By Joe Nelson, The (San Bernardino County) Sun
Posted: 08/24/2012 10:49:13 AM PDT
The Fourth District Court of Appeal in Riverside has issued a tentative decision on appeals brought by prosecutors and defense attorneys in a sweeping San Bernardino County corruption case involving a legal settlement with a land developer.
San Bernardino Superior Court Judge Michael A. Smith dropped the news during a conversation with attorneys during a brief hearing Friday on the status of the criminal case.
The prosecution and the defense would not discuss specifics of the appellate court’s tentative decision, saying it was meant for attorneys’ eyes only. Attorneys could deliver their oral arguments on the decision as early as October.
State and local prosecutors allege Rancho Cucamonga developer Jeff Burum conspired with a labor union president and three top county officials in 2005 and 2006 to steer a $102 million legal settlement in favor of the developer.
Burum and his investor consortium, Colonies Partners LP., sued the county in 2002, alleging it was responsible for flood control improvements at the Colonies’ 434-acre residential and commercial development, Colonies at San Antonio and Colonies Crossroads, respectively, in Upland. The developer argued the county abandoned its crumbling earthen flood control easements on Colonies’ property and refused to pay for a flood control basin that would protect residents from flooding.
The county argued the developer was responsible for the upgrades. The contentious legal battle culminated with two Superior Court judge’s decisions in favor of Colonies, which argued that damages could exceed $300 million if the county decided to take the case to trial and lose.
In response, the Board of Supervisors, on Nov. 26, 2006, approved a $102 million settlement with the developer on a 3-2 vote. Supervisors Bill Postmus, then the board chairman, Gary Ovitt and Paul Biane voted in favor of the settlement. Supervisors Josie Gonzales and Dennis Hansberger dissented.
Prosecutors allege Burum conspired with Biane, Postmus, Ovitt’s chief of staff Mark Kirk, and Jim Erwin, former president of the San Bernardino County Safety Employees Benefit Association, to secure the settlement in Colonies’ favor by resorting to bribery and extortion.
All four defendants deny any wrongdoing.
Postmus struck a plea bargain with prosecutors in March 2011, pleading guilty to 15 felonies and admitting to take a $100,000 bribe from Burum, which prosecutors allege came in the form of two $50,000 contributions by Colonies Partners to political action committees prosecutors alleges were secretly controlled by Postmus.
To read entire story, click here.
When will this ever end. Every time the government has entered at court room with burum, they have been out classed and lost. Ramos and company just continues to waste taxpayer money to save their political careers. Only a fool thinks the county will ever see a penny of the settlement. This is a black hole that we continue to throw money into. It’s time to put an end to this travesty!
I, too, am flashing a beaming smile!
Stephen Larson rocks!
Non of this means anything other than we have to wait till October. As for Larson’s beaming smile, he is paid well to keep that positive image. October might just turn that smile upside down.
Red, that’s the difference between you and me, I believe Larson’s smile is sincere and justly earned. Also, I believe my smile will not go away- you may even join in the smiling celebrations, you are certainly welcomed to anyways.
Burum and his investor consortium, Colonies Partners LP., sued the county in 2002, alleging it was responsible for flood control improvements at the Colonies’ 434-acre residential and commercial development, Colonies at San Antonio and Colonies Crossroads, respectively, in Upland. The developer argued the county abandoned its crumbling earthen flood control easements on Colonies’ property and refused to pay for a flood control basin that would protect residents from flooding.
True, true, true.
Ya, John Gotti’s attorney used to smile too.
Once again, Sun and Daily Bulletin reporter Joe Nelson seizes an opportunity to cast aspersions on The Colonies with sensational and misleading statements.
In the above article, he informs readers that The Colonies “refused to pay for a flood control basin that would protect residents from flooding.”
Read Judge Warner’s Intended Statement of Decision for a true understanding of what The Colonies “refused” to do.
#6……Flood control was not an issue until this development and it became a problem because colonies, from the beginning, planned to get tax payers to cover the bill for this.
CorrUpland:
The statement that The Colonies “refused to pay for a flood control basin that would protect residents from flooding” could just as easily have been attributed to the county.
Also, I have never heard of a “crumbling earthen” easement; can you please explain what Joe Nelson means?
Observer of Facts:
you act like there has never been corrupt judges.
7 & 8 – My understanding is that the County/Upland/others made unrealistic demands based in part on incorrect calculations on the backs of the property owners and the result was that the owners were required to over-build the basin, give up more property which could have been developed. Not sure what Mr Nelson meant.
Did Nelson fail to mention Bill’s meeting with the FEDS again? Kinda changes the whole story doesn’t it? However, he loves to leave it out of every story. It would kinda be like a murderer proven to be hanging out with mikey in Utah, rather being at the actual murder scene at the time! Oops, could have used a different senario. Or, an agent being dupped by another agency and finding out after the fact. Oops, I could have used a better analogy. Or, two lovers almost getting caught by ones wife and making up a complete “crime of the centry” story, beleived by one seriously stupid investigator! But you guys are the experts. Because that could never happen in America.
CorrUpland:
If you read Judge Warner’s Statement of Decision (the last thing Mike Ramos or Joe Nelson wants anybody to do), you would learn that the county tried to expand the scope of existing easements to force The Colonies to accept the flows from the 20th Street storm drain. This was storm water generated from development that occurred off of their property, and The Colonies thought that was unfair. They fought back, and won.
Repairman:
In comment #11, you have made the first “corrupt judge” comment in response to this latest development. Congratulations!
Mike Ramos supporters will no doubt claim that The Colonies corrupted the Appellate Court Judges if they rule in The Colonies favor. If so, that would be at least the 4th, 5th, and 6th Judges that The Colonies have successfully corrupted.
What’s more likely: 1) A developer successfully corrupting six Judges to rule against a county, or 2) A county bullying a developer who decided to fight back, did so, and won.
I’m pretty sure you know my answer.
Anonymous #9:
This might be the most preposterous comment I have every read on this site, and the competition is stiff.
Please do some rudimentary research prior to making any more comments.
oof…. no this is quite sound and as I have stated before, If the City of Upland had to fork over the $102 million dollar settlement on their own instead of having fellow county tax payers to help out, Uplanders would have tared and feathered Burum and Richards.
OOF#15…..was Larson’s smile something akin to a wink-wink the fix is in?
OOF#14….you should re-read the appellate court instructions before Warner’s ruling. Although it was recognized that the flood control was twice the size of the easement, the easement was ruled legitimate and sent back for Warner to decide the actual scope. Warner’s decision, which was taken verbatim from colonies legal briefs, skirted appellate instructions with Warner ruling that the easement was never valid this ruling was not part of his instructions. It would have been nice to have seen Warner’s decision refered back to the appellate instead of Burum bribing Supervisors to immediately settle.
Me thinks that Joe is suggesting that the earth be crumbling under DA Mikey’s case!
Why is it so hard to observe the fact that the Colonies developers were looking for the SBC Flood Control District to pick-up the tab for any “regional” flood control improvements they had to install with the Colonies at San Antonio and Crossroads projects?
BTW, SBCFCD is funded by the taxpayers, to the tune of over $300M to pay for the Colonies Settlement and associated financing costs.
Does DA Mikey like Life (not cereal) now?
Well there is no comparison my man!
Please lets be fair with the defendants…who, by the way, have NO BUSINESS BEING “DEFENDANTS”!
With Gotti there was violence, bloodshed organized murder, selling narcotics, made millions hijacking, loan sharking, gambling, extortion and other criminal activities…
…WITH ERWIN, BURUM, BIANE AND KIRK…YOU HAVE A PERSONAL VENDETTA ON BEHALF OF DISTRICT ATTORNEY MIKE RAMOS FOR POLITICAL GAIN DURING HIS RE-ELECTION CAMPAIGN…
AND JUST AS “Mike Nifong has been disbarred after being found guilty of a battery of ethics violations for his handling of the Duke Lacrosse investigation,” SO IS MIKE RAMOS GUILTY OF ” BATTERY OF ETHICS VIOLATIONS” AND SHOULD BE DISBARRED FOR THE HANDLING OF THE COLONIES CASE!!!
LSW….be careful or Observer Of Facts will call you comment, that sounds similar to mine, preposterous.
anon#21….Considering that Burum actually gave large sums to the political figures charged, not to mention all county counsel refused to sign the settlement in question and instead walked out, Burum will have no case against a DA that was doing the job of protecting the taxpayers against a scourge of corruption.
Anonymous #14:
1) I have read the Appellate Court ruling; they directed the Superior Court to “decide the actual scope” of the easement. That’s precisely what Judge Warner did.
2) You claim that Judge Warner “skirted appellate instructions” and ruled “that the easement was never valid.” This is not true; he ruled that the county attempted to expand the scope of the easement. I hate to keep bringing up that pesky Statement of Intended Decision, but I recommend that you “re-read” it.
3) Regarding your claim of Jeff Burum “bribing supervisors to immediately settle:”
A) The bribery is an unproven allegation that the prosecutions key witness has denied.
B) The settlement took place nearly four months after Judge Warner’s ruling. How can that possibly be construed as “immediately?”
OOF,,,,If the prosecution’s key witness has denied it how can you beleive him? After all, when he first admitted to bribery, he was called a meth head and not considered credible. Did he suddenly become credible because he supports your side of things? As for the settlement being immediate, it was considering that Postmus was holding back the attorneys while he strategized with Burum to get the settlment completed.
#9 – you are way off base.
#14 Observer – I do agree with you.
Corrupland…How do you like your corruptland? It’s compliments of Jeff Burum. So who is really off base here?
Joe Nelson has added some new language to the article: “The settlement stymied a trial and ended a lawsuit Burum filed against the county in 2002.”
The article also says that “damages could exceed $300 million if the county decided to take the case to trial.”
Once again, Mr. Nelson is trying to deceive readers into believing that the case never went to trial.
TICK TICK TICK MIKEY then BOOOOOOOM you are gone, Cant wait for the inevitable.
Joe Nelson next
#29 Thank you!
OOF….The article was also changed and the mention of Larson’s beaming smile was removed.
I used to work for Jeff Burum as his assistant. All I can say is that guy is shady! He is/was horrible to work for. I couldn’t stand working for him and quit because of his ways. He has contributed money/bought favors for years.
Julie M:
You are a fake and a liar, Mr. Burum has the same assistants that he has had for the last fifteen years so get a life and make stuff up against someone else. Trolls like you are pathetic. By the way, spreading false defamatory comments about another creates civil liablities, so just an FYI.
w/ National CORE?
INSIDER, THANK YOU FOR SAYING WHAT MOST OF US WHO READ “Julie M” knew instantly…that she was a FAKE…and in fact was pulling a typical “Sharon Gilbert” tactic of pretending to be an “employee” insider who “knows”… LOL.
# 35 – you said it before I could.
# 36 – No
On behalf of those who have worked for Jeff I would like to say that as long as you do your job & don’t lie to him is a great employer!
I hear he is a great employer as long as you turn a blind eye to his shady dealings. Defamatory comments? Ya right! Burum has brought defamation on himself. Why don’t I hear about all the shady practices of the Lewis or Matich people, because they are so clean? doubtful! They are just careful not to flaunt their corrupt practices under the nose of the tax payers they take from. They don’t take public officials on private jet jaunts, rolex watch shopping and happy hooker hopping. They especially don’t buy positions on the F&G board and then go hunting mountain lions. These people should be thoroughly watched in the same way a sex offender would be watched because the moment the public is not looking their hands will be back in the taxpayer coffers.
Matich will have there’s coming…
I mean, “their’s coming”
Why is this tentative not public? Where is the outrage?
#39 is right on the money.
#35 and 37 : Nice to see you posting here Jeff
Typical “Sharon Gilbert” crap; naming anonymous people AS IF SHE KNOWS THEM!!
“Jeff??” Yeah, right “Sharon”
Sharon, stay away from here, stink up your own blog!!!