Hews Media Group-Community News has obtained information that strongly indicates the 2010 perjury case against current Commerce City Councilman Hugo Argumedo, prosecuted by the Los Angeles District Attorney’s office under Steve Cooley, was missing critical evidence that likely would have resulted in a dismissal in favor of Mr. Argumedo.
The information is contained in an Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Mr. Argumedo’s attorneys dated June 21, and examined by HMG-CN.
Mr. Argumedo was charged with a felony. Subsequently, he pled guilty to one misdemeanor count of obstruction of justice, was forced to resign his Council seat, and was prohibited from running for office for three years.
In prosecuting Mr. Argumedo, who signed a declaration letter in favor of Francisco Leal’s lawsuit against Commerce in 2005, officials said that the declaration “contained closed-session communications, and revealed confidential attorney-client privilege in which the city did not authorized its release.”
But in reality, the contents of the declaration were public record.
On Sept. 7, 2005, Mr. Leal filed a civil action against the city of Commerce to recover legal fees for March, April and May of 2005 in the amount of $125,626. On Jan. 6, 2006, the city of Commerce filed a cross-complaint.
The case languished for over a year. On Sept. 19, 2006, Judge Andrea K. Richey arranged for a mandatory settlement conference between Mr. Leal and the City with Judge Kenneth R. Freeman presiding.
Two days later, Judge Freeman entered a Minute Order, stating, “the case is settled.” On the same day, Judge Richey recorded, “it appears that the case has settled pending Council approval on Sept. 22, 2006.”
Court records indicate that then-Commerce Mayor Nancy Ramos, current Commerce City Atty. Eduardo Olivo, and Mr. Leal attended the meeting.
Mr. Leal, Mr. Olivo and Ms. Ramos all agreed on a settlement amount of $20,000, with Mr. Leal issuing a letter of apology to the Commerce City Council. Mr. Olivo and Ms. Ramos affirmed that they promised the judge “to bring the settlement to the Commerce Council and support and recommend it (to Council).”
The settlement was now on the record and written into court documents, which made the settlement public record, an extremely important part of the Argumedo investigation that was overlooked.
The fact that the settlement was public record should have negated the investigation into Mr. Argumedo. But the D.A., in charging Mr. Argumedo in 2010, knew nothing about it because it was somehow left out of the criminal complaint filed in 2008.
Confidential Minutes
The Commerce City Council subsequently met in closed session to discuss the judicially approved mandatory settlement conference agreement on Sept. 22, 2006.
Present at that meeting were Mr. Olivo, Ms. Ramos, Tina Baca Del Rio, Robert Fierro, Rosalina Lopez, and Mr. Argumedo.
Former City Clerk Linda Kay Oliveri took “confidential minutes of the meeting in conformity, as is her custom.”
Those minutes would affirm Mr. Argumedo’s innocence in the case.
The minutes did not contain any conversations with Council or Mr. Olivo in reference to Mr. Leal and the city reaching a “negotiated settlement” agreement at the settlement conference.
The minutes also did not contain conversations of Mayor Ramos and Mr. Olivo with Council to support and recommend the agreement to Council, as promised to Judge Freeman.
But, the Oliveri minutes did confirm verbiage that changed the nature of the conversations, with Mr. Olivo calling the settlement conference a “settlement offer,” subtly, if not intentionally, indicating that the offer was unilateral.
In essence the minutes showed that Mr. Olivo and Ms. Ramos concealed the negotiated terms of the settlement agreement from the Council, and did not fulfill their promises to Judge Freeman.
The Council, not happy with the $20,000, countered with $70,000, and the two parties settled, not knowing Mr. Leal had other plans.
On Jan. 12, 2007, Mr. Olivo sent a letter to Mr. Leal demanding the first settlement payment, which was due on Jan. 1.
On Jan. 22, Mr. Leal blasted Mr. Olivo and Ms. Ramos. He accused the two of concealing the negotiated settlement agreement from the City Council.
Mr. Leal further accused Mr. Olivo of misleading him, the court, and the City Council. He stated that Mr. Olivo and Ms. Ramos “manipulated the closed session and purposely avoided the procedural voting requirements.”
The case sat, until two months later, when Bradley Pierce, with the Costa Mesa-based law firm of McCormick, Kidman and Behrens, LLP, on behalf of the city of Commerce, filed a complaint against Mr. Leal for breach of contract and false promise.
Mr. Leal countered, revisiting the fact that the settlement agreement had not been presented to the Council and that Ms. Ramos had not followed through with her promise as outlined in the settlement conference
Mr. Leal presented the signed declaration of Mr. Argumedo in support of Mr. Leal wherein Mr. Argumedo talked about what occurred during the closed session meeting.
Mr. Pierce countered with another court filing but lost, with a judge ruling that Mr. Argumedo did not violate closed session rules; a crucial ruling that was hidden from D.A. investigators.
Judge Mary Ann Murphy said, “Argumedo’s (actions) are not wholly violative of Government Code 54963 (the code that dictates disclosure rules) because the fact of whether or not the $20,000 proposed settlement was voted on does not constitute the disclosure of confidential information that has been acquired by being present in a closed session.”
In spite of that, Mr. Olivo, Mr. Pierce and Tina Baca Del Rio mounted a campaign against Mr. Argumedo, claiming he shared confidential closed-session information and that he discussed privileged matters with Mr. Leal.
Missing Crucial Information
Mr. Pierce’s firm proceeded to send a complaint to David Demerjian, Esq., with the Los Angeles D.A., referring Mr. Argumedo and Mr. Leal to the grand jury.
It was later revealed in his own declaration that Mr. Pierce helped draft the complaint sent to Mr. Demerjian.
The complaint accused Mr. Argumedo of executing a sworn declaration in support of Mr. Leal. The declaration “contained confidential closed-session communications and revealed confidential attorney-client privilege.”
Surprisingly, the complaint’s timeline started on Sept. 22, 2006, the date of the Commerce City Council closed session meeting and completely omitted the events occurring between Sept. 19 and Sept. 21.
Mr. Argumedo’s attorneys called the omission “careless and negligent.”
The omission would have a massive effect on the D.A.’s case, and the subsequent plea deal of Mr. Argumedo.
The complaint did not include the minute orders of court records dated Sept. 19 and Sept. 21 as ordered by Judge Freeman and Judge Richey, or a copy of the settlement placed on the record at the settlement conference.
The complaint stated, “Councilman Argumedo revealed confidential closed session and attorney-client information and appears to have committed perjury by executing and submitting his Declaration.”
But Judge Murphy already had ruled the conversations were public record so the information was not confidential.
The Pierce complaint included Mr. Olivo’s sworn declaration stating, “at the Sept. 22, 2006 meeting, Mayor Ramos and I presented and explained the $20,000 settlement proposal (to Council).”
But the minutes recorded by City Clerk Oliveri contradicted Mr. Olivo’s declaration. No conversations related to the settlement conference were put forth. In fact, Mr. Olivo called the agreement a “settlement offer.”
Mr. Olivo’s future declarations were also wildly inconsistent.
On his April 30, 2008, declaration included in the D.A. complaint, he pointed to, “the $20,000 settlement proposal that the parties negotiated at the MSC.”
Yet, in an April 21, 2016, declaration, Mr. Olivo, indicating the agreement was unilateral, swore, “the City and Leal mediated the matter.”
D.A. Investigation
The investigation went on and was conducted by D.A. Investigator Mary Cenovich.
She indicated she reviewed all relevant documents including the Commerce City Council’s closed-session meeting minutes taken by Ms. Oliveri.
Ms. Cenovich also interviewed Mr. Olivo, Ms. Baca Del Rio, Rosalina Lopez, Mr. Argumedo and Judge Murphy.
She had unfettered access to all documents in the complaint filed by McCormick, Kidman and Behrens, LLP, including sworn declarations by Messrs. Olivo and Pierce.
But she did not know about the events of Sept 19-21. They were mysteriously omitted by the McCormick, Kidman and Behrens, LLP complaint.
Ms. Cenovich did not interview Judge Richey or Judge Freeman, and she makes no mention of the underlying terms of the agreement from the settlement conference.
Despite that, on Dec. 14, 2010, based on McCormick, Kidman and Behrens, LLP’s complaint, Mr. Olivo’s declaration and Ms. Cenovich’s investigation, the D.A. charged Mr. Argumedo with a felony.
Six days later, the D.A. moved to amend the charges to add a misdemeanor.
The court, based on a plea negotiation, dismissed the felony, and Mr. Argumedo accepted the misdemeanor violation of obstruction of justice. He resigned his Council seat and agreed not to run for office for three years.
When told about the missing information, an angry Mr. Argumedo told HMG-CN, “Looks like all of the information was not provided to all of the public agencies, especially the evidence about the mandatory settlement conference and the parties promises to the court and each other.”
Mr. Argumedo’s attorneys went a bit further in their criticism, saying, “the evidence reveals a factual dispute concerning what was actually said and recorded at the Sept. 22, 2006 City Council meeting. The Declarations of Bradley Pierce and Eduardo Olivo demonstrate that their summaries of evidence are inaccurate, incomplete, and misleading. The 9/22/06 handwritten and typewritten notes have also been augmented and edited, perhaps selectively.”
“Perhaps the most disturbing factual issues are those related to Eduardo Olivo’s and Bradley Pierce’s actions and conduct in presenting the criminal complaint to the District Attorney’s Office. Mary Cenovich, the District Attorney’s Investigator, failed to obtain and review the Minute Orders and failed to obtain and secure the settlement terms contained on the public record. Most importantly, the evidence demonstrates that Eduardo Olivo and Bradley Pierce have repeatedly misled a series of judicial officers by concealing and secreting the existence of the recording containing the terms of the negotiated settlement agreement. These are major facts in dispute, including the fact that Mr. Argumedo’s declaration appears to be true and reliable.”
HMG-CN called the D.A.’s office, with Assistant Chief of Media Relations Jane Robison saying, “You are asking me to comment on a PID investigation. We do not comment on PID investigations.”
Mr. Hews may be contacted at editor@cerritosnews.net
