NCFM NOTE:
Marc Angelucci, Murdered, July 11, 2020 (age 52 years)
The National Coalition for Men (NCFM), together with the late NCFM Vice-President Marc Angelucci, Esq., and NCFM President Harry Crouch, has been involved in this case from its inception. The history and facts are well documented in the article referenced below.
NCFM stands firmly with Jerry Cox. Other NCFM members have been and are directly involved with helping Jerry.
Based on the extensive record, we believe several Mariposa County officials involved in this matter should be subject to thorough criminal investigation and prosecution, as applicable.
This ten‑year ordeal was set in motion by unsubstantiated rape allegations made by a single person, Ashley Harris—for which she has never been criminally charged or otherwise held accountable. The consequences of those claims have been devastating, not only for Mr. Cox but for public trust in the integrity of local government and pocket books of the citizens of Mariposa, which is apparently self-insured.
Harry Crouch, President/Chairman of the Board
_______________________
What is the status of the Cox matter?
So where does everything stand with the high-profile case of Jerry Cox versus Mariposa County?
That appears to be a good question because nobody seems to be talking.
The nearly decade long case which pits a local resident against the county is scheduled to go to trial in federal court in February.
However, court officials and lawyers in the case are being mum on exactly where it stands and what could come next.
The Cox case has reverberated through the entire county since it was filed — more than six years ago.
The federal case was filed by Cox, 56, on Aug. 12, 2019, but the issues in the case date back well before that date. Many have speculated that after the county was successful in winning a receivership action against Cox in Mariposa County Superior Court the case would end.
But they were wrong and Cox secured an attorney in Oakland who has spearheaded the case since.
The most recent court hearing actually took place in Texas. The reason is there are two judges involved in the matter.
The lead jurist is Judge Barbara McAuliffe of the U.S. District Court Eastern District of California who is based in Fresno. But the secondary jurist is Judge Lee H. Rosenthal who is based in U.S. District Court in the Southern District of Texas.
It was in September when there was a lengthy hearing conducted via Zoom that involved the lawyers for the county, Cox’s attorneys as well as attorneys for Ashley Harris, who is also involved in the case.
Harris, in fact, is the key catalyst as to why Cox filed the case in federal court. He claims that her false accusations of rape were just the beginning of what led to the county seeking to take his ranch; a move they succeeded in doing.
The case, certainly, is complicated and has many players and components.
The Gazette has reached out to many involved in the case and, as of press time, had only received one response.
That includes both the court in Texas and the court in Fresno and attorney Fred Geonetta who represents Cox.
Attorney Brian Chu who represents Mariposa County, did reply.
“Thank you, but no thank you,” wrote Chu in an email. “Again, my firm does not comment on pending litigation.”
Geonetta has not responded to the inquiries. The same is the case with both courts, which in the past have responded promptly to inquires from this newspaper.
Following the September hearing, Rosenthal told the lawyers she expected to narrow down the issues in the case and make that part of her written ruling heading into the trial. To date, that ruling has yet to be released publicly. She said, at the time, it would mean the lawyers would have clearer direction “on the issues that will go to trial.”
What that means remains unknown, but could result in fewer issues during the trial, as is common practice as cases near a court date.
The judge in Fresno only shows calendar items 30 days in advance on her calendar.
Many facets
The case has evolved over the years and the lawyers representing Cox have changed, including the fact one of his attorneys was murdered in a high-profile matter in Southern California.
For Cox, the real case began when Mariposa County filed 16 sex-related felony charges against him nearly 10 years ago. That case lingered for two years under the direction of former Mariposa County District Attorney Tom Cooke, who is now deceased.
Eventually, though, the case was dropped in a quick hearing in Mariposa County Superior Court. It appeared an unusual move to have a case involving 16 felony sex-related charges dropped, especially given the fact the only thing Cooke would say at the time — and ever — was he did not feel he could prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.
During the remainder of his time in office and until he died unexpectedly earlier this year, Cooke would not discuss the case further.
In that case, Harris had accused Cox of kidnapping and raping her at his 437 acre Bison Creek Ranch, located on CYA Road north of the airport in Mt. Bullion.
But in the end, Harris, in a separate case in another state, admitted under oath she had not been raped in California and that’s what led to Cooke dropping the charges.
However, it was also around that time that county officials accused Cox of having 101 code violations on his ranch.
The county has maintained the code violations date back many years and had nothing to do with the rape case.
But even the former federal judge in Fresno said that just didn’t appear to be the case.
A judge’s words
Former Judge Anthony Ishii, in one of his many writings, called the claim by Mariposa County “odd,” and proceeded to point out the timeline involved.
In February of 2016, the county added five felonies to the criminal complaint against Cox, he wrote, bringing the total to 16 from the original complaint. In June 2016, he said the county “finally” provided the forensic download of Cox’s phone to his defense counsel which allegedly showed 22 messages between Cox and Harris during the period in which Harris alleged she was held captive at Cox’s ranch.
In August of 2016, he noted the following:
• The Mariposa County Superior Court authorized Cox’s defense to issue a subpoena to Verizon that ultimately showed Harris sent and received 166 text messages during that same period.
• On Oct. 14, 2016, Mariposa County executed a civil search warrant to inspect Cox’s property.
• On March 7, 2017, the county provided Cox with a download of Harris’s phone showing that dozens of text messages involving Cox had been deleted.
• On March 13, 2017, the county brought a motion to place the property in receivership based on those 101 alleged code violations.
• On June 2, 2017, Harris testified in another case that she had never been a victim of sexual assault or abuse.
• On Aug. 14, 2017, the county dismissed all of the criminal charges against Cox on its own motion while the receivership continued.
“In the court’s view,” wrote Ishii, “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 for ‘the same transactions or occurrences.’”
Judge Rosenthal, in September, highlighted those words and noted Ishii said it was his opinion the county had co-mingled both the rape and receivership cases. She did that while addressing the attorney for Mariposa County who was arguing the cases are not related.
Those written words by Ishii came during a hearing when the county was trying to get the federal court to toss the case, something Ishii ruled against while also noting it was the seventh attempt by the county. All of them have failed.
It should also be noted that some county officials, including former and current supervisors, have claimed it was the local district court which authorized the receivership case and not the county. However, every document filed in federal court lists Mariposa County as the defendant, along with Harris as well as Mariposa County Sheriff’s Office deputies Will Atkinson and Wesley Smith.
Atkinson is no longer a deputy but Smith remains with the department.
In the court documents, those two are listed by Cox as the deputies who investigated the rape allegations and is why they are part of the federal case.
Cox is claiming the two deputies intentionally withheld crucial information which prolonged the case and cast a shadow over Cox; a shadow he said remains to this day.
More revelations
In the past year, depositions have been taken in the case and some of this has been made public after being filed in federal court.
Two of the most notable involved former Mariposa County Planning Director Sarah Williams and former Mariposa County Building Director Mike Kinslow.
Williams was deposed and admitted in her testimony she relied on other people in formulating the 101 code violations. She told Geonetta, Cox’s attorney, that she relied on the county’s attorneys when formulating the violations.
“She said she relied upon the lawyers,” said Geonetta of Williams during the September hearing.
He also noted that “when pressed,” Williams “admitted she lacked the qualifications to verify the 101 violations.”
Concerning Kinslow, Geonetta said in the September hearing that during his deposition, the former building director said it was because of Cox the county had to install more security measures.
Since that time, the Gazette has requested and received a large volume of information relating to security measures implemented by the county. In none of those documents are there any references to Cox. Additionally, some of the security information provided by the county was before the Cox case ever happened.
Geonetta said during the hearing that security improvements and enhancements were common all across America following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, citing “the mood of the country.”
During the hearing in Texas, Geonetta pointed out that Williams “testified that she had conceded she had no basis” to claim that Cox was dangerous when it came to dealing with him over the code violations and other matters.
He also stressed that Williams admitted she was relying on others when it came to signing the documents that would be presented to the court requesting the civil search warrant of Cox’s property. Those included statements she wrote saying Cox was dangerous.
In fact, many other county department heads also provided written reports to the court indicating Cox was potentially a danger. When the raid took place at Cox’s property, Cox was not forewarned because of a court order allowing the county to go onto the property.
Though not unprecedented, it is unusual in California for property owners not to be made aware of an inspection related to code violations. Also during that inspection, there were several sheriff’s office deputies present.
Unique in many ways
The case involving Cox has twists and turns fit for a made-for-television movie.
One of the unique — and tragic — involves the late Marc Angelucci, who was Cox’s pro bono lawyer in the early stages of the case.
Angelucci first became involved in the case through the National Coalition for Men (NCFM). He was an attorney for the group and became involved because of the rape case against Cox.
Once that case was dropped, however, Angelucci remained loyal to Cox and took on the receivership case, often clashing with former Mariposa County Superior Court Judge Dana Walton. There were many clashes in the courtroom with Angelucci repeatedly saying the court was not being fair toward Cox.
Angelucci also clashed with Mark Adams, the court-appointed receiver in the case. Adams is the founder of the California Receivership Group, which specializes in receivership cases. Adams was eventually dismissed by a judge from the federal case.
Angelucci was fatally shot at his front door in Cedarpines Park, Calif., on July 11, 2020. At the time, he was still representing Cox in the case and had volumes of records at his home related to the matter.
A man posing as a deliveryman rang the doorbell and, when someone else from the house opened the door, the assailant claimed to have a package for Angelucci. After Angelucci came to the door to sign for it, he was shot, and the shooter sped away in a car.
The FBI investigated the murder and its possible links to Roy Den Hollander, the suspect in the shooting of District Judge Esther Salas’ son and husband in New Jersey. In this later attack, eight days after the murder of Angelucci, the murderer had also posed as a package deliveryman. Den Hollander had, according to Harry Crouch, the president of the NCFM, been kicked out of the organization five to six years prior because Den Hollander was a “nut job.”
Crouch, too, has been involved with the Cox case since the beginning. Hollander had a vendetta against Salas because he felt that she had taken too long to rule on his discrimination lawsuit, leading Angelucci to win in a similar case in Texas before Den Hollander’s case could be decided, and thus costing Den Hollander a victorious precedent.
Den Hollander was later found to have taken his life in his car in New Jersey, where papers mentioning Angelucci were also found.
The Angelucci case was handled by the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Office and district attorney. It still remains unclear whether the records obtained by the sheriff’s office during the investigation have been released.
After Angelucci was murdered, Cox then obtained other legal counsel. In addition, Walton retired from the bench and the case was handled by a special judge. Eventually, the receivership case was deemed closed.
It was after that Cox sought legal counsel and considered filing the federal lawsuit, which he eventually did and that is what is currently pending in Fresno.
What’s at stake?
That is the big question when it comes to the Cox case.
Although Cox’s attorneys have not said specifically how much in damages they are seeking, it could be in the millions of dollars.
The county, meanwhile, has been mum and refused to release any information about how much it has already cost the taxpayers in relation to the Cox case.
It is also unclear if Cox wins a major settlement, just how that would be paid by the county. It is known the county participates in a program that allows it to leverage funding to settle cases.
Officials in Mariposa County changed their insurance status and became self-insured. They used to be on a standard insurance policy with monthly premiums until switching to the alternate program.
Though the county is self-insured, the risk management program allows it to pay a regular premium and if there is a judgment against the county, it would then have to request funds from the risk management company it pays on a regular basis.
In a case settled earlier this year, Stanislaus County ended up paying a $22.5 million settlement in a malicious prosecution case. County supervisors there approved the settlement after it had been ongoing for years. They approved it on the eve of the scheduled trial.
