OpenCDA

January 15, 2011

Not Minty Fresh

Filed under: Probable Cause — Bill @ 1:27 pm

[

This morning’s Coeur d’Alene Press article headlined As easy as writing a check had a good deal of detail about the theft allegedly committed by former Kootenai County Chief Deputy Clerk and Auditing Supervisor Sandra Martinson.  Some of the material raises eyebrows.

First, Kootenai County Prosecutor Barry McHugh asked the Bonner County Prosecutor to make the charging recommendation.  Why?  I have lived in Maryland, Virginia, California, and Washington, and never have I heard of a prosecutor handing off a charging decision to another county’s prosecutor simply because the accused was a county employee.  It goes with the job.  This sounds more like a political decision than a legal necessity.  I hope I’m wrong.

Second, Martinson was charged with only one count of grand theft.  According to the article, there were 212 checks negotiated illegally.  Each of those 212 checks is potentially an individual and separate count.  Even if we disregard any checks negotiated more than five years ago, it seems logical that more counts should have been added.  Further, if the some of the supporting documents altered were public records, then additional counts of altering public records would have been possible.

So why the light charging?  My first thought is that it is part of a deal between the prosecutor and Martinson.  In return for her assisting in the investigation (meaning, she identifies accomplices, co-conspirators, etc. and agrees to testify against them) and for her identifying other crimes that may have been committed by her and others, the prosecutor makes the Court aware of her cooperation.  That possibility,  ongoing investigations of others, would help explain why the Court’s records have been sealed.  On this one, I hope I’m right.

The thing that concerns me most is that what appears to be a very clumsy effort at forgery and embezzlement went undetected for so many years by people whose duties in their respective jobs included looking for warning signs.  The investigators really need to diligently interview Martinson’s coworkers, her former supervisor(s), and the present and past County Commissioners to determine what they knew and when they knew it.  Those investigators need to have a similar discussion with the county’s present and past contracted accounting firms.  Their investigation needs to include interviews with present and former US Bank officials as well.

I hope the Coeur d’Alene Police Department had the good sense to ask for help from law enforcement agencies with more experience in complex financial crime and public corruption investigations.  One never knows where an investigation like this might lead.

30 Comments

  1. Prosecutors in Idaho are political creatures. I believe that’s one of the problems with oversight of corruption in this state. Prosecutors should be hired. Not only that, they should come from a state that doesn’t border this one. Eliminate the local connections and the politics, and let them do their jobs.

    Comment by Dan — January 15, 2011 @ 4:46 pm

  2. On the other hand if Martinson cooperates by giving the prosecution nothing – she will get off easy. Old lady card, withheld judgement … be quiet, and a little community service as Taryn Hecker has already called it over at you-know-where and she has enough experience in this field as a reporter to call it. Stinks already – but I hope Bill is right. Local yokels are not capable of a real investigation.

    Comment by Stebbijo — January 15, 2011 @ 8:47 pm

  3. One particular case from Bonner County in a case of embezzlement involved Karen Weldon who was – I believe – was caught twice – she was the treasurer. NOTHING… Even tho, Louis Marshal was not the prosecuter at the time – it’s the same legal network that is still there.

    Here is a post that recently surfaced regarding that event home to Bonner County.

    Here is a quote from a poster by the name of issues (not me) – certainly interesting. Marie Scott is Bonner County’s clerk.

    Yeah, Marie Scott is a real prize all right.
    Somehow she missed it in the book keeping when her buddy Karen Weldon was stealing thousands of dollars of tax money…and blowing it on country and western trips.
    Oh, and that matter in the road department? The one where somebody had a drop box in Spokane, stolen thousands in tax money to send to it. When someone came into the court house, punched commissioner brown and then spit on he and his wife while using the F word. He lived 80 miles away and when charges were pressed Marie managed to get him served with papers and Brown who is 12 miles out of town didn’t. Why they held the trial without him. Bud didn’t win. Now we won’t have that burdensome chore of a forensic audit that only he had the guts to bring about.

    I am just sayin’ Bonner County has a history – expect the fireworks to turn into duds.

    Comment by Stebbijo — January 15, 2011 @ 8:57 pm

  4. Stebbijo,

    My comment had more to do with the CdAPD’s lack of experience in complex financial investigations than any particular lack of competence. However, I do have serious concerns about CdAPD Chief Longo’s willingness and ability to resist any political pressure to contain and limit the investigation to Sandra K. Martinson.

    In this investigation involving multiple accounts for different agencies and taxing entities in the county, it would not only make sense but it would be professionally responsible for the Coeur d’Alene Police Department or possibly some other official to formally request investigative assistance from an outside agency with specialized expertise in both financial crimes and public corruption investigations. In fact, the failure to make such a routine request in a timely way would itself be suspect. It might suggest that Idaho officials are “on board” with containing and limiting the investigation rather than letting the investigation go where the evidence leads it.

    You are right, though. If Martinson is allowed to plead guilty to one felony count and receives an inappropriately low sentence and if that guilty plea truly ends the investigation, we can be almost absolutely certain that once again the fix was in. The only question then will be how high up was the fixer: Coeur d’Alene? Kootenai County? Boise? Washington, DC? But let’s see how it turns out.

    Comment by Bill — January 16, 2011 @ 7:33 am

  5. Was Martinson a lone ranger? Are there other fraudsters on the loose? Is Tot-A-Vote Dan implicated? How about the bank? Why wasn’t the US Attorney brought in?

    Comment by justinian — January 16, 2011 @ 12:57 pm

  6. justinian,

    Those are all excellent questions that the investigation should answer. Given the willingness of some but by no means all Idaho public officials to cover up for cronies and also given the lazy nature of our area’s news media, we may never know the answer.

    As to your last question, clearly there was sufficient information to justify the CdAPD’s inviting federal authorities in to assist in the investigation. I think that even if there was no obvious federal jurisdiction, agencies with technical expertise in forensic accounting and forensic document examination would seriously consider a request for assistance from a police department lacking both.

    Comment by Bill — January 16, 2011 @ 1:17 pm

  7. This is Idaho. The whole state is nested in filth. Be happy with the fresh air, green forests, and blue waters and know that you are not part of the stench.

    Comment by Stebbijo — January 16, 2011 @ 1:21 pm

  8. I think the local prosecutor’s office didn’t direct the investigation correctly in deciding to pass it off to Bonner immediately because Barry McHugh, as he said in a presentation that he made this past, fall that he has no criminal prosecution experience. If you’ve never been there then for the most part you’re lost unless you have confidence in our subordinates who do have the experience.
    I’m just trying to put a positive spin on such a poorly advised decision.

    Comment by Ancientemplar — January 16, 2011 @ 1:40 pm

  9. It’s ironic that when the S-R pretty much headed up the public records denial of former prosecuter Bill Douglas – little did we know that we would get a successor that keeps the public in the dark much worse. The email Kalani/Douglas scandal is nothing compared to the prior history of county/city refusals to turn over (city elections contest) information and now this sealed investigation. Too bad the S-R does not sue for that. Not that he was perfect, but it looks like the S-R took great pains to take Douglas out – I think, now.

    Comment by Stebbijo — January 16, 2011 @ 5:59 pm

  10. And…S-R wanted the following– election: Kennedy elected; sealed investigation: English elected/protected. Depends upon whose ox is being gored…true “journalism” at its best.

    Comment by Happy Trails — January 16, 2011 @ 6:25 pm

  11. Stebbijo and Happy Trails,

    You can both be absolutely certain that since Mike Kennedy is being groomed for higher elected or appointed positions, the Spokesman-Review has absolutely no interest in revealing anything which would enlighten the public about his suitability to hold more influential positions to be questioned. Likewise, neither the S-R nor the Coeur d’Alene Press wants journalistic attention focused on our area. It is the job of the S-R/s lobbyist/reporter in Boise to make darned sure no official attention upsets the plans to exploit this area.

    Comment by Bill — January 16, 2011 @ 7:38 pm

  12. Yes, the S-R lobbyist is at times pretty pathetic, but I like her pictures. She sure couldn’t give us much about the tax chairman getting caught, instead,we get pretty rhetoric from our own Governor who still sees no wrong.

    “Royce has been my friend and trusted adviser for a number of years. He was kind enough to enter the arena of public service at my request, and I applaud his hard work, knowledge and expertise in that role,” Governor Otter said. “I wish him all the best in his future endeavors.”

    The AP broke the story.

    Comment by Stebbijo — January 16, 2011 @ 10:42 pm

  13. Just an aside. The article in the Press about the Citylink and the resulting blogs sure shows that Opencda is ahead of the game. All the comments and after the respondents to Opencda.com had gone through the entire scenario with John A………some one out there must be reading this blog. I didn’t read anything new there in the article or the comments. Keep up the great work. The Press is printing the news after its digested here!

    Comment by Ancientemplar — January 17, 2011 @ 8:46 am

  14. Ancientemplar,

    Thank you. I’m sure Dan and Mary would agree that we’re focused on trying the information out as accurately as we can. We hope it gives readers a clearer and more complete picture. We hope it stimulates others in the community to ask questions and seek complete and honest answers from public officials.

    Comment by Bill — January 17, 2011 @ 9:02 am

  15. Ancientemplar,

    You are right on. The S-R, Press, or any other media for that fact get their orders from their higher up self serving elitest owners.

    One MIGHT hear or read it something IF there is nothing in it to profit nor condemn them.

    Comment by concerned citizen — January 17, 2011 @ 9:07 am

  16. I don’t believe Mr. McHugh has limited prosecution experience he is always quoted in the press on the big cases and stands his ground in court. I believe the reason the prosecutor got this out of KC is simply the Auditor, Treasurer, and BOCC are represented by the same in-house prosecutor. This whole endeavor is and has been filled with controversy to be nice about it.

    When the information was presented to the Prosecutor that representation didn’t exist as she was retired and still a special prosecutor for the reason she worked at KC. At some juncture at issue are the counties on board a prosecutors as legal representatives. After being the BOCC’s attorneys they became prosecutors who are required to oppose all claims and accounts against the county when he deems them unjust or illegal not to mention the primary duty of enforcing the law.

    A prosecutor ever opposing an account or claim rearding public money simply is not what they do and is as much a problem as the claimed training that doesn’t exist especially regarding handling public money. How does the prosecutor name his deputy as a potential witness who acts in his name?

    Comment by Appalled — January 17, 2011 @ 2:51 pm

  17. The article references U.S. Bank. Does anyone know what branch was involved?

    Comment by doubleseetripleeye — January 17, 2011 @ 3:44 pm

  18. I’m curious: How can a bank accept a check with whiteout on it? Glad I’m not at US Bank. Who would feel that their deposits are safe there, knowing any old dork on the road can find an old check of yours, whiteout the name, and steal from your account?

    Who runs US Bank here?

    Comment by Dan — January 17, 2011 @ 4:23 pm

  19. Dan, unless I read the story wron, the check at the time of deposit was made out to Martinson and later the copies and the checks , upon receipt from the bank were altered, not at the time of negotiation. She controlled the checks and signatures going out and she controlled the statements and reports coming back in. And did the filing. Wild huh?

    Sorry Appalled, but Barry said he not experience in criminal work in the DOJ just civil work.

    Comment by Ancientemplar — January 17, 2011 @ 4:35 pm

  20. It’s not just being in custody of a signature stamp in light of IC 31-1511 that requires “Warrants payable on demand and drawn by order of the board of county commissioners on the county treasury shall be jointly issued and signed by the county auditor and the county treasurer.” How many of these accounts are out there? I’ve seen the use of the stamp on checks but more so just the one signature of Sandy Martinson. The former BOCC, former Auditor, current prosecutor, and finance director knew all about this for a long time.

    The account I’ve addressed several times is Well’s Fargo that was supposed to be set up by the clerk on behalf of the district court but instead was two different sheriff accounts that Sandy opened and operated and Dan English new plenty because he is the only elected official since Pierce Clegg to come to my office. The time frame of the accounts are about the same and concern district court and may be tied together.

    The problem began with it not being an approved bank under the public depository act and one signature or stamp was being used. One account appears to have been just for transferring the other writing checks some that were held for over a year and a half. Inaccuracies galore and the “whole-dollar amount” amount I call flat fees involved transfers often not tied to any county transaction and revenue. Claimed to be a clerical error tied to a transaction period was untrue when Sandy later admitted she did that only because one account balance was getting to low that was just one of three flat fee transfers that month.

    Willfully monies were not transferred timely that were also subject to fees where the court was not getting full payment and it was Dan English who drafted the response with his excuse for how the fees were being handled. Knowingly many false entries relating to public moneys and many times these public accounts and transactions often were concealed.

    Flat fee transfers, voided checks, unapproved bank, the treasure not controlling these funds, and overdrawing a trust account is among the many inaccuracies that Dan and I spoke about over a year ago at my office including being given false evidence several times. I presented much of this and more financial violations by sworn complaint and affidavit to the former BOCC and current prosecutor in 2009. Last year Dan committed perjury under oath about these accounts. They have missed some very serious mishandling of public money by Sandy Martinson known to Dan English that is much more then with one signature and or stamp.

    Comment by Appalled — January 17, 2011 @ 4:46 pm

  21. Appalled,

    If you know, would these mystery accounts have been FDIC-insured?

    Comment by Bill — January 17, 2011 @ 5:14 pm

  22. I’m confused as to the Wells Fargo reference. The story says U. S. Bank. I was wondering if the branch could be identified?

    Comment by doubleseetripleeye — January 17, 2011 @ 5:18 pm

  23. The time frame of the accounts matched and the accounts at Wells Fargo process monies paid to the District Court when Sandy got around to it however it appears both the US Bank and Wells Fargo accounts were operated with one signature or a stamp and both are filled with serious inaccuracies. The court was often left short and the State never paid a required fee. The Wells Fargo statements were processed by Sandy auditing her own work – sound familiar.

    The parallels are huge and they obviously only seem to care about what went into her pocket and not any of the fraud, mishandling, concealing, and false evidence surrounding the Wells Fargo accounts and surely the US Bank account where and if applicable. The bottom line is serious problems with accounts at two different banks that she handled.

    Comment by Appalled — January 17, 2011 @ 5:29 pm

  24. Bill, I imagine the bank itself is FDIC insured so wouldn’t that apply to the accounts depending on their balances; I’m curious why do ask?

    Comment by Appalled — January 17, 2011 @ 5:40 pm

  25. Appalled, thanks for the clarification on the accounts. I wonder if Ms. Martinson worked on Elections as well.

    Comment by doubleseetripleeye — January 17, 2011 @ 6:01 pm

  26. I’ve not seen anything regarding Elections and Martinson, however a senior deputy is required and she was that deputy to Mr. English as I understand it so maybe?

    Comment by Appalled — January 17, 2011 @ 6:10 pm

  27. Appalled,

    Federal jurisdiction.

    Comment by Bill — January 17, 2011 @ 7:17 pm

  28. Snarky Comment:

    … maybe federal Judge Edward Lodge will preside – if need be?

    Comment by Stebbijo — January 17, 2011 @ 7:42 pm

  29. IC 31-2307 requires “Every county auditor must, on or before the second Monday in January of each year, prepare, in duplicate, an exact and full statement, under oath, of the financial condition of his county for the fiscal year last preceding, in such form as prescribed by the board of county commissioners, one of which statements shall be filed in the office of the county auditor and the other with the board of county commissioners of the county.”

    I requested a copy of the exact and full statement that was due January 2010. Sandy Martinson was first to respond providing me with false evidence and a copy of a spreadsheet applicable to only December 2009. The problem is it had not one figure and absolutely nothing to do with the fiscal year that ended September 2009.

    Next David McDowell took over and pointed me to the Counties CAFR that was not under oath and included letters from Dan English’s and LeMaster and Daniels dated March 2009. With that failing compliance Mr. McDowell formally informed me that there was no need for such a report because of the advent of computers and assured everything was always available and up to date on computer that proved to be untrue.

    In Robinson v. Huffaker, 23 Idaho, 173, 129 PAC. 334: Crowley v. Empey, 23 Idaho, 190, 129 PAC. 340 the high court found “ Were the statues of the state impose certain duties upon the board of commissioners, and require certain reports and the performance of certain duties, the county commissioners have no right or authority to exercise the arbitrary judgment that such reports are unnecessary and impractable, for the reason that it is the duty of a public officer to obey the law, and he cannot justify his acts upon the ground that he does not believe that it will be necessary to obey such law.

    The report is required by law and can’t be just determined it doesn’t need to be done. The BOCC can’t disregard the statute but a prosecutor and the finance director can? Next David McDowell stated it would be timely done no later the Monday in January 2011 raising the question about what happened to his position it is not needed that a prosecutor fully supported. Apparently it is now done and costs $3.25.

    My point is this, will the exact and full statement, under oath, of the financial condition of his county for the fiscal year last preceding include anything about the different accounts Sandy mishandled and what Dan and David neglected? How about the failed duty again and again required by the former BOCC applicable to public money IC 31-802 and IC 31-1503 among other financial statutes that were simply ignored?

    What about the “whole-dollar amount” or flat fees used by Tom Malzahn more then anybody else throughout the last fiscal year? I just learned that the cash flow report given to the BOCC when they chose to have monthly meetings with the Treasurer has a payroll figure the same for months that is merely an estimate. When a statute requires a monthly settlement and monthly report about the monies in the bank an estimate is not what is contemplated or is compliance. Doubtful the report that is timely done for a first time will touch on anything negative so then everything must be good, rock solid, and legal! Can’t wait to see it.

    Comment by Appalled — January 17, 2011 @ 8:13 pm

  30. Dan, you asked how can a bank accept a check with white out on it?

    U.S. Bank used to be West One before it was Idaho National Bank. Years ago when I was in the logging industry, I hired a bookeeper to help me with my ex’s logging business. The idea of a bookeeper was trust so I would have help. I trained her then instructed her to have my ex sign the checks to pay the bills and payroll. He signed the checks and then she put a STICKER on the payee of the check. I was computerized way back then to make things easier. Her STICKERS went through like flint until I reviewed the statements. Not the banks problem unless you prosecute. I caught it …quick. I also caught the same bank accidently not depositing a 20K check. Good thing I had the receipt. In those days if you suspected bank fraud – you had to complain to California.

    Comment by Stebbijo — January 17, 2011 @ 10:25 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Powered by WordPress
Copyright © 2024 by OpenCDA LLC, All Rights Reserved