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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

U.S. Representative Mary Bono Mack

THE PRESS-ENTERPRISE
Published: 15 April 2012 07:07 PM

Democrats and Republicans have spent recent days trading accusations that the other party has engaged in a so-called war on women.

First came the Democratic talking points: the GOP’s support for anti-abortion laws and opposition to the 2009 equal-pay legislation shows that probable presidential nominee Mitt Romney and Republicans are waging a war on women.

Romney’s camp fired back, enlisting his female surrogates — including Inland Rep. Mary Bono Mack — to discredit the accusations.

In a statement issued by the Romney campaign, the Palm Springs Republican said the facts don’t back up President Barack Obama’s assertions that his economic policies are helping women.

“Women in the Obama economy are facing hardships of historical proportions,” she said.

Female workers account for the vast majority of job losses during the economic downturn, Bono Mack said. “Unemployment among women is at record levels, and the number of women in poverty has risen to a near-two decade high.”

Obama’s supporters countered that Bono Mack was a flawed messenger on the subject, since she opposed the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. Indeed, nearly all Republicans voted against the measure, which expanded the ability of workers to file pay-discrimination lawsuits.

SPIN FOLLOWS RULING

The political spin cycle kicked into high gear following last Monday’s ruling in the legal tussle between Riverside County Supervisor Bob Buster and Assemblyman Kevin Jeffries, who is running for Buster’s seat in the June 5 primary.

Buster had asked the Superior Court to strike language on the ballot that described Jeffries, R-Lake Elsinore, as a “small business owner” and “the only candidate to OPPOSE raising your vehicle tax, income tax and sales tax, saving families nearly $1,000 a year!”

Both statements were misleading, Buster’s attorney said. A court commissioner ruled that, while Jeffries could describe himself as a small business owner, the tax statement as written had to go.

To read entire story, click here.

The Victor Valley Economic Development Authority (VVEDA) has sued the state, alleging a new state law that dissolved California’s roughly 400 redevelopment agencies does not apply to VVEDA because it is not a redevelopment agency.

VVEDA filed the lawsuit in the state Supreme Court on Thursday, challenging the applicability of Assembly Bill x126, known as the “Dissolution Bill,” which shuttered redevelopment agencies up and down California.

The bill was approved by the Legislature last year and signed into law by Gov. Jerry Brown on June 28.

The law was challenged in court by the California Redevelopment Association (CRA) and the League of California Cities based on constitutional grounds. The state Supreme Court upheld the law in December.

“VVDEA is filing its lawsuit based on grounds not included in the CRA complaint and raises question as to the applicability of A.B. x1 26 to VVEDA as VVEDA is not a redevelopment agency,” said Keith Metzler, executive director of the VVEDA, in a statement Friday.

To read entire story, click here.

A S.B. County Superior Court judge rejects efforts to hear from voters whose ballots were disqualified

BY IMRAN GHORI
STAFF WRITER
ighori@pe.com

Published: 10 April 2012 08:38 PM

A legal challenge to San Bernardino City Clerk Gigi Hanna’s election victory suffered a setback Tuesday when a judge ruled that voters whose ballots were disqualified cannot testify.

San Bernardino County Superior Court Judge Donna Ginnell Garza tentatively ruled in favor of a motion by attorneys for Hanna and the Registrar of Voters seeking to limit testimony in a hearing next week.

Hanna took office last month following a close election in February that led to a recount and a six-vote margin of victory.

Supporters of Amelia Sanchez-Lopez, Hanna’s opponent in the Feb. 7 election, filed suit seeking to force the registrar to accept declarations of voters swearing they cast ballots that were disqualified because signatures on their mail-in envelopes didn’t match signatures on their voter-registration cards.

A total of 64 such ballots were disqualified, according to the registrar.

The complaint represents 12 of those voters although attorney Sandra Garcia said she plans to challenge the disqualification of 33 ballots.

Hanna’s attorney, Stuart Leviton, said all 64 ballots should be examined and the plaintiffs can’t just “pick and choose.”

Garcia said her clients’ rights to vote and due process to challenge the registrar’s disqualification were violated.

To read entire story, click here.

Riverside County Supervisor Bob Buster/FILE PHOTO

BY JEFF HORSEMAN AND DAVID DANELSKI
STAFF WRITERS
jhorseman@pe.com | ddanelski@pe.com

Published: 09 April 2012 03:14 PM

Assemblyman and Riverside County supervisor candidate Kevin Jeffries can describe himself as a small business owner on the June 5 ballot but must drop or revise language about his voting record on taxes, a court commissioner ruled Monday.

The decision is a partial victory for Supervisor Bob Buster who wanted to force Jeffries, R-Lake Elsinore, to describe himself as an Assembly member and remove ballot language that touted Jeffries as the anti-tax candidate in the three-man race for Buster’s seat.

Buster’s other challenger is retired California Highway Patrol officer Mike Soubirous.

Last month, Buster asked the court to order the county Registrar of Voters not to use the term “small business owner” in Jeffries’ ballot statement. The ballots are scheduled to be printed Tuesday.

The supervisor also challenged a portion of Jeffries’ statement describing him as the “only candidate to OPPOSE raising your vehicle tax, income tax and sales tax, saving families nearly $1,000 a year!”

Attorneys for Buster and Jeffries presented their arguments in court Monday morning.

Tom Jacobson, attorney for Jeffries, said it would be damaging to the political system if the court forced the Assemblyman to change the occupation designation on the candidate statement because of a complaint from an opponent.

“He (Buster) doesn’t have the right to tell Mr. Jeffries what to say in his candidate’s statement,” Jacobson said.

Jeffries has said his primary source of income and retirement savings comes from his family business, which owns and manages commercial and residential properties.

Buster’s attorney, James R. Sutton, countered that the “small businessman” designation misleads voters.

“This is someone who has been in the Assembly for six years, and that is not mentioned anywhere” in the candidate’s statement, Sutton said.

In court papers, Buster contended Jeffries’ statement about taxes is misleading and an indirect personal attack.

Superior Court Commissioner Paulette Durand-Barkley upheld Jeffries’ right to call himself a small business owner but required the registrar to delete the statement about taxes. During the hearing, she said Jeffries’ opponents are not state legislators and could not have voted on vehicle taxes and the like.

To read entire story, click here.

In a March 2 hearing in the case against Richard Alarcon, Deputy Dist. Atty. Jennifer Lentz Snyder was scolded for being ‘very dismissive’ of defense evidence submitted to a grand jury in 2010. A lawyer says Alarcon and his wife are ‘heartened’ by the turn of events. Councilman Richard Alarcon (Irfan Khan, Los Angeles Times / August 4, 2010)

By Catherine Saillant, Los Angeles Times
April 8, 2012, 8:51 p.m.

A high-profile perjury and voter fraud case against Los Angeles City Councilman Richard Alarcon and his wife could be in trouble based on a judge’s warning at a court hearing last month, transcripts show.

In the March 2 hearing, L.A. County Superior Court Judge Kathleen Kennedy sharply criticized the prosecution’s case and scolded Deputy Dist. Atty. Jennifer Lentz Snyder for being “very dismissive” of defense evidence submitted to a grand jury in 2010. Those jurors returned a 24-count felony indictment against the Alarcons, who have pleaded not guilty.

“What I got from reading the transcript of these proceedings was a kind of cavalier suggestion to the grand jury from you [saying] oh yeah, the target has some papers here,” Kennedy said in transcripts obtained by The Times last week.

“It was very dismissive, the way that it was done, extremely so.”

The district attorney’s Public Integrity Division alleges that the Alarcons lied about where they were living so that the veteran San Fernando Valley politician could run for the council seat representing the 7th District.

Beginning in 2006, Alarcon had listed a tract house in Panorama City as his residence, just as he was contemplating a return to the council after an eight-year absence. Prosecutors contend, however, that the Alarcons were actually living in Sun Valley, outside the district.

Kennedy, according to the transcripts, suggested that Lentz Snyder had stacked the deck against the Alarcons during the grand jury proceeding by making light of documents submitted by the defense that purportedly showed the couple was indeed living at the house in question.

The judge also chided the prosecutor for her reaction to witnesses that the defense said would testify that the Alarcons regularly ordered fast food, picked up prescriptions and shopped at the local Home Depot for materials needed to renovate the ranch-style home on Nordhoff Street. That house as well as the Sun Valley one are owned by Alarcon’s wife, Flora Montes de Oca Alarcon.

Neighbors, relatives and workers were also prepared to testify that the Nordhoff home was the Alarcons’ primary residence and that they were frequently there.

Kennedy also felt compelled to remind Lentz Snyder that with no judge or defense lawyers present during a criminal grand jury, the burden is on prosecutors to make sure grand jurors are aware of evidence that could undercut their case.

“There’s nobody there to, you know, balance that off….” Kennedy said. “You guys are running the show.”

To read entire story, click here.

The lawyer for Apple Valley businessman John Dino DeFazio, a figure in a county corruption case, is seeking dismissal of the case, alleging lack of evidence. (Joe Nelson/Staff)

Joe Nelson, Staff Writer
Posted: 04/06/2012 01:20:31 PM PDT

SAN BERNARDINO – The attorney for an Apple Valley businessman linked to a sweeping San Bernardino County corruption case filed a motion Friday in Superior Court seeking dismissal of the case.

John Dino DeFazio, 52, is charged with six felony counts of perjury for allegedly lying to the county’s civil Grand Jury in 2009 about his involvement with a political action committee prosecutors allege was used to conceal a $100,000 bribe to former county Assessor Bill Postmus.

DeFazio was listed as chairman of the Inland Empire PAC established in February 2007. He told the Grand Jury in October 2009 that he controlled all activities associated with the PAC.

Prosecutors, however, allege Postmus had DeFazio and former Assistant Assessor Adam Aleman create the PAC and another, Conservatives for a Republican Majority, to conceal the alleged bribe from Rancho Cucamonga developer Jeff Burum.

Two checks, each totaling $50,000 and listing Colonies Partners LP as the payee, were deposited into the two PAC accounts in 2007. Burum is a co-managing partner of Colonies Partners.

Burum, a defendant in the corruption case, has denied any wrongdoing and maintains the contributions were an act of good faith – an attempt to rebuild bridges with county elected officials following a contentious legal battle over who was responsible for paying for flood control improvements at Colonies’ 434-acre residential and commercial development in Upland.

Postmus testified before a criminal grand jury last April that he was unaware that Colonies wanted to contribute money to the PACs until January 2007 – more than a month after the settlement was finalized. He told an FBI agent and federal prosecutors in October the same thing during an interview.

In November 2006, the county entered into a settlement agreement with Burum and Colonies Partners, agreeing to pay $102 million. Prosecutors allege the settlement was tainted by bribery.

In his motion filed Friday, DeFazio’s attorney, Richard Ewaniszyk, said DeFazio cannot be charged with the crimes because prosecutors are relying on uncorroborated witness information.

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.

To read entire story, click here.

Torres

Wes Woods II, Staff Writer
Created: 04/05/2012 06:20:21 PM PDT

To view Assembly Bill 2552 introduced by Assemblywoman Norma Torres, D-Chino, visit http://tinyurl.com/potbill.

To read a letter from the Law Enforcement Against Prohibition group asking Torres to withdraw the bill visit http://tinyurl.com/potletter.

A group of former California police officers, prosecutors and judges have asked Assemblywoman Norma Torres to withdraw her bill that would criminalize motorists who operate a vehicle with any level of marijuana in their blood or urine.

Law Enforcement Against Prohibition members said standards created by Assembly Bill 2552 have nothing to do with actual impairment behind the wheel and would criminalize California’s legal medical marijuana patients.

Torres, D-Chino, has said the bill’s language was not perfect and was being amended.

“I introduced AB 2552 to start a constructive dialogue on how to deal with this matter,” she said. “At this point, we have found out that we lack basic information needed to craft sound state policy and I intend to use this legislative vehicle now to develop a process to collect the valuable data.”

Stephen Downing, former deputy chief of the Los Angeles Police Department and a member of LEAP, said arrests made under the proposed bill, which was introduced Feb. 24, would be “low hanging fruit.” Police officers would be able to make “easy arrests” because cannabinoids remain in the system of a medical marijuana patient for two to three weeks, Downing said.

“You can look a person in the eye, know in your professional judgement they’re not impaired, but if the answer of the (medical marijuana) question was `Yes”‘ they would be arrested and put in jail, Downing said.

The bill is poorly written and unnecessary, said Paul Armentano, deputy director of Washington, D.C.-based National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws.

To read entire story, click here.

April 5th, 2012, 3:13 pm
Posted by Andrew Galvin

Remember that $73.5 million that Orange County grabbed from schools a few months back, forcing the state to make up for it? This was after the state grabbed $49.5 million in Vehicle License Fee money from the county to help balance the state’s budget.

Well, the state wants its $73.5 million back.

California’s Department of Finance on Thursday sued the county in Orange County Superior Court, asking the court to order the county to recalculate what it pays the state to help finance schools based on the department’s interpretation of state law.

In a 10-page complaint, the state argues that the county willfully miscalculated the amount it ought to be paying into the state’s Education Revenue Augmentation Fund. That decision by the county will force the state to “backfill” the money to K-12 schools that the county ought to be paying, but it leaves the state’s community colleges $12 million to $15 million short, the state says.

“We’re certainly disappointed that the state is resorting to a lawsuit,” said John Moorlach, chairman of the county’s Board of Supervisors, adding that “we certainly tried to work with everybody.”

The foundations of this dispute can be traced to the county’s 1994 bankruptcy. Afterward, the county needed a way to assure investors that it could make interest and principal payments on bonds it wanted to sell. The solution was a dedicated stream of revenue from VLF funds, allocated by the state to the county to back the bonds.

The allocation was continued in 2003, when the state moved to reimburse counties and cities for revenue they lost when the VLF was cut from 2 percent of a vehicle’s value to 0.65 percent. The following year, the county refinanced some of its bond debt and found that its creditworthiness had improved such that the dedicated VLF revenue stream was no longer needed to sell the deal to investors, said H.D. Palmer, spokesman for the Department of Finance.

Yet since 2004, Orange County has continued to receive “that extra increment of VLF revenue that 57 other counties have not, up until last year,” Palmer said.

Last June, SB 89 was enacted, cutting off the extra VLF revenue that had been given annually to Orange County. That put the county in a bind — it was counting on the money to balance its own budget.

To read entire story, click here.

Sentencing was delayed today for former San Bernardino County assessor Bill Postmus./FILE PHOTO

IMRAN GHORI
ighori@pe.com
Published: 29 March 2012 10:36 AM

A San Bernardino County Superior Court judge Thursday delayed sentencing for former Assessor Bill Postmus on corruption charges until July 19.

Postmus pleaded guilty last year to taking part in a conspiracy involving bribery and extortion in exchange for his vote for the county’s controversial $102 million legal settlement with developer Colonies Partners.

As part of his plea deal he is cooperating with authorities and was a key witness in criminal grand jury proceedings that resulted in bribery and conspiracy related charges against Jeff Burum, co-managing partner of Colonies, former Supervisor Paul Biane, Jim Erwin, former assistant assessor, and Mark Kirk, former chief of staff to Supervisor Gary Ovitt.

To read entire story, click here.

Ryan Carter, Staff Writer
Created: 03/28/2012 07:23:04 PM PDT

Attorneys for developer Colonies Partners LP are seeking dismissal of a civil lawsuit that would force the developer to pay back a $102 million legal settlement to taxpayers.

Two citizens groups filed the lawsuit in February, arguing that an ongoing investigation into the settlement – which has resulted in four indictments and a guilty plea by a former county supervisor – voids the settlement and that the money should be returned to taxpayers.

In his reply to the lawsuit filed Wednesday, Colonies attorney Stephen Larson contended the citizens groups – the Inland Oversight Committee and Citizens for Responsible Equitable Environmental Development – do not have standing to file the lawsuit, that their legal argument is flawed and that the statute of limitations has lapsed.

“Plaintiff’s complaint fails because it is legally unsupported and untimely on its face,” Larson wrote in the reply.

The citizens groups’ lawsuit argues, essentially, that because the settlement was tainted by corruption, its proceeds should be returned to taxpayers.

Last May, a grand jury indicted Colonies co-managing partner Jeff Burum, former county Supervisor Paul Biane and former supervisorial chiefs of staff Mark Kirk and Jim Erwin. State and local prosecutors allege the four conspired to secure the settlement and that campaign contributions to political action committees secretly controlled the three supervisors who approved the settlement were, in fact, bribes.

Former Board of Supervisors Chairman Bill Postmus, who voted with Biane and Supervisor Gary Ovitt to approve the settlement, has pled guilty to bribery and conspiracy charges and is cooperating with prosecutors in return for a lighter sentence.

In a December interview with federal investigators, Postmus said that there was no specific agreement with Colonies for campaign contributions prior to settling the land-use lawsuit, though he acknowledged that Burum had promised future political support in the event the case was settled.

To read entire story, click here.