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

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

Published: 30 January 2012 11:33 AM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To read entire story, click here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To read entire story, click here.

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

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

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

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

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

To read entire story, click here.

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

RICHARD K. De ATLEY/Staff

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

Published: 29 January 2012 07:33 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another round of deep cuts could overwhelm their systems.

‘KEEP THE COURTS OPEN’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To read entire story, click here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To read entire story, click here.

Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye

January 26, 2012

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To read entire story, click here.

California State Controller John Chiang

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

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

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

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

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

To read entire story, click here.

Dan Walters

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To read entire story, click here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The city’s zoning ordinance prohibits medical marijuana dispensaries.

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

To read entire story, click here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To read entire story, click here.

BY IMRAN GHORI
STAFF WRITER
ighori@pe.com

Published: 06 January 2012 11:19 AM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To read entire story, click here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To read entire story, click here.

By Mark Gutglueck
Friday, January 6, 2012

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

UPLAND – G3 Holistic will remain open, for now.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To read entire story, click here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To read entire story, click here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To read entire story, click here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

.

Monday, January 2, 2012- 1045 a.m.

The fight over the future of Victor Valley Community Hospital (VVCH) has some interesting twists.

Dr. Prem Reddy, who operates Prime Healthcare Services, wants the bankrupt facility as part of his network of highly-profitable hospitals.

However, California Attorney General Kamala Harris wants a different owner because of Prime’s history of dumping less-profitable forms of insurance coverage, which has caused community access issues.

The hospital chain is also under scrutiny for alleged billing and patient care issues.

The hubbub comes after a tentative deal with KPC Global, owned by Dr. Kali P. Chaudhuri fell through over alleged problems with VVCH’s financials.

Chaudhuri and Reddy, according to sources, don’t care much for each other.

AG Harris has steadfastly refused to sign-off on the Prime acquisition of VVCH.

A legal requirement in California.

But this fact hasn’t stopped Reddy or the VVCH Board of Directors.

Prime has been the beneficiary of management contracts approved by the VVCH board, while at the same time being permitted to loan the facility funds to continue operations.

All with the backing of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court and a local Superior Court Judge.

In other words Reddy has been allowed a foothold.

What’s even more interesting is who sits on the VVCH board.

Assistant District Attorney Michael Fermin, the number two man in the DA operation,  is currently on the hospital board. Fermin’s family has been a part of VVCH for years.

Fermin has recently enjoyed a meteoric rise to his current position by vaulting from a Supervising Deputy District Attorney to Assistant DA in the blink of an eye.

Reddy has been a staunch financial backer of District Attorney Michael Ramos. And Fermin, who wants to be the next DA, knows this.

In another development, the latest news coming from sources at VVCH involves former San Bernardino County chief executive Mark Uffer.

Uffer who just stepped down from his role at Colorado River Medical Center in Needles is, according to sources, slated to join VVCH.

Uffer is to be charged with prepping the facility for a potential sale transfer.

The move brings Uffer closer to his home in Highland.

From left to right: Colonies scandal defendants Jeff Burum, Mark Kirk, Jim Erwin, and Paul Biane stand during a motion to delay their arraignment hearing in a San Bernardino Superior Courtroom

Joe Nelson, Staff Writer
Created: 12/30/2011 11:37:49 AM PST

Investigations into corruption in San Bernardino County advanced in fits and starts over the past year.

Prosecutors gained ground when former Supvervisor-turned-Assessor Bill Postmus agreed in March to plead guilty to bribery, conflict of interest and misappropriation of public funds and to cooperate with the ongoing investigation.

His testimony bolstered the case and resulted in charges against Rancho Cucamonga developer Jeff Burum and three other former county officials – former county Supervisor Paul Biane and former supervisorial chiefs of staff Mark Kirk and Jim Erwin – related to the county’s $102 million legal settlement with Colonies Partners LP in 2006.

A few months later, in August, Judge Brian McCarville dealt investigators a major blow when he dismissed five of the seven felony charges filed against Burum, citing insufficient evidence or prosecutorial error.

McCarville also dropped one charge of misappropriation of public funds against each of the other defendants.

Prosecutors have appealed McCarville’s August dismissal of the charges, while Burum’s attorney, Stephen Larson, has appealed McCarville’s upholding of the two remaining charges against Burum.

“Frankly, the last seven months have been very difficult for Jeff Burum and his family,” Larson said. “Jeff’s been accused of crimes he did not commit. We’ve known that from the start, and now it’s becoming increasingly clear to the community as the evidence and prosecution’s tactics come to light.”

State and local prosecutors maintain their case is on solid ground.

“We continue to be confident in the facts of this case, and in order to protect the integrity of the case and each defendant’s right to a fair trial, it would be inappropriate to comment any further,” District Attorney’s officials said in a statement earlier this month.

Just weeks after McCarville dismissed the charges against Burum and the other defendants in the Colonies’ case, FBI and IRS agents served search warrants at the homes and businesses of the four Colonies’ defendants and other figures tied to the investigation, including the Fontana home and business of former state Sen. Jim Brulte and the Riverside office of publicist Patrick O’Reilly.

O’Reilly’s attorney, Bill Lehman, said he was told by the FBI that O’Reilly is a witness, not a suspect, in the investigation.

Federal agents sought evidence of bribery, extortion or fraud, including “cash in an amount or concealed in such a manner as to indicate it is proceeds of criminal activity” according to one of the search warrants.

The momentum of the investigation this year seems to stem from information provided to investigators by Postmus, who pleaded guilty in March to 15 felonies tied to scandals at the Assessor’s Office and the county’s 2006 settlement with Colonies.

The settlement ended nearly five years of heated legal battle over who was responsible for paying for flood control improvements at the developer’s 434-acre Colonies at San Antonio residential and Colonies Crossroads retail center in Upland.

To read entire story, click here.

BY JANET ZIMMERMAN
STAFF WRITER
jzimmerman@pe.com

Published: 28 December 2011 01:56 PM

Riverside County officials said Wednesday they have begun legal action to close about three dozen medical marijuana dispensaries in unincorporated areas.

Attorneys filed for an injunction and issued legislative subpoenas against two of the stores, the latest volley since the Board of Supervisors authorized crackdowns on Dec. 13.

The county asked a Riverside County Superior Court judge to declare Platinum Collective in Home Gardens, near Riverside, a public nuisance and issue an injunction to shut down operations at the shop in the 12000 block of Magnolia Avenue, east of McKinley Street. According to the Dec. 21 court filing, the dispensary creates traffic problems, and officials said it poses a safety issue for children who walk past the shop on their way to Villegas Middle School.

The county is asking for civil penalties of $1,000 for each day Platinum Collective has been open since March 7, when the business was notified it was operating illegally, and seeks reimbursement for the cost of abatement, investigation and enforcement.

A woman who answered the phone at the collective said no one was available to comment.

In other action, the county served legislative subpoenas on the operator of the Compassion and Wellness Center in Lakeland Village, near Lake Elsinore, and the owner of the property in the 15000 block of Grand Avenue near El Contento Drive.

Dispensary operator Ronald Wayne Williams was ordered to appear before the Board of Supervisors on Jan. 24, and property owner Thomas C. Deamer on Jan. 31, to explain why the dispensary remains open.

To read entire story, click here.

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

Published: 27 December 2011 05:41 PM

Riverside County got its first Latina judge Tuesday when Gov. Jerry Brown announced the appointment of Raquel A. Marquez to the bench.

Also named to judgeships by the governor were Riverside County Commissioner John W. Vineyard and Supervising District Attorney Otis Sterling III.

The three appointments filled vacancies in Riverside County’s 76 judicial offices.

Marquez, 45, was named a senior deputy district attorney for Riverside County this year and was a deputy district attorney for the county since 1991. She earned her law degree from UCLA and her undergraduate degree from Santa Clara University.

Marquez’s parents were migrant farmworkers from Mexico who worked in the Coachella Valley. Marquez spoke only Spanish until she entered a Head Start pre-school program.

A Democrat, she replaces the vacancy created when Judge Carol A. Codrington was elevated to the Court of Appeal. Marquez ran for judgeship in 2010, losing against fellow prosecutor Steve Counelis. Marquez is a resident of Valley Center in San Diego County. Judges are not required to live in the county they serve.

To read entire story, click here.

Pomierski

Sandra Emerson, Staff Writer
Created: 12/22/2011 06:24:24 PM PST

Special Section: Upland Watch

UPLAND – Former Mayor John Pomierski may file a lawsuit against the city for refusing to represent him in a civil suit filed by the former Chronic Cantina restaurant and bar.

A claim was filed with the city this week by Pomierski’s civil attorney, Robert Schauer, demanding the city represent Pomierski or face a lawsuit seeking attorney’s fees and other damages.

“I’m upset with the city for not defending him when they have an obligation to do so,” Schauer said.

City Manager Stephen Dunn said the city has yet to review the claim, but the city attorney will evaluate the claim and discuss it with the City Council during its meeting on Jan. 9.

The claim states that the city is required to represent Pomierski based on state Government Code 995, which states, “a public entity shall provide for the defense of any civil action or proceeding brought against him, in his official or individual capacity or both, on account of an act or omission in the scope of his employment as an employee of the public entity.”

Schauer first asked the city to represent Pomierski in July.

The owners of the Chronic Cantina filed the lawsuit against the city as well as Pomierski in April in West Valley Superior Court.

They accuse Pomierski, Upland contractor John Hennes and former Upland Police Chief Steve Adams of extorting money
from them.

To read entire story, click here.

Money & Company
Tracking the market and economic trends that shape your finances.
December 20, 2011 | 2:43 pm

California Atty. Gen. Kamala D. Harris has filed suit against mortgage titans Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for refusing to answer subpoenas issued to the companies this year.

The suits, filed Tuesday in San Francisco County Superior Court, comes after investigators with the state attorney general’s office presented the two firms with questions regarding their foreclosure, lending and mortgage-related practices in the state.

The subpoenas ask the government-controlled finance companies to answer questions about their activities in California, including their roles as landlords that own thousands of foreclosed properties, The Times previously reported. The attorney general’s office is also seeking details of Fannie and Freddie’s mortgage-servicing and home-repossession practices.

To read entire story, click here.

Joe Nelson, The (San Bernardino County) Sun
Posted: 12/19/2011 05:22:30 PM PST

Seven current and former employees of the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department, accused of forging training documents for increased pay in a decade-long scam, appeared briefly in San Bernardino Superior Court Monday for a pre-trial hearing.

Lawyers agreed to another continuance and set a new pretrial date for March 23.

It has been more than nine months since the defendants were indicted following a criminal grand jury inquiry.

“I think this is typical for a case like this,” prosecutor Dan Silverman said. “Here we have seven defendants and seven defense attorneys.”

He said the delays are due in part to extensive discovery — the process in which both the prosecution and the defense exchange their information and/or evidence in preparation for trial.

It is also a time when culpability is more carefully evaluated and plea bargains are oftentimes struck.

“That’s basically where we’re at right now — sorting out where the parties are,” Silverman said. “It’s a time for the defense attorneys to speak to me, make sure that everybody has all the discovery that’s necessary and to see if we’re headed for trial or if there’s anything to consider before moving forward to trial.”

Charged in the case are retired sheriff’s Capt. Hobart Gray, who commanded the sheriff’s Yucaipa station; his wife and former sheriff’s training specialist Angela Gray; retired Assistant Sheriff Michael Stodelle; Lt. Russell Wilke, former training specialist secialist Sallyann Christian; retired Deputy David Pichotta; and retired Lt. Bill Maddox.

Wilke and Christian are the only two defendants who remain employed at the department, though they have been reassigned to the West Valley Detention Center in Rancho Cucamonga, where Wilke remains a lieutenant and Christian a custody specialist, sheriff’s spokeswoman Jodi Miller said.

To read entire story, click here.

BY IMRAN GHORI
STAFF WRITER
ighori@pe.com

Published: 16 December 2011 10:53 AM

A retrial of two businessmen accused of attempting to bribe a top aide to San Bernardino County Supervisor Josie Gonzales has been postponed until March.

Judge Michael Smith set a March 2 pre-trial date for brothers Arshak Kouladjian, of Glendale, and Vartan Kouladjian, of Burbank. Defense attorney Mark Geragos is under judicial order to start an unrelated trial in January, a colleague of his told the judge.

To read entire brief, click here.

A ferry passes by San Quentin Prison in 2002. (Eric Risberg / Associated Press)

By Carol J. Williams Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
December 16, 2011, 12:50 p.m.

A judge on Friday threw out California’s new lethal-injection protocols, which have been six years in the making, because corrections officials failed to consider a one-drug execution method now in practice in other death penalty states.

The action by Marin County Superior Court Judge Faye D’Opal sends the state back to square one in redrafting procedures for lethal-injection executions. The death penalty has been on hold for six years in California after a federal court ruling deemed the previously used three-drug method unconstitutional because it might inflict pain amounting to cruel and unusual punishment.

D’Opal said in her 22-page ruling that the state’s failure to consider replacing the former execution practice with a single-injection method violated state law and ignored the courts’ and public criticism of the previous protocols.

The de facto moratorium on executions imposed by U.S. District Judge Jeremy Fogel in February 2006, when he halted the scheduled lethal-injection execution of convicted murderer Michael A. Morales, has remained in place despite the state’s revision of the procedures to address Fogel’s concerns. Attorneys for Morales and other condemned inmates have made additional challenges to the new execution protocols, and Fogel left the bench earlier this year to head a judicial academic center in Washington.

To read entire story, click here.

Former Rancho Cucamonga City Councilman Rex Gutierrez, at left, received a 2 year, 8 month prison sentence, while Former Assessor taxpayer Advocate Greg Advocate, on the right, received 4 months of home detention. Both men were accused of virtually the same offenses.

Saturday, December 10, 2011 – 09:00 a.m.

Speaking of no  justice.

Friday’s plea deal between the  San Bernardino County District Attorney’s office and defendant Gregory Eyler depicts a stark reality when prosecutions turn political in nature.

The move avoids a jury trial originally set for January 30, 2012.

Two cases originating out of misconduct under former Assessor Bill Postmus end with wildly different outcomes.

A testament to abuse of the system.

Eyler, was allowed to plead guilty to one misdemeanor county of filing a false claim. He will serve 120-days in monitored home detention and also serve 1-year probation.

Another former Assessor employee, Rex Gutierrez, was convicted at a jury trial and sentenced to a prison term of 2-years and 8-months.

Both men were charged with essentially the same offenses. Those being grand theft and filing a false claim.

Gutierrez, who is still in state prison, resigned from the Rancho Cucamonga City Council upon his conviction.

The settlement with Eyler alleviates the necessity of Postmus having to testify as a witness for the prosecution  at trial.

The only remaining cases where Postmus’ testimony is needed are that of High-Desert developer John Defazio and the Colonies conspiracy case.

Defazio, who has refused all plea offers, has a preliminary hearing scheduled for January 26, 2012 to cross-examine witnesses.

Friday, December 9, 2011 – 04:30 p.m.

The California Court of Appeal has now entered the fray on the Colonies case.

The 4th District Court of Appeal, Division 2 has accepted Writs of Mandate filed by defendants James Erwin, Mark Kirk and Jeffrey Burum to have additional charges dismissed.

This afternoon the court issued an order to consolidate the writs with the Attorney General’s appeal of Judge Brian McCarville’s previous dismissal of some of the charges.

An order to show cause as to why additional charges against Erwin, Kirk and Burum should not be dismissed has been issued to the Attorney General/District Attorney.

Both have been given 25 days to respond.

Of course the court could always rule in favor of the State. But today’s developments are a good sign for the defense.

.

.

.

.

Eyler

Mike Cruz and Joe Nelson, Staff Writers
Posted: 12/09/2011 12:50:39 PM PST

Greg Eyler
SAN BERNARDINO – Gregory Eyler, a former taxpayer advocate for the San Bernardino County Assessor’s Office, pleaded no contest Friday to an allegation that he drew pay from the county for work he never performed.

Under a plea bargain with prosecutors, Eyler, 35, pleaded no contest to one misdemeanor count of presenting a fraudulent claim. He was initially charged in July 2009 with felony grand theft and public officer crimes.

Prosecutors alleged Eyler was given the job, which paid $130,000 annually, by his boyfriend and then newly elected Assessor Bill Postmus. But Eyler seldom showed up for work and when he did, his work product was minimal, they said.

Under the conditions of his plea agreement, Eyler will serve 120 days on a home-monitoring program, to be completed by July, and serve one year of felony probation.

“(Plea) discussions have always been a part of the process as this case has gone on, but it hadn’t gotten to the point of being resolved until today,” prosecutor Lewis Cope said.

Eyler initially faced a maximum of three years in prison.

He was charged in 2009 along with Postmus, who faced greater culpability in the crimes. Postmus faced additional charges of misappropriation of public funds, perjury and drug possession.

Postmus pleaded guilty in March to the charges in the Assessor’s Office case and a separate scandal relating to the county’s $102 million legal settlement with Rancho Cucamonga investor consortium Colonies Partners LP in November 2006. Postmus served as chairman of the Board of Supervisors at the time of the settlement.

Prosecutors allege the county’s settlement with Colonies was tainted by bribery and extortion, and that Colonies’ co-managing partner Jeff Burum offered Postmus $100,000 in exchange for Postmus’ vote in favor of the settlement.

Burum and the other three defendants in the Colonies’ case – former county Supervisor Paul Biane, former Assistant Assessor Jim Erwin and Mark Kirk, former chief of staff for Supervisor Gary Ovitt, deny any wrongdoing and are fighting the charges.

To read entire story, click here.