Sunday, May 20, 2012 – 03:30 p.m.

An interesting turn of events is unfolding in the taxpayer lawsuit filed by Upland lawyer Corey Briggs on behalf of two groups known as The Inland Oversight Committee and Citizens for Responsible Equitable Government.

The purpose of the lawsuit is to force the San Bernardino County Flood Control District to recover $102 million it paid Colonies Partners L.P. to settle litigation surrounding a land use dispute over a flood control basin located in Upland.

In a new twist, Briggs may have picked up a new ally in his quest to force the recovery of the funds.

That new friend being the Board of Supervisors.

Online court records reveal that on May 16 the County Counsel’s office has filed a request for stay of all proceedings in the case.

The move comes one day after Colonies Partners L.P. filed a second demurrer to have the case thrown out of court.

A previous demurrer, filed by Colonies, forced Briggs to amend his complaint in an attempt to salvage the suit in its entirety.

A ruling on the stay request and second demurrer is currently set for June 11.

By Howard Mintz
hmintz@mercurynews.com
Posted: 05/18/2012 05:41:38 AM PDT
Updated: 05/18/2012 05:42:00 AM PDT

California’s judges will now have to post all their financial disclosure information in cyberspace.

In a unanimous decision, the state’s Fair Political Practices Commission on Thursday approved a rule that requires California’s more than 1,700 judges to post their disclosure forms on the Internet, despite objections from judicial leaders that it could jeopardize their privacy and security.

The FPPC decided to impose the 2-year-old rule on judges that already had been applied to the rest of the state’s elected officials.

To read entire story, click here.

Posted: 05/14/2012 06:14:43 PM PDT

SBD Airport Services’ attempt to convince a federal judge to restore the company’s access to San Bernardinno International Airport’s fueling facilities has been postponed to June 18.

The company was previously scheduled to make its argumen tbefore Judge Deborah J. Saltzman on Monday at U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Riverside. The fuel issue is part of the company’s ongoing bankruptcy case.

SBD Airport Services declared bankruptcy in March, about one month after interim SBIA chief A.J. Wilson terminated the company’s fuel contract. Wilson moved against the company after the firm did not have enough fuel on hand to propvide the full amount of fuel requested by a 727 pilot.

To read entire story, click here.

L.A. NOW
Southern California — this just in
May 14, 2012 | 1:29 pm

State judicial leaders warned Monday that the proposed cuts for the California courts may jeopardize public access to the justice system.

During the last three years, the state’s huge court system has been cut by $650 million. The new proposed budget would shrink the system by another $544 million, freezing construction to replace dilapidated courthouses.

The new cuts come after Gov. Jerry Brown released a revised $91-billion budget in response to the state deficit that has ballooned to $16 billion, nearly twice what the governor projected when he released his initial budget proposal in January. In addition to the court cuts, Brown is proposing sharp cuts to health and welfare spending, and a 5% reduction in state payrolls.

California Chief Justice Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye called for an emergency meeting Monday of judicial leaders to determine how the courts should respond.

“The proposed cuts to the judicial branch are both devastating and disheartening,” Cantil-Sakauye said. “They will seriously compromise the public’s access to their courts and our ability to provide equal access to justice throughout the state.”

To read entire story, click here.

The Sacramento-based Criminal Justice Legal Foundation petitioned the 3rd District Court of Appeals today to remove from the November ballot a proposal to abolish the death penalty in California, arguing it violates the state’s “single-subject rule” for initiatives.

The foundation said abolishing the death penalty while also authorizing the distribution of $100 million to local law enforcement agencies to help solve murder and rape cases violates a requirement that ballot measures address only one subject.

“This kind of manipulation, forcing the people to vote on two different measures as an all-or-nothing choice, is exactly what the single-subject rule was put in the Constitution to prevent,” the foundation’s Kent Scheidegger said in a prepared statement.

To read entire story, click here.

Staff report
Posted: 05/12/2012 03:07:54 PM PDT

Attorneys for the bankrupt SBD Airport Services will go before a federal judge Monday to contend that interim San Bernardino International Airport chief A.J. Wilson acted improperly when he cut off the company’s access to jet fuel.

The hearing is scheduled to take place Monday afternoon at U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Riverside.

SBD Airport Services filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in March. The bankruptcy filing came one month after Wilson asserted the company violated its fuel contract and blocked the firm’s access to the airport’s fuel supplies and trucks.

Monday’s hearing is related to the bankruptcy hearings, as SBD Airport Services attorneys have argued the company needs access to the airport’s “fuel farm” in order to conduct business.

In a court filing, Wilson and the airport reply that SBIA officials had a right to terminate the airport’s fuel services agreement with SBD Airport Services because the company did not have the minimum amount of fuel in its tanks to live up to its side of the deal.

The fuel dispute stems from a February incident in which the pilot of a 727 jet was unable to purchase the full amount of requested fuel.

Wilson moved quickly to cancel SBD Airport Service’s fuel contract. Airport staffers have since handled fuel sales on their own.

To read entire story, click here.

Ryan Hagen, The (San Bernardino County) Sun
Posted: 05/10/2012 11:09:14 AM PDT

SAN BERNARDINO – The results of the election for city clerk will stand, a Superior Court judge ruled Thursday, rejecting a claim by 15 voters whose ballots weren’t counted because of signature mismatches.

The trial had the potential to change the outcome of the city clerk’s race, in which Georgeann “Gigi” Hanna – a former public relations official and journalist who took office March 5 – gathered six votes more than Amelia Sanchez-Lopez, who heads the county Alcohol and Drug Services Administration.

But Superior Court Judge Donna Gunnell Garza ruled that county Registrar of Voters Michael J. Scarpello acted properly when he discarded 64 ballots with signatures Scarpello and other elections officials decided didn’t match

“The parties were not denied the right to vote because the right to vote involves the right to be counted properly,” Garza said, noting that the Election Code says ballots with signatures that don’t match shall not be counted.

One vote, from a disabled man whose wife signed the ballot, should have been counted, Garza said, but that wouldn’t change the overall result.

Sandra Garcia, the lawyer representing the voters, argued Scarpello should have contacted them between the time he noticed the signature discrepancy and the Feb. 7 election date or between then and the Feb. 28 recount.

“The voters were denied – not once but twice – their opportunity to be heard,” Garcia said. “It’s not about the candidates. It’s not about the office. It’s about their fundamental right to vote.”

To read entire story, click here.

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

Published: 04 May 2012 05:40 PM

Four judicial races in Riverside County’s June 5 election have divided the region’s usually collegial legal community and brought out issues much larger than the names on the ballot.

It’s lit up court hallway debates over the quality of the county’s judiciary, campaign money, judicial rulings and temperament, and even whether judicial elections are the right way to the bench.

Two of the races in Riverside have drawn the most attention and the most contention; they include accusations of big-money influence from public employee political action committees, countered by claims that it’s time for judges in the county to be held to answer at election time, the same as supervisors or city council members.

This is the first time in 18 years that any seated judge in Riverside County has had to fight for his or her non-partisan office. A majority of judges are first appointed by a governor; judicial elections in Riverside County are usually over vacant positions.

Twelve offices were up for election in the county next month, and the unopposed eight will begin a new six-year cycle without appearing on the ballot. If there are no vacant benches, or challenges to incumbents, big gaps of time can go by before a superior court election of any kind comes before voters.

Two of the judges fighting for re-election are currently seated in Riverside, and two are in the desert. Judicial offices are countywide, but judges generally work in the same courthouses for years.

For the Riverside benches, Superior Court Judge Craig Riemer is being challenged by Supervising Deputy District Attorney John Henry, while Judge Gary Tranbarger faces a former prosecutor, Richard T. Nixon, who is now in private practice.

Judge Victoria E. Cameron, seated at the Larson Justice Center in Indio, is being challenged by attorney Thomas Eckhardt. And Judge James A. Cox, assigned to a Palm Springs probate court, faces attorney Michael Kennedy.

The races in Riverside pit those who support Riemer and Tranbarger against not only their opponents, but also the motives of Henry and Nixon’s financial backing . The challengers’ supporters say the big donations are vital for the uphill push needed against incumbents Riemer and Tranbarger, especially in a “bottom-of-the-ballot” race.

Henry has reported receiving $100,000 from the political action committee for the Riverside County Deputy District Attorneys Association, a union representing the county’s prosecutors.

He has also received $14,000 from other law-enforcement PACs, including those from Palm Springs, Corona, and Riverside police officers associations, and the Riverside County Sheriff’s Association.Henry has the backing of some defense attorneys as well.

Riemer’s and Tranbarger’s supporters say they are trying to preserve the quality of the judiciary against efforts to politicize it . They say prosecutors are targeting two judges who have been willing to take heat with unpopular rulings that follow the law, and who insist on precision in documents and court presentations.

“I think it is outrageous,” defense attorney Virginia Blumenthal said of the challenge to Riemer in particular, calling it “a threat to an independent judiciary…I am fearful of it.”

A Riemer campaign letter circulated to members of the Riverside County Bar Association said that of all the challenged judgeships, “the most serious threat is that to Judge Riemer,” and describes Henry’s campaign as “the union’s attempt to buy (Riemer’s) seat.”

The letter says successful civil attorneys who might be qualified for the bench will be discouraged from leaving a lucrative private practice for the public-service salary of a judge, if the expense of an election fight every six years is a certainty. The result, the letter suggests, is that the bench will chiefly become attractive to those whose salaries will be increased by gaining it.

‘We Went All In’

For those seeking to oust the judges, it’s a chance to revive contested judicial elections in Riverside County as the state constitution’s path for voters to pick judges. And they say they are being open about their effort.

“We went all in – there’s no doubt about that. We want John Henry to win, and we went to great lengths to explain ourselves,” said Riverside County Deputy District Attorney Michael Hestrin, vice president of the association, which represents about 280 prosecutors.

To read entire story, click here.

A San Bernardino Superior Court judge on Friday rejected a motion to dismiss a case against a High Desert developer accused of lying to the Grand Jury about his role in a political action committee.

Judge J. David Mazurek denied the motion filed on behalf of John Dino DeFazio, 52, of Apple Valley, who stands charged with six felony counts of perjury. A pretrial hearing is now scheduled for June 22.

In his motion filed last month, DeFazio’s attorney, Richard Ewanisyk argued prosecutors are relying on uncorroborated witness information and therefore cannot charge his client with the crimes.

DeFazio, however, has been able to corroborate his assertion that he controlled all activities associated with the Inland Empire PAC. The PAC’s bylaws showed DeFazio as chairman and High Desert developers Mike Gallagher and Jeff Bentow as board members. Bentow and Gallagher, however, denied having any knowledge they were listed as members of the PAC, according to the motion.

State and local prosecutors allege former county Assessor Bill Postmus secretly controlled the PAC. Postmus, a Rancho Cucamonga developer and three former county officials have been linked to a sweeping county corruption probe in which prosecutors allege a land rights lawsuit settled in November 2006 for $102 million was tainted by bribery and blackmail.

To read entire story, click here.

Sandra Emerson, Staff Writer
Created: 05/03/2012 08:54:13 AM PDT

Anthony Orlando Sanchez pleaded guilty Thursday in federal court in Riverside, admitting to conspiracy to commit bribery.

Sanchez, 36, was charged with acting as a conduit between an Upland business and former Mayor John Pomierski. Pomierski pleaded guilty last week in the bribery case.

Two other counts against Sanchez will be dropped when he is sentenced Aug. 13 in federal court.

Sanchez has been in custody since January, after he returned from a year abroad. He fled to Honduras in January 2011. A warrant was issued for his arrest in March 2011.

Sanchez will be released upon payment of a $150,000 bond, $100,000 of which is required to be secured by deeding property to the court.

“When he’s released, he will be on home detention with electronic monitoring and then that will basically wrap the case up for everyone now until sentencing,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Jerry Behnke said.

To read entire story, click here.

May 3, 2012 | 4:30 pm

Moving swiftly after a judge dismissed its case, the district attorney’s office refiled 24 perjury and voter-fraud charges late Thursday afternoon against Councilman Richard Alarcon and his wife, Flora Montes De Oca Alarcon.

The new charges make the same allegations as a case thrown out by Superior Court Judge Kathleen Kennedy on Thursday morning, accusing the Alarcons of lying about living in a house in Panorama City so that the councilman could run for his 7th District office.

It was not immediately clear when the Alarcons would be arraigned.

Dist. Atty. Steve Cooley’s action came just hours after Kennedy’s ruling. The judge threw out a July 2010 indictment of the couple on 24 felony charges after finding the prosecution failed to properly instruct grand jurors of their duty to consider exonerating defense evidence.

Cooley disputed her legal reasoning, saying the judge ignored legal precedents when she dismissed the grand jury indictment.

“The grand jury transcripts clearly show that our prosecutors did indeed present evidence submitted by the councilman and his wife,” Cooley said. “The grand jury chose not to consider it, as is their right.”

There was no immediate comment from Alarcon.

Thursday’s charges mirror the earlier indictment against Richard Alarcon, including two felony counts of filing false candidacy papers in 2006 and 2008, seven counts of voter fraud and nine counts of perjury. Montes de Oca Alarcon is again charged with three counts of perjury and three counts of voter fraud.

To read entire story, click here.

Document: Read the amended complaint (.pdf file)

An attorney who filed a lawsuit seeking reimbursement for taxpayers of the $102 million settlement made by the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors in 2006 with Rancho Cucamonga-based developer Colonies Partners LP has made slight amendments to his complaint.

Cory Briggs said he added some language to the complaint, which he filed in February in San Bernardino County Court, in order to fill in information that attorneys for the Colonies said was needed.

“We added some allegations to fill in some alleged gaps and even though we don’t think we needed to do that we did it just in an abundance of caution,” he said.

The suit alleges that because former Board of Supervisors Chairman Bill Postmus pleaded guilty in March to taking bribes while attempting to reach the settlement with the Colonies, he violated California Government Code Section 1090.

Code 1090 said public officials “shall not be financially interested in any contract made by them in their official capacity, or by any body or board of which they are members.”

To read entire story, click here.

Dan Walters

By Dan Walters
dwalters@sacbee.com
Published: Monday, Apr. 30, 2012 – 12:00 am | Page 3A

A professional-quality video clip that popped up on YouTube depicts physical deficiencies in California courtrooms and makes the case for building new courthouses and rehabbing old ones.

The video, containing scene after scene of overcrowded courtrooms, mouse traps and water damage, was produced for the Judicial Council, the San Francisco-based policymaking body for California’s court system.

It’s ammunition in the latest skirmish between the council, headed by Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye, and the rebellious Alliance of California Judges over how to deal with cutbacks in state court financing.

The ACJ has accused the Judicial Council and the Administrative Office of the Courts of wasting money on a bloated bureaucracy, an unworkable centralized computer system and a multibillion-dollar courthouse construction program while local courts have been forced into periodic shutdowns and employee furloughs.

The Alliance won one skirmish recently when the Judicial Council canceled the computer program.

The rebels also won Assembly passage of a bill, bitterly opposed by Cantil-Sakauye and her allies, that would give local courts more authority over allocation of funds.

And now the battle is shifting to the construction program, which critics say is too grandiose and is gobbling up money that should be diverted into support for court operations.

In 2008, the Legislature, at the behest of Cantil-Sakauye’s predecessor, Ron George, authorized up to $5 billion in bonds to finance courthouse construction, to be repaid through increases in fines, fees and assessments on court system users.

To read entire column, click here.

Sunday, April 29. 2012 – 01:00 p.m.

As a service to many of our readers. Here is today’s legal definition courtesy of Cornell University Law School.

Intentional Tort defined: A type of tort that can only result from an intentional act of the defendant. Depending on the exact tort alleged, either general or specific intent will need to be proven. Common intentional torts are battery, assault, false imprisonment, trespass to land, trespass to chattels, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Definition from Nolo’s Plain-English Law Dictionary:

A deliberate act that causes harm to another, for which the victim may sue the wrongdoer for damages. Acts of domestic violence, such as assault and battery, are intentional torts (as well as crimes).

Sandra Emerson, Staff Writer
Created: 04/28/2012 07:19:08 PM PDT

UPLAND – Former Upland Mayor John Pomierski’s admission to accepting a $5,000 bribe from an Upland business does not worry city officials from a legal standpoint.

Pomierski pleaded guilty Thursday in U.S. District Court in Riverside to accepting a bribe from the owners of Chronic Cantina restaurant as part of a plea agreement.

Mayor Ray Musser and City Manager Stephen Dunn both said they don’t expect Pomierski’s plea to affect the city’s stance in lawsuits against the city.

The restaurant owners and the property owners both have sued the city, accusing Pomierski of extorting money from them in return for obtaining a new conditional use permit.

The City Council revoked the restaurant’s conditional use permit in April 2009.

The permit was revoked after reports were made to the council from the Police Department citing an increase in crime at the restaurant.

The restaurant owners claim the calls for police service originated elsewhere in the city.

Following the revocation, the restaurant owners took the city to court, but lost.

Dunn said the city has been defending itself against both lawsuits.

“We feel that JP’s guilty plea is not going to have any impact as far as the city is concerned because it was simply an issue with their conditional use permit and we already beat them in the court on the issues of that,” Dunn said. “Any action that the former mayor had done had nothing to do with that. We’ve consistently beat them.”

Chronic Cantina, a limited liability company, filed a claim for damages and complaint at City Hall and West Valley Superior Court in Rancho Cucamonga in April 2011, accusing Pomierski and former Building Appeals Board member John Hennes of extorting money from the business in order to allow it to stay open.

Pomierski admitted to accepting the bribe in exchange for helping the owners obtain a new conditional use permit.

Katrina Foley, attorney representing Chronic Cantina owners Keith Scheinberg and Dan Biello, said the case is currently at a standstill due to Pomierski’s recently filing for bankruptcy as well as the federal case.

“Certainly an admission of guilt will have an impact both in our civil case in establishing our burden of proof as well as an impact, I would assume, on the bankruptcy proceedings,” Foley said. “Arguably he’s filing for bankruptcy to avoid having to pay his debt for all the damages caused from the bribery scheme.”

The suit claims that because Pomierski was an agent of the city, the city is implicated as well.

“That business was shut down because of the wrongful acts of the agents of the city,” Foley said. “Somebody’s got to be held accountable for that.”

To read entire story, click here.

By Joe Nelson
Posted: 04/26/2012 05:53:53 PM PDT

A jury on Thursday ruled in favor of the city of Colton and against its former police chief, Ken Rulon, in a wrongful termination lawsuit Rulon brought against the city in 2007.

Rulon alleged in the lawsuit that he was fired in April 2007 for reporting to the District Attorney’s Office allegations of corruption against city officials.

The 9-woman, three-man jury began deliberating Tuesday after the 20-day trial.

“The evidence, we felt, was weak,” said juror Jacque Smith, 50, of Redlands. “We didn’t see the city retaliating against him (Rulon).” Rulon’s attorney, Dan Stormer, said he will appeal, and that the process can take up to 18 months.

“I’m disappointed,” Stormer said following the reading of the verdict. “I think the fraudulent mudslinging took its toll. It does not speak well to the city of Colton.

Attorney John Higginbotham, who defended the city and its former city manager, Daryl Parrish, in the lawsuit, was not surprised by the verdict.

“This is the outcome we’ve always expected,” Higginbotham said outside the courtroom. “The whole police department revolted against this guy, and not just police officers, but dispatchers, clerks and his own secretary too.”

Among the allegations Rulon reported to the District Attorney’s Office included former Councilman Ramon Hernandez’s abuse of his city-issued credit card. Hernandez racked up thousands of dollars in charges for unauthorized motel stays with his gay lover and calls to telephone sex lines between December 2004 and May 2006.

The allegations led to the District Attorney’s Office charging Hernandez with 24 felony counts. Hernandez pleaded guilty to the charges and was sentenced in April 2008 to 180 days in jail, which he was allowed to serve on the weekends.

Rulon and the city disputed the timeliness in which the allegations were reported to the District Attorney’s Office. Rulon’s attorney, Dan Stormer, said Rulon reported the situation after he met with Hernandez on June 27, 2006 to discuss the credit card and cell phone charges. Rulon also provided information to prosecutors on questionable conduct by other council members.

Stormer said the city and Parrish went to great lengths to cover its tracks and was aware of Hernandez’s credit card abuse for more than a year before Rulon took action and reported it to the proper authorities.

In June 2005, Deirdre Bennett, then Colton’s Mayor, said she was informed by the city’s finance department about $1,500 in charges to motel rooms on Hernandez’s city-issued credit card. She testified that she first refused to sign the invoice after it was made clear the city was going to cover Hernandez’s unpaid credit card debt, but ultimately relented when she was told it could affect the city’s credit rating if she didn’t.

To read entire story, click here.

Pomierski

Thursday, April 26, 2012 – 11:45 a.m.

Former Upland Mayor John “J.P.” Pomierski entered into a plea agreement before Federal Judge Virginia Philips in U.S. District Court in Riverside on Thursday morning.

The plea agreement stems from charges related to influence peddling.

Under federal sentencing guidelines, the agreement will obligate Pomierski to likely serve 27 to 33 months in-custody.

To read the agreement click here: Pomierski Plea Agreement

Thursday, April 26, 2012 – 09:45 a.m.

Here’s some interesting news on the transom this week.

Retirement savings plans under attack.

Yes, it’s finally happening. The feds are discussing the taxation of various retirement savings accounts to generate revenue. As their coffers dwindle, expect federal, state and local government to squeeze taxpayers.

Unemployment claims rising again

388,000 Americans filed for unemployment benefits last week. Not a good number for an economy that’s supposedly improving. Should claims break 400,000 it would definitely be an omen of bad things to come.

Romney steam rolling to nomination

Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney swept 5 primaries Tuesday night on his way to the republican nomination. Texas Governor Rick Perry has already endorsed Romney. Former Speaker Newt Gingrich and Former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum are expected to follow. Romney’s early taking of the field doesn’t bode well for President Barack Obama, who was counting on and extended GOP primary fight to consume Romney’s funding.

Morris for San Bernardino Mayor?

The other Morris that is!

Yes, sources are saying that, Jim Morris, the chief of staff to, and son of San Bernardino Mayor Pat Morris, is pondering a run to replace his father.

Taxpayer lawsuit over Colonies settlement hits the skids

The taxpayer lawsuit filed against the San Bernardino County Flood Control District by Upland Attorney Corey Briggs hit the skids this week after Colonies Partners, L.P. filed a motion to throw the case out of court. Briggs amended his complaint to keep the case on life support until Colonies attorney Stephen Larson files a new demurrer in San Bernardino County Superior Court.

Aleman making a comeback?

Former Assistant Assessor and Bill Postmus operative, Adam Aleman, may be trying to re-enter politics. Aleman is rumored to be working on the Paul Cook congressional campaign and assisting anti-drug crusader and former Assembly hopeful Paul Chabot.

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

Published: 25 April 2012 05:56 PM

President Obama has nominated Jesus Bernal, who heads the Inland-area public defender’s office in Riverside, as a judge for the vacant federal court bench in Riverside, Sen. Barbara Boxer’s office announced Wednesday.

Bernal served since July 2006 as the directing attorney for the Federal Public Defender’s Office in Riverside, overseeing a staff that handles cases for indigent defendants in Riverside and San Bernardino counties.

A cum laude graduate of Yale University who earned his law degree from Stanford, Bernal was admitted to the state bar in 1990.

If he is confirmed by the senate, he will become the only Latino district court judge serving the eastern division of the sprawling U.S. District Court’s Central District of California, Boxer’s office said.

To read entire story, click here.

April 24, 2012 5:41 PM
ShareThis| Print Story | E-Mail Story
Brooke Edwards Staggs, City Editor

VICTORVILLE • The class action lawsuit over Victorville’s red light cameras has been moved from state to federal court, with the city motioning to dismiss the case while a local attorney gears up for a potentially precedent-setting battle.

The venue change came at the request of Redflex Traffic Systems, the private company that operates 10 cameras in Victorville and is a codefendant in the case alongside the city.

In April 13 court documents requesting the switch, Redflex attorneys argue the case deals with a federal law, since the lawsuit claims Victorville’s red light camera system violates due process rights.

The camera company also argued a federal perspective is fitting since most of the plaintiffs in the class action suit are from the Victorville area while Redflex is based in Arizona and Delaware.

“It seems the city’s ties to Redflex are so strong that Redflex’s lawyers somehow got the city to waive their right to stay in state court,” Robert Conaway, the Barstow attorney representing Victorville resident Michael Curran and everyone who’s been cited by the cameras here, wrote in a statement on the switch. “Hopefully the move was not to escape scrutiny by citizens in the Victor Valley who are the victims of what Mr. Curran has alleged in an unfair and illegal agreement and business practice.”

The claim, which was filed in San Bernardino County Superior Court in February, states the camera system “violates the long standing legal rule that for an officer to cite a citizen for an infraction, it must be done ‘In the Presence’ of the officer.” And, since employees with Redflex are the ones first viewing the alleged violations, it states testimony from local deputies should be inadmissible as evidence.

Conaway is hoping to recover more than $9 million in damages on behalf of 4,300 people who’ve received tickets from Victorville’s red light cameras since they were installed in 2008. He also hopes to recover up to three times that amount in punitive damages from Redflex, or up to $28.5 million.

Fred Burnside, attorney for Redflex with Davis Wright Tremaine in Los Angeles, declined to discuss the active litigation.

Harvey Wimer III, the Riverside-based attorney with Graves & King who’s representing Victorville in the suit, didn’t respond to requests for comment.

Victorville’s motion to dismiss the case is scheduled to be heard in U.S District Court on May 21.

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.

Capitol Alert
The latest on California politics and government
April 24, 2012

Post has been updated throughout the afternoon with responses and additional reporting.

A Sacramento Superior Court judge has tentatively ruled that the state controller has no authority to judge whether the state budget is balanced or block lawmakers’ pay as he did last June.

In a bitter feud during last year’s budget battle, Controller John Chiang determined that the budget passed by legislative Democrats was not balanced. Using new powers he believed he had under voter-approved Proposition 25, Chiang then blocked lawmakers’ pay and expense money for 12 days until they cut a budget deal with Gov. Jerry Brown.

In a tentative ruling today, Judge David I. Brown said that the controller does not have discretion to determine whether the Legislature’s budget is balanced. Proposition 25 said that lawmakers must approve a balanced budget by June 15 or else lose their pay.

Brown’s ruling essentially says that the Legislature can determine for itself whether a budget is balanced.

“A contrary result could threaten to undermine the Legislature’s essential function,” Brown wrote today.

Chiang’s office did not indicate today how it would proceed beyond making the scheduled oral arguments Wednesday in Sacramento Superior Court. Brown could issue a final decision at any time after tomorrow’s arguments.

In a statement, Chiang said, “The court’s tentative ruling flies in the face of the voters’ will by allowing legislators to keep their salaries flowing by simply slapping the title ‘budget act’ on a sheet of paper by June 15. Adopting an unbalanced and unfinanceable budget may ensure they are paid, but the people of California will be stuck with delayed payments and IOUs once that ‘budget’ falls apart.”

The court decision confirms one of the chief criticisms of Proposition 25 during the campaign – that lawmakers have wide discretion in determining what a balanced budget is. Opponents in 2010 claimed that lawmakers could pass any budget just to get paid, but Chiang, at least for one year, upended that theory.

Judge Brown wrote that if Chiang believes that the budget is not balanced, he should challenge their plan in court rather than initiate his own review.

To read entire story, click here.

By Marc Lifsher
April 23, 2012, 1:10 p.m.

SACRAMENTO — Federal securities regulators sued a former chief executive and a former director of the country’s largest public pension fund, accusing them of scheming to defraud an investment firm of more than $20 million in fees.

The Securities and Exchange Commission filed the lawsuit Monday against the former CEO, Federico Buenrostro Jr., and the former CalPERS board member, Alfred J.R. Villalobos, alleging that they fabricated documents provided to Apollo Global Management in New York.

The documents were the basis used by Villalobos and his companies, ARVCO Capital Research and ARVCO Financial Venturues of Zephyr Cove, Nev., to bill Apollo for placement fees.

Villalobos was paid the fees for helping Apollo win multibillion-dollar contracts to invest money on behalf of the California Public Employees’ Retirement System.

The alleged phony documents were patched together to comply with requests from Apollo lawyers that Villalobos provide them with proof that the fees had been approved by CalPERS investment staff.

To read entire story, click here.

Monday, April 23, 2012 – 03:00 p.m.

A lawsuit filed by an Upland lawyer to force San Bernardino County to recover $102 million it paid Colonies Partners L.P., in a 2006 settlement over a flood control land use dispute, appears to have hit a snag.

Attorney Corey Briggs, who is representing a group calling itself The Inland Oversight Committee, has filed an amended lawsuit in San Bernardino Superior Court on today, according to an online court docket.

The move comes after Colonies Partners intervened in the action by filing a demurrer challenging the validity of Brigg’s lawsuit on March 28.

The Colonies request for dismissal was set to be ruled on Tuesday.

Briggs latest maneuver keeps the case alive for the time being.

Dan Walters

By Dan Walters
dwalters@sacbee.com
Published: Sunday, Apr. 22, 2012 – 12:00 am | Page 3A

The California Legislature has a bad habit of making sweeping decisions in the moment without giving much thought to their long-term consequences.

The syndrome’s most striking example was an immense overhaul in 1996 of the state’s electric power system, misnamed “deregulation,” based on blithe, untested assertions that it would lower power bills.

Within a few years, it proved to have exactly the opposite effect, driving utilities to insolvency and raising power bills for years, if not decades.

Just a year after it issued the energy decree, the Legislature decided that the state should take over financing of the California courts, the largest judicial system in the nation. At the time, state revenues were strong, and it was touted as a way of easing a major financial burden on counties.

But like so many of the Legislature’s fiscal decisions, it has turned into a disaster.

The courts became, in effect, just another state agency. As the budget began leaking red ink, politicians saw the courts as something to whack because they lacked the legal protections and political clout of categories such as K-12 education.

Over the past four years, state support for courts has been cut by $653 million, according to a new report from the Legislature’s budget analyst. That’s been offset somewhat with fiscal gimmicks, such as tapping into courthouse construction funds. Gov. Jerry Brown proposes another $350 million cut in his 2012-13 budget.

To read entire story, click here.

Joe Nelson, Staff Writer
Posted: 04/20/2012 12:11:17 PM PDT

A San Bernardino Superior Court judge on Friday lifted bail for four defendants in the Colonies Partners corruption scandal, freeing them from having to pay an annual bond premium as the one-year anniversary of their arrest nears.

On behalf of defendant and Colonies’co-managing partner Jeff Burum, attorney Stephen Larson said Burum poses no flight risk and has abided by the terms of his bail since posting bond on the $10 million bail days after his arrest last May.

Larson also spoke on behalf of the other three defendants – former county Supervisor Paul Biane, former Assistant Assessor Jim Erwin, and Mark Kirk, former chief of staff for Supervisor Gary Ovitt. Their attorneys joined Larson in his motion.

“We believe it’s appropriate to release them on their own recognizance,” Larson told Judge Michael A. Smith. He said requiring each defendant to continue paying the annual bond premiums would pose financial hardship on them.

Prosecutors did not oppose the move on condition the defendants continued to abide by the travel restrictions previously imposed upon them by the court. They are not allowed to leave the country while their case is being adjudicated and must notify prosecutors if they plan to leave the state.

To read entire story, click here.

Published: 20 April 2012 11:42 AM

A San Bernardino County Superior Court judge agreed Friday to lift bail for three former county officials and a developer facing corruption charges.

Judge Michael Smith agreed to allow the four men to remain free on their own recognizance as the case continues to remain in the pre-trial stage almost a year after the defendants were indicted.

Last May, a grand jury charged Colonies Partners co-managing partner Jeff Burum, former county Supervisor Paul Biane, former Assistant Assessor Jim Erwin, and Mark Kirk, former chief of staff to Supervisor Gary Ovitt, with conspiracy and bribery-related charges.

They are accused of taking part in a conspiracy that led to a $102 million settlement paid by the county to Burum’s company in November 2006.

Burum’s defense attorney Stephen Larson argued that the defendants have proven they are not a flight risk with their regular appearances in court over the past year.

“These defendants have demonstrated they are very vigorously dedicated to staying here and proving their innocence,” he said.

To read entire story, click here.

Andrew Edwards, Staff Writer
Posted: 04/19/2012 06:17:07 PM PDT

SAN BERNARDINO – Attorneys for the bankrupt SBD Airport Services are asking a federal judge to force San Bernardino International Airport administrators to restore the company’s access to the airport’s fueling facilities.

“Defendants’ wrongful conduct, including but not limited to the purported termination of the Fuel Agreement … will cause great and irreparable injury,” the complaint reads.

The complaint also alleges that SBD Aircraft Services suffered at least $20 million in damages after airport managers blocked the company from SBIA’s fueling facilities in February.

The attorneys filed their new complaint on Tuesday in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Riverside. SBD Airport Services sought bankruptcy protection in early March and the company has claimed SBIA’ leaders have tried to cripple their business operations.

SBD Aircraft Services is one of multiple companies at SBIA that are managed by Scot Spencer. SBD Aircraft services declared bankruptcy in March after the airport’s interim chief, A.J. Wilson, blocked the Spencer-managed SBD Properties from accessing the airport’s “fuel farm.”

To read entire story, click here.

Employees of water district say city reneging on promises made to fund vested coverage

April 19, 2012 9:04 AM
Natasha Lindstrom, Staff Writer

VICTORVILLE • Current city employees and retired employees of the water district absorbed by Victorville in 2007 are suing the city to protect their benefits, arguing the city is reneging on promises made to fund their vested coverage.

The six plaintiffs charge that Victorville is not standing by agreements it made to some 49 employees who’d worked for the former Victor Valley Water District.

The complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on April 9, alleges that Victorville and its water district “threaten to completely disregard their mandatory duty under binding public entity resolutions and contracts issued by multiple agencies.”

A May 2007 agreement between the VVWD Board of Directors and Victorville City Council stated that workers would continue to receive the same level of benefits they had always had, which for some included lifetime coverage for themselves and spouses. A July 2007 resolution by San Bernardino County’s Local Agency Formation Commission stated that Victorville would either retain the employees’ existing benefits or offer them a one-time payout of $10,000 to waive the benefits.

Nearly five years later, the city hasn’t established an irrevocable trust to fund those retirement benefits. Some retirees have been told their benefits will be cut off unless they switch to the city’s reduced coverage plan.

“Plaintiffs are at risk of losing retiree health benefits on which they and their families already or will soon rely, or alternatively being forced to spend hundreds of additional dollars per month to maintain this level of coverage, rendering them unable to cover other critical expenses,” the April 9 complaint states.

However, city officials say the lawsuit appears to be without merit.

“The city believes it has acted in accordance with the LAFCO action and until the complaint is reviewed by legal counsel will have no further comment,” City Manager Doug Robertson said via email Wednesday.

Until Tuesday, the City Council hadn’t approved doling out the $10,000 buyouts — something Robertson told council members “should have” happened in 2007.

The process of offering the buyouts and creating a trust stalled after the city found out the retirement liability was nearly double the $5 million city officials had been told to expect, Robertson said at Tuesday’s council meeting.

“No one has any final resolution on where it ended up or why it ultimately sort of stopped or faded way, other than perhaps other priorities came up,” Robertson said.

The City Council took action Tuesday to offer the $10,000 buyout to seven willing candidates, along with redoing an actuarial study to identify the current liability of the remaining employees. That agenda item was solely about the buyout program and did not address the lawsuit.

During the item’s discussion, Councilman Jim Kennedy raised concerns about the original VVWD resolution for stating that the retirement liability would be paid for out of asset replacement funds. Kennedy — who was president of VVWD’s board at the time — said he didn’t think anyone paid close enough attention to that provision.

“I’m no lawyer, but my guess was that was an illegal decision,” Kennedy said during Tuesday’s meeting. “We had no authority to use those kinds of funds for that purpose. … I don’t think that decision can stand the way we made it.”

“Councilman Kennedy, I think ‘illegal’ is too strong a word for it,” Robertson quickly responded.

The lawsuit was not agendized on Tuesday’s meeting because staff received the legal documents after posting the agenda and there was no immediate action required, according to Robertson. City Council will receive the documents in closed session after a review by legal counsel.

The 20-page complaint cites six plaintiffs: DeZwart, Jonnie Maddox, Timothy Whelan and Linda Whelan, who retired from the Victor Valley Water District before it merged into Victorville; and Wade L. Pieper and Steve Borrowman, who are now employed by the Victorville Water District.

The plaintiffs’ attorney, James P. Stoneman of Claremont, did not return a Wednesday call for comment.

Natasha Lindstrom may be reached at (760) 951-6232 or at NLindstrom@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.

Mike Cruz, Staff Writer
Posted: 04/18/2012 08:11:29 PM PDT

As Superior Courts around the state look for ways to grapple with staggering budget cuts in the next fiscal year, San Bernardino County officials say courtroom closures are one option being looked at here.

“It’s definitely a potential,” said Stephen Nash, court executive officer in San Bernardino County. “It’s not off the table.”

The news comes as court officials in Los Angeles County announced Tuesday that they will reduce staff by nearly 350 workers and close 56 courtrooms by June 30, as a way to absorb budget reductions there.

Cuts in Los Angeles County are part of the $652 million in mandated budget reductions to the state’s judicial system over the last several years.

Nash said Wednesday that no decisions have been made in San Bernardino County about reduced services or closures. But Presiding Judge Ronald M. Christianson has convened a small group, which includes past presiding judges, to weigh cost-reduction options, Nash said.

“We’re being hit with the same level of cuts as L.A.,” Nash said. “There are going to be impacts and implications in the court, going into next year.”

Court officials and judges here are working to address the budget shortfall. The goal will be to minimize the impact on the public and to employees, he said.

For fiscal 2011-12, San Bernardino County courts reduced services at courthouses in Needles and Big Bear by two days per month. They also reduced hours in the Court Clerk’s Office in Needles and Big Bear.

The projected expenditures for the Superior Court of San Bernardino County in the current fiscal year, are $111.3 million compared to revenue of $101.8 million for a shortfall of 8.5 percent. Nash said this is possible in the current year, because the court has some carryover reserve funding.

Based upon the governor’s proposed budget and preliminary information from the state Administrative Office of the Courts, San Bernardino officials project revenue in the next fiscal year, 2012-2013, will decline to $93.1 million.

To read entire story, click here.

Ryan Hagen, Staff Writer
Posted: 04/17/2012 11:43:29 AM PDT

SAN BERNARDINO – In a court case that could change the outcome of the city clerk election, the registrar of voters will be required to explain why he didn’t count votes by people whose signature didn’t match records but signed affidavits swearing they had voted.

The decision by Judge Donna Gunnell Garza on Tuesday modifies her earlier decision not to allow any outside evidence.

The case was brought by 15 residents who say they voted in the Feb. 7 mail-in run-off election for city clerk but whose votes Registrar of Voters Michael J. Scarpello did not count.

Georgeann “Gigi” Hanna beat Amelia Sanchez-Lopez by six votes, according to a recount, and took office March 5.

At the time, Scarpello pointed to the state Election Code saying signatures must match.

But registered voters should have been allowed to vote or at least notified of the discrepancy so they could fix it, alleges a lawsuit brought by Los Angeles-based attorney William Trejo on their behalf.

“I’m very pleased,” Trejo said of Tuesday’s decision. “All we’re seeking is the truth and the information that the registrar acted on.”

Trejo said the law is clear that anything in a voter’s file – including an affidavit – could be used to determine a signature’s validity.

To read entire story, click here.