Thread: US Attorney's Office Eliminates Public Corruption Unit In LA

March 26, 2008

The Honorable Michael Mukasey
Attorney General of the United States
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20530

Dear Attorney General Mukasey:

I write to express my concern about the recent decision to eliminate the public corruption section in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Central District of California.Crime & Corruption
See other Crime & Corruption Articles


Title: Feinstein Calls on A.G. Mukasey to Explain Decision to Eliminate Public Corruption Unit in L.A.
Source: Office of Sen. Diane FeinSwine website
URL Source: http://feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm? FuseAction=NewsRoom.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id =ECFA
Published: Mar 26, 2008
Author: Sen. Diane FeinSwine
Post Date: 2008-05-04 17:55:25 by Itzlzha
Ping List: *Quisling alerts*
1 Comments


Washington, DC – U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) today called on Attorney General Michael Mukasey to explain the decision made earlier this month to disband and eliminate the Public Corruption Unit in Los Angeles.

In a letter to the Attorney General, Senator Feinstein expressed particular concern about whether pending and future cases of public corruption would be effectively and rigorously pursued, given the decision to reassign the 17 lawyers who were assigned to this special corruption unit.

Following is the text of the letter sent by Senator Feinstein today to Attorney General MukaseyAccording to press reports, the 17 Assistant United States Attorneys assigned to the public corruption/environmental crimes unit in the Los Angeles office are being reassigned to other sections within the office. Public corruption cases will now apparently be mixed in with other types of cases and handled by a larger pool of prosecutors, rather than by a specialized section. Press articles have also mentioned the low morale and ill will that this decision has generated among prosecutors in the Los Angeles office, as well as the need to train new prosecutors to bring them up to speed on the complexities involved in corruption investigations.

While I respect the need for U.S. Attorney’s to make necessary management decisions, I have serious concerns about the potential impact of this change.

The decision raises serious questions about the future of public corruption cases, and whether they will be as vigorously pursued in the Central District of California especially given all the turn over and disruption that has occurred. And now, by eliminating the corruption unit, I am concerned that the Los Angeles office is sending a message that these cases will not receive sufficient attention, resources, and leadership.Public corruption cases are ranked first on the FBI list of criminal priorities, ahead of fraud and organized crime – the units that will now apparently have the primary responsibility for prosecuting corruption cases in Los Angeles. There appears to be a disconnect between the FBI and the Los Angeles U.S. Attorney’s office on this issue. I want to ensure that these cases will be vigilantly pursued by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Central District of California.

Please provide me with the Department of Justice’s rationale behind eliminating the public corruption unit in Los Angeles, including the specific facts, statistics, and circumstances that drove this decision. What initiated this decision? Who was consulted before making this decision? What was the role of Main Justice and the White House, if any? Did any of the DOJ’s prosecutors in the Criminal Division’s Public Integrity Section have any input into the decision-making process? How will this decision affect the public corruption cases that have been and are currently being investigated in Los Angeles?

I would appreciate your immediate attention to this issue, and look forward to your response to my letter.

Sincerely,

Dianne Feinstein
United States Senator

Please provide me with the Department of Justice’s rationale behind eliminating the public corruption unit in Los Angeles, including the specific facts, statistics, and circumstances that drove this decision. What initiated this decision? Who was consulted before making this decision? What was the role of Main Justice and the White House, if any? Did any of the DOJ’s prosecutors in the Criminal Division’s Public Integrity Section have any input into the decision-making process? How will this decision affect the public corruption cases that have been and are currently being investigated in Los Angeles




The rationale behind the decision? Well, let's see.....I'm just hazarding a guess here but as the problems in LA become more evident and nationally known, it would seem that perhaps someone like the Mayor and his Reconquistas, Chief Bratton and a host of others clearly not working for THIS country, along with the Mexican government, just might be a tad bit concerned that their cat will totally escape from the bag, the WHOLE ugly game will be exposed, and there is going to be dire consequences for all involved......ya think?

What better way to try and either slow or stop the inevitable, at least until they decide what to do next, than to eliminate the Public Corruption Unit?

The rationale behind the decision? Well, let's see.....I'm just hazarding a guess here but as the problems in LA become more evident and nationally known, it would seem that perhaps someone like the Mayor and his Reconquistas, Chief Bratton and a host of others clearly not working for THIS country, along with the Mexican government, just might be a tad bit concerned that their cat will totally escape from the bag, the WHOLE ugly game will be exposed, and there is going to be dire consequences for all involved......ya think?

What better way to try and either slow or stop the inevitable, at least until they decide what to do next, than to eliminate the Public Corruption Unit?

They might come across as "ignorant", but they're slick ! In on every aspect at local levels on up. "Trechery Abounds" Quote Daneen Petersen