John -

I know you made your offer in good faith but a criminal complaint is a serious thing. I don't think lodging or offering to withdraw a charge should be bargained by the complainant. That offer alone might violate the law and it certainly raises a question about motivation.

If there is a legitimate charge - and I think there is one here - it should be made and left to the District Attorney to prosecute.

In response to Pogo's suggestion that Mr. Johns' offer may have been illegal.

It was not. This is why the Town of Atherton got away with the kinds of offers extended to Mr. Buckheit and Mr. Johns in an attempt to settle civil litigation as referred to in Mr. Johns' email.

Threatening criminal prosecution however is a violation of an attorney's code of ethics. Hence if the City Attorney was involved in crafting a legal defense against Mr. Johns or Mr. Buckheit that involved the resources of the criminal justice system, the City Attorney could conceivably face sanctions from the State Bar.

Hope this helps.

The most offensive thing about the "offer" to Jerry Carlson is the fact that it pierces the veil of civility that covers Atherton politics.

The power struggle going on in town is qw down and dirty as what goes on in Chicago. People fighting with brass knuckles, people playing for keeps, people who would rather win than play nice.

Atherton's power brokers would rather the dirty laundry stay in the clothes hamper with the lid closed. All that has changed in the past year. Atherton's dirty laundry is in full view and the sight is not pretty.

Judge Judy -

Thanks for your reply but I think you missed my point.

Yes, it's perfectly acceptable to settle CIVIL disputes by offering to withdraw your complaint - which is, I think, what you reference in the Atherton examples.

But offering to withdraw your CRIMINAL complaint in exchange for some consideration is something very different. I do not want to impune Mr. Johns - who I know to be an honorable man and I think his offer was made somewhat flippantly - but some (especially a defense attorney) might call that blackmail. You do what I say and I'll withdraw my complaint. That's a dream-come-true for a defense attorney.

That said, I am quite confident this was not Mr. Johns intention... but it did taint his complaint.

And, by the way, I'm a big fan.

I am not a fan. But POGO is right about one thing. Just because the town has been unethical doesn't mean others should apply the same tactics. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Mr. Johns:

I have great respect for you, but I respectfully suggest that before you send this kind of correspondence you write it then save it and look at it again the following day. I submit that you may rewrite or not send what you have written upon further reflection. I know you have a great deal of emotion invested in the Town of Atherton and what was done to you and again, I respectfully submit you are allowing it to color your judgement. Threatening to prosecute on criminal charges or offering to not prosecute is not ethical and from what I have been told, illegal.

Mr. Johns, I would love nothing more than to see you take down the thugs that are in office in Atherton (not all of the council, just three) and that tried to ruin you, but in my humble opinon this is not the way.

I just wish he would go away

Judge Judy, the current prohibition in California Rules of Professional Conduct for attorneys relating to this matter is as follows: "DR 7-105. Threatening Criminal Prosecution. (a) A lawyer shall not present, participate in presenting, or threaten to present criminal charges solely to gain advantage in a civil matter."

Quite arguably, this prohibition was violated in the Town of Atherton's conduct as alleged with Mr. Johns (Mr. Johns alleges they made the equivalent, but inverse, offer; that is, the criminal investigation would be dropped if he dropped his civil suit).

The more stringent Ethical Consideration 7-21 states:

"EC 7-21 The civil adjudicative process is primarily designed for the settlement of disputes between parties, while the criminal process is designed for the protection of society as a whole. Threatening to use, or using, the criminal process to coerce adjustment of private civil claims or controversies is a subversion of that process; further, the person against whom the criminal process is so misused may be deterred from asserting his legal rights and thus the usefulness of the civil process in settling private disputes is impaired. As in all cases of abuse of judicial process, the improper use of criminal process tends to diminish public confidence in our legal system."

Quite arguably, this prohibition was violated in the Town of Atherton's conduct as alleged with Mr. Buckheit (offering to use a criminal process – factual innocence – to coerce adjustment of a private civil claim).

None of these prohibitions apply to Mr. Johns as he is not an attorney. Is it blackmail? I don't believe so. P.C. 518 states blackmail is one of the following:

1. using force or threats to compel another to give you money or other property,

2. using force of threats to compel a public officer to perform an official act, or

3. being a public official and compelling another to give you money or other property acting under color of official right.

I don't believe Mr. Johns' offer falls under any of these. However, think back to a recent scandal involving Mr. Buckheit and a council member, Charles Marsala, in Atherton, and think about whether an attempt to blackmail Mr. Buckheit was made according to this statute.

Thank you for your feedback Menlo Voter and POGO

There is a bit more to the story that I believe is worth sharing.

With the assistance of my former attorney Mr. George Camerlengo, I filed a complaint with the California State Bar Association over the very kind of conduct which you have chastised me for.

My complaint was over the fact that Atherton had tried to entice me into settling my civil complaint for wrongful termination by "working with the District Attorney to resolve the pending criminal matter" the Town had filed with the DA against me.

My ethics complaint to the State Bar included a copy of the settlement communication between Mr. Camerlengo and Mr. Louis Leone, then special counsel for Atherton wherein this offer was made.

The California State Bar declined to censure Mr. Leone for unethical conduct. Hence as distasteful this tactic may seem to both Menlo Voter and POGO, it is not illegal, the California Bar did not even consider it to be unethical.

Additionally, my former attorney stated to me that, based upon his research it was unethical for an attorney to use the criminal process as either an inducement to settle litigation or as a threat against one in retaliation for pressing a civil case. However he also said that it was not illegal for a litigant to do so.

POGO is quite astute. I did make my offer to Mr. Carlson flippantly. Quite frankly I had no expectation that Mr. Carlson would even read my e-mail. It therefore came as a surprise to me that he had complained about this communique to another member in the community.

Rather than try to bargain with Mr. Carlson, my motivation was to call attention to his participation in behavior on the part of the Town that was, in a word, shameful.

It was intended to call attention to the fact that what POGO and Menlo Voter find to be so distasteful is a standard business practice in Atherton and is a way of doing business that seems to be just fine with people like Jerry Carlson.

It is also important to note that my case was not an isolated incident. The Town tried a similar tactic on Jon Buckheit, offering to urge the DA not to oppose his motion for a declaration of factual innocence if he just dropped his civil rights lawsuit.

In summary, I agree with Menlo Voter and POGO on what I consider to be the most important point in this thread. I believe that the way in which Atherton has become accustomed to settling its differences with opposing parties should not be tolerated.

Things are just fine here. We don\'t needs outsiders like him getting into our business.

Anyone who thinks that things are just fine in Atherton is unaware of the legal, ethical and financial issues which the Town faces - unfortunately that things are just fine is the prevailing public opinion. Atherton is in serious trouble and the first stage of any serious problem is denial.

Anyone that doesn't think Atherton has serious problems either hasn't been paying attention or is in serious denial. The corruption of members of your council is well documented. The deficits your town is facing are also well documented. You don't think Atherton has serious problems? Really?

Peter and Menlo Voter, I've read many of your comments on various threads, and know you to be intelligent. So let me put this thought out there: You're of course right that Atherton has serious problems, and anyone who doesn't realize it is not facing reality. But you were responding to a mischief-making provocateur when you made your comments.

I don't know who the provocateur is, though I have a strong suspicion. But I am certain that using the name "Marion O" is the provocateur's attempt to make us believe that a well-known, well-respected and intelligent woman in our community was the one who wrote the post. This provocateur should be ignored for the troll he (I believe that pronoun is correct) is.

Catch the whiff states:"I am certain that using the name "Marion O" is the provocateur's attempt to make us believe that a well-known, well-respected and intelligent woman in our community was the one who wrote the post. "

This is precisely the reason that I have long (and unsuccessfully) urged the Publisher of the Almanac to require that all posters be registered and also that people be encouraged, if not required, to use their real names.

The way this post is going, it is reminiscent of that old television show To Tell the Truth. The catch phrase "Will the real Marion O please stand up" seems on point.

Questions that come to mind are: Who is Marion O?

Which one is the real one and which one is the fake one?

If there is a real Marion O who is intelligent, well known and well respected, then why isn't her voice heard on this forum?

Also who is Catch the Whiff, and why doesn't catch the whiff use his or her real name?

Who is the troll catch the whiff refers to and how does catch the whiff know the gender of the troll?

Is there any more information that Catch the Whiff can offer as to the identity of the troll in question?

One hopes that answers will be forthcomming on this forum.

Catch the Whiff is right, there are trolls on the loose in Atherton.

Maybe those of us who are sworn to protect and to serve this community are deserving of our salary and benefits after all.

Maybe Peter Carpenter will stop carping about our pension and our 70th percentile salary.

Maybe just maybe we will be appreciated for what we do, rather than being threatened with outsourcing.

Are you listening Mr. Carpenter?

Until you strap on my holster, until you put on my bullet proof vest and until you walk a mile in my shoes, preferably on patrol, you won't quite understand what we are up against during our 12 hour shifts.

Hired gun asks:"Are you listening Mr. Carpenter?"

Been there and have done much more hazardous jobs - I am not impressed with your argument.

Hired Gun:

been there, done that. I spent years with a duty belt and badge at a large metropolitan police department. I think I have a pretty good idea what you face. With all due respect, you work in Disney Land compared to those of us that actually had to deal with real criminals. What's the worse thing you have to deal with, some pissed off rich bitch you stopped for blowing a stop sign. Ya, your job is really deserving of the 70th percentile in pay. Try again.

Like Hired Gun, I've never carried a gun or a badge... at least not real ones.

But unlike Mr. HG, I do have the utmost respect and admiration for those who do and put themselves between me and the bad guys. I wouldn't trade jobs with them and I sincerely appreciate what they do.

And it is because I appreciate them so much that I want to see them have sustainable compensation and benefits and never have to worry about receiving layoff notices like 80 of their brothers and sisters in Oakland just did.