Sunday, June 2, 2013


Below are the documents I retrieved from the DA's file.

If someone with a long term memory of the ADA's might look to page four.  On the bottom right hand corner  there is an entry - restitution paid and then initials.  Does anyone recognize the initials.

The DA's file was basically the same as the public file with the exception of the bounced checks from 2002, and page 4 attached hereto.

Here are his bankruptcy documents from 2008

The DA's file had no notes which indicate an attorney ever communicated with the DA's office for Sarkis.  A court ADA is not authorized to dismiss a felony theft charge - especially which is 4 years after the fact when it appears restitution occurred - without the permission of a supervisor.

There is nothing in the file to indicate when restitution actually happened.

The next step would be for me to get a look a Villaobos' appointment book for November 2006. 

If I thought for one second Martin Sarkis could win the run-off, I would pursue this further.  Portillo has the female voter advantage, in addition to the money advantage.  Sarkis has no possibility of winning.

When he paid another blogger to lie about Leo Rosales he lost any possibility of getting Rosales or Belleperche to endorse him.  It was the move of a complete and total idiot.

At this point asking the DA's office to help me locate and inspect Villalobos' calender would really not change anything.  It is not worth my time or the DA's time.

Also, it is for Portillo to further develop this story if she thinks it necessary.  I do not believe it necessary.  I think she will win with at least 65% of the vote or more.


Anonymous said...

Hot check cases are typically dismissed when the check is paid. Yes it is filed as a theft, but theft by check, or hot check, cases were typically handled in such a way as to help collect on the check more than to prosecute the person who wrote the check. I do not think prosecutors ever needed supervisor authority to dispose of theft by check cases if the check was paid.

It is important to recognize that one or even two bounced checks could be a simple mistake rather than an intentional theft.

I do not know the facts of the Sarkis check case, but if there was a series of bounced checks then he had a problem, just a couple and the DA would typically ask that the check or checks be paid along with court costs etc. in exchange for a dismissal.

Many people bounce checks unintentionally, and it is difficult to distinguish between an intentional bounced check and an accidental bounced check. Again, I do not know the facts of this case, but it looks like it was handled as a bounced check case where the check was paid and and he DA dropped the charges. There may not be any big conspiracy here.

BobbyWC said...

you are 100% correct as to small checks - in this case it was an outright dismissal - no court costs - further small checks do not get you indicted at the felony level

Sarkins on 11/1/02 wrote a bad check for $9,000 - on 11/2/02 he wrote another for $4775.60. This means when he wrote the $9,000 check he knew he did not even have enough to cover the $4775.60 check

This was not some simple mistake - plus the indictment came nearly 4 years after the event. This was not a case of someone making a mistake and then correcting it -

The checks were posted for you to see.

In the end theft is still theft

Bobby WC

BobbyWC said...

Wasn't Ahumada tried twice even though he gave immediate restitution upon learning of his so called mistake - it did not take him nearly 4 years to pay the money back - so the record seems to indicate

bobby WC

Anonymous said...

have you ever bounced a check?

Anonymous said...

How are you so sure it was intentional? Was He pending a check to clear? or He just did not have any money in his account?iscitiat compass

BobbyWC said...

yes I have bounced a check or two during my college days - I am certain they were never more than $20 and in every case I went to the vendor and paid cash on the check and the return fee before they even called me.

Look at the dates - 2002 -2006 to clear up the matter -

Ahumada cleared up his so called mistake within days and he was tried twice to no avail.

It if was a matter a check not clearing yet - then why was the issue still lingering until 2006? - the check clears and then you take the dealer a cashiers check to replace your bounced check. No DA under those facts would have taken it to the grand jury - in fact on hot check cases they always want the vendor to at least contact the check writer to try and work it out - the fact nearly 4 years later it was still an issue allows for an inference that Sarkis did not run up to the car dealer days later with nearly $15,000 to take care of the checks.

But nice try, trying to run cover for Sarkis

This election was over a long time ago -

Portillo will win by at least 65% - and for the record she has no more business on the city commission than Sarkis - people in this one should show their protest by voting a blank ballot

Bobby WC

Anonymous said...

I wonder how much Tony and Portillo paid you to start throwing trash to Sarkis? I for one actually thought you had more integrity by not receiving money or favors for your blog but I guess every man has his price. Sad day in blogging. I really thought you were different but you are just like the rest of them.

BobbyWC said...

A complete desperate post - The BV came out against Portillo day one and even continues to tell people better to vote a blank ballot than for vote Portillo.

The BV broker the story on Tony Martinez and the conflict of interest on the Galonsky building and continues to discuss the need for a special prosecutor

Maybe the question should be how much has Sarkis paid me to throw garbage at Portillo and Martinez

Rather then refute the facts - Sarkis and his supporters are doing what they have done since day one - defame people - lie - and run from his record.

Bobby WC

Anonymous said...

Sorry, but this "vote a blank ballot" business is just plain silly. There's no message being sent when you do that... none. If you've taken the time and energy to get out and vote, then CHOOSE. No one said it'll always be an easy choice, but CHOOSE regardless.

Waiting for the perfect candidate to come around, in ANY election, is utter folly.

So the lesser of two evils?

Hell, yes. Always.

BobbyWC said...

Thank you for your comment - well said - these are the comments which make the BV work -

On this one we just have to agree to disagree - but your argument needs to be considered by the voters -

Differing opinions are important to the BV - it is all the way you put it -

Well said, and thanks for the comment'

Bobby WC