"Presumption of innocence is a legal right that the accused in criminal trials has in many modern nations. It states that no person shall be considered guilty until finally convicted by a court. The burden of proof is thus on the prosecution, which has to convince the court that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In principle, the defense does not have to 'prove' anything. However, the defense may present evidence tending to show that there is a doubt as to the guilt of the accused."
With that said, if you go to the front page of the OCRegister.com, you'll see two major figures, one financial and one political who are being investigated by the Federal Government.
I'm only going to comment on one, our Orange County Tax Collector/Treasurer, Chriss Street. While Chriss has spent, according to the article, more almost $1 million bucks remodeling his offices, which I've mentioned in the past and appears to be an extremely irresponsible waste of taxpayer dollars, the gist of this article has to do with his previous life as the trustee for a bankrupt company. He is being accused of using this bankrupt company as his personal check book, by...wait for it...the bankrupt company's next trustee. I have personal experience, as an accounting professional, for many of these situations and know, first hand, the animosity that typically follows these types of situations; so without know much more and without looking at the Forensic Audit report, the accusations laid out against Chriss are probably exaggerated and actually expected, especially if the new trustee wants to justify his position as a competent manager. What's the best way to justify getting a job? Bash your predecessor (especially one who had previously fired him before getting appointed as the new trustee). I've done it. You've all done it. Heck, I bet Council member Nancy Gardner might have done it...well...maybe not.
The Feds getting involved? The Feds always get involved. The Feds are (were?) involved with investigating the former company of a current Council member during the years he was a major part of the management team. But according to that article, "About 107 companies are currently under scrutiny by the SEC or the Department of Justice..." Not a lot considering all the companies in the Country, but still a few. Furthermore, if there was merit in these accusations against Chriss, then where is the IRS or the California Franchise Tax Board, where there IS NO PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE and the burden of proof lies on the accused. You'd better believe that they would want their piece of the tax pie, especially with the accusation of $477,000 of unjustified expense reimbursements. If Chriss used the company's fund for personal reasons, the IRS and State of California hammer would have already come done on him. Hard.
Do this look bad for Chriss Street? Yes. Will he have to spend lots and lots on really fancy attorneys, who specialize in fighting the Feds? Yup. But should the press, County residents and the many anonymous posters in the Register's comments section call him guilty and a crook? Not yet. Let's at least wait until all the evidence (the real stuff, not accusations by the "Next Guy")comes out, let's wait for this to play out a bit more. The only think he is guilty of so far is spending so much $ on his new office furnishings...that's a different story.
No comments:
Post a Comment