-Caveat Lector- <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">
</A> -Cui Bono?-
http://www.latimes.com/editions/ventura/20000112/t000003731.html
Wednesday, January 12, 2000
L.A. County, U.S. to Pay $5 Million in Shooting
Courts: Law enforcement officials tentatively agree to
settlement in drug raid gone awry, which left Donald P. Scott
dead. Bradbury condemns officers' actions.
By TED ROHRLICH, Times Staff Writer
Los Angeles County and the federal government have
tentatively agreed to pay $5 million to the survivors of
reclusive millionaire Donald P. Scott, who was shot to death
when surprised by police during a controversial 1992 drug
raid that turned up no drugs on his isolated Ventura County
ranch.
Scott's survivors have long maintained that law
enforcement agents conducted the raid mainly because they
were hoping to seize the 200-acre ranch, just across the
Ventura County line from Malibu. They allege that agents
falsified information to obtain a search warrant, hoping to
find enough drugs to justify seizing the ranch under drug
asset forfeiture laws that would allow their agencies to keep
the profits from such confiscations.
Ventura County Dist. Atty. Michael Bradbury, whose
investigation came to the same conclusion, said Tuesday that
the settlement should send a message to law enforcement
officers.
"Scott should be alive today, and $5 million certainly can't
replace him," Bradbury said. "But, hopefully, it will deter this
kind of conduct."
Officials deny the charges, but said they agreed to settle
because they are not confident that jurors would believe what
government agents say.
"That's why this case finally settled," said Dennis
Gonzales, principal deputy Los Angeles County counsel, who
represents the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, the
lead agency in the raid. "We have to be realistic in the
marketplace of today."
Gonzales said sheriff's officials were particularly
concerned about fallout from the so-called Rampart scandal
involving the Los Angeles Police Department. An LAPD gang
officer assigned to the Rampart Division said he and
colleagues framed and sometimes shot innocent people. So
far, 11 criminal convictions have been reversed as a result of
the LAPD scandal.
"There's been a lot of bad press concerning the Rampart
case," Gonzales said. Sheriff's officials "felt that was a
consideration."
Under the terms of the tentative settlement, outlined
Tuesday to U.S. District Judge Dickran Tevrizian, Los
Angeles County will pay $4 million and the federal
government will pay $1 million. All suits against the
government stemming from the raid will be dropped.
Assistant U.S. Atty. James Sullivan declined to comment
on reasons for the settlement, which still must be approved
by the Interior Department, Drug Enforcement
Administration and Los Angeles County Board of
Supervisors. But government lawyers said they expect
approval within 90 days.
The plaintiffs--Scott's wife, four children and estate--will
split the proceeds in a formula yet to be determined.
* * *
Plaintiffs attorney Johnnie L. Cochran, Jr., who represents
Scott's wife, Frances, said in an interview that family
members will receive between half and two-thirds of the
money, with the rest going for legal fees and expenses.
Cochran said his client, who saw her husband killed and
later lost her home to a fire, now lives in "a tepee" on the
property and is trying to hold off government claims to seize
it for unpaid taxes.
Scott, 61, was killed by the deputy in charge of planning
the raid. When Scott emerged sleepy and drunk from his
bedroom, he allegedly had pointed a pistol at the officer.
The shooting was held to be justifiable, because Deputy
Gary Spencer was in fear for his life. But Spencer's right to be
in Scott's house was questioned.
Bradbury--in whose jurisdiction the raid
occurred--investigated and concluded that Spencer, a veteran
narcotics officer with a clean record, used false information to
secure a warrant to search Scott's ranch for marijuana plants.
"There was no marijuana on that place," Bradbury said.
"Clearly one of the primary purposes was a land grab by the
Sheriff's Department."
Spencer said he had heard from an informant that 3,000 to
4,000 marijuana plants were growing on Scott's ranch.
In corroboration, a veteran DEA agent, Charles Stowell,
said he saw 50 marijuana plants without using binoculars
from 1,000 feet above the ranch.
Stowell "either was badly mistaken or fabricated" the
sighting, Bradbury said.
The prosecutor also accused Spencer of misconduct.
Responding angrily, former Los Angeles County Sheriff
Sherman Block issued a report of his own, defending the
agents and condemning Bradbury for grandstanding.
Then-state Atty. Gen. Dan Lungren backed Block and
Spencer, asserting the deputy had done nothing wrong, and
sued Bradbury for libel. But his case was tossed out of court.
* * *
Bradbury said he had no regrets about his unusual
decision to criticize law enforcement colleagues in a case he
described as exposing "the ugly underbelly . . . of the whole
asset-forfeiture program."
The state forfeiture law has been changed partly because
of the Scott case, Bradbury said.
"But what may still be needed is better officer training,
better police procedures and a different philosophy by law
enforcement," he said.
Despite the criticism it brought him, Bradbury said the
Scott report was one of the proudest moments in his 33-year
career.
"The issuance of that report was a sea change in the way
law enforcement operates in investigating the conduct of
other police agencies," he said. "Historically, one law
enforcement agency doesn't criticize another, especially when
the stakes are as high as in this case."
* * *
Times staff writer Daryl Kelley contributed to this report.
' Scott should be alive today, and $5 million certainly can't
replace him. But, hopefully, it will deter this kind of conduct.'
Copyright 2000 Los Angeles
Times
--
-----------------------
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is
distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior
interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and
educational purposes only. For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
-----------------------
<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance�not soap-boxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory'�with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds�is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
