A few new revelations and the delay of a scheduled trial this month came out of an hour and a half hearing last Friday involving the federal court case of local resident Jerry Cox who is suing Mariposa County in relation to two high-profile cases.
The hearing was conducted by Judge Lee H. Rosenthal, who is based in Houston, Texas. In this federal case, the magistrate, or lead judge, is Judge Barbara McAuliffe, who is based in Fresno. She will be the judge overseeing the case should it go to trial.
But last Friday, it was Rosenthal who was hearing arguments involving all of the parties in the case. Those arguments were submissions by the lawyers asking the court for partial or full summary judgment.
This is typical in cases where each side makes its arguments why the case should be tossed. In a large percentage of the cases, those arguments don’t hold water with judges and the cases proceed. In some cases, judges might accept some of the arguments and narrow the scope of the case.
That seemed a real possibility at the end of the hearing when Rosenthal indicated the lawyers, by asking for a trial date extension, might have a narrower focus as they prepared for the trial.
A complicated case
If all of this sounds confusing, it’s because the case is complicated and has been winding its way through the federal system for seven years now. Cox originally filed the federal lawsuit on Aug. 12, 2019 — but much of what is being argued dates back well before that and involves several main characters.
One is Cox himself, who filed the action after he was first charged with 16 sex-related crimes by Mariposa County and when that case was dropped, he then faced 101 alleged code violations at his Bison Creek Ranch, a pristine piece of property located near the airport. That property was eventually taken away from him by the Mariposa County Superior Court.
Another is Ashley Harris, the woman at the center of the rape allegations who eventually admitted she had not been raped at the time she accused Cox of doing just that.
Two others involved are Mariposa County Sheriff’s Office Deputy Wesley Smith, who still works at the office, and former deputy William Atkinson, who now works for the local district attorney’s office.
Cox is accusing the two deputies of conspiring to hide evidence and alter stories in order for the DA’s office to pursue those rape charges against him. He is also arguing that Harris worked in concert with the two deputies and officials from the DA’s office to continue what he calls was an absolute lie about the relationship he had with Harris.
Harris and Cox met on the dating site farmersonly.com and they did eventually meet — the first time in Fresno where they had consensual sex and later when Harris came to the ranch and stayed for a period of time. It was during that time she said Cox held her captive, raped her and sexually assaulted Harris.
However, the 16 felony counts against Cox were eventually dropped by then Mariposa County District Attorney Tom Cooke, who died earlier this year.
And if that isn’t enough, there is much more.
The case also revolves around the receivership action initiated by Mariposa County and eventually carried out by a receiver appointed by former Mariposa County District Judge Dana Walton. Some county officials have claimed it was the court who initiated the receivership action. Though that is true, it is also true every document related to this federal case and the receivership case lists Mariposa County.
In the receivership case, the county is the plaintiff and in the federal case, the county is the defendant.
It is also unknown at this point how much money the taxpayers of Mariposa County have shelled out in fighting the federal case against Cox. Two attorneys representing the county were on the Zoom hearing last Friday. Both are from the firm Serviam by Wright, which is representing the county.
This newspaper recently sent a public information request asking for the contract the county signed with Serviam by Wright as well as all of the money paid to the law firm since that contract was signed.
The hearing
The hearing, held via Zoom, featured a screen full of lawyers.
Four were representing Harris, two representing Cox and two representing the county.
However, only three of them handled the proceedings. Fred Geonetta of Oakland represented Cox, Brian Chu represented the county through the Serviam by Wright law firm based in Irvine and Madeline Skitzki of the law firm Jenner & Block, which has offices throughout the country, represented Harris.
The first part of the hearing focused on Harris, where her lawyer argued she should not be a part of this case. She said the matter of Harris was settled in state court and had no business being part of the federal action.
But Judge Rosenthal quickly pointed out the words by former United States Federal Court Eastern District of California Judge Anthony Ishii, who said it was his opinion the county had co-mingled both the rape case and the receivership. That was during a hearing in which the county was trying to get the federal court to toss the case, something Ishii would not do and who also noted it was the seventh attempt by the county, all of which failed.
Here is Ishii’s entire statement: “The county defendants’ contention that the receivership action did not ‘coincide with the county’s failed criminal case against Cox’ is odd … The relevant timeline, as alleged in the complaint, is as follows; Feb. 22, 2016, the county adds five felonies to the criminal complaint against Cox; June 20, 2016, the county finally provides the forensic download of Cox’s phone to Cox’s defense counsel, allegedly showing 22 messages between Harris and Cox during the period in which Harris claimed to have been held against her will; Aug. 8, 2016, the Mariposa Superior Court authorizes Cox’s defense to issue a subpoena to Verizon that ultimately shows Harris sent and received 166 messages text messages during the period in which she claimed to have been held against her will; Oct. 14, 2016, Mariposa County executes a civil search warrant to inspect the property; March 7, 2017, the county provides Cox with a download of Harris’s cell phone showing that dozens of text messages involving Cox had been deleted; March 13, 2017, the county brings a motion to place the property in receivership, based on 101 punitive building, health and safety code violations; June 2, 2017, Harris testifies in another case that she had never been a victim of sexual assault or abuse; and Aug. 1 4, 2017, the county dismisses all criminal charges against Cox on its own motion, while the receivership action continued.”
He then added: “In the court’s view, the timeline leaves little room to argue that code enforcement action with respect to the property did not coincide with the criminal case against Cox. Further, the court again notes the county defendants’ contention on this motion that the claims in this case arise from ‘the same transaction, occurrence or series of transactions or occurrences.’”
Skitzki, defending Harris last Friday, questioned Ishi’s authority.
“The district court is free to change any prior ruling at any time,” said Skitzki. “The posture here is completely different than Judge Ishii was considering.”
She then said Ishii “acted as an appellate court” in his ruling.
The attorney also argued that a separate case brought on by Harris against Cox in which she sought a restraining order in a Southern California court should not be part of this case.
“They seem to be arguing because a judge in that proceeding found she wasn’t entitled to a restraining order” that it should have no bearing on the case.
But Judge Rosenthal interjected: “That she wasn’t credible.”
She also noted the “case had a final judgment on the merits.”
In that case, the judge denied the request by Harris to have a restraining order put on Cox and since that time, Cox has argued it is part of the overall picture in the federal case, especially since that judge did rule Harris was not credible.
“The TRO (restraining order) is significant,” said Geonetta, who represents Cox. “Harris brought that claim. Don’t let anybody fool you … the issue was she was raped, sexually assaulted and attacked over the course of three days.”
Cox is also claiming malicious prosecution by the county, including wrongful seizure, false arrest, Fourteenth Amendment violations and more.
Skitzki, though, also made statute of limitations arguments.
But Geonetta said some of the arguments relating to the receivership, including the case was “obtained fraudulently” and the inspection warrant were “obtained through a series of lies,” are relevant. He said “the opportunity” to present those facts “occurred only” in that proceeding in Southern California and not where it should have been which was in the Mariposa County Superior Court.
The lawyers have argued for years Cox was denied his due process by now retired Mariposa County Superior Court Judge Dana Walton, who allowed the receivership to proceed without, they claim, giving Cox a chance to submit evidence and cross examine witnesses.
“Are you arguing the statute of limitations would be delayed?” asked Rosenthal.
“Yes,” said Geonetta. “He did not know the receivership and alleged violations was a gigantic fraud.”
“The domestic violence restraining order has nothing to do with the state proceedings,” said Skitzki.
“What about malicious prosecution?” asked the judge.
“We believe it would have occurred at the time of arraignment,” said Skitzki.
“I don’t think that is the law,” said the judge. “The Supreme Court ruled statute of limitations starts when the case ends. That would have been just before (in this case.) Unless you have any other arguments, I’m happy to hear it.”
Skitzki said they “do have additional arguments” in favor of summary judgment.
She added the obligation of Harris “is not to disprove the matter but simply point out the lack of evidence in their claims. The plaintiffs agree that filing a police report is insufficient to file a joint action test.”
“What are you saying, even if she was the trigger starting all of these events, that that is not enough?” asked Rosenthal.
“All she did was file a police report and cooperate in an investigation of rape against Mr. Cox,” said Skitzki.
Geonetta was having none of it.
“There is plenty of evidence Ms. Harris was acting in concert,” said Cox’s attorney.
He said Mariposa County assisted in Harris committing fraud by getting funds from the county Victim Witness program.
Then, he pointed out that “not only” did Harris “have her phone … she kept it; they allowed her to keep it and we believe they deleted messages while the phone was in her possession. She kept the phone even though the deputies told her it might be important. She kept it for one and a half years.”
He said Mariposa County “opposed motions” from Cox’s attorneys to subpoena the phone.
“She went through five interviews with law enforcement in which each interview she had a different version of her story about what happened during those three days,” said Geonetta. “She continued, without coming back to law enforcement, for two years allowing the rape prosecution to continue. She testified so when it came into her economic interest in the worker’s compensation case and said she wasn’t sexually assaulted.”
The judge pressed Geonetta about whether Harris was working with the deputies in an effort against Cox.
“I think all of the facts show they were both going after Mr. Cox,” said Geonetta. “There is no indication she was not.”
“They make the same statements over and over again, but they don’t cite evidence,” countered Skitzki.
“I think they were working hand in hand,” said Geonetta.
“She may have had motive,” said Judge Rosenthal. “The DA’s office, the sheriff’s office may have had a motive, but it might not be the same motive.”
“They both had malicious intent against Mr. Cox,” said Geonetta. “This is an opportunity for the county to lock him up and put him away. When that didn’t happen, they went forward with the code enforcement action.”
Geonetta then revealed some information that, to date, has not been discussed as part of this case.
Geonetta said Harris told the two deputies that Cox “was harboring illegal immigrants on the ranch and they were in the barn. That was used against him in the receivership. They wanted to ruin him. And they did.”
The county issue
That was the end of the portion of the hearing dealing directly with Harris’s lawyer. The judge then turned to the issue between Cox and Mariposa County.
One of the major issues Cox has raised since the beginning, and one which Judge Ishii seemed to confirm, is the county co-mingled the rape case and the receivership case.
Attorney Chu, representing the taxpayers of Mariposa County, denied that is the case.
“First of all, I want to make clear there seems to be this conflation between the criminal case and the code enforcement case,” said Chu. “Right off the bat, there is no evidence to show there was any cooperation between Smith and Atkinson in regard with their investigation and any of the code enforcement folks. There is absolutely no evidence of that.”
He also argued the county was allowed, by law, to proceed with the receivership case based on the code violations alleged by the county.
“Now, if it is a violation … for the county to have asserted its rights and duties under state law to pursue receivership?” asked Chu. “He didn’t raise sufficient defenses.”
“First,” countered Geonetta, “Cox’s lawyers repeatedly asked for an evidentiary hearing. Second, Cox repeatedly made applications for permits …”
He said the county “turned him down. Turned down for his efforts to comply. Mr. Chu is forgetting all of that.”
Another major point brought up during the hearing — which also included some new information — was about the helicopter that flew over Cox’s ranch. Cox claims that helicopter was hired by the sheriff’s office and aboard were officers taking photos of his ranch.
Chu said there is “no right of exclusive air space above a fence line. Why is this even an issue … that’s not even legally sufficient.”
“I am concerned,” said Judge Rosenthal about the helicopter issue. “We’re talking about a helicopter search and a search warrant using the pictures that were obtained earlier (from the helicopter).”
The hearing then turned to the court-ordered inspection of Cox’s ranch, one that was based on testimony from several county officials and apparently included photos from the helicopter when it was approved by a judge.
A key part of the case is the declaration signed by Sarah Williams, the former head of the county’s planning department. In that declaration, Williams used language suggesting Cox was dangerous and that’s why they wanted permission to do the inspection without notifying Cox.
In California, that is a rare thing but in this case, the local court did grant the search warrant and Cox was not notified.
Chu argued the inspection was based on more than the testimony of Williams. He said three other county officials also submitted declarations in support of obtaining the warrant to search the property of Cox.
Geonetta told the court that “all of those declarations said very similar things.”
And then he dropped another new twist in the case, pointing the finger at Mike Kinslow, the former head of the county’s building department.
“Kinslow swore under penalty of perjury Cox was erratic and dangerous,” said Geonetta.
Then, he said that Kinslow, apparently in his deposition which is sworn under the penalty of perjury, told the lawyers it was because of Cox the county had to install more security measures.
That appears to be a blatant lie given the fact the county has had various security measures in place for years and did add more over the past several years. However, those measures were added, as Geonetta phrased it, “because of the mood of the country.”
It is known during that time period that local governments across the country enacted stronger security measures and conducted active shooter drills and more. That took place in Mariposa County, as well, and a contractor was hired by the county to implement many of those measures.
Not once during any board of supervisors meeting has anyone claimed installing upgraded security in county offices was because of Cox.
It is also known that for many years, there have been steel devices located in the building department, where Kinslow worked, that drop down over the large counter. Those can be clearly seen when the offices are closed.
“Mr. Kinslow was lying as well,” said Geonetta.
He also said when pressed, Williams admitted she was able to identify 10 code violations.
“Then they popped up with 101,” said Geonetta.
He also pointed out that during her deposition, Williams admitted she was relying on others when it came to signing the documents — paperwork that included statements she wrote saying Cox was dangerous.
“She said she relied upon the lawyers,” said Geonetta.
“I think that is a gross misstatement of her testimony,” said Chu. “She relied on the experts in her particular county family for those violations.”
He said she also testified to the “erratic behavior” of Cox, saying it was “based upon his growing adversarial tones in her conversations with him.”
“We cited the deposition of Ms. Williams,” countered Geonetta. “She testified that she had conceded she had no basis to make an allegation in her declaration about Cox.”
He also said that Williams testified she personally “verified 101 violations” but then later made a different statement.
“When pressed, she admitted she lacked the qualifications,” said Geonetta.
He called out what he said were false statements by county officials.
“Untrue. Absolutely untrue over and over again,” said Geonetta. “The other two or three declarations also had similar things. They are just not true. There is no question the county lied over and over again to get their inspection warrant.”
Back to the deputies
The case then turned back to the law enforcement angle, where Chu argued there was no basis for Cox to be accusing the deputies of misconduct.
Chu said the officers, indeed, had probable cause to arrest Cox based on Harris’s narrative to the sheriff’s office.
Geonetta, on the other hand, said there is plenty of evidence the deputies ignored evidence they knew from the beginning, all in an effort to arrest Cox.
“They ignored she was heavily intoxicated; they ignored the heavy odor of alcohol,” said Geonetta.
He also said that semen protein in her underwear was tested but “the results were not back until February of the following year so that doesn’t even account for his arrest.”
Additionally, Geonetta said the deputies ignored the testimony of Darlene Windham who was staying at the ranch at the same time Harris claimed she was held against her will and raped. He also said Windham told deputies both she and Harris went to a local bar and each drank a half a gallon of beer before reporting the alleged rape.
He added that Harris “alleged violent assault but required no medical treatment.”
As for the phone of Harris, Geonetta said both Atkinson and Smith “testified they looked at her phone in the first interview. They knew she had been lying.”
In addition, Geonetta claims “the interviews showed the deputies were prompting her.”
Concerning the swabs that were taken following the alleged incident, Geonetta said “the swabs were never produced to the defense and still have not been produced to this day.”
Chu also brought Cooke, the now deceased DA, back into the arguments, saying Cooke “believed she was sexually assaulted but he couldn’t prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.”
But Geonetta countered, saying that during a campaign event for his reelection as DA, Cooke admitted, on video, that “he said when he found the victim was lying, he dismissed the case. He knew she was lying.”
Geonetta said Chu “is ignoring the basic facts. The messages establish she was being untruthful.”
In the end, Judge Rosenthal said she would “try to get an opinion out to you as quickly as I can. I don’t promise it will be anytime in the immediate future.”
Rosenthal even noted how “busy” the courts are in Texas and said the same is likely true in California. In both of those states, courts are now taking up the contentious issue of redistricting with Texas and California in the spotlight. It is not known if Rosenthal was referring to any of that in making her reference about the timing of the decision.
She also said she recognized all of the parties involved in the ongoing case have agreed to continue the trial until February 2026.
And in her final statement, Rosenthal may have hinted that some of the issues argued last week could, indeed, not be part of the trial but others would be. After her decision is published, Rosenthal said it would likely mean the lawyers would then have clearer direction “on the issues that will go to trial.”
She then ended the hearing.
Responses (0)