding no referrals, the auditors concluded that all of the money San Francisco had taken in was not justified.

Kevin Ryan, who was the U.S. attorney in San Francisco in 2006, the year San Francisco asked for and got $3.7 million from the program, did not return calls seeking comment. He currently heads Newsom's Office of Criminal Justice.

Earlier this week, the city controller's office sent an e-mail to the Police Department's fiscal division seeking records of all arrests made between January 2003 and December 2006 by San Francisco officers participating in federal task forces. The office set a deadline of April 25 and asked that the information be forwarded to the district attorney's office.

San Francisco tops Southern California
In 2006, San Francisco received more money from a federal program to fight border crime than any of more than 60 counties in California and three other states that share borders with Mexico. The five California counties that received the most money were:

San Francisco

$3.7 million
San Diego

$2.5 million

San Bernardino

$2.5 million

Los Angeles

$1.9 million

Riverside

$1 million


Source: U.S. Office of Justice Programs

Chronicle staff writer Cecilia M. Vega contributed to this story. E-mail Jaxon Van Derbeken at jvanderbeken@sfchronicle.com.


I find it highly unlikely a liberal sanctuary city like SF tried more cases than LA, San Diego, or Orange County. What a bunch of liars and cheats!! I think the Feds need to do audits of other things going on in that city. This is now an opened Pandora's Box for SF. IMPEACH NEWSOME NOW!!!![/i]

I find it highly unlikely a liberal sanctuary city like SF tried more cases than LA, San Diego, or Orange County. What a bunch of liars and cheats!! I think the Feds need to do audits of other things going on in that city. This is now an opened Pandora's Box for SF. IMPEACH NEWSOME NOW!!!![/i]

THE FEDS SHOULD GO OVER EVERYTHING IN CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO. BET THERE IS PLENTY OF DIRT HERE.

So other border cities had their funds cut also because of SF? Well, serves them right anyway because they're sanctuary cities.
~~

11:21, April 07, 2008

Less crime fighting money distributed to U.S. S border cities

Less crime fighting money has been distributed to U.S. southern border cities because of San Francisco's inflated estimates of border-related crimes, local media reported Sunday.

Los Angeles, San Diego and other cities closer to Mexico were denied millions in federal crime fighting dollars because of inflated claims from the city 500 miles away from the border, the federal Justice Department said.

The San Francisco Chronicle reported that according to a federal audit, the federal government said San Francisco officials apparently vastly overstated the number of illegal aliens arrested in the city.

Ironically, San Francisco has declared itself a sanctuary city, and has a formal policy against reporting immigration law offenders to the federal government.

San Francisco told Washington officials that it had prosecuted 2,000 criminal cases based on border-related crimes. As a result, the federal government gave San Francisco 5.4 million U.S. dollars in border-related crime fighting assistance grants over three years.

In 2006, the Justice Department realized the problem and drastically decreased San Francisco's share. The city has been asked to turn over police records about arrests, and the City by the Bay may have to repay some of that money, Justice Department officials told the Chronicle.

A spokesman for Mayor Gavin Newsom said San Francisco is cooperating with the investigation, but would not comment further.

http://english.people.com.cn/90001/9077 ... 87522.html