Case Update: Michael Kimbrew

2UrbanGirls will be providing periodic updates as we look further into the prosecution of former Congressional aide Michael Kimbrew.  2UrbanGirls attended all days of his trial and still question why he was the only person brought up on charges and more importantly why was the Compton City Attorney forced to appear via subpoena.

Michael Kimbrew was convicted of extorting and bribing a single illegal marijuana dispensary operating in the city of Compton while being employed as a federal employee.

In 2015 Compton Unified School District brought at least four locations to the attention to City Attorney Craig Cornwell.   2UrbanGirls provided those addresses in the form of a public records request on 3/2/2018 to ascertain what specific actions were taken against them.

The request asked for:

From either code enforcement and/or city attorney’s office. List of business names and street locations of ALL illegal marijuana dispensaries identified to be operating in violation of the city of Compton ordinance between June 2014 and February 1, 2018. Copies of all notices of violations issued by code enforcement and cease and desisit notices issued by the city attorney, to any and all illegal marijuana dispensaries, operating in violation between June 2014 and February 28, 2018.

2UrbanGirls has yet to receive a response despite Public Records being required under the CA Public Records Act to be responded to within 10 days and if the office needs more time, they must follow-up with detailing the time needed, under an extension, to gather the requested information.

The City Attorney has told both the public and this author that he has personally served search warrants to shut down the illegal dispensaries.

2UrbanGirls  has interviewed members of several law enforcement agencies who state that the only persons allowed to request, sign for and serve warrants are members of law enforcement.  The affidavit presented to the judge on call for warrant service, must include details of the officers training, how long they have been an officer and their observations of the crime being committed to justify the warrant being signed and executed.

On tape, Kimbrew told an undercover FBI agent he worked in conjunction with Code Enforcement and the City Attorney’s office to keep certain operators open.  Of the 14 they were aware of, only 5 would be allowed to remain open.

When Cornwell was called to the witness stand he stated that the proper procedure to shut down an illegal dispensary would be for Code Enforcement to issue a notice of violation and if they didn’t comply and close, his office would send a cease and desist letter.  While on the stand Cornwell was shown copies of both a notice of violation issued from Code Enforcement and a cease and desist from his office.  When asked about their authenticity he first read them before affirmatively responding as to what they were.

At some point Code Enforcement operations was removed from under the control of the City Attorney.

If the City Attorney and Code Enforcement departments were truly cataloging and citing illegal marijuana dispensaries and issuing the appropriate notices from both offices, 2UrbanGirls is confused as to why the city has no outstanding code enforcement monies owed by the offending businesses as outlined in the city’s municipal code Section 9­1.4 Suits for Recovery of Unpaid Sums and 9­1.7 No License Issued Where Applicant Indebted to City for Any Unpaid License Fee.  Kimbrew told the undercover agent that the $5,000 he was requesting was going towards unpaid fees.

Under 9­1.11 Enforcement. b. Illegally Sold Merchandise Confiscated. the city is allowed to confiscate illegal merchandise.  It was alleged that a former city employee was found to be in possession of several law enforcement type uniforms and was confiscating and storing marijuana in the former city hall where it was recently reported many guns have gone missing.

On January 3, 2018, 2UrbanGirls sent a public records request asking:

Total amount owed in outstanding code violations from 1/2012-10/31/2017.

The Clerk’s office responded the very next day.

01/04/2018

 

RE: PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST of January 03, 2018,

The City received a public information request from you on January 03, 2018. Your request mentioned:

 

Total amount owed in outstanding code violations from 1/2012-10/31/2017.

 

The City has reviewed its files and has determined there are no responsive documents to your request.

This raises two questions.  Why is the city losing out on revenue by not citing the illegal businesses and more importantly why is some information related to these illegal businesses more readily available than others?