By Robert Haugh
It was 107 days ago that Indicted Councilmember Anthony Becker appeared in Santa Clara County Superior Court and said that he needed time to find a private attorney.
Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Daniel Nishigaya gave him more time.
Becker will appear in Superior Court again today for a hearing to set a trial date.
Becker is being charged with leaking a Grand Jury report (a misdemeanor) to the 49ers and lying (a felony) about it. If found guilty of the felony charge, he could serve jail time. Becker has pleaded not guilty.
The 49ers have supported Becker’s last two campaigns with nearly $4 million of contributions through an independent expenditure.
According to the Court’s website yesterday, Becker is still being represented by a public defender.
Local lawyers have told Santa Clara News Online that they believe Becker is just delaying his case to buy time. He doesn’t really plan to hire a private attorney.
Santa Clara News Online has asked numerous lawyers if they know if Becker has reached out to any local defense attorneys. No one is aware of Becker making an effort or a phone call.
Becker has also waived his right to a speedy trial.
While Becker remains on the City Council, he continues to collect his paycheck and vote on major issues, including those having to do with the 49ers.
A Riddle for the Indicted One:
Despised am I by knave and liar
After me, the wise inquire.
I rise above all death and fire
What am I?
Answer: The Truth
p.s. Delaying will not stop Karma’s retributions
Responding to @ Jo Warren:
Ha!
This forum is not for personal attacks. It is for the Truth. I am sorry for your personal situation, but that does not address the substance of my comments. Anybody can smear anybody. But the FACTS are as they are. This forum to discuss critical issues for Santa Clarans is the BEST.
BTW, I presume I will be attacked more in the future.
As they said in WW2, if you are receiving FLAK, then you are over the target.
God bless.
In order to recognize councilman Anthony Becker, for achieving his outstanding and will earned recent criminal indictment, Santa Clara Mayor Gillmor will be proclaiming Becker as honorary mayor of “Shifty Clara” for a day tbd later.
Responding to Sixth Amendment:
Nice nom de plume. Of course a citizen has a right “in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury.”
Prior to this post, I really didn’t understand the colloquial term “what-about-ism.” But thank you, now I do with your elocution regarding “Thomas Leipelt.” So What?
Why did you not raise the fact that Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were executed for conspiracy to commit espionage under the U.S. Espionage Act of 1917? Not sure what that paragraph meant.
While you commingle salaries and rights, I agree with the right of effective assistance of legal counsel. For any citizen or non-citizen. Governments can be oppressive, such as the QUISLINGS of the 49er 5, and their tyrannical aims. Of course, anyone who opposes Jed “Al Capone” York will need “the right of effective assistance of legal counsel” as he continually bribes city officials AND TRIES TO kill the right to elect a CHIEF OF POLICE. Bribing an “appointed” Chief of Police is way easier than one that is elected.
As far as personally attacking Robert Haugh–Whiskey Tango Foxtrot…. WTF… Not sure what impact you desired. But to me it falls flat (i.e., “No public information exists…”). I will ASSERT, too, that no public information exists that Santa Claus is real. So what?
Now, really your main point: “the City of Santa Clara’s charter allows for those not convicted of crimes to continue their role to some capacity as a city employee or public representative.”
While perhaps true, there once was a time in Santa Clara that HONOR and DIGNITY were valued more than, as you said, a “$2,000 per month stipend.” One who sells his or her Soul for that amount is TRULY lost. I feel badly for Becker. He continually brings SHAME on his family. And SHAME on Hardy, Park, Jain, and Chahal. Birds of a feather… sadly.
Jo Warren is smart and caring and RIGHT!!
@Jo – critical thinking is not your forté, so I’ll elucidate for you…
1. There was no personal attack of Robert Haugh in the previous comment. Simply a reminder that leveraging the services of a public defender – if one qualifies financially – is something Mr. Haugh likely once considered. “Even though the heinous allegations were completely unfounded, they led to costly legal fees, lost wages and a lot of heartache…I used everything I had saved. My family tapped into a loan. Donations from friends and close family helped as well.” https://santaclaranews.org/2021/09/30/my-personal-story-i-have-been-cleared-of-the-malicious-and-false-claims-against-me/
2. The comparison of Leipelt was to highlight that even those accused by law enforcement and credible witnesses of public indecency are allowed the full protection and benefit of law.
If you feel mere accusations are just cause to eliminate someone’s job, smear their public reputation, and obviate one’s ability represent their community – you should forge alliances with James Rowen and start a Change.org petition to eliminate provisions in California’s POBOR, City of Santa Clara bargained employment contracts, and the California State Constitution and see if you can get city employees to join the cause.
The rest of your comments are nonsensical.
Jo Warren is an honest, bright sincere person. She is quite articulate and sincere
Ms. Warren has cleverly pointed out the weakness of petitions. She can hsndle things well.
While Thomas Leipelt was on duty and in Santa Clara Police Uniform, he publicly exposed himself to women in Santana Row. From date of incident May 15, 2015, to April 7, 2016 he remained a Santa Clara Polie Department employee collecting income and benefits. During that time, Leipelt pleaded not guilty, waived his right to a speedy trial, and collected approximately $221,343 in income and benefits. Despite being convicted of indecent exposure (a misdemeanor for first time offenders) today he collects more than $126k annually as he will do the rest of his life.
Santa Clara City Council Members are allowed a $2,000 per month stipend, the City Mayor $2,500. Individuals charged with a crime have a right to effective assistance of legal counsel and under the U.S. and California Constitutions the government is required to provide and pay for attorneys for those individuals who are unable to afford private attorneys. https://www.ospd.ca.gov/laws-regulations/
According to local media, blogger Robert Haugh acquired legal defense assistance from private attorney Charles Smith when the Santa Clara County DA charged him with CPC 288(a) “a lewd and lascivious act with the intent of arousing, appealing to and gratifying the lust, passions, and sexual desire of the defendant and of the child” which is a felony. A conviction might have carried a three-to eight-year sentence and registration as a sex offender. Haugh also waived his right to a speedy trial, charges were eventually dropped. No public information exists showing where Mr. Haugh obtained monies to hire a private attorney.
The net of all this is, yes, Becker has been indicted but not convicted of a crime and representation by a Public Defender is afforded to him by State and Federal law. The City of Santa Clara’s charter allows for those not convicted of crimes to continue their role to some capacity as a city employee or public representative.
Becker cries poor mouth but goes to Taylor Swift concert on Saturday. Even posts pic on social media. Guy has no shame.
New Charter change petition. Los Angeles allows for suspension of indicted council members.
Good idea
https://chng.it/CYbpvFRWHM