HomeMy WebLinkAbout02.04.26 Board Correspondence - FW_ Use your Brains Conciliation.ATTENTION: This message originated from outside Butte County. Please exercise judgment before opening attachments, clicking on links, or replying..
EXTERNAL EMAIL: This message was sent from outside DOJ. Please do not click links or open attachments that appear suspicious.
From:Clerk of the BoardTo:BOS; Soderstrom, MonicaCc:Mutony, Heather
Subject:Board Correspondence - FW: Use your Brains ConciliationDate:Wednesday, February 4, 2026 4:17:50 PMAttachments:image001.pngimage003.pngimage004.png
Please see Board Correspondence -
From: Andrew Merkel <ademco9787@att.net>
Sent: Wednesday, February 4, 2026 10:18 AM
To: Kristin Daily <Kristin.Daily@doj.ca.gov>; Shasta DA <shastada@shastacounty.gov>; District Attorney <District_Attorney@buttecounty.net>; Pickett, Andy <APickett@buttecounty.net>; CalEPA Complaints <complaints@calepa.ca.gov>; compliance@sierranevada.com; executiveofficer@glennlafco.com; Marina L. Ramirez <mramirez@agclawfirm.com>; billy.aldridge@chicoca.gov; kristin@calstrat.com; firechief@chicoca.gov; Clerk of the Board <clerkoftheboard@buttecounty.net>; envirostor@dtsc.ca.gov; BCEnvHealth <BCEnvHealth@buttecounty.net>; butte.county.bar.association@gmail.com; Jason Wines <jwines@buttecounty.net>
Subject: Use your Brains Conciliation
45,000 per day x 365 days x 6 years equal roughly 50,000,000 in fines. Balanced between 37,500/67,500
25,000,000 for Conciliation from SNB and Farmers Brewing Together as package deal.
It’s up to the corporations to Figure out their own financial package.
Key aspects of conciliation:
Neutral Facilitator:
A conciliator, who is impartial, meets with parties (together and/or separately) to help them talk and understand each other's perspectives.
Amicable Resolution:
Aims to resolve conflicts peacefully, often in situations like employment disputes, divorce, or consumer issues, to prevent formal legal action.
Non-Binding:
The conciliator doesn't issue a judgment or make a ruling; they only help the parties reach their own solution.
Voluntary & Confidential:
Parties agree to participate, and the process is private.
Flexible Process:
Can involve meetings, phone calls, or written exchanges, depending on what works best.
How it works:
1. Agreement: Parties agree to use conciliation to resolve their dispute.
2. Joint Meeting: The conciliator hears from both sides to understand the core issues.
3. Separate Meetings: The conciliator may then meet with each party individually to explore potential solutions.
4. Proposal & Agreement: The goal is for parties to propose and agree on terms for settlement, which is then formalized in writing.
Sent from AT&T Yahoo Mail for iPhone
On Tuesday, February 3, 2026, 12:57 PM, Kristin Daily <Kristin.Daily@doj.ca.gov> wrote:
Good afternoon, everyone. I just wanted to clarify my (and former DAG Joe Wheeler and DOJ’s) role in this matter. Last fall, our office was retained by the SWRCB to obtain a civil workplace violence temporary restraining order against Mr. Merkel because of his threats to a SWRCB employee. The TRO was issued, but the evidentiary hearing for a preliminary injunction has been continued several times because of the ongoing criminal cases against Merkel. It is my understanding that it will be continued again at our status conference on 2/9/26. The TRO remains in place.
Best,
Kristin M. Daily
Supervising Deputy Attorney General
Employment Law Section
Office of the Attorney General
1300 I Street, Suite 125
Sacramento, California 95814
Office: (916) 210-7903
From: Andrew Merkel <ademco9787@att.net> Sent: Monday, February 2, 2026 10:36 PM
To: Kristin Daily <Kristin.Daily@doj.ca.gov>; Shasta DA <shastada@shastacounty.gov>; da@buttecounty.net; Andy Pickett <apickett@buttecounty.net>; CalEPA Complaints <complaints@calepa.ca.gov>; compliance@sierranevada.com; executiveofficer@glennlafco.com; Marina L. Ramirez <mramirez@agclawfirm.com>; billy.aldridge@chicoca.gov; kristin@calstrat.com; firechief@chicoca.gov; clerkoftheboard@buttecounty.net; envirostor@dtsc.ca.gov; bcenvhealth@buttecounty.net; butte.county.bar.association@gmail.com; Jason Wines <jwines@buttecounty.net>
Subject: Hurry up and bust Sierra Nevada Brewery the Evidence is Clear and has been provided
Come on DOJ rear your head your Boys came and talked to the Judge Mark before Wheeler bounced.
Your here
The Grossmams broke the LAW 37,500/67,500 per day 6 year Stat limitations and Grossman goes to jail.
And I’m Telling you One of them are going to County to get perp walked.
Choose wisely government employees
You can’t beat your own words.
February 2, 2026
State Bar of California
Office of Chief Trial Counsel
845 S. Figueroa Street
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Re: Formal Complaint and Whistleblower Disclosure – Prosecutorial Misconduct, Brady/Giglio Violations, and Retaliation
Respondent: Stephanie A. Bridgett, District Attorney, Shasta County
State Bar No.: 221617
To Whom It May Concern,
I submit this letter as a formal complaint and protected whistleblower disclosure regarding Stephanie A. Bridgett, who has served as the Shasta County District Attorney since her appointment in 2017 and election in 2018, and who acts as the chief law enforcement officer for Shasta County.
This complaint concerns ethical misconduct, abuse of prosecutorial authority, and violations of constitutional disclosure obligations under Brady v. Maryland and Giglio v. United States.
Summary of Misconduct
District Attorney Bridgett was placed on actual notice that a referring government agency engaged in misconduct including, but not limited to:
alteration and/or falsification of official government records;
suppression of material and exculpatory evidence; and
coordinated efforts to conceal agency wrongdoing.
Despite this knowledge, Ms. Bridgett continued to use the authority of her office to advance enforcement actions derived from the tainted agency conduct, including harassing prosecutions, coercive filings, and the pursuit or maintenance of bench warrants, in a manner that appears retaliatory and designed to legitimize or shield the underlying misconduct.
Ethical and Constitutional Violations
This conduct implicates serious violations of:
California Rule of Professional Conduct 3.8 (Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor), including the duty to disclose exculpatory and impeachment evidence;
Rule 8.4 (Misconduct), including conduct involving dishonesty, abuse of authority, and actions prejudicial to the administration of justice;
Brady/Giglio obligations, particularly the knowing suppression of evidence reflecting government misconduct and credibility issues of agency personnel.
A prosecutor’s duty is to seek justice—not to advance prosecutions once the integrity of the evidence has been compromised or to use prosecutorial tools as leverage against a whistleblower.
Requested Action by the State Bar
I respectfully request that the State Bar of California:
1. Open an immediate investigation into the conduct of Stephanie A. Bridgett (Bar No. 221617);
2. Determine whether she knowingly failed to disclose Brady/Giglio material, including evidence of agency misconduct and impeachment evidence;
3. Require corrective and remedial action, including disclosure obligations to affected courts where appropriate;
4. Refer the matter for disciplinary proceedings if violations are substantiated; and
5. Take steps necessary to prevent further retaliation and protect the integrity of the judicial process.
Good-Faith Disclosure
This complaint is submitted in good faith and is supported by documentation demonstrating knowledge, timing, and continued prosecutorial action after notice of misconduct. Supporting materials can be provided upon request.
The authority vested in a district attorney demands strict adherence to ethical and constitutional standards. When that authority is knowingly used to further or conceal misconduct, oversight and accountability are essential.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.
Respectfully,
Andrew Merkel
Sent from AT&T Yahoo Mail for iPhone
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication with its contents may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information. It is solely for the use of the intended recipient(s). Unauthorized interception, review, use or disclosure is prohibited and may violate applicable laws including the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and destroy all copies of the communication.