Riverside County officials have gone to court in an effort to stop a one-day strike by health care professionals.

BY RICHARD K. De ATLEY
STAFF WRITER
rdeatley@pe.com

Published: 30 January 2012 11:33 AM

A judge Monday barred 248 health-care workers from joining a one-day strike by members of Riverside County’s second-largest union.

After a daylong hearing, Judge John Vineyard issued a temporary restraining order against all but 17 members of a group of 265 workers whose jobs the county argued were vital. Vineyard ordered the majority not to take part in the one-day walkout by members of Service Employees International Union Local 721.

The SEIU local represents 5,800 county workers. It is not certain how many will strike today, but union officials have said they expect thousands to take part in the protests in front of the County Administrative Center on Lemon Street in Riverside.

Those ordered to stay on the job today include nurses in Riverside County Regional Medical Center’s medical and surgical units as well as its emergency department, critical and progressive care units, pediatric units and psychiatric unit, as well as nurses working at jail facilities.

“A strike is not worth somebody becoming dead or somebody being seriously injured,” Riverside County Counsel Pamela Walls argued during the all-day hearing.

County officials on Jan. 24 appealed to the California Public Employment Relations Board to take action against the union regarding the health-care workers, and the state agency filed its lawsuit on Friday.

The county sought to keep the nurses — many of whom will get an 8 percent raise starting next month — on the job.

Vineyard said 17 members of the challenged group — including clinical lab scientists and operating room scrub techs — could join the strike.

An attorney for the union said the county had provided Vineyard with skimpy evidence to back its arguments that the 265 contested health workers had to stay on the job, especially after 11 days’ warning of the strike.

To read entire story, click here.

Mike Cruz, The (San Bernardino County) Sun
Created: 01/30/2012 10:27:09 AM PST

RANCHO CUCAMONGA – A workplace discrimination lawsuit has been filed in Superior Court against Ontario Police Chief Eric Hopley by his former administrative assistant Brenda Vallejo.

Vallejo alleges in the lawsuit that Hopley and the city discriminated against her when she returned from family medical leave in July 2010. She had received treatment for thyroid cancer.

Upon returning to work, Vallejo alleges Hopley’s demeanor and behavior toward her changed. Specifically, Hopley created a hostile work environment and reassigned her to work with a sergeant.

Vallejo considered the move a wrongful demotion that was not comparable to the duties and responsibilities she had when working with Hopley. Weeks later, Vallejo was reassigned again to the Detective Bureau.

“When she got sick, everything changed,” said Vallejo’s lawyer Sandra L. Noel, of Redlands. “His attitude towards her changed.”

Hopley spoke to Vallejo in a demeaning and hostile manner, refused to respond to her greetings, made demeaning facial expressions, shunned her and excluded her from information needed to perform her duties, according to the lawsuit.

Vallejo’s work with Hopley, which was often of a confidential nature, was given to other individuals, her lawyer explained.

“He made a concerted effort to let her know she was no longer wanted,” said Noel. At the time of her medical leave, Vallejo had been with the department for a year.

To read entire story, click here.

California Supreme Court Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye lost a round over Judicial Council power

The state’s top judge lost a political battle Monday when the state Assembly voted to shift key budget decisions from the state Judicial Council that she heads to local trial courts, some of which have complained about the panel’s handling of money.

The legislation, which next goes to the Senate for consideration, was vigorously opposed by California Supreme Court Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye, who is also the chairwoman of the Judicial Council. The council said the bill is an “inappropriate intrusion into the fundamental governance of the judicial branch.”

But AB 1208 was supported by a dissident group known as the Alliance of California Judges, which said too much power has been centralized with the statewide court bureaucracy to the detriment of local court operations.

The measure by Assemblyman Charles Calderon (D-Whittier) would give local trial courts power to decide how to spend their share of funding to pay for court operations. Calderon said his measure is needed because some courtrooms have had to close in the face of budget cuts imposed by the Judicial Council at the same time that the panel diverted more than $70 million to a problem-plagued computer modernization program that has gone over budget.

To read entire story, click here.

Understaffed, overwhelmed, Riverside and San Bernardino county officials say the verdict is few options on further cuts

RICHARD K. De ATLEY/Staff

RICHARD K. De ATLEY
STAFF WRITER
rdeatley@pe.com

Published: 29 January 2012 07:33 PM

Like passengers on a plane with half the engines snuffed, Inland court officials can only wait and watch as Gov. Jerry Brown’s proposed budget for next year fiscal year moves through the state’s political turbulence.

After four years of cuts reduced the statewide court budget by nearly $653 million — losses passed on to the state’s 58 superior courts, including $5.7 million slashed for Riverside County and $6.1 million for San Bernardino County courts for the current fiscal year — Brown has no further cuts proposed in his new budget.

But there’s a catch: Brown’s budget is based on his tax package getting approved. If it doesn’t, an additional $125 million in cuts to the courts will be imposed.

And court officials have expressed ambivalence about Brown’s proposed revenue plan of increasing fees and fines to raise $50 million.

“We do have money problems but the fees and fines are getting to be a problem for folks who are coming in for civil cases and family law cases,” said San Bernardino County Court Executive Officer Stephen H. Nash in a phone interview. “We do appreciate the governor’s support for new money, but we are not excited about higher fees.”

The interest in court funding is especially keen in Riverside and San Bernardino counties, where courts for years have been seriously understaffed as the counties’ populations each soared past 2 million during the past decade.

The state Judicial Council funds county courts based on the number of judicial officers, not population.

Riverside County has 76 judicial positions, including judges and commissioners, but a recent workload assessment report that was assigned by the state Judicial Council said it should have 150.

San Bernardino has 86 judges and commissioners combined, and likewise needs 150. The two courts have the highest caseloads-per-judge in the state for large population counties.

Another round of deep cuts could overwhelm their systems.

‘KEEP THE COURTS OPEN’

“The goal is to keep the courts open,” Riverside County Court Executive Officer Sherri Carter said. “We really want to do that without furloughs or layoffs because we don’t have the staff to do the work we have now.”

Riverside County officials fear a return to the backlogged court struggles of a few years ago, when civil cases sat unheard and a strike force of 12 judges was dispatched to the county to handle its longest-pending criminal cases.

Riverside County has depended for years on assigned judges — retired jurists sent by the state Administrative Office of the Courts to counties that need extra help with their case workload.

While the state pays the assigned judges’ salaries, the local courts have to pay for their courtroom personnel. And there is no extra staff in the clerk’s office to handle the work generated by the assigned judges.

Carter said the cost to the courts is “in the millions.”

Riverside County Superior Court has already reduced the number of assigned judges from 22 a day to 15, “and that just keeps our heads above water,” Riverside County Presiding Judge Sherrill Ellsworth said.

But “if we are looking under rocks” to save money, further cuts in the assigned judges program would have to be considered, she said.

Also threatened are the collaborative courts, in which prosecutors, defense attorneys, probation officers and social workers cooperate in programs designed to help selected defendants return to productive roles in society.

Veterans, domestic violence cases, and drug offenders are among the specialized courts.

“We have done a good job addressing those issues and being a full-service court,” Ellsworth said, but all of it is threatened by further substantial cuts, she said.

To read entire story, click here.

By Howard Mintz hmintz@mercurynews.com
Posted: 01/30/2012 06:56:26 AM PST
Updated: 01/30/2012 07:31:17 AM PST

With a crucial vote looming Monday, a conflict that has shaken California’s judiciary reaches a critical stage when the Assembly considers legislation that would strip control of most of the court system’s purse strings from a central bureaucracy and turn it over to the Legislature and local trial judges.

The yearlong battle over control of the court system’s $3 billion budget reached a boiling point this week as Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye began a campaign to kill the legislation sponsored by Charles Calderon, D-Whittier, the Assembly’s ranking Democrat.

The Assembly must vote on Monday, otherwise the legislation will die for at least the remainder of this year.

Calderon’s bill, backed by labor groups and a splinter organization of the state’s judges, would largely scrap a 15-year-old state law that centralized court supervision and budget authority among California’s 58 trial courts.

The struggle for power over local court budgets could shape how judges deal with everything from how they pay for legal services for the poor to setting filing fees for lawsuits for years to come.

The legislation exposes a rare public rift within California’s sprawling judiciary, which has been rife with infighting over how hundreds of millions of dollars in budget cuts are being spread through the nation’s largest state court system.

The primary target of critics of the current system has been the Administrative Office of the Courts, the court bureaucracy, and the Judicial Council, chaired by the chief justice and the policy arm of the court system.

The Bay Area’s trial courts are an example of the division.

The presiding judges of 44 of the trial courts signed onto a letter this month opposing the legislation, but there was a mix in the Bay Area.

Santa Clara, Contra Costa, Santa Cruz and Monterey counties signed the letter, but Alameda, San Mateo and San Francisco did not. The latter counties are among those forced to shrink staff dramatically and shorten public hours at clerk’s offices to close budget gaps.

In an interview this week with the Mercury News editorial board, Cantil-Sakauye warned that Calderon’s legislation would be a disaster for most trial courts, producing unfair results for many counties and injecting politics into funding for the judiciary. She noted that Los Angeles Superior Court, which backs the change, would be able to veto important statewide legal programs with scant support from other counties.

“What we lose is uniformity,” the chief justice said. “We abdicate decision making about the policies of the judicial branch, the nonpolitical branch, to the Legislature.”

To read entire story, click here.

Sandra Emerson, Staff Writer
Created: 01/28/2012 06:06:01 AM PST

UPLAND – The City Council has not made a formal request for the League of California Cities’ assistance in the medical marijuana case pending in the state Supreme Court, but some inquiries have been made.

Councilman Ken Willis inquired about the League possibly getting involved in the case during a dinner on Jan. 19. City staff also made an inquiry, said City Manager Stephen Dunn.

“Basically, Upland was looking for help because it’s a big battle we’ve been funding, but realistically I don’t know what the League is going to respond or if they’ve responded to it,” Dunn said. “I understand it could potentially put the League in a predicament. There are a number of cities, particularly in Northern California, that do support medical marijuana.”

The League’s City Attorneys’ Department formed a Medical Marijuana Committee and will review the implications for cities pending the Supreme Court’s decision.

They will look at four cases that the Supreme Court recently decided to review, including Upland’s case involving G3 Holistic.

“Those cases will be reviewed by the legal advocacy committee and those committees will determine what action is taken,” said Eva Spiegel, spokeswoman for the League.

Dunn said there is no plan to make an official outreach to the League.

“I think the intent of staff and the intent of Councilman Willis is to say, `Hey, League, make it high on your radar and if you can help in the battle then please do,”‘ Dunn said. “We’re not asking them to take on the battle.”

As of November, the city has spent more than $360,000 to fight medical marijuana dispensaries, said Councilman Gino Filippi.

“I continue to remain concerned with the amount of financial resources and attorney’s fees the city of Upland continues to incur in dealing with lawsuits including medical marijuana dispensaries operating in the city, when our general funds are needed for the operation of general services that the city provides to our citizens,” he said.

G3 Holistic closed in September 2010 after West Valley Superior Court Judge Barry Plotkin in Rancho Cucamonga granted the city an injunction.

To read entire story, click here.

By Jim Sanders
jsanders@sacbee.com
Published: Saturday, Jan. 28, 2012 – 12:00 am | Page 3A

A California Supreme Court ruling Friday significantly raised Democratic Party prospects of gaining the supermajority needed in the state Senate to pass tax or fee increases.

The high court decided that Senate maps drawn recently by a 14-member citizens commission will be used for this year’s legislative elections, even if a pending referendum qualifies for the ballot.

The decision brought certainty for dozens of prospective Senate candidates awaiting final adoption of the maps as they begin their campaigns. And it offered the commission at least temporary validation that it performed its job as the voters intended.

Political analysts of both parties agree that the commission-drawn lines give Democrats a good chance of capturing the two seats necessary to give them a two-thirds supermajority in the Senate by December.

California Republican Party Chairman Tom Del Beccaro told The Bee this week that retention of the new lines would make it “enormously difficult” to keep Democrats from a Senate supermajority.

“The political winds have been blowing against them in recent years, and unfavorable district lines make their position even worse,” said Jack Pitney, a government professor at Claremont McKenna College.

Tax increases and passage of some other items would require a two-thirds vote in the Assembly, too, and Democrats are not as confident about achieving that this year. Still, a supermajority in the upper house would significantly increase Democrats’ leverage in the Legislature.

Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, said he is not “taking a victory lap” over Friday’s ruling but that California would be better off if budget deficits could be eased by revenue increases as well as cost cutting.

“We’re going to strive very hard to gain the support of the people of the state of California – and when we do, we expect them to hold us accountable,” Steinberg said.

Republican Sens. Sam Blakeslee of San Luis Obispo and Tony Strickland of Moorpark are targeted as the most vulnerable GOP incumbents under the new maps. Blakeslee is not expected to seek re-election and Strickland is eyeing a congressional seat.

Twenty of the Senate’s 40 seats are up for grabs this year.

The Supreme Court’s 73-page ruling concluded that maps drawn by the citizens commission were the most appropriate and least disruptive for use in this year’s legislative elections.

The issue came before the high court after a Republican-backed group, Fairness and Accountability in Redistricting, filed more than 711,000 signatures with county elections offices in a referendum to overturn the new Senate maps.

County elections officials face a Feb. 24 deadline for certifying FAIR’s referendum signatures.

To read entire story, click here.

PolitiCal
On politics in the Golden State
January 27, 2012 | 10:19 am

A correction has been added to this post. See below for details.

The California Supreme Court, faced with a possible ballot measure to scrap newly drawn election districts, decided Friday to leave the boundaries in place for this year’s state Senate races.

Republican opponents of the new Senate districts asked the state high court to discard them in anticipation that voters may do so in November. A nonpartisan citizens commission drew the boundaries, which Republicans fear will reduce their numbers in the Legislature.

To read entire story, click here.

Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye

January 26, 2012

Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye today urged the defeat of Assembly legislation that would undermine the authority of the Judicial Council, and give courts in as few as two counties authority to veto any statewide judicial project.

Cantil-Sakauye, who became chief justice in 2010, is showing herself to be a tough fighter as she lobbies to kill legislation by Assemblyman Charles Calderon, D-Whittier, himself the consummate inside player.

Appearing before The Bee’s editorial board, Cantil Sakauye said Calderon’s bill, AB 1208, would “reduce and eliminate the authority of the Judicial Council” to control significant parts of judicial branch spending.

As chief justice of the California Supreme Court, Cantil-Sakauye chairs the Judicial Council, which sets policy for courts statewide.

By far the bulk of the judicial branch’s $3.1 billion, more than 83 percent, is spent on trial courts. But the Judicial Council uses some money for statewide projects, including installation of a computer system, which has faced significant cost overruns.

Cantil-Sakauye said that under AB 1208, as few as two counties could veto any statewide project, such as the computer system. She said the measure also could have the effect of limiting the counties’ ability to set up special courts to hear criminal cases involving veterans or mentally people defendants.

Cantil-Sakauye said there should be “equal public access, wherever you live, whether or not your county is wealthy and whether or not you have a good relationship with your county supervisors or presiding judge.”

Siding with Cantil-Sakauye are presiding judges from 44 counties, a statewide association of defense lawyers, the big business-backed Civil Justice Association of California and the association’s rival, the Consumer Attorneys of California, which represents plaintiffs’ lawyers. Critics say the legislation raises separation of powers issues.

To read entire story, click here.

California State Controller John Chiang

PolitiCal
On politics in the Golden State
January 24, 2012 | 1:51 pm

Democratic lawmakers sued state Controller John Chiang on Tuesday seeking limits on the controller’s right to withhold lawmakers’ pay during a budget stalemate.

Speaker John A. Perez (D-Los Angeles) and Senate leader Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento) said in a joint statement Tuesday that the action is necessary to “clarify the constitutional role of the California state controller,’’ who withheld pay from lawmakers last year after determining they had not approved a balanced budget on time.

Under a law passed by voters in 2010, the controller has the right to dock lawmakers’ pay if a budget is not passed by the June 15 constitutional deadline. Last year, Democratic legislators approved a spending plan before the required date (no Republicans voted for it), but Chiang decided to withhold legislators’ paychecks anyway, arguing that the budget they passed was nearly $2 billion out of balance.

Democrats accused the controller of engaging in an illegal power grab, saying he had no authority to withhold their pay -– about $400 for each day after June 15 without a budget in place.

To read entire story, click here.

Dan Walters

By Dan Walters
dwalters@sacbee.com
Published: Wednesday, Jan. 25, 2012 – 12:00 am | Page 3A

As the Legislature reconvened this month, California’s judges resumed their civil war over money and power.

It pits Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye and the State Judicial Council, along with one faction of trial and appellate judges, against a rebellious faction, organized as the Alliance of California Judges, over how to allocate pain as the courts adjust to reduced financing.

An early political test for the combatants is Assembly Bill 1208, a rebel-sponsored bill that faces a deadline this week for approval by the Assembly.

The measure, which would strengthen the authority of local judges vis-à-vis the Judicial Council and the Administrative Office of the Courts, has been stalled for months as both sides ramped up their lobbying.

For a profession that places high value on decorum and what’s called “judicial demeanor,” the public and private politicking has gotten downright nasty at times, with the contending factions exchanging accusations of bad conduct.

Cantil-Sakauye has remained publicly aloof from the fray, leaving the day-to-day maneuvering to her supporters, but there’s little doubt that she is – continuing the no-change position that predecessor Ronald George held – helping organize opposition to the bill, which is being carried by the Assembly’s Democratic floor leader, Charles Calderon.

Her faction has been peddling the concept that were AB 1208 to become law, it would threaten the independence of the judiciary. But the rebels contend that the state court bureaucracy that she heads has been wasting money on a bloated staff, an unworkable computer system and a grandiose courthouse construction program while trial courts are being forced to reduce staff and services.

The rebel alliance has produced a 20-page white paper that lays out in detail what it regards as misappropriation of operational funds for the courts that leaves them unable to cope with criminal and civil business.

To read entire story, click here.

RANCHO CUCAMONGA – G3 Holistic in Upland will be able to remain open.

A West Valley Superior Court judge ruled in favor of the medical marijuana cooperative because the case is under review by the California Supreme Court.

“This is a big win,” G3 President Aaron Sandusky said.

Judge Barry Plotkin issued a tentative ruling in favor of G3 and officially adopted it after hearing arguments from counsel representing the city.

“In the long run, this is a good thing. For the citizens of Upland, it’s painful at the moment, but in the long run, we will have more guidance,” Plotkin said.

On Jan. 6, the city of Upland took the co-op to court on the belief they were open in violation of an injunction granted in August 2010 by the West Valley court in Rancho Cucamonga.

The city’s zoning ordinance prohibits medical marijuana dispensaries.

G3 appealed the injunction to the Fourth District Court of Appeals in Riverside. The Appellate Court in June granted a stay on the injunction allowing G3 to remain open pending the resolution of the appeal.

To read entire story, click here.

A lower court’s ruling upholding Riverside’s ban has been used as precedent for other cities to control medical marijuana

BY RICHARD K. De ATLEY
STAFF WRITER
rdeatley@pe.com

Published: 18 January 2012 03:51 PM

The California Supreme Court will review a city of Riverside medical marijuana case in which a lower court ruled that cities and counties have the right to ban dispensaries.

Local governments throughout the state have used that decision, issued in November by the Fourth District Court of Appeal, to shut down medical marijuana clinics within their boundaries.

That court ruled that nothing in the state’s1996 Compassionate Use Act (Prop. 215) or the state Legislature’s Medical Marijuana Program, which outlines usage, pre-empts cities from banning the facilities.

The Riverside ruling was one of four medical marijuana cases the State Supreme Court voted to accept Wednesday. In hearing the cases, the court will try to tackle federal and state issues regarding medical marijuana and the dispensaries that sell it, and also address more fundamental questions of local control.

The court voted 7-0 to hear the Riverside case.

The justices also will hear an unpublished ruling on Upland’s dispensary ban, which closely followed the language of the Riverside ruling; a Long Beach case that addresses the illegality of marijuana under federal law and whether that preempts local officials from regulating dispensaries; and a Dana Point case that looks into who has standing to challenge local ordinances regulating dispensaries.

“It was only a matter of time before the California Supreme Court would take on the issue, and the time is now,” said Jeffrey V. Dunn, an Irvine-based attorney with Best Best & Krieger who represents Riverside in the case. “Federal pre-emption, state law pre-emption and standing — in one day the Supreme Court has decided to review this law in a comprehensive fashion.”

Riverside City Attorney Greg Priamos said he believed the court recognized the importance of the cases and wants to clarify the law.

“We remain cautiously optimistic that the Supreme Court will uphold the city and county land use authority; that cities and boards of supervisors have the right to establish land-use policies, and the city’s right is not preempted by state law,” Priamos said.

J. David Nick, the attorney representing dispensary owners in Riverside, said a unanimous vote to hear a case is rare. He also noted that the court took the case even though there are no conflicting appellate decisions on the issue regarding the Riverside case.

To read entire story, click here.

UPLAND – The California Supreme Court decided on Wednesday to review an appeal filed by an Upland medical marijuana cooperative.

Counsel representing G3 Holistic in Upland filed the appeal in December following a decision in November by the Fourth District Appellate Court in Riverside siding with the city’s ban on medical marijuana dispensaries through its zoning code.

“I’m totally flabbergasted,” said Roger Jon Diamond, attorney for G3. “I thought they might take it, but you never know for sure.”

The co-op appealed an injunction granted by the West Valley Superior Court in August 2010 that shut it down along with several other co-ops in the city.

The city’s zoning ordinance prohibits medical marijuana dispensaries.

The Appellate Court granted a stay on the injunction in June pending resolution of the appeal, allowing G3 to remain open.

The Appellate Court ultimately sided with the city on Nov. 9, which prompted Diamond to file the appeal with the Supreme Court in December.

G3 closed following a raid by DEA agents on Nov. 1. It reopened on Dec. 30.

The city and G3 are currently in disagreement over whether the stay granted by the Appellate Court allows the co-op to remain open.

Diamond argued that the stay is still in effect because the case is still pending on appeal.

However, the city contends the Appellate Court’s decision on the case vacated the stay.

The lawyers met in West Valley Superior Court on Jan. 6 to decide the issue, but Judge Barry Plotkin wanted further review of the Appellate Court’s decision as well as whether West Valley has jurisdiction.

They will reconvene today.

City Manager Stephen Dunn said the city will await today’s ruling by Plotkin.

To read entire story, click here.

Tuesday, January 17, 2012 – 06:00 p.m.

So much for that plea deal way back when!

Anthony Orlando Sanchez, 36, plead not guilty to extortion and bribery charges this afternoon in U.S. District Court in Riverside.

He will be held without bail due to the fact he fled the country for Honduras several months ago.

Sanchez, who is charged in an alleged corruption scheme involving former Upland Mayor John “J.P.” Pomierski, returned to the United States on Sunday and was taken into custody by U.S. Marshals.

A trial date of March 13 has been set.

Tuesday, January 17, 2012 – 4:00 p.m.

The attempt by the City of Upland to shutter a medical marijuana co-op fell flat last week.

Upland, in an awkward position, attempted to get the 4th District Court of Appeal in Riverside to lift a stay it imposed last year allowing G3 Holistic Inc. to remain open, even though the court’s decision in the city’s favor has been appealed to the California Supreme Court.

On January 13th, the court rejected Upland’s request to dissolve the stay because of jurisdiction.

A rejection likely due to the pending appeal filing.

One has to wonder what these poorly designed legal moves is costing the city.

Josh Dulaney, Staff Writer
Posted: 01/12/2012 04:49:18 PM PST

An attorney for Norton Property Management Services LLC, one of 16 companies under federal investigation in connection with an alleged corruption at San Bernardino International Airport, says aggressive actions by the airport forced the company to file bankruptcy.

During a Thursday hearing in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Riverside, John Melissinos, the attorney representing T. Milford Harrison, a manager at the company, said Norton Property had been working out a financial settlement with one of its three tenants, AeroPro, when the airport served Norton Property with a three-day notice on Dec. 5 to pay pay its debt, or leave a hangar.

Norton Property, which subleases portions of a hangar at the airport to the tenants, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection on Dec. 7, and says it seeks to maintain its rights under a 15-year hangar lease.

“Norton Property feels it was aggressive, because prior to that, (San Bernardino International Airport) had been working with Norton to keep AeroPro,” Melissinos said.

He said there is a proposed $192,500 settlement with AeroPro, which had failed to pay what it owed under its sublease.

Melissinos also said there is another potential tenant for the hangar, and that Norton Property wants to “sit down” with airport officials in an effort to reach a compromise.

FBI investigators in September raided the airport to gain information on airport developer Scot Spencer and his business ties there, including those with Harrison, a business partner of Spencer and former executive director of the airport.

Spencer’s signature appears with Harrison’s on the bankruptcy filing, but Spencer says he is not connected to the bankruptcy.

In their bankruptcy filing, Spencer and Harrison claim their company holds between $1 million to $10 million in assets and $500,000 to $1 million in liabilities.

To read entire story, click here.

Representatives of Norton Property Management Services, LLC., which rents and operates portions of a hangar at the embattled San Bernardino International Airport, met with creditors on Monday as the company’s bankruptcy proceedings moved forward.

John Melissinos, the attorney representing T. Milford Harrison, a manager at the company who filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection on Dec. 7, told creditors a prospective tenant could be leasing the hangar as early as next month.

In a court document, he said Norton Property intends to restructure with hopes of emerging from bankruptcy protection by year’s end.

One goal is to save 72 jobs that now exist at the hangar at 255 S. Leland Norton Way.

“I think it’s going to be cash-flow positive,” Melissinos said during Monday’s proceedings, which were continued until Feb. 6. Creditors are seeking additional information including details regarding the company’s current lease agreement.

Several documents the company failed to include in its initial filing, including a list of personal property and a statement of financial affairs, have since been submitted, Melissinos said.

“All the deficiencies have been remedied. We filed everything,” he said.

Norton Property is one of 16 companies under investigation by the FBI. Federal agents raided the airport in September seeking information on airport developer Scot Spencer and his relationships with several individuals affiliated with the airport including Harrison, who is Spencer’s business partner and the airport’s former executive director.

Though Spencer’s signature appears with Harrison’s on the bankruptcy filing, Spencer said Monday he has no part of the bankruptcy.

To read entire story, click here.

Wes Woods II, Inland Valley Daily Bulletin
Created: 01/09/2012 03:03:05 PM PST

View Document: Lawsuit filed by Claremont police union vs. city and chamber

CLAREMONT – The Claremont Police Officers Association has filed a lawsuit against the Claremont Chamber of Commerce and the city alleging its right to freedom of expression, association and assembly were violated at the Village Venture event in October.

According to the lawsuit, Robert Ewing, a detective and association president, and others were not allowed to hand out fliers related to the association’s stance on contract negations with the city.

The incident took place at the arts and crafts fair in downtown that is put on by the city and the chamber.

City Manager Tony Ramos said the City Council would meet tonight in closed session about the lawsuit because it’s a “litigation matter.”

“If you saw that flier the guys were handing out … it paints the City Council in a position that highlights how they’ve been detrimental to public safety,” said Dieter Dammeier, an attorney for the Police Officers Association.

The city “didn’t want the facts to come out.”

On the flier is the phrase “Why Is City Council Gambling With Your Safety?” and includes a hooded man with a gun and a flashlight. Statements on the flier such as “Police budget reduced,” “97 sex offenders” and “1908 parolees” are imposed on a roulette wheel.

Ewing contacted chamber staff member Maureen Aldridge about two weeks before the event and asked to participate, according to the lawsuit.

He told Aldridge that the association wanted to set up a booth to distribute materials related to the association’s position on the contract negotiations, according to the lawsuit.

Aldridge said the association would not have to pay a normally required fee, and it could set up next to the Police Department’s command post.

Ewing set up the association’s booth next to the Police Department’s equipment, but Police Chief Paul Cooper said the association was not allowed to have its booth at the location, according to the lawsuit.

In response, a booth was set up a short distance away and fliers were handed out.

Aldridge later told association members that they could not have a booth at all, according to the lawsuit.

To read entire story, click here.

Dan Walters

By Dan Walters
dwalters@sacbee.com
Published: Monday, Jan. 9, 2012 – 12:00 am | Page 3A
Last Modified: Monday, Jan. 9, 2012 – 6:30 am

Last year, the state Supreme Court interjected itself – in a big way – into the perennial “tort war” that pits personal injury lawyers against insurance companies and business groups over the arcane rules of liability lawsuits.

Both the courts and the Legislature play roles in deciding who can sue and collect money from whom over injurious acts.

Last August, the Supreme Court, by a 6-1 ruling, imposed limits on how medical damages could be calculated in auto accidents and other personal injury cases.

The issue in the case (Howell v. Hamilton Meats) was whether the injured party could collect the full medical bills imposed by doctors, hospitals and other medical care providers, or would be limited to the amounts actually paid by insurers, which are often pennies on the dollar.

The case, stemming from a 2005 collision in San Diego County, involved $200,000 in medical bills that were whittled down to $60,000 before payment.

The trial judge decreed that only the smaller amount need be paid, while an appellate court said it should be the full amount, and several other pending cases had conflicting appellate court decisions, so the issue was kicked upstairs to the Supreme Court.

Its widely watched ruling hit personal injury lawyers in their wallets but elated insurers, who had said an adverse outcome would have cost them, and their policyholders, another $3 billion a year.

And that’s where the Legislature enters.

To read entire column, click here.

Riverside’s downtown Greyhound bus station will have to wait longer to move to a planned transit center. The end of redevelopment has made the transit project’s future uncertain.(/FILE PHOTO/2008)

BY ALICIA ROBINSON
STAFF WRITER
arobinson@pe.com

Published: 07 January 2012 06:52 PM

Riverside may have to scrap plans for a downtown bus and train transit hub, a new shopping plaza in the Five Points area of La Sierra, relocation of two historic Victorian homes and a variety of other projects, now that state legislation and a court ruling have dismantled redevelopment.

Worse yet, say city officials, they may be forced to sell many of the properties owned by the city’s now-defunct redevelopment agency, including some on the Main Street mall, University Avenue, at Five Points, and in several areas downtown where new and better housing was planned.

City leaders are still trying to sort out exactly what they can and can’t do with former agency projects. Debts for projects that are done, such as a new playground and ball fields at Hunter Hobby Park, will be paid. Any projects that are already under binding agreements, such as development or construction contracts that were signed before June 28, likely will proceed.

But for all other redevelopment agency assets, “If it’s not already committed, we’re required to dispose of it,” Riverside Development Director Emilio Ramirez said.

A few things are for certain, Ramirez and City Manager Scott Barber agreed. The Five Points shopping center project, where the city already has done about $2.7million in road improvements, probably won’t happen because the city only had an agreement to negotiate with a developer, but not an actual contract or plan.

“We’ve already sunk a bunch of cash into making that happen,” Ramirez said. “If we lose that project, it’s going to hurt.”

Bill Oaks, manager of Sierra Memorial Chapel Mortuary in the Five Points area, is just as disappointed. He has suffered through seeing the older, run-down buildings cleared out and demolished and the annoyance of road work.

“What really concerns me is not getting the new businesses back in,” Oaks said. “Everybody was looking forward to what’s going on.”

To read entire story, click here.

BY IMRAN GHORI
STAFF WRITER
ighori@pe.com

Published: 06 January 2012 11:19 AM

Defense attorneys in the Colonies corruption case announced in court Friday morning they are seeking records from an influential union representing public safety employees.

Attorneys are also seeking additional records from the county flood control district concerning its four-year legal battle with Colonies Partners.

They filed subpoenas seeking the documents from the San Bernardino County Safety Employees Benefit Association and the county, but Judge Michael Smith delayed making any decision after attorneys said they are continuing to discuss agreements to get the material.

The documents were sought as part of the Colonies bribery case.

Rancho Cucamonga developer Jeff Burum, former county Supervisor Paul Biane, former Assistant Assessor Jim Erwin, and Mark Kirk, former chief of staff to Supervisor Gary Ovitt, face conspiracy and bribery-related charges.

Prosecutors have alleged that a $102 million settlement the county approved in November 2006 with Burum’s company, Colonies Partners, was a result of bribery and extortion.

Erwin’s attorney, Rajan Maline, filed the motion seeking records from SEBA detailing its involvement in the November 2006 campaign for Measure P, a pay increase and term limit measure that Biane championed.

To read entire story, click here.

SAN BERNARDINO – Defense attorneys in a San Bernardino County corruption case are requesting documents from a public safety labor union they believe will help refute allegations of blackmail against a Rancho Cucamonga developer and the union’s former president.

The attorneys are also seeking from the county’s Flood Control District documents from its nearly five-year legal battle with Rancho Cucamonga-based Colonies Partners LP. Colonies’ co-managing partner Jeff Burum filed a civil lawsuit against the county in March 2002, alleging the county refused to pay for flood control improvements on property owned by Colonies Partners’.

The requests were addressed Friday by lawyers for four defendants in the alleged corruption case – Burum, former county Supervisor Paul Biane, former Assistant Assessor Jim Erwin, and Mark Kirk, former chief of staff for Supervisor Gary Ovitt – during proceedings in San Bernardino Superior Court.

The four men have been charged with multiple felonies, including conspiracy and conflict of interest stemming from the county’s landmark $102 million settlement with Colonies Partners in November 2006.

The documents sought from the Safety Employees Benefit Association, or SEBA, include voter guides and other records that defense attorneys believe show the union’s support for Measure P – a ballot initiative aimed at bringing term limits and pay raises to county supervisors.

Defense lawyers want the SEBA documents so they can refute Grand Jury testimony, which alleged that Burum influenced Biane to support the lawsuit settlement by creating a campaign to oppose Biane’s Measure P initiative.

At the time, Erwin was the president of SEBA. Erwin’s attorney, Rajan Maline, said Friday that SEBA’s support for Measure P was never in question.

“We want those records to show the unwavering support for Measure P,” Maline said later, outside of court.

In Burum’s lawsuit against the county, he alleged the county abandoned its 70-year-old flood control easements on property owned by Colonies Partners’, a consortium of 22 investors who paid into the 434-acre residential and commercial development in Upland. Burum argued that the county forced Colonies to pay for a 67-acre flood control basin that should be the county’s responsiblity.

Prosecutors allege Burum and the three other defendants conspired together for the county to settle the lawsuit for $102 million. They allege the settlement was tainted by blackmail and bribery.

Among the allegations: Burum, in late 2006, bankrolled a campaign against Biane’s Measure P that would limit term limits for supervisors to three and increase their salaries by roughly 50 percent.

To read entire story, click here.

By Mark Gutglueck
Friday, January 6, 2012

Questions continue to dog the second highest ranking member of the county auditor-controller/treasurer-tax collector’s office with regard to the role he and a political action committee he controlled played in illegally passing through and laundering money for those convicted of or charged with participation in a bribery and extortion conspiracy.

At issue is how Matt Brown, a former member of the Republican Central Committee and the one-time chief of staff to former Second District San Bernardino County supervisor Paul Biane, has been able to avoid being criminally charged after he became entangled in a set of circumstances that led to the indictment of Biane, as well as another former member of the board of supervisors, Bill Postmus, together with the chief of staff to another supervisor, a one-time county employee union president and the businessman accused of bribing them.

Brown was moved into the position of assistant county auditor-controller in 2010 by county treasurer/auditor-controller Larry Walker. Brown is also the founder/principal of two political action committees, the San Bernardino County Young Republicans and the San Bernardino County Taxpayers Association.

In 2006, Brown, who was then supervisor Biane’s senior staff member, founded a political action committee (PAC) to assist Biane and other members of Biane’s political circle in distributing money to politicians they supported. That PAC, known as the San Bernardino County Young Republicans, has been alleged by the California Attorney General’s Office and the San Bernardino County District Attorney’s office to have been used as a vehicle to launder bribes and kickbacks to Biane.

During the first year of its existence, the San Bernardino County Young Republicans PAC had raised $7,500. In November 2006, Biane joined with his then-colleagues on the board of supervisors, Bill Postmus and Gary Ovitt, to approve a $102 million payout to Rancho Cucamonga-based Colonies Partners to settle a lawsuit that company had brought against the county over flood control issues at the Colonies at San Antonio residential subdivision and Colonies Crossroads commercial subdivision projects in northeast Upland. Supervisors Josie Gonzales and Dennis Hansberger opposed that settlement.

Campaign finance records show that the San Bernardino County Young Republicans PAC, received a $100,000 check from Colonies Partners, L.P. on June 17, 2007. In two separate indictments, one returned by a criminal grand jury in February 2010 against Postmus and his one time political associate Jim Erwin and in another indictment returned in May 2011 against Biane, Erwin, Colonies Partners managing principal Jeff Burum and the former chief of staff to supervisor Ovitt, Mark Kirk, it was alleged that Biane actually controlled the San Bernardino County Young Republicans PAC through Brown and that the $100,000 donation was a quid pro quo paid in exchange for Biane’s vote to approve the settlement. Also delineated in the February 2010 indictment were five unindicted co-conspirators identified as John Does 1 through 5, who are identifiable through information contained elsewhere in the public record including the superseding May 2011 indictment as Colonies Partners managing principals Burum and Dan Richards; Colonies Partners public relations consultant Patrick O’Reilly; Kirk; and Biane. According to prosecutors, Postmus controlled two political action committees, the Inland Empire PAC and the Conservatives For A Republican Majority PAC, which each received separate $50,000 donations from the Colonies Partners principals which were also bribes. Erwin’s Committee For Effective Government PAC likewise received a $100,000 donation from Burum and Richards that was a bribe, according to prosecutors; and Kirk’s Alliance For Ethical Government PAC received a $100,000 contribution from Burum and Richards that was also a bribe, per the indictment.

Postmus last March pleaded guilty to the five felonies alleged against him in the February 2010 indictment, including conspiracy, one count of accepting a bribe, one count of conflict of interest, and one count of misappropriation of funds.

Postmus in April was the star witness before the second grand jury which indicted Burum, Biane and Kirk and reindicted Erwin. Erwin, who served as assistant assessor under Postmus after the latter was elected to that post in 2006 and took office in 2007, continues to maintain his innocence on the charges stemming from that case, including conspiracy, two counts of corrupt influencing, two counts of offering a bribe, two counts of extortion, one count of misappropriation of public funds and one count of forgery. Biane, Kirk and Burum maintain their innocence. As of yet, no charges have been filed against Richards or O’Reilly.

The indictments allege that Burum in 2006, with the assistance of Erwin and O’Reilly, had brochures prepared which purported that Postmus, who was then the chairman of the board of supervisors as well as chairman of the San Bernardino County Republican Central Committee and was running for county assessor, was a homosexual who was addicted to methamphetamine, and that Biane, who was then the vice chair of both the board of supervisors and the Republican Central Committee and at that time engaged in an election campaign, was teetering on the brink of bankruptcy. Burum’s company, the Colonies Partners, had filed a lawsuit against the county in 2002 over flood control issues at the companies Colonies at San Antonio development in northeast Upland. Ultimately, Burum withheld the mailing of those brochures. It was three weeks after the November 2006 election, in which Postmus and Biane were elected and reelected, that the board of supervisors voted 3-2 to confer the $102 million settlement on the Colonies Partners. The indictments allege that the series of $100,000 donations to the political action committees founded and controlled by Postmus, Brown, Kirk and Erwin were in fact quid pro quos — bribes — paid in exchange for the approval of the settlement. Prosecutors allege that Biane, through Brown, secretly controlled the San Bernardino County Young Republicans PAC.

The Sentinel is informed that a complaint has been filed with the state Fair Political Practices Commission citing a PAC founded by Brown in 2008, the San Bernardino County Taxpayers Association, which is separate from the San Bernardino County Young Republicans PAC alluded to in the indictments. According to well placed sources, both the San Bernardino County Taxpayers Association and the San Bernardino County Young Republicans PAC were involved in the activity now under further investigation.

On March 17, 2008, Brown formed the San Bernardino County Taxpayers Association PAC and named J.M. Olchawa as the PAC’s treasurer. Both Brown and Olchawa are residents of Grand Terrace. Olchawa endowed the PAC with its first operating capital in the form of a $100 contribution. Less than a month later, on April 9, the San Bernardino County Young Republicans PAC contributed $40,000, which had apparently originated with the $100,000 contribution from the Colonies Partners the previous year, to the San Bernardino County Taxpayers Association PAC. The following month, on May 29, 2008, one of the political action committees controlled by Postmus, the Inland Empire PAC, infused the San Bernardino County Taxpayers PAC with $3,000 and the month after that, on June 2, 2008, with another $2,000. That $5,000, too, had apparently been originally provided by the Colonies Partners.

In the less than two month period between the $40,000 contribution from Brown’s own Young Republicans PAC on April 9 and Postmus’ Inland Empire PAC’s $2,000 donation on June 2, the San Bernardino County Taxpayers Association PAC received a substantial amount of money in the form of both contributions and loans, all from other political figures. On April 25, 2008, the Committee to Elect Paul Biane gave the San Bernardino County Taxpayers Association PAC a $15,000 contribution. On April 29, 2008 the Committee to Elect Dick Larsen provided the San Bernardino County Taxpayers Association PAC with a $10,000 loan. Larsen was then the county treasurer. On May 5, 2008 the Committee to Elect Gary C. Ovitt made a $15,000 contribution to Brown’s San Bernardino County Taxpayers Association PAC. That money may have originated with the Colonies Partners before being provided to Kirk’s Alliance For Ethical Government PAC and then being provided to Ovitt. On May 9, 2008, the Josie Gonzales for Supervisor campaign provided a $15,000 contribution to the San Bernardino County Taxpayers PAC. On May 16, 2008, Bill Emmerson for Assembly 2008 made a $5,000 contribution to Brown’s recently formed PAC. The same day, the San Bernardino Public Employees Association PAC provided Brown’s PAC with a $10,000 contribution. On May 23, 2008, the Committee to Elect Gary C. Ovitt provided Brown’s PAC with a $10,000 loan. On May 27, 2008, the Hansberger for Supervisor Committee made a $25,000 contribution to the San Bernardino County Taxpayers Association PAC. The next day, May 28, the Paul Cook for Assembly 2008 Committee provided Brown’s PAC with a $5,000 loan. The same day, the Committee to Elect Paul Biane

made a $10,000 loan to Brown’s PAC. On May 29, Bill Emmerson for Assembly 2008 made a $5,000 contribution to the PAC and on June 2, 2008, the Hansberger for Supervisor Committee made a $15,000 contribution to the San Bernardino County Taxpayers Association PAC.

The lion’s share of the money Brown’s PAC took in was used to fund Hansberger’s effort to be reelected as county Third District supervisor that year. According to campaign disclosure documents, the San Bernardino County Taxpayers Association PAC on May 18 provided the Hansberger for Supervisor Committee with $57,030.70 and on June 30, 2008, more than three weeks after Hansberger had lost the election to Neil Derry on June 3, Brown’s PAC gave the Hansberger for Supervisor Committee $100,920.29.

The Fair Political Practices Commission is now investigating the lack of any subsequent accounting for the $35, 000.00 in loans made to the San Bernardino County Taxpayers Association PAC by the Larsen, Ovitt, Cook and Biane campaign committees. All references to those loans disappeared from subsequent campaign filing statements made on behalf of the PAC by Olchawa. The loans in question appear to be outstanding. No explicit reference to repayments to any of the lending parties can be found in any of the San Bernardino County Taxpayers Association PAC’s financial disclosure statements. While the online filing made by the Committee to Elect Gary Ovitt shows an outstanding loan of $10,000 to the San Bernardino County Taxpayers Association PAC committee as of 12/31/2010, online filings for the other lending parties were not immediately available. There is no indication in any available documentation showing any of the loans were repaid.

The lack of repayment, and lack of accounting of the still existent outstanding loans or failure to note the loans were forgiven is alleged to be multiple violations of the Political Reform Act. Moreover, the lack of notation of the loans might suggest that the funds received by the committee during the 2008 electioneering season from the Larsen, Cook and Biane campaigns were being laundered for Hansberger, according to the complaint received by the FPPC.

Another issue in the complaint and the follow-up FPPC investigation is the connection between the PAC and the Hansberger Campaign, which contributed money to the PAC and was also the major beneficiary of the PAC’s expenditures. In this way, money provided to Brown’s PAC is suspected of having been used to attack Derry without adequate disclosure of the origin of that money. Those mailers sent out attacking Derry did not disclose that Hansberger’s campaign was involved in funding them.

Many familiar with Brown’s role in the Colonies matter have questioned why prosecutors did not seek and obtain from the grand jury an indictment of Brown. The indictment itself describes how the political action committee he founded and controlled served as a laundering vehicle through which bribes allegedly provided by Burum were passed, action virtually indistinguishable from that engaged in by the indicted Kirk, another chief of staff to a board member who voted to approve the Colonies settlement.

Brown was one of 45 witnesses who testified before the grand jury this spring before it handed down the indictment naming Burum, Biane, Kirk and Erwin. In that testimony Brown said SEBA, the sheriff’s deputies union that Erwin once headed, had promised to provide, but then failed to come through with, backing for a countywide measure Biane was sponsoring in 2006 to boost the pay for county supervisors. An examination of campaign reporting documents and other material, however, indicates that SEBA in fact did support the Biane-backed proposal, known as Measure P, which passed, resulting in an immediate $22,000 annual increase to supervisors’ salaries. Prosecutors declined to say whether Brown’s misstatement of fact before the grand jury constituted perjury. No charges have been filed against him.

A possible explanation of how it is that Brown has avoided prosecution on several counts is that he has been working as an informant for the district attorney’s office. It is known that beginning in 2009, Brown began wearing a “wire,” that is, a hidden electronic audio device at work while he was serving in the capacity of Biane’s chief of staff. Reportedly, the target of this effort was Biane himself. To date, no incriminating statements by Biane on any of those tapes have surfaced or been produced by the prosecution, despite requests by defense attorneys for their production. Transcripts of some of those conversations have been turned over to defense attorneys.

At some point in the spring of 2010, Biane became aware that his chief-of-staff was seeking to entrap him. There ensued strained relations between the two and Brown was put on paid leave after he filed a claim in which he alleged he was being harassed. Brown was then transferred to the county treasurer/auditor-controller office under Larry Walker.

Walker installed Brown as his second-in-command, i.e. as the assistant auditor-controller. In so doing, Walker ousted his longtime assistant and close associate Betsy Starbuck, who was ignominiously sacked after having served more than twenty years as Walker’s right hand woman, both when Walker was Fourth District supervisor, the position he held before he ran for auditor-controller, and as auditor controller.

The displacement of Starbuck, who after more than eight years in the position of assistant auditor-controller practically ran the division, to accommodate the inexperienced Brown has sparked a widespread belief in the halls of the county that the move was imposed on Walker by county chief executive officer Greg Devereaux and district attorney Mike Ramos as part of an effort to protect a witness seen as crucial to the prosecution of the Colonies settlement criminal case. Collectively and individually, Walker, Brown, Devereaux and Ramos were unwilling to comment on the matter.

By Mark Gutgleuck
Friday, January 6, 2012
Originally Published: Friday, December 30, 2011

As of earlier this week, former state assemblyman Brett Granlund had actively avoided several attempts to serve him with a subpoena relating to the Colonies Settlement case.

Well informed sources have told the Sentinel that lawyers for the defendants in the Colonies case want to question Granlund with regard to his knowledge about several aspects of the criminal prosecution of former county supervisor Paul Biane, former Fourth Supervisorial District chief-of-staff Mark Kirk, former sheriff’s deputy union president Jim Erwin and Rancho Cucamonga-based developer Jeff Burum.

In May, Biane, Erwin, Kirk and Burum were named in a 29-count indictment charging them with conspiracy, bribery and extortion related to what prosecutors allege was an effort to improperly settle for a $102 million payout a lawsuit Burum’s company, Colonies Partners, had brought against the county over flood control issues at its development project in northeast Upland. In November 2006, Biane, who was then the county’s Second District supervisor, Fourth District supervisor Gary Ovitt and then-First District supervisor Bill Postmus voted to approve that settlement in a 3-2 vote opposed by then-supervisor Dennis Hansberger and supervisor Josie Gonzales.

Postmus, who along with Erwin was previously charged with conspiracy and bribery in conjunction with his vote on the $102 million settlement, in March pleaded guilty to soliciting and receiving bribes, conspiracy and conflict of interest, and agreed to turn state’s evidence. In April, he was the star witness before the grand jury that indicted Biane, Burum and Kirk and reindicted Erwin.

Prosecutors’ allege Burum, together with Erwin, who was once the president of the county’s sheriff’s deputies’ union and was then working as a consultant to the Colonies Partners, prior to the November 2006 vote threatened to carry out an informational campaign involving mailers revealing Postmus’ homosexuality and use of illegal drugs and Biane’s insolvency, but ultimately refrained from the distribution of the information. These “threatening, menacing, commanding or coercing” acts, constituted extortion, the prosecution alleges. After the vote, Burum provided two political action committees controlled by former supervisor Bill Postmus with separate $50,000 checks, a political action committee controlled by Erwin with a $100,000 check, a political action committee created by Kirk with a $100,000 check, and a political action committee founded by Biane’s chief-of-staff Matt Brown, but which prosecutors claim was secretly controlled by Biane, with a check for $100,000. Those checks constituted bribes, prosecutors maintain. Prosecutors allege that Kirk influenced Ovitt’s vote. Kirk at that time was Ovitt’s chief of staff.

Defense attorneys, who are now seeking to obtain information to compromise the credibility of Postmus, are interested in obtaining from Granlund documents related to his communication with individuals close to the district attorney as well as the district attorney directly or indirectly and information bearing upon the motivation driving the prosecution. Granlund was once a powerful player in Republican politics in San Bernardino County, as was Postmus. Granlund has close ties to former supervisor Dennis Hansberger, Hansberger’s one-time chief of staff Jim Rissmiller, district attorney Mike Ramos and others within Ramos’s political circle. Reportedly, Granlund served as a go-between in discussions involving the district attorney’s office and Postmus in the months leading up to Postmus’ decision to turn state’s evidence. Both Hansberger and Rissmiller testified before the grand jury that indicted Biane, Burum, Erwin and Kirk.

Sources tell the Sentinel that a private investigator and process server working for one defendant’s legal team has sought to make contact with Granlund to serve him with a subpoena. As of early this week, that effort has not succeeded and in recent days, Granlund has gone to ever more extreme effort to avoid being served, refusing to answer knocks upon his door and using other tactics to evade the process server. Efforts to locate him at Platinum Advisors, the Sacramento-based lobbying firm that employs him, were thwarted when employees claimed that Granlund does not work out of that office.

In conversations he assumed to be confidential with friends and associates in San Bernardino County and the state capitol, Granlund has expressed anger with the defense’s efforts to “drag” him into the matter and he expressed concern that the questions he might be subjected to could raise issues problematic to him personally and professionally.

UPLAND – G3 Holistic will remain open, for now.

West Valley Superior Court Judge Barry Plotkin on Friday postponed his decision on whether or not the co-op can remain open until the California Supreme Court decides whether to review G3′s appeal.

They will meet again on the issue Jan. 19 after the appellate court’s decision is reviewed by legal researchers. They will also determine if the court has the proper jurisdiction to make the decision.

“I am happy to resolve it today, but I don’t think we can,” Plotkin said, after expressing a desire to rule in favor of the city.

Aaron Sandusky, president of G3, re-opened the co-op last week pending the decision by the Supreme Court.

The Fourth District Court of Appeals in Nov. 9 ruled in favor of Upland’s ban on dispensaries through its zoning ordinance.

Sandusky is appealing the decision to the state Supreme Court and expects to hear back by Feb. 8.

“Mr. Sandusky will clearly shut down if the Supreme Court denies to review his appeal, so why is the city spending so much money fighting over another 30 days?” G3′s attorney Roger Jon Diamond said.

G3 closed in August 2010 after the West Valley Superior Court granted the city a permanent injunction.

To read entire story, click here.

A Republican group backing a referendum challenging newly drawn state Senate districts believes they have inched closer to qualifying just days before the California Supreme Court will hear arguments over whether it should intervene.

A sampling of the 709,000 signatures collected by Fairness and Accountability in Redistricting projects that 490,357 are valid, according to the secretary of state’s website on Friday.

That’s roughly 14,000 shy of the threshold to qualify the referendum once the verified signatures are tallied. The latest count doesn’t include sample results from 13 counties that still need to report their numbers to the secretary of state’s office by Tuesday, when the court will hear arguments.

To read entire story, click here.

UPLAND – A week later: It’s still open.

Medical marijuana collective G3 Holistics Inc. continues to be open for business, but it may not be so for long.

The collective at Suite F4 at 1710 W. Foothill Blvd. has been keeping regular hours from 8 a.m. to 9 p.m. daily since reopening last Friday.

But on Thursday, attorneys for the city served papers saying they want to shut down G3, said Roger Jon Diamond, who represents the cooperative in its efforts to remain open in Upland.

The case is scheduled to be heard at 8:30 this morning in Department R9 in West Valley Superior Court in Rancho Cucamonga, Diamond said.

“We say the city is wasting tax money because if the (state) Supreme Court denies our petition for review the appeal would be over at that time,” Diamond said. “So why not wait for Supreme Court to act?”

On Nov. 9, a judgment by the Fourth District Court of Appeals in Riverside determined Upland’s banning of the collective did not contradict Proposition 215, the 1996 law that approved medical marijuana in the state, nor Senate Bill 420, which details the amount of marijuana a person can possess for medical purposes.

Collective president Aaron Sandusky and Diamond said their appeal of the the Upland case to the Supreme Court could be heard in February.

Sandusky said he believes G3 Holistics was able to reopen in Upland because he had filed a stay against the injunction obtained by Upland,

“The point is if the state Supreme Court says no to us, (Sandusky) closes,” Diamond said on Thursday. “So shouldn’t we wait for the Supreme Court to act? That’s the question. There’s no emergency that requires immediate action. We dispute the stay dissolved. The stay of appeal lasts until the Supreme Court acts in this case.”

To read entire story, click here.

Former San Bernardino County Sheriff’s deputy Nathan Gastineau sits during his preliminary hearing in a San Bernardino Superior Courtroom December 15, 2011. Gastineau, 30, of Redlands, is charged with sexual acts with a teenaged female Explorer. (Gabriel Luis Acosta, Staff Photographer)

Mike Cruz, Staff Writer
Posted: 01/03/2012 04:17:20 PM PST

SAN BERNARDINO – A Redlands girl who says she was sexually abused by a former sheriff’s deputy while in the sheriff’s Explorer program also alleges in a civil lawsuit that administrators at the Sheriff’s Department and the Public Safety Academy, a charter school in San Bernardino, were negligent or failed to act.

Los Angeles-based attorney John West of the office of Gloria Allred filed the personal injury lawsuit on Dec. 13 in San Bernardino Superior Court on behalf of the unnamed girl and her father.

Defendants named in the lawsuit are former Deputy Nathan Gastineau, the charter school, the Sheriff’s Department and the city of Highland, according to a copy of the lawsuit obtained Tuesday.

The plaintiffs allege four main causes of action, including negligence, sexual harassment in the workplace and sexual battery, and seek an unspecified amount of general, compensatory and special damages.

“I have no comment on the matter,” West said when reached Tuesday by telephone.

Gastineau, 31, also of Redlands, was arrested in April when the Sheriff’s Department learned he may have had inappropriate sexual relations with the 16-year-old girl. By June, he was no longer a deputy.

Gastineau was charged on June 10 and is awaiting trial on five criminal counts each of committing a lewd act upon a child and two counts of having unlawful intercourse.

He has pleaded not guilty in San Bernardino Superior Court. His lawyer in the criminal case, Andrew Haynal, has challenged the girl’s statement to sheriff’s detectives.

“I think the alleged victim has a lot of discrepancies in her various statements,” Haynal told the court at a Dec. 15 preliminary hearing.

The girl met Gastineau through the Explorer program at the sheriff’s Highland station, deputies testified at the hearing.

After initially denying to detectives that she had sex with Gastineau, the girl later admitted to having sex with him about 20 times – six times before her 16th birthday, according to sheriff’s Detective Julie Brumm.

To read entire story, click here.

January 03, 2012 1:50 PM
Brooke Edwards Staggs, City Editor

VICTORVILLE • An attorney is seeking to recover more than $9 million in damages on behalf of 4,300 people who’ve received tickets from Victorville’s red light cameras, claiming the system is “unfair, unlawful, fraudulent and deceptive.”

Robert Conaway, a criminal defense attorney from Barstow, sent notice in early December to the city of Victorville and Redflex Traffic Systems that he intends to file a class action lawsuit unless changes are made with the way red light cameras are handled here. He updated that notice in late December, tacking on the calculated damages.

Conaway is seeking to recover more than $2 million for each of the $490 fines paid by convicted residents, $6 million for resulting higher insurance premiums, $215,000 for legal fees paid by those who tried to fight the tickets and $860,000 to cover lost wages for those forced to miss work to attend arraignments or trials.

Along with actual damages, Conaway states he hopes to recover up to three times that amount in punitive damages from Redflex, or up to $28.5 million.

The thrust of Conaway’s argument against the cameras is that they violate civil rights because the accused don’t have the opportunity to confront their accuser, with a private, for-profit company in charge of first processing the evidence against alleged red light runners.

Conaway said he hasn’t heard any response back from either the city or Redflex since he sent his initial claim dated Dec. 9. If the two parties don’t agree within 30 days from receiving that notice to stop issuing tickets or assign San Bernardino County Sheriff’s deputies to watch the live video feed and issue tickets as the violations occur, Conaway said he intends to file the class action lawsuit.

A spokesman for Redflex and the city’s attorney have both previously said they don’t believe there are grounds for a lawsuit.

Victorville’s next City Council meeting — where the group can discuss the claim in closed session and potentially vote on whether to reject or agree to Conaway’s demands — is scheduled for Jan. 17

Brooke Edwards Staggs may be reached at (760) 955-5358 or at bedwards@VVDailyPress.com.

Get complete stories every day with the “exactly as printed” Daily Press E-edition, only $5 per month! Click here to try it free for 7 days. To subscribe to the Daily Press in print or online, call (760) 241-7755, 1-800-553-2006 or click here.

.