Four months after a California assemblyman was cited and released for carrying a gun into an airport, the Assembly passed legislation today that would require offenders to be taken into custody in such situations.

Democratic Assemblywoman Norma Torres said her Assembly Bill 2182 did not stem from the January incident involving Republican Assemblyman Tim Donnelly, which occurred at an Ontario airport on the first day of this year’s legislative session.

“This issue is about protecting the public,” Torres said of her bill.

With Republicans opposed, the Assembly voted 46-25 to approve Torres’ bill. Donnelly voted no on the bill but did not speak during floor debate today. AB 2182 now goes to the Senate.

Peace officers currently make the decision to take an offender into custody or to issue a citation based on an evaluation of risk to the public, such as prior criminal record and whether the suspect is a gang member.

To read entire story, click here.

Friday, May 18, 2012 – 09:45 a.m.

San Bernardino County Third District Supervisor Neil Derry has received the endorsement of the Barstow Police Officers Association in his reelection bid.

Derry is being challenged by Former San Manuel Band of Mission Indians Chairman James Ramos and Defense Department Employee Jim Bagley.

Recent altering of supervisorial boundaries placed Barstow inside the Third District.

The election is June 5.

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

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

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

To read entire story, click here.

BY JEFF HORSEMAN
STAFF WRITER
jhorseman@pe.com

Published: 11 May 2012 12:18 PM

Riverside County and the sheriff’s deputies’ union tentatively agreed Friday on a four-year contract, nearly a year after county supervisors angered the union by imposing pay cuts and pension changes on deputies.

Agreed to early Friday morning, the proposed pact with the Riverside Sheriff’s Association would also scuttle litigation the association filed against the county over alleged unfair labor practices and a pension-related ballot measure, a county news release read.

County Director of Employee Relations Brian McArthur praised the agreement. “When leaders on both sides of the table are committed to being fair — to taxpayers and to county employees — it makes a world of difference in the quality of the outcome,” he said in the May 11 release.

Association board President Robert Masson said the deal was “fair for both sides … It brings us back on track. I think everyone will be happy with it.”

The association’s members need to approve the deal, something Masson expects will happen. The approval process could take several weeks, the county release read.

If approved, the deal would cap an acrimonious period in relations between the county and the union, which represents about 2,500 deputies and other law enforcement personnel.

County officials in May 2011 declared an impasse in contract talks and imposed a 10 percent overall cut in union members’ pay and benefits. At the time, the county expected the cuts would save $28 million; it’s unclear how much was actually saved.

The union sued to block the cuts, saying the county did not follow its own labor-relations rules. The proposed agreement calls for the union to withdraw its legal challenges, including an effort to require voter approval for public safety pension cuts.

That was a key provision of Measure L, passed by voters in 2010. At the same time, voters approved Measure M, a competing measure allowing supervisors to lower public safety pension benefits without voters’ consent. The county contends Measure M is in effect because it got more yes votes than Measure L.

New deputies would get lesser pensions under the proposed deal.

The contract would allow new hires, once they turn 50, to receive an annual pension equal to 2 percent of their salary multiplied by years of service.

For current union members, the formula remains 3 percent of their salaries times years of service once they reach age 50. Members would have to contribute up to 9 percent of their salaries to their pensions by July 13, 2013.

The “two-tiered” pension system is similar to what the county brokered in contracts with other labor unions. Altogether, the new contracts will save the county $550 million in pension costs over the next decade, the county press release read.

In 2010, the county expected annual pension expenses to rise from $155 million to $306 million by fiscal 2019-2020 if no changes were made.

To read entire story, click here.

Wes Woods II, Staff Writer
Created: 05/09/2012 06:31:07 PM PDT

CLAREMONT – A three-year salary and benefits agreement has been approved between the city and the Claremont Police Officers Association.

The new contract ends months of contentiousness. The city declared negotiations to be at an impasse in late August, and union members on April 11 turned down by a single vote an earlier agreement, forcing additional negotiations.

The agreement, passed in a 3-2 vote at Tuesday night’s City Council meeting, will save the city more than $311,562 over the term of the three-year agreement.

It includes members of the union paying 6 percent of their salaries toward their California Public Employees’ Retirement System benefits through July 7, 2013. From July 8, 2013, to June 30, 2014, most safety employees will pay 9 percent into their retirement benefits.

Police employees will receive a cost-of-living increase for each of the three years and a $400 increase in uniform allowance, said Shawna Urban, personnel manager for the city.

Councilmen Corey Calaycay and Opanyi Nasiali voted against the agreement as they had previously.

“From the moment that we began this cycle of employee contract negotiations it was my position that I was uncomfortable with the across-the-board cost-of-living increases,” Calaycay said. “That’s just my own personal point of view.”

Nasiali said he felt that “all employees should pay their fair share of the pension plan … while it’s getting in the right direction, I’m of the belief this should have been done in the beginning and not gradually as it’s done now.”

To read entire story, click here.

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

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

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

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

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

To read entire story, click here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To read entire story, click here.

Wednesday, May 2, 2012 – 01:45 p.m.

A May surprise has popped up in the race to decide who will represent San Bernardino County’s Third Supervisorial District.

Mail from the San Bernardino County Public Attorneys Association started showing up in District voter mailboxes Tuesday.

A surprise to many who thought the group, which represents Deputy District Attorneys, Deputy Public Defenders and Child Support Attorneys, was staying out of the race.

Who is the mail supporting?

The answer is County Supervisor Neil Derry.

Derry, who is being challenged by Former San Manuel Band of Mission Indians Chairman James Ramos and Department of Defense employee James Bagley, received the support of the Association four years ago, when he ousted five-term incumbent Dennis Hansberger.

To view the campaign brochure, click here: SBCPAA – Derry Mailer

It’s unknown as to what level of assistance the Attorney’s group has committed.

Prior to the Attorneys Association weighing in, Derry had already garnered the support of he San Bernardino Police Officer’s Association. San Bernardino City Firefighter’s, San Bernardino County Professional Firefighter’s, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, California Republican Assembly and the San Bernardino County Republican Party.

View: Initiative

The newly proposed three-strikes initiative to scale back California’s tough sentencing law has gotten opposing reactions from two local district attorneys.

Supporters, who submitted more than enough signatures to qualify for the November ballot, bagged the endorsement of the measure by Los Angeles County District Attorney Steve Cooley.

However, San Bernardino County District Attorney Mike Ramos is not one of those supporters.

“I don’t think this is necessary,” Ramos said. “All of the district attorneys that I know, we use our discretion. We don’t file three strikes on every person. We take a look at every record.”

Supporters of the initiative point out that about 26 states have three-strikes laws, but California is the only one that allows prosecutors to charge any felony as a third strike, which carries a sentence of 25-years-to-life.

The proposed measure would reserve the toughest penalty – 25 years to life – for the baddest of the bad. It would allow only certain hard-core criminals, including murderers, rapists and child molesters, to be put away for life for any felony offense, including shoplifting, while restricting the third strike to a serious or violent felony for everyone else.

Under the existing law, offenders who have committed such relatively minor third strikes as stealing a pair of socks, attempting to break into a soup kitchen to get something to eat and forging a check for $146 at Nordstrom have been sentenced to life in prison.

The initiative is modeled on Cooley’s attempt in 2006 to modify the law and his long-standing policy to rarely seek a third strike unless the offense is a violent or serious crime.

“The Three Strikes Reform Act is right for California,” Cooley said in a written statement.

“It will ensure that the punishment fits the crime. Dangerous recidivist criminals will remain behind bars for life, and our overflowing prisons will not be clogged with inmates who pose no risk to public safety.”

Ramos says the three-strikes provision, which increases punishment significantly with the third conviction of a crimes, is working.

“With all due respect to my friend Steve Cooley, I don’t think we need to touch three-strikes,” he said.

“First, the FBI statistics in the last couple of years for serious and violent felonies have been reduced by putting the worst of the worst in state prisons.

“Secondly, when three-strikes came out in 1994, we had hundreds of three-strikes cases. These were career criminals who are now in state prisons. Fast forward to now, three-strikes cases have gone down because career criminals are no longer committing crimes.

To read entire story, click here.

Pomierski

Thursday, April 26, 2012 – 11:45 a.m.

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

The plea agreement stems from charges related to influence peddling.

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

To read the agreement click here: Pomierski Plea Agreement

We told you recently about a stunning study which found that putting a condemned prisoner to death in California cost $308 million per man.

“Executing the Will of the Voters? A Roadmap to Mend or End the California Legislature’s Death Penalty Debacle ” had unusual authority, written as it was by folks from both sides of the debate: U.S. 9th Circuit Judge Arthur L. Alarcon, who has prosecuted death penalty cases, and Loyola Law School professor Paula M. Mitchell, who argues against them.

Both agreed that the system in California is horribly broken, and in dire need of reform; and hundreds of thousands of Californians apparently agree with them.

Our colleague Martin Wisckol told you yesterday that a measure to repeal the death penalty in California had gathered enough signatures — more than half a million — to qualify for the November ballot. Instead of death, the convicted would face life terms without the possibility of parole.

Capital punishment’s supporters say death is a strong deterrent to crime; capital punishment’s detractors say it’s barbaric, and a colossal waste of money. Alarcon and Mitchell said this:

“Since reinstating the death penalty in 1978, California taxpayers have spent roughly $4 billion to fund a dysfunctional death penalty system that has carried out no more than 13 executions,” they say. ”The current backlog of death penalty cases is so severe that most of the 714 prisoners now on death row will wait well over 20 years before their cases are resolved. Many of these condemned inmates will thus languish on death row for decades, only to die of natural causes while still waiting for their cases to be resolved.

To read entire story, click here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Californians voters going to the polls in November will again decide the fate of the death penalty.

A measure to abolish the death penalty and replace it with a maximum sentence of life behind bars without parole has qualified for the Nov. 6 ballot, the Secretary of State confirmed today. The measure, backed by a coalition that includes the American Civil Liberties Union and some law enforcement and victims rights groups, would apply to inmates currently on death row.

Supporters say capital punishment, which voters added to the state’s books in 1978, costs California more than $100 million a year while leading to very few executions because of the time it takes to go through the appeals process.

Proponents had submitted to election officials nearly 800,000 petition signatures earlier this year. The measure officially made the cut after a random signature check conducted by counties projected that at least 555,236 of those signatures were from registered voters.

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.

PolitiCal
On politics in the Golden State
April 17, 2012 | 1:26 pm

A proposal by Assemblyman Tom Ammiano (D-San Francisco) that could make it easier to open medical marijuana shops in California was approved by the Assembly’s Public Safety Committee A proposal that could make it easier to open medical marijuana shops in California was approved Tuesday by the Assembly’s Public Safety Committee despite objections from cities and law enforcement agencies that it unreasonably ties their hands.

The measure by committee Chairman Tom Ammiano (D-San Francisco) would shift the regulation of the industry from local governments, some of which have banned the dispensaries, to a new state Board of Medical Marijuana Enforcement that would adopt rules and set fees for medical pot cultivation and sales.

The measure would require that no fewer than one pot dispensary be allowed per 50,000 residents. Ammiano said statewide rules are needed because dispensaries have been harassed by law enforcement in some areas even though they were legalized by California voters more than 15 years ago.

“The worst public policy choice for California is to sit idly by doing nothing and let this failed war on medical cannabis continue unchecked,” he said before the committee vote. “The point of regulation is to bring these activities above board to guarantee safe and effective access, with clear rules for those involved in the industry.”

To read entire story, click here.

Pomierski

Tuesday, April 17, 2012 – 10:55 a.m.

Is there a plea deal in the long-running Upland corruption case against former Upland Mayor John “J.P.” Pomierski?

The answer is likely yes according to well-placed sources close to the situation.

Plea agreements between the U.S. Government and Pomierski and co-defendants John Hennes and Anthony Orlando Sanchez may be announced as early as next week.

All three men are facing corruption charges involving influence peddling and bribery.

The agreements, if finalized, will bring the case to completion.

Developing….

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

Published: 15 April 2012 02:18 PM

Advocates and opponents of California’s medical marijuana clinics are in a legal no-man’s land after a flurry of appellate court decisions that contradict each other on whether local governments can ban the dispensaries.

The decisions also conflict on how the clinics can supply themselves with marijuana.

“We have had a potpourri of various court rulings, and they’re all conflicting,” said Lanny Swerdlow, a registered nurse and board member of a Riverside-based Inland Empire Patient’s Health and Wellness Center.

“We have had one 4{+t}{+h} District Court branch say cities can ban; we have had another 4{+t}{+h} District Court branch saying ‘no,’ cities can’t ban; We’ve had the 2{+n}{+d} District court say you are allowed to transport, whereas the 4{+t}{+h} District Court said you can’t transport – it’s just a total disaster,” he said.

The whipsaw of court rulings leave more than 200 cities that have instituted bans of medical marijuana clinics — as well as the clinic operators and patients who use them — uncertain of where they will land when the law gets settled.

The battle is over whether local governments can preempt the state laws governing medical marijuana clinics – the state’s 1996 Compassionate Use Act (Prop. 215) or the state Legislature’s Medical Marijuana Program.

Clinic advocates say local governments disregard state law by banning the clinics; attorneys for the counties and cities say they are within their right to use zoning laws to ban the dispensaries.

The courts’ north-and-south pole rulings are likely because of a lack of clarity in the laws, said Stanford Law School professor Robert Weisberg.

“Clearly the problem here is that there is some language in the medical marijuana laws that some people think is a little ambiguous,” he said. “That might invite municipalities to use local zoning laws that restrict or forbid the clinics, and there seems to be some ambiguities about that.”

The Riverside decision cites, “Where, as here, there is no clear indication of preemptive intent from the Legislature, we presume Riverside’s zoning regulations…are not preempted by state law,” Associate Justice Carol Codrington wrote.

A ruling regarding the City of Long Beach took another turn. The coastal city decided it would allow dispensaries, but wanted to regulate them with its own ordinances. A court decided that the city could not make such rules because under federal law, marijuana is illegal.

The latest twist in the dispensary legal saga came Feb. 29, when the 4{+t}{+h} District Court of Appeal based in Santa Ana ruled that the City of Lake Forest in Orange County could not ban medical marijuana dispensaries.

That came after a series of rulings that favored cities and counties exerting greater local control over the clinics, topped by a decision by the 4{+t}{+h} District Court in Riverside’s November ruling that local governments could ban the dispensaries outright, said John Higginbotham, an attorney with the Riverside-based law firm of Best Best & Krieger. The law firm has represented several cities in the legal fight to ban the clinics.

“The Lake Forest decision was kind of a surprise to many people,” Higginbotham said. “It’s hard to reconcile all those previous cases with that.”

The Riverside decision was vacated when the state Supreme Court in January took it and three other medical marijuana cases to eventually rule on the already tumultuous legal structure of California’s medical marijuana laws.

To read entire story, click here.

San Bernardino County Sheriff-Coroner Rod Hoops

April 15, 2012 3:02 PM
KATIE LUCIA, Staff Writer

BARSTOW • As local governments explore ways to cut costs, the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department is offering a solution Barstow leaders say they won’t buy: contract police work to the sheriff.

At a county-city conference last month, San Bernardino County Sheriff Rod Hoops gave a presentation on the department’s goals, one of which was to replace city police departments with sheriff contracts, according to Barstow Mayor Joe Gomez, who attended the conference. There, Hoops discussed the cost savings of contracting with the county.

Barstow is among 12 cities in the county currently maintaining a city police force. It is the only city in the High Desert not contracting with the sheriff’s department.

“In these tough budget times, the combined resources of a sheriff’s department are the best economic decision for a city,” Cindy Bachman, spokeswoman for the sheriff’s department, said via e-mail. “For instance, the sheriff has a Homicide, Narcotics, SWAT, Crimes Against Children Divisions, et cetera — these specialized divisions handle cases countywide and each station does not need to have staff to handle these typically lengthy and usually high profile cases.”

Currently, the city spends nearly $9 million annually on the Barstow Police Department, accounting for more than half the city’s operating expenditures.

Despite the argued cost savings of a sheriff’s contract, many city leaders were strongly opposed to the concept.

To read entire story, click here.

Wes Woods II
Created: 04/11/2012 06:08:51 PM PDT

CLAREMONT – The police union has rejected a three-year contract offer that had been agreed upon by its leadership and the city.

Detective Rick Varney, the Claremont Police Officers Association president, said he was sorry about the failed agreement.

“I know the community will be upset on whole thing,” Varney said. “I offer my apologies but we are trying to work toward an end to this issue. It’s not that our association members don’t want to pay into their PERS (California Public Employees Retirement System). They do. At this point, we’re trying to find out what they want in addition to what we negotiated to. We know we’re going to pay into our PERS, and we don’t have any issues on that.”

Varney said after its 37 members turned in their votes a single ballot made the difference.

“You always hear in elections my vote doesn’t count … every vote was valuable,” Varney said. “With 19-18, we’re not that far to coming to an agreement. We just need a simple majority.”

Interim Assistant City Manager Colin Tudor said city officials were told about the vote early Wednesday.

Police union and city officials will meet for mediation at 10 a.m. Monday at the state Public Employee Relations Board in Glendale, Varney said.

“The negotiating team will meet at the PERS hearing with our board members,” Varney said. “We’ll see if any headway can be made in that.”

In the tentative agreement turned down by the union rank and file, members would have had to agree to pay the remaining percentage of its pension contribution starting July 8, 2013.

The union would also have withdrawn two legal actions it filed against the city. The actions involve an unfair labor practice allegation and a writ of mandate requesting salary information for several top city officials, including former employees.

Union members will move ahead with legal actions it had planned against the city, union attorney Dieter Dammeier said.

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.

Debra J. Saunders

Debra J. Saunders
Friday, April 6, 2012

Why is the federal government under President Obama arguably tougher on medical marijuana operations than it was under George W. Bush? That’s the question that antidrug-war groups have been asking themselves for months.

In 2008, antiprohibitionists thought an Obama administration would not tread on medical-marijuana dispensaries in states where they are legal. Obama 2008 campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt told me Obama “believes that states and local governments are best positioned to strike the balance between making sure that these policies are not abused for recreational drug use and making sure that doctors and their patients can safely access pain relief.”

Now that Obama’s in office, however, his Department of Justice is not allowing the 16 states that have legalized medical marijuana to self-regulate. Exactly the opposite: Last fall, U.S. attorneys in California warned landlords that they must evict medical-marijuana clubs or risk having their assets seized. In October, the Internal Revenue Service informed dispensaries that they cannot declare standard tax deductions because they are criminal enterprises.

“Drug kingpins and cartels don’t file taxes. We do,” Steve DeAngelo, director of medical-marijuana giant Harborside Health Center, told MSNBC. “But no business, including ours, can survive if it is taxed on its gross revenue. The IRS is trying to tax us out of existence.”

On Monday, the feds raided the apartment and medical-marijuana businesses run by Richard Lee, the wheelchair-bound Oakland pro-marijuana activist, who put more than $1 million into the 2010 Proposition 19 campaign to legalize marijuana.

According to news reports, Lee’s supporters came out to protest the raid, and some punctuated their point by lighting up in public. Such antics reinforce law enforcement’s suspicion that recreational users are hiding behind the skirts of medical marijuana.

The thing is, Obama The Candidate said he’d let locals decide how to handle any abuses, and there is local enforcement. According to the office of California Attorney General Kamala Harris, there were 16,585 felony marijuana arrests in 2010. Some cities go after dispensaries suspected of illegal trafficking, others choose to use their resources on higher priorities. (Lee points out that Oakland police were detailed to control crowds that gathered to protest the raid on his Oaksterdam University on the day of the horrific Oikos University shootings.)

An Obama official informed me that the administration has not changed positions. The administration always maintained that federal officials have the authority – indeed, a duty under the Controlled Substances Act – to go after traffickers who use medical marijuana as a pretext to sell a drug.

To read entire column, 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.

Wes Woods II, Staff Writer
Created: 03/30/2012 06:07:44 PM PDT

CLAREMONT – After months of rancor, lawsuits and even some threats, the City Council and the Claremont Police Officers Association have reached a tentative agreement on a 3-year labor contract.

The council is due to vote on the contract at its April 10 meeting, city officials said. The CPOA will present the agreement to its members on Monday.

The negotiations have gone on for months as both sides argued over increased employee pension payments, pay increases and even a dispute over where the union could pass out fliers at the annual Village Venture event.

Mayor Larry Schroeder announced the tentative agreement out of closed session at the regular council meeting this week. He said the vote in closed session was not unanimous but the actual vote was not released.

In the tentative agreement, the CPOA agreed to pay the remaining percentage of its California Public Employees Retirement System contribution starting July 8, 2013 and withdraw the two legal actions it filed against the city.

Union members currently pay 6 percent of the employee PERS contribution and before the end of the contract term will pay the full 8 or 9 percent depending on the employment classification.

City council members, during the length of the contract, agreed to pay union members cost of living adjustments totaling 5 percent.

CPOA president Claremont police Cpl. Rick Varney said the deal was reached after negotiating team members met with city representatives.

He said he did not anticipate the deal collapsing when it is presented to the union membership.

“It’s a formality to have our vote,” Varney said. “The city and our negotiating team worked well together. It’s amazing what you can do without attorneys.”

Schroeder said the agreement allows the council to achieve several long-term goals.

“These are aligning the police union members to be on the same negotiation schedule as other units,” he said, “and all employees will be paying the full amount of their share of PERS contribution by the end of their contracts in June 2014.”

Councilmen Corey Calaycay and Opanyi Nasiali, when reached Friday, declined to discuss the matter because the vote was reached in closed session.

To read entire story, click here.

BY JEFF HORSEMAN
STAFF WRITER
jhorseman@pe.com

Published: 29 March 2012 07:18 PM

Riverside County Sheriff Stan Sniff asked county supervisors Thursday for more money in next fiscal year’s budget so he can hire deputies to patrol unincorporated areas, where he said crime is rising.

The ratio of deputies assigned to areas outside of cities has dropped from 1.2 deputies per 1,000 residents in 2009 and 2010 to 0.90 per 1,000 today.

That ratio is projected to slip to 0.75 per 1,000 by this summer, Sniff said. Fifty deputies have left the department this fiscal year, and 50 more are expected to leave this summer on top of almost 130 retirements, Sniff told the Board of Supervisors during a special hearing on the 2012-13 budget.

The department has been reducing the number of deputies to cut costs.

Sniff said preliminary numbers his department is reporting to the FBI show an increase in violent and property crimes in unincorporated areas around Hemet, Perris, Lake Elsinore, Cabazon, Palm Desert, Indio and Blythe. Assaults with deadly weapons and burglaries also are up in unincorporated parts of southwest Riverside County, he said.

In addition, response times are starting to lag in the unincorporated areas, Sniff said.

“As far as the public’s concerned, we need to start aiming at getting the staffing back up,” he said. Sniff asked for $4 million in the coming budget to add 50 new deputies.

Despite a projected $5.5million deficit last summer, the Sheriff’s Department now is expected to end the fiscal year June 30 with a surplus of at least $1 million, Sniff said. He said that was a result of cutting patrols in unincorporated areas and making jail operations more efficient.

If supervisors are inclined to add deputies, they should do so as soon as possible, since it would take at least 18 months to recruit and train the new people, Sniff said.

To read entire story, click here.

March 28, 2012 4:06 PM
Tomoya Shimura, Staff Writer

VICTORVILLE • A former Victorville deputy accused of failing to report illegal sexual acts between a fellow deputy and a teen Explorer was acquitted in his misdemeanor trial Wednesday.

After a few hours of deliberations, a Victorville jury found Erik Alexandro Orduno, 32, not guilty of failing to report suspected child abuse as a mandated reporter.

The victim testified in the trial that she had sent text messages to Orduno about her feelings for former Victorville deputy Anthony James Benjamin and their sexual relationship.

Although Orduno knew the victim had a crush on Benjamin, he testified that he thought the sexual acts were between the victim and her boyfriend. He never thought Benjamin would do anything like that to an Explorer, Orduno said.

Orduno said he told the victim to focus on school and her boyfriend, who was close to her age.

Benjamin admitted he had engaged in sexual acts with the victim and knew she was a minor at the time. According to the complaint, the incidents took place on or about July 1, 2010 through Dec. 18, 2010.

Benjamin pleaded no contest to oral copulation of a person under 18 and was sentenced to 270 days in jail in August.

The victim said she had been attracted to Benjamin since the first day they met in the Explorer program at the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Victorville station. Benjamin became her mentor, and they went on a ride-along once a week and began flirting in the patrol car.

An anonymous tip to law enforcement about their relationship led to Benjamin’s arrest in May.

Sheriff’s officials said both Orduno and Benjamin were no longer with the department as of August

Tomoya Shimura may be reached at (760) 955-5368 or TShimura@VVDailyPress.com. Follow Tomoya on Facebook at facebook.com/ShimuraTomoya.

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.

.

Andrew Edwards, Staff Writer
Posted: 03/27/2012 10:44:33 AM PDT

San Bernardino International Airport’s governing board may take action Wednesday to help the San Bernardino County Sheriff move its aviation division from Rialto Municipal Airport to the former Norton Air Force base.

Although the airport board is set to consider a relatively straightforward financial agreement involving Rialto and San Bernardino County government, the end of redevelopment agencies in California complicates the plan.

The Rialto Redevelopment Agency owned Rialto Municipal Airport, and previously, redevelopment officials planned to sell the airport to a developers group and turn the money over to Rialto’s city government.

The sale could have generated an amount between $26 million and $35 million, Rialto economic development director Rob Steel said.

More than $4 million, as outlined in the deal SBIA board members are scheduled to discuss today, would have been ultimately delivered to SBIA to help the sheriff’s aviation division set up a new base in San Bernardino.

But after the courts upheld legislation to end redevelopment agencies, Rialto Municipal’s ownership is under a cloud. Rialto will have to send representatives to a state oversight board to contend that Rialto Municipal should be under city control.

“We’re going to have to convince them the rightful place for the property is the city, not some dissolution or liquidation sale,” Steel said.

The sheriff’s department and others at Rialto Municipal have been expected to move to SBIA since Congress approved the former airport’s closure in 2005.

SBIA assistant director Mike Burrows said officials at the San Bernardino airport have planned for the sheriff’s flyers to be the first Rialto Municipal tenants to move to SBIA.

To read entire story, click here.

Capitol Alert
The latest on California politics and government
March 27, 2012

Democratic campaign treasurer Kinde Durkee is expected to plead guilty to stealing millions from the accounts she controlled for her California political clients, according to two sources close to the case.

The news came as the U.S. Attorneys Office filed fresh charges against the veteran Democratic treasurer, who was arrested last fall. A spokeswoman for the U.S. Attorney in Sacramento could not confirm whether Durkee is expected to plea, but said the filing of such documents typically indicate plea negotiations are in the works.

The 17-page complaint, filed Tuesday in the United State District Court for the Eastern District of California, details fraud and embezzlement stretching back more than a decade, accusing Durkee of “routinely misappropriating” funds from clients’ accounts and filing false reports with the Secretary of State and the Federal Elections Commission. The document says at least 50 victims lost a combined $7 million-plus due to her actions.

The document says the money, which was transferred between accounts and to her firm, Durkee & Associates, without client authorization, was used to pay personal expenses, including a mortgage and credit card bills, and payroll and other business expenses.

In one 2010 transaction listed, Durkee allegedly used $23,000 intended for U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s federal campaign account to help pay a $30,000 American Express tab that included charges from the Los Angeles Dodgers, Amazon.com, Disneyland and Trader Joe’s grocery store. Other payments made with client money went to health insurance companies and residential services for her elderly mother. In some cases, she allegedly transferred money or diverted deposits to cover for previous unauthorized withdraws from other clients’ accounts.

Democratic Assemblyman Jose Solorio, a Durkee client who prosecutors say lost more than $600,000 in the hands of his former treasurer, praised the news of the plea deal in a statement. The Santa Ana Democrat said he urged investigators to “be aggressive in making sure Durkee serves as many years as possible in federal prison.”

“In finalizing a long sentence term, I’m hoping the FBI and courts send a message to treasurers, accountants and book keepers around the country that defrauding their clients is a serious matter,” he said in the statement.

To read entire story, click here.

Former Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens is shown arriving at federal court in Washington on April 7, 2009. (Gerald Herbert / AP Photo / March 19, 2012)

Op-Ed
Ted Stevens and the department of injustice

An inquiry tells the story of government lawyers who failed to live up to their professional responsibilities and thus failed to give the former Alaska senator a fair trial.

By Michael Carey
March 19, 2012

As his trial on corruption charges approached in the fall of 2008, Ted Stevens railed to me in an email: “What did I do, Michael? What did I do?” The wounded rage smoldering in that rhetorical question to a reporter reflected his belief that he had done nothing wrong. He continued to insist on his innocence after a Washington, D.C., jury found him guilty of lying on financial disclosure forms.

Stevens’ conviction was dismissed in 2009 after the Justice Department’s admission that government lawyers failed to turn over evidence the Stevens defense should have received. U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan, who presided over Stevens’ trial, soon authorized an investigation of the prosecutors’ conduct, a move as rare as the trial of a U.S. senator.

Last week, the judge’s investigator, Special Counsel Henry F. Schuelke, issued his findings, which Stevens will never read. He died in a 2010 airplane accident.

We don’t know what a fair trial would have produced. But now this is a story of government prosecutors — some in Anchorage, some in Washington — who failed to live up to their professional responsibilities and thus failed to give Stevens a fair trial. Schuelke blisteringly refers to their “astonishing misstatements” that concealed the existence of documents and information in their possession.

The government attorneys most involved in the case held positions of exceptional responsibility and exceptional trust. Brenda Morris, the lead attorney at trial, had 20 years of experience as she was promoted to increasingly influential positions. Three younger attorneys — Nicholas Marsh (who later killed himself), James Goeke and Edward Sullivan — clerked for federal judges after law school and appeared to be on their way to noteworthy public service careers. Joseph Bottini had been a member of the U.S. attorney’s office in Alaska since 1985 and was well-known and well respected throughout the state’s legal community. Several Anchorage lawyers told me before Schuelke’s report came out that they refused to believe Bottini was involved in misconduct.

But he was. And so were the others.

If the government attorneys were guilty of misconduct, they also were guilty of badly misreading Stevens.

He certainly was guilty of bad judgment — making campaign contributors his friends because of what they could do for his reelection. But for 40 years he lived modestly, traveled modestly — I encountered him sleeping in coach on night flights — and made himself available to Alaskans of every income group, every racial group and of all political persuasions. He thought this was his job.

To read entire column, click here.