My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Browse
Search
1994 SPEC MIN FEB 11
Colton
>
CITY CLERK
>
City Council Minutes
>
1991-2000
>
1994
>
1994 SPEC MIN FEB 11
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/24/2014 4:28:39 PM
Creation date
2/20/2014 11:34:52 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General Documents
Created By
admin
DocType
General Documents
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
3
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
PUBLIC COMMENT: <br />Attorney Zoe Taylor Reese, respresenting Mr. Al Stewart, stated her <br />purpose tonight is not to address the projects in the City of <br />Colton being managed by Mr. Stewart, but rather to inform the <br />Council about the occurence that happened in another County. <br />Attorney Reese said as the Council is aware, charges were filed <br />against Mr. Stewart as reported in the newspaper. This stems from <br />a 1992 incident. Early in December Mr. Stewart was contacted by <br />the District Attorney for Riverside County and was invited to <br />discuss a land transaction that had occurred in Riverside County, <br />specifically, Coachella in which Mr. Stewart was involved. From <br />all indications, that she could see, it was a normal land sale and <br />development negotiations. <br />Because the District Attorney requested his presence, Mr. Stewart <br />agreed to meet with their investigator and requested that Attorney <br />Taylor accompany him. They met with the District Attorney to <br />discuss the incident. She asked the District Attorney if they <br />would be willing to give Mr. Stewart immunity. The District <br />Attorney did not grant Mr. Stewart immunity, but did state they had <br />absolutely no reason to believe that Mr. Stewart was involved in <br />any criminal act; they had no evidence nor were they conducting an <br />investigation on him nor were they considering him a potential <br />defendant in Riverside County at that time. The District Attorney <br />indicated they had indicted another person and had gone through <br />Grand Jury proceedings. The District Attorney stated they would <br />send the Grand Jury transcript to them in order for them to <br />familiarize themselves with the type of questions the District <br />Attorney was interested in and the meeting would take place at a <br />later date. This was agreed upon. The transcript was never sent <br />to them. <br />Attorney Taylor stated she contacted the District Attorney last <br />week to retrieve some records left with them by Mr. Stewart and was <br />informed at that time they were considering additional charges. <br />The individual they had indicted earlier had been charged with <br />several additional counts and at the very end of the complaint, Mr. <br />Stewart was listed with two counts. At that time, Attorney Taylor <br />asked the District Attorney for any evidence, reports, or any <br />indication that Mr. Stewart was involved in any illegal activity. <br />Attorney Taylor said she was not provided with any reports or <br />information. At this time, Attorney Taylor, hired her own <br />investigator to go out and interview people who had talked with the <br />District Attorney. As a result of this investigation, Attorney <br />Taylor said she could state that there appears to be nothing <br />abnormal in the land sale or the development agreements that went <br />on. Even though Mr. Stewart appeared in court, Attorney Taylor <br />said the District Attorney still has not provided her with any <br />reports indicating that Mr. Stewart is involved in any criminal <br />^� activity. <br />2 <br />FEB 11 1994 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.