y with what Huston had done. Hus->n later explained in a sworn deposition that because of his workload he routinely dismissed minor misdemeanors down to infractions saving his time for prosecuting violent crimes. Huston admitted he stepped on Herman's toes in reducing the misdemeanors to infractions. "I could tell by his [Herman's] demeanor he was upset," Huston recounted, stating he told Herman he reduced the charges because Herman had failed to show up for court on time. Huston said they discussed the matter and "we just worked it out, and I think we were fine." When the court formally reduced the misdemeanors to infractions later that morning of January 15, 2008, Herman did not object. The matter was continued again to May 8, 2008, when an agreement was reached that the infractions would be dismissed if Stamas agreed not to personally maintain the portion of the road crossing the Houstons' property. The county, in turn, would guarantee a "fully code compliant" road. The county code has long required a 60-foot right of way for a public roadway, and state fire regulations require an 18-foot roadbed for fire trucks. Although Stamas was now free of criminal charges, he was upset at the way Prentice, Herman and Huston had treated him and damaging his reputation, trumping up charges to force him to drop his opposition to the Prentice/Houston secret settlement. This is not pure speculation on Stamas' part. In a sworn deposition, Herman admitted he and Prentice discussed filing charges against Stamas to gain a tactical advantage in the dispute over ownership of Cascadel Road. Herman said he met with Prentice after reviewing the Houston photos, which Herman claimed showed Stamas "directing" the road graders. Prentice and Herman discussed "whether to proceed civilly or to seek criminal prosecution against Mr. Stamas. At the time we did not have—at the time we had not figured out what possible criminal charges, if any, could be levied against Mr. Stamas. However, Mr. Prentice asked me to investigate as to criminal prosecution on the grounds that if the matter was handled by a civil lawsuit, that Mr. Stamas would be indemnified by the homeowners association... The concern was that the civil litigation would be

drawn out and expensive and very time consuming because presumably Mr. Stamas [as the homeowners' association president] would be able to get counsel, and that [it] would be harder to proceed civilly than through regular criminal proceedings for code enforcement."

After consulting several lawyers, including Fresno civil rights attorney Jack Weisberg, Stamas decided to file a lawsuit in federal court alleging the Houstons, Madera County, Prentice, Herman and Huston had conspired to falsely accuse him of criminal acts to gain leverage in the road dispute. A total of nine claims were lodged, including abuse of process and quiet title (a judicial determination in a land dispute). The case was assigned to federal judge Lawrence O'Neill. The Houstons hired Judge O'Neill's old law firm, the prestigious McCormick Barstow firm of Fresno. Two years later, following four motions to dismiss or strike, numerous depositions and two motions for summary judgment, only three claims survived: violation of Stamas' civil rights (due process), declaratory relief and quiet title. But Stamas had more than $300,000 in legal bills. It would cost a lot more to go to trial, his lawyers told him. He reluctantly decided to settle, unhappy O'Neill would not let his malicious prosecution case be heard by a jury, who, he felt certain, would be outraged by the behavior of Prentice, the Houstons, Herman and Huston. Whatever O'Neill personally thought of the behavior of the Madera attorneys, he noted that the doctrine of immunity—which even protects prosecutors who get witnesses to commit perjury—also protected the county attorneys from prosecution. O'Neill concluded there was not enough evidence to show the Houstons engineered the criminal charges against Stamas. He also concluded Herman's cursory investigation of the charges was adequate. Stamas complains O'Neill ignored, or failed to even acknowledge, the bulk of the evidence presented by Stamas including the discussion by Prentice and Herman to charge Stamas with crimes to gain advantage in the civil matter; private attorney Cota's offer to get the criminal charges dismissed if Stamas would honor the Houston/ Prentice agreement; Feigel's letters; and Stamas' personal testimony that Houston

told him he would have Prentice prosecute him. O'Neill's settlement order required the county to pay $95,000 of Stamas' legal bills. The Houstons were freed from maintenance of the road as it crosses their property. Stamas' right to use and maintain the road and widen it to 18 feet (at his own expense) was affirmed. However, the fundamental legal issue, where the 60-foot right of way actually crosses the Houstons' property remains unresolved. Stamas said a survey paid for by the homeowners confirms, along with common sense, what he alleged all along: The road is in the same place it has been for well over a century and is centered in the 60-foot right-of-way.Prentice, Herman, and Huston are no longer employed by Madera County. The Houstons now live in the state of Washington and have their Cascadel property up for sale. Road Warrior Stamas vows to fight on to protect the road (and the 60-foot easement) because he believes it is a life-and-death issue should a major wildfire break out in or near Cascadel Woods. He has started a Web site, www. cascadelroad.org, and has said that he will explore all avenues for obtaining justice and protecting the road for public use and fire safety.

On August 3,2011, the county held a well-attended "ice cream social" for county employees. County officials told the large crowd not to worry, the cash strapped-stricken county was not paying for the event. The tab was picked up by the Cota and Prentice law firm, which continues to do significant business with Madera County. Cascadel Woods remains the most wildfire vulnerable subdivision in the county.

DA FIGHTS TO KEEP

REPORT SECRET Published: December 12,2012 Sierra Star by Brian Wilkinson

County administrative officer Fleming and others frustrated with position of Keitz. Madera County District Attorney Michael Keitz had his request approved for a temporary restraining order to prevent the release of an investigative report about how Keitz interacted with