For a long time, justice advocates have complained that the Los Angeles County District Attorneys office has repeatedly failed to prosecute members of law enforcement who have broken the law or engaged in corrupt behavior.

In the case of wrongdoing inside theLA County Sheriffs Department, it took a lengthy and wide-ranging investigation by the FBI and the U.S. Attorneys office before charges were filed having to do with notoriously brutal behavior by deputies toward inmates in the countys jail system, along withelaborate efforts by department higher-ups to obstruct the undercover investigation by the feds into the problems at those same jails.

But, beginning on August 18, 2011, theLASDs Internal Criminal Investigative Bureau (ICIB), followed by the Justice System Integrity Divisionof the Los AngelesDAs office, pursued a case against two sheriffs deputies with perplexing intensity.

It was a case that the lead prosecutorassigned to itreportedlybelieved was too weak to file.

Yet, his supervisors pushed him to file the case anyway. According to a recently-settledhigh ticket lawsuit, the LA District Attorneys Officedid so at the insistence of certain highly-placed members of the sheriffs department, led by one department leaderwho was said to have his own longtime agenda when it came to one of the two deputiesfather.

Whatever the reason, for the next sixyears, the earnings and the lives of DeputiesRobert Rob Lindsey and Charles Rodriquez were all but destroyed.

Yet, when their case went to trialin June of 2015, thetwelve men and women of theirjury took less than three hours toacquit Lindsey and Rodriguezof allcharges.

Lindsey & Rodriguez with two jurors after acquittal, courtesy of Lindsey family.

Still, the deputies would not be allowed to go back to work for another two years, and even when they did become fully reinstated, the two were only reimbursed for a slice of theback salary they were reportedly owed.

Yet, onMarch 31,of this year, just as the nation was plunging into the new stay-at-home world of COVID-19, the scales were rebalanced, at least in part,when LA County Board of Supervisors approved a settlement of $2,250,000 for DeputiesRobert Lindsey and CharlesMartinez.

The cash to pay the high-ticket settlement, which was negotiated by civil rights attorney Ron Kaye, was ordered by the board to bedrawn from the budgets of the Sheriffs Department and that of the District Attorneysoffice.

Yet the question of why the case was pursued in the first placestill remains.

You just have to look at the deputies who have been caught red-handed hiding exculpatory evidenceand yet itnever led to aprosecution, said attorney Ron Kaye when we talked recently about the case.

So,its a little suspect, he said, that the DAs office went to the matfor this investigation.

The story begins

The long and winding story of the Lindsey/Rodriguez case began onJune 2, 2011, when the two deputies made a drug-related arrest outside the Durango Club Bar in Huntington Park. The chain of events began earlier in the evening when the partners had reportedly gotten a tip from a confidential informant that a man named Abraham was dealing cocaine out of a white Lexus that was parked in the clubs parking lot.

Durango Club and Bar

When the deputiesrolled up to Durangos they indeed spotted a white Lexus SUV. Two men were standing outside the vehicle, which had the drivers door open. One of the two men matched the description the deputies had been given of Abraham, the possible dealer.

Lindsey reportedly exited the patrol car and called out to the man in question who identified himself as Abraham Rueda.

(Much later, everyone would learnthat Ruedasreal name was Uriel Salgado, and the named he gave on the night of his arrest, was only one among a string ofaliases.)

But that night, according to the report that Lindseywould write later, as he walked aroundthe Lexus shining his bright regulation flashlight through the cars window, he spotted a small plastic bindle of what appeared to be cocaine protruding from an air-conditioning vent in the interior of the Lexus. Whether or not Lindsey could see the bindle, was a critical point, because spotting something that looked like it contained cocainein the car of a suspected drug dealer gave the deputiesthe right tosearch the Lexis.

(A bindle is the termfor anorigami-like method of creating hand-folded envelopes of paper or plastic to contain cocaine.)

First, according to both of the deputies reports, Lindsey and Rodriguez searched Rueda and his companion, then placed thetwosomeinside the patrol car, andproceeded to searchthe Lexus. Inside the vehicle, they found that theprotruding bag did indeed contain a quarter gram of coke. Although they continued to search further, thedeputies found no additional drugs in the vehicle.

Believing there might be more cocainethat they had been unable to locate, the deputies called the Lynwood sheriffsstationand requested a drug-sniffing dog from their boss, a supervising sergeant named Brandon Dean.

Sergeant Dean told his deputies that no K-9s were available, so Lindsey and Rodriguezshould bring the Lexus to the station where it could be further searched in a contained environment. Rodriquez and Lindsey reportedly did what Dean told them to do, with Lindsey driving the Lexus, Rodriguez the patrol car, which contained Rueda/Salgado and his pal.

After the second search, which produced no additional drugs, Lindsey wrote up the report, which he later admitted was briefer than usual. Hedreportedly worked overtime every day the previous week and was unusuallyfatigued.

Still, Sergeant Dean would later testify in the criminal trial, whichtook place in mid-June 2015, that the report was appropriate, and matched what the sergeantpersonally knew of the nights events, based on the telephone call and his own observation.

After everyone hadturned in their respective reports in the wee hours of that same night in early June2011, Dean and his two deputies, Lindsey and Rodriguez, reportedly assumed that the charges against Salgado would be filed, and that would be that.

Yet something very different happened instead.

On August 18, 2011, the day of Salgados preliminary hearing on his drug charge, the Salgado gave a video to his public defender, which turned out to be a partial recording hed made with his cell phone of the clubs surveillance videofor the night of June 2, 2011. The video showed his arrest at the Durango Bar, along with the search of the Lexuswhich, as it turned out,belonged to Salgados sister.

Based on some inconsistencies between whatSalgados cell phone video showed about where Deputy Lindsey was standing when the deputysaid he saw the bindle inside the Lexus, as compared to Lindseys own over-brief description in his arrest report, the DAs office dismissed Salgados casealthoughno onedisputed that deputies found the smallbindleof cokein the car Salgado was driving that night.

On that same day, August 18, 2011, the LASDs Internal Criminal Investigations Bureau (ICIB) opened a criminal investigation of the two deputies actions on the night of the arrest.

The Tanaka factor

August of 2011 wasa fateful time for the Lindsey/Rodriguez investigation to be opened for two reasons.

Onereason had to do with a seemingly innocuous change in the sheriffs departments command structure that had occurredthreemonths before.

Paul Tanka/WLA

As WitnessLA reported back then,on May 15, 2011, theInternal Affairs Bureau (IAB), which investigates violations of departmental policy, and the Internal Criminal Investigations Bureau (ICIB), which looks into criminal acts committed by department personnel, were taken out from under the oversight of the LASDs Leadership and Training Division, where the twin bureaushad been for nearly two decades. Theywere then instead placed under the control of the then-Assistant Sheriff, soon-to-be-Undersheriff, Paul Tanaka.

The second reason was due to the fact thatTanakawas nursingalong-term, and notorioushatredof Deputy Rob Lindseys father, retired commander Bob Lindsey

It was in this context that the investigation of Deputy Rob Lindsey and his partner, Deputy Charles Rodriguez waslaunched, with Tanaka allegedly seeing in the younger Lindsey a way to get back at Linsey Sr.

As for Deputy Charles Rodriguez, there is nothing to suggest that Tanaka had anything againstLindseys partner.

If the charges against the two deputies were, as the lawsuit claimed, theresult of a vendetta, Rodriguez wasjustcollateral damage.

The Vendetta

So why did Paul Tanaka hate BobLindsey Sr?

In past years, WitnessLA has written a great deal aboutPaul Tanakaand hispay-to-play promotional system in whichthose who were unquestionably loyal to the former undersheriff, which included donating to his various political campaigns, moved up through the ranks faster, statistically speaking,than non-loyalists.

Bob Lindsey Sr. during 2018 run for LA County Sheriff

As one source put it, if one failed to do what he wished, he would ruin your career for sport.

According to the lawsuit and WitnessLAs own sources, in 2002, then-CaptainRobert Lindsey, challenged then-Chief Paul Tanakas authority on multiple occasions, culminating in Lindsey Sr.s refusal to fraudulently change answers of applicants on the LASDs promotional Lieutenants Exam.

Essentially,Robert Lindsey declined to cooperate with Tanakas efforts to move hispersonally selectedcandidates for promotion to the head of the line, although, according to Lindsey Sr. theydid not merit this advancement based on their test scores. Among other changes Tanaka required, according to Bob Lindsey was to give certain applicants credit for incorrect test answers that Tanaka allegedly claimed were close enough.

As a result of this refusal to change scores and credit wrong answers, Tanaka reportedly screamed at LindseySr., telling him, using expletives and threatening language, that he would live to regret his refusal, and that his career was over in the Sheriffs Department.

Deputy Robert Lindsey also reported that, after his graduation from the departments training academy in 2005, he was repeatedly approached by Paul Tanaka, whom he had never met until then.According to Lindsey, Tanaka would move into the deputys personal space and say, Hows your father doing? Say hello for me, and other things of that ilk.

When allegedly delivering these B-movie-dialogue messages, Tanaka reportedly used tones Lindseybelieved were meant to convey menace.

According to the lawsuit and other LASD sources, the unexpectedlyaggressive investigation into the actions of Deputies Lindsey and Rodriguez on the night of June 2, 2011, had everything to do with Paul Tanaka making good on his 2002 threat to Lindsey Sr.

The prosecutor and the U-Visa

When the sheriffs departmentfinished investigatingLindsey and Rodriguez, ICIB sent the case to the Los Angeles District Attorneys Office with a recommendation for prosecution.

On April 2, 2013four months after District Attorney Jackie Lacey had been sworn in for her first term as LA Countystop prosecutorthe DAs Office filed a felony complaint against Lindsey and Rodriguez, alleging multiple counts of Filing a False Report, plusConspiracy to Commit a Crime.

Superior Court Judge Kevin Stennis, former LA County prosecutor

At the DAs office, the case landed withitsJustice System Integrity Division (JSID) where a well-liked prosecutor named Kevin Stennis, actually filed the charges. Yet, he reportedly did so under circumstances that would later turn out to be very peculiar.

(Well get back to that part of the story in a minute.)

But first, lets look at thepreliminary hearing, which was set for February 14, 2014. At the prelim,prosecutorStennisran into a bump in the roadwhenhis cases primary witness, Uriel Salgadothe guy whom Lindsey and Rodriguez arrestedfailed to show up in court despite the fact that Stennis had subpoenaed him.

Theno-showcaused theSuperior Court to toss the charges against Lindsey and Rodriguez.

Stennis would eventually refile, but before he did,he was faced withanother sizableproblem when it came to the witness on whom the case rested. In addition to not showing up in court and having multiple aliasesand a string ofprior drug convictions, Salgado, was also undocumented and on the verge of being deported.

So, withthe non-appearance and the threat of deportation in mind, Stennis embarked on a new strategy. He entered intoan unofficial side deal with Salgados sister, Veronica Flores,which ismemorialized in a string of emails (thatWLA has obtained).

In the course of the emails, Stennis appearedto promise Flores that he would assist Salgado in applying for a U Visa, which would stop Salgados deportation in exchange for his cooperative testimony. In the meantime, however, Stennis had Salgado arrested and put in custody for several months, which automatically solved the not-showing-up-for-court problem, at least in the short term.

A U Visa, for those unfamiliar, is a special legal arrangement set aside for immigrants who are victims of certain crimes, which carry with them allegations of mental or physical abuse. In order to qualify for such a visa, the immigrant victimsmust be helpful to law enforcement in the investigation or prosecution of criminal activity.

There was, however, a thorny issue with the U Visa strategy when it came to Salgado, namely that the alleged crime for which Salgadowas a witness, did not fit into the U Visa framework.

Hoping to cure this problem,when Stennis refiled criminal charges on Lindsey and Rodriguez, he includeda brand new charge of Conspiracy to Commit an Act Injurious to Public, claiming that Lindsey and Rodriguez had conspired to pervert and obstruct justice.

We have to determine if the charges for this case qualify for U Visa, Stennis wrote in a May 15, 2014,email to Veronica Flores. I wont know that until after [the preliminary hearing]as I added a charge of obstruction of justice which I believe qualifies, but ifthat charge gets dismissed at the prelim on the 23rd, the remaining charges are not U visa eligible charges.

There was nothing wrong with the U Visa strategy, per se unlessStennis failed to disclose this quid-pro-quo set-upwith the defense. That failure would arguably constitute aBrady violation.

(The term Brady violation refers to the landmark 1963 Supreme Court case Brady v. Maryland, which established that the prosecution must turn over all evidence that might exonerate the defendant to the defense. To do otherwise, the court ruled, is to violate the due process clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.)

A dance of e-mails

As the case made its way through the legal process, the email exchange continued between prosecutor Stennis and Veronica Flores, regarding her brothers testimony and the ongoing U-Visa issue.

For example on July 23, 2014, at 8:23 AM, Flores wrote the following to Stennis.

Any news with the U visa paperwork yet? My brother has court on the 30th of this month and we really need it so he can be able to show that to the judge

Five days later Stennis wrote back that he still was waiting to find out if the one charge [which] is [UVisa*] eligible was going to be accepted by the court.

I then have to get permission from my head deputy to submit the [U Visa*] memo, Stennis wrote. What I recommend you do is let his atty there know that he is a witness and victim on this case, has been fully cooperative and would greatly benefit if he was allowed to stay. You can also give them my number and I can explain how cooperative Uriel has been. . .

Over the following weeks, Veronica Florescontinued to ask Stennis for a letter rather than just the unofficial verbal assurances he continued to offer.

Could he write something, she asked, that showed her brother was an important witness and that you guys kept him in custody for 4 months for him to testify?

In his [tk date] response, Stennis explained to Flores that hepersonally couldnt write the letter, because it will be considered improper on the present case and I would have to disclose it to the defense attorneys and a big problem would occur

The next day, Stennis tried another tack. The problem with the [U-Visa*] he wrote, is our office wont consider it until the case is over because we cant make it appear that we are doing it to gain favor for his testimony. . .

On, August 25, 2014, the second and final preliminary hearing took place, and Lindsey and Rodriguez were bound over for trial, including for the extra, U Visa-friendly charges.

After the hearing, prosecutor Stennis updated Veronica Flores ina 10:41 AM email, telling her that the next step in the process was the arraignment, which would be held on September 8, 2014.

OMG my brother has court on Thursday, an upset Flores wrote back a few minutes later, at11:36 AM. is there any way you can at least give us a formal letter to show the judge that he is waiting on this case and that he has [cooperated*] with you guys?

Stennis replied at 1:01 PM. He couldnt put was they were doing in letter form, he wrote, because it would appear Im seeking favor with a witness, he wrote, which couldget himin trouble.

But if her brother could tell the judge and if they contact me as professionals, I can answer their questions honestly.

Roughly translated: as long as there wasnt a paper trail, hed be happy to tell whoever was necessary.

Pressure from the top

Prior to the August 2014 preliminary hearing,DeputyLindsey retained a new criminal attorneyto defend him against the new charges set out in the amended felony complaint.

Attorney Kasey Sirody/Twitter

Now as the case was making its slow trektoward a jury trial, Lindseys new attorney,Kasey Sirody who had spent a dozen years as a former senior deputy district attorney in Ventura County before going into private practice, and now is the executive director of a law enforcement union reportedly met with prosecutor Stennis at his office to review discovery in the upcoming criminal case.

During her meeting, Sirody reportedly had a very startling conversation, which she would memorialize in a sworn declaration, ayear later on October 14, 2015, well after Lindsey and Rodriguez went to trial, and were acquited.

The declaration reads in part:

During the time I represented Mr. Lindsey, I met with then prosecuting Deputy District Attorney Stennis at his office to review discovery.

At the above-mentioned meeting, we discussed the merits of the case and Stennis advised me that after the case was dismissed (it was dismissed and re-filed before the first preliminary hearing), his suggestion to his management was to not re-file the case based on lack of evidence. However, in Mr. Stennis words, someone from the Sheriffs Department came and had a meeting with my boss and I was told I would re-file the case.

After he told me that, I asked him how he could live with himself and how he would like it if someone did that to his own son. He agreed he would not like that, demonstrating to me that he understood the egregiousness of his actions.

I recall another incident where Mr. Stennis advised me that he had communicated (I believe by telephone) with Abraham Ruedas sister one time.

I am certain that Stennis was very specific that it was only one time and he told me that he told her on that one occasion that he could not help her to help her brother stay in this country.

Originally posted here:

The Vendetta: How Paul Tanaka & the LA District Attorney's Office Tried to Ruin Two Sheriff's Deputies, Who Have Now Won a Big $$ Settlement | -...