Union hopes to settle suit
Robert Rogers, Staff Writer
Article Launched: 05/22/2007 12:00:00 AM PDT
SAN BERNARDINO - The city has agreed to hire attorneys on behalf of Police Chief Mike Billdt, but the case might never reach court, the police union's president said Monday.
The City Council on Monday unanimously approved an agreement with a $20,000 ceiling for the law firm of Mundell, Odlum and Haws to defend the city and Billdt in a suit filed by the police union.
But the case's prospects of seeing a courtroom are far from certain.
Rich Lawhead, president of the San Bernardino Police Officers Association, said Monday both sides might be eager to bridge the rift that opened between union leadership and Billdt with a lawsuit filed in federal court April 30.
"If we can find a resolution, such as a policy change or injunctive relief, then we can get back to work and put this behind us," Lawhead said. "I'm optimistic we can find a resolution."
The discussions surround a lawsuit filed by the 300-member police union accusing Billdt of retaliating against two officers for seeking legal advice after an April 15 officer-involved shooting.
In February, the union implemented a policy to ensure a lawyer represents officers involved in shootings.
Instead, tactics including administrative leave have been used to dissuade officers from retaining counsel, according to the suit.
City Attorney James F. Penman, whose office drafted the request for council approval of the contract, said the matter was a routine response to a not-uncommon occurrence - legal action against department heads.
"The chief probably has less lawsuits pending against him than his predecessors have in their second years in the position," Penman said.
Still, a flurry of lawsuits in the past few months have brought a landslide of bad press on the chief.
In December, Sgt. Mike Desrochers and Sgt. Steve Lowes filed federal lawsuits accusing Billdt and his direct subordinates of using retaliatory tactics to dissuade rank-and-file officers from filing grievances.
But the biggest blow came from the most recent lawsuit, after which speculation swirled about officers' confidence in the chief.
Now, Lawhead and the union's stance have softened significantly.
Lawhead said he, union Vice President Sgt. Hank Birkes and union attorney Dieter Dammeier met with Billdt and his attorney, James Odlum, last week to work toward resolution.
"We just want a fair deal," Lawhead said. "Most of our membership wants to get back to work. Not many guys want to be involved in politics. They just want to do their jobs."
Fourth Ward Councilman Neil Derry welcomed the news of possible reconciliation Monday.
"We need to have peace between (police) management and our rank and file," Derry said.
2007-05-21
Suit details prosecutor's claim
By JOHN F. BERRY
The Press-Enterprise
A legal battle that eventually cost San Bernardino County almost a half-million dollars began with the suspicion that a top prosecutor would challenge the district attorney in the 2006 election, court documents say.
Grover Merritt, who in December won reinstatement to his old job and a nearly $300,000 settlement, said he was set up to be fired so he would not challenge San Bernardino County District Attorney Michael Ramos, the newly released documents say.
Merritt accused Assistant District Attorney Michael Risley of leaking secret documents to the press, with Ramos' approval, so that Merritt could be accused of the leak.
"My reputation is in tatters," Merritt said in a Sept. 13 deposition. "I've been publicly branded as a leaker."
Merritt was named Prosecutor of the Year for 2002, the same year he successfully argued California's "three strikes" law before the U.S. Supreme Court.
But Ramos and Risley say in the same court records that they never considered Merritt a viable candidate for district attorney.
"He would not have been considered a serious threat," Risley wrote. "He had limited political experience, no financial support, no endorsements and limited people skills."
Ramos, re-elected without opposition in 2006, limited his comments to an e-mailed statement when he was asked about the accusation.
"This matter was litigated and resolved last year," Ramos wrote. "We have put it behind us and are moving forward with the important work of the district attorney's office."
Risley, also named in the lawsuit, and Assistant District Attorney James Hackleman, who led the leak investigation, both declined to comment.
Records Uncovered
Merritt's accusations are contained in almost 400 pages of exhibits in a U.S. District Court file in Riverside. The records came into public view sometime after settlement talks began last year, revealing Merritt's contention that he was set up to be fired for political reasons.
Previously, federal and Superior Court judges, as well as county officials, had blocked the public from most court proceedings and records, citing the sensitive nature of the leaked information and rights to privacy.
The Merritt-Ramos court fight cost San Bernardino County taxpayers at least $444,303, including $297,500 for Merritt's Dec. 21 settlement of his wrongful-termination suit.
The agreement, which also restored Merritt to his previous job as Appellate Services Unit chief, said that neither side admitted fault.
San Bernardino County also paid Redlands lawyer Geoffrey Hopper $146,803 to fight the case for it, county spokesman David Wert said.
Anonymous Leaks
In April and May 2004, Valleywide Newspapers, a chain of eight weeklies based in the High Desert, ran stories based on two separate sets of documents. The stories do not say who provided the information.
The first was a death-penalty memorandum about two defendants, Jimmy Dale Kelley and Kimberly Wynn Michaud, charged in a January 2004 triple slaying in Yucca Valley. They are awaiting trial.
District attorney's office officials, including Merritt, said in the court records that the leaked documents were closely held secrets.
"If someone leaked a death penalty memo, if I were king for a day, I would have fired him," Merritt said. "You can't get, I don't think, a more precious document in a local district attorney's office."
The second set of documents included statute-of-limitations research involving former San Bernardino County Sheriff Floyd Tidwell, accused of taking at least 523 guns from property lockers during his years as sheriff. He served from 1983 to 1991.
Tidwell pleaded guilty in May 2004 as part of a plea bargain pledging cooperation. His four felony charges of gun possession were reduced to misdemeanors seven months later.
Publication of the documents violated district attorney's office policies and professional ethics, negatively affected the district attorney's relationship with the Sheriff's Department and could affect possible trials, the court records say.
Investigation
Hackleman took charge of the leak investigation in May 2004 and, in the court records, writes that Merritt soon became the prime suspect.
"To this day I still believe Merritt is the most likely leak for the information," Hackleman states. "My decision and recommendations regarding dismissal were based entirely upon my good-faith investigation."
The evidence included the reporter, Mark Gutglueck, being in possession of double-sided documents, a practice that Merritt, as head of the appellate unit, instructed his staff to follow to reduce office copying costs.
The articles used quotes with Merritt's speech patterns, Hackleman said, and Merritt had worked with Gutglueck on previous stories.
The investigation focused on Merritt's office phone records, which included a call to Gutglueck at 12:10 p.m. March 29, 2004. The call, which lasted 4 minutes and 55 seconds, was made the day the reporter faced a deadline for one of his stories.
Merritt was "vague and evasive" about the conversation when questioned, Hackleman wrote.
"(Merritt) could not explain what the purpose of the call was or what was discussed," Hackleman wrote. "(His) inability to explain ...was another factor in concluding (Merritt) was the source of the information."
Merritt, citing his settlement, declined to answer questions specifically addressing his court case, but he characterized the call as "no big deal.
"I didn't remember it at the time," Merritt said.
On Aug. 13, 2004, Merritt was served with a "notice of proposed dismissal," which cited him for the leaks as well as disrespectful behavior toward court officials. Records of Merritt's annual job evaluations, included in federal court records, show Merritt received several below-average grades for his inability to work well with office staff and court officials.
Merritt was escorted out of the office.
"1:34 p.m.," Merritt said in a recent interview. "I won't forget that one anytime soon."
The following month, Merritt's attorney provided a sworn statement from Gutglueck saying Merritt was not the source of the anonymous documents, court records say.
Gutglueck declined to comment.
Firing Back
Merritt appealed his termination on Oct. 7, 2004, the day after he was officially fired.
Nine days of hearings before the San Bernardino County Civil Service Commission began the following April. In July 2005, hearing officer Doug Hart ruled that the district attorney's office failed to substantiate the firing.
Hart ordered that Merritt receive his old job and 10 months of back pay.
The ruling said there was no direct evidence proving Merritt was the leak source. The ruling did not say if anyone else in the district attorney's office was the source.
"Evidence also showed many people in the district attorney's office talked to or called phone numbers associated with Gutglueck, including Assistant District Attorney Risley," Hart wrote in his ruling.
Hart noted that Risley had a "long-standing personal relationship" with the publisher of Valleywide Newspapers, Ray Pryke, which included helping Risley win a seat on the Town Council of Apple Valley.
Pryke said recently that he and Risley were close friends, but they have not really talked since 2004 because they were both witnesses in the Merritt lawsuit.
"Risley is a very good prosecutor," Pryke said. "He has good moral values."
He declined to discuss how his newspaper chain obtained the confidential information.
Back to Work
Merritt returned to work in the district attorney's office in August 2005, but as a courtroom prosecutor, not as Appellate Services Unit chief, his previous position.
He viewed his new position as a demotion and a "sham." District attorney's office officials said his previous position was eliminated in an office reorganization.
On Oct. 11, 2005, Merritt filed a federal lawsuit against Ramos, Risley and San Bernardino County on nine grounds, including violating his civil rights, wrongful termination and inflicting emotional distress.
In his lawsuit, Merritt focused on a July 2004 conversation with Ramos at a California District Attorneys Association conference in Napa. The lawsuit states that Ramos boasted about his contacts with Gov. Schwarzenegger and dangled a judgeship in front of Merritt as a "thinly veiled" offer to dissuade him from running in 2006.
Merritt said he found the timing of the conversation odd considering he was already the target of a leak investigation.
Ramos said in the federal court records that he initiated the topic during polite conversation but didn't promise a judgeship.
Merritt said recently that he was only considering running for district attorney and never made a final decision in 2004 to challenge Ramos. He said he does not have a passion for running for office, but he declined to dismiss the possibility outright.
In November, Merritt was elected president of the San Bernardino County Public Attorneys Association, the union that represents nearly 400 prosecutors and public defenders. His duties dealing with the district attorney's office on union issues.
Reach John F. Berry at 909-806-3058 or jberry@PE.com
dispute
The conflict between San Bernardino County District Attorney Michael Ramos and Deputy District Attorney Grover Merritt lasted more than two years:
2002: Merritt is named Prosecutor of the Year and successfully argues California's "three strikes" law before the U.S. Supreme Court.
Late 2003-early 2004: Rumors and e-mails circulate suggesting that Merritt is considering running for San Bernardino County district attorney in 2006.
May 2004: A top official in the district attorney's office heads an investigation of leaks to the press and identifies Merritt as the likely source.
Early July 2004: Ramos offers to support Merritt in an application for a judgeship.
Aug. 13, 2004: Merritt is escorted out of the district attorney's office and fired two months later.
July 7, 2005: After nine days of hearings, a civil service examiner rules that the district attorney failed to justify Merritt's firing and that Merritt is owed back pay and his old job.
Aug. 1, 2005: Merritt resumes work, but as a courtroom prosecutor rather than Appellate Services Unit chief, his previous position. .
Oct. 11, 2005: Merritt files a federal wrongful-termination lawsuit.
Dec. 21, 2006: Merritt wins nearly $300,000 in a settlement.
Jan. 8: Merritt returns to his old job as the lead deputy district attorney for the Appellate Services Unit.
SOURCE: U.S. District and Superior Court records; San Bernardino County
The Press-Enterprise
A legal battle that eventually cost San Bernardino County almost a half-million dollars began with the suspicion that a top prosecutor would challenge the district attorney in the 2006 election, court documents say.
Grover Merritt, who in December won reinstatement to his old job and a nearly $300,000 settlement, said he was set up to be fired so he would not challenge San Bernardino County District Attorney Michael Ramos, the newly released documents say.
Merritt accused Assistant District Attorney Michael Risley of leaking secret documents to the press, with Ramos' approval, so that Merritt could be accused of the leak.
"My reputation is in tatters," Merritt said in a Sept. 13 deposition. "I've been publicly branded as a leaker."
Merritt was named Prosecutor of the Year for 2002, the same year he successfully argued California's "three strikes" law before the U.S. Supreme Court.
But Ramos and Risley say in the same court records that they never considered Merritt a viable candidate for district attorney.
"He would not have been considered a serious threat," Risley wrote. "He had limited political experience, no financial support, no endorsements and limited people skills."
Ramos, re-elected without opposition in 2006, limited his comments to an e-mailed statement when he was asked about the accusation.
"This matter was litigated and resolved last year," Ramos wrote. "We have put it behind us and are moving forward with the important work of the district attorney's office."
Risley, also named in the lawsuit, and Assistant District Attorney James Hackleman, who led the leak investigation, both declined to comment.
Records Uncovered
Merritt's accusations are contained in almost 400 pages of exhibits in a U.S. District Court file in Riverside. The records came into public view sometime after settlement talks began last year, revealing Merritt's contention that he was set up to be fired for political reasons.
Previously, federal and Superior Court judges, as well as county officials, had blocked the public from most court proceedings and records, citing the sensitive nature of the leaked information and rights to privacy.
The Merritt-Ramos court fight cost San Bernardino County taxpayers at least $444,303, including $297,500 for Merritt's Dec. 21 settlement of his wrongful-termination suit.
The agreement, which also restored Merritt to his previous job as Appellate Services Unit chief, said that neither side admitted fault.
San Bernardino County also paid Redlands lawyer Geoffrey Hopper $146,803 to fight the case for it, county spokesman David Wert said.
Anonymous Leaks
In April and May 2004, Valleywide Newspapers, a chain of eight weeklies based in the High Desert, ran stories based on two separate sets of documents. The stories do not say who provided the information.
The first was a death-penalty memorandum about two defendants, Jimmy Dale Kelley and Kimberly Wynn Michaud, charged in a January 2004 triple slaying in Yucca Valley. They are awaiting trial.
District attorney's office officials, including Merritt, said in the court records that the leaked documents were closely held secrets.
"If someone leaked a death penalty memo, if I were king for a day, I would have fired him," Merritt said. "You can't get, I don't think, a more precious document in a local district attorney's office."
The second set of documents included statute-of-limitations research involving former San Bernardino County Sheriff Floyd Tidwell, accused of taking at least 523 guns from property lockers during his years as sheriff. He served from 1983 to 1991.
Tidwell pleaded guilty in May 2004 as part of a plea bargain pledging cooperation. His four felony charges of gun possession were reduced to misdemeanors seven months later.
Publication of the documents violated district attorney's office policies and professional ethics, negatively affected the district attorney's relationship with the Sheriff's Department and could affect possible trials, the court records say.
Investigation
Hackleman took charge of the leak investigation in May 2004 and, in the court records, writes that Merritt soon became the prime suspect.
"To this day I still believe Merritt is the most likely leak for the information," Hackleman states. "My decision and recommendations regarding dismissal were based entirely upon my good-faith investigation."
The evidence included the reporter, Mark Gutglueck, being in possession of double-sided documents, a practice that Merritt, as head of the appellate unit, instructed his staff to follow to reduce office copying costs.
The articles used quotes with Merritt's speech patterns, Hackleman said, and Merritt had worked with Gutglueck on previous stories.
The investigation focused on Merritt's office phone records, which included a call to Gutglueck at 12:10 p.m. March 29, 2004. The call, which lasted 4 minutes and 55 seconds, was made the day the reporter faced a deadline for one of his stories.
Merritt was "vague and evasive" about the conversation when questioned, Hackleman wrote.
"(Merritt) could not explain what the purpose of the call was or what was discussed," Hackleman wrote. "(His) inability to explain ...was another factor in concluding (Merritt) was the source of the information."
Merritt, citing his settlement, declined to answer questions specifically addressing his court case, but he characterized the call as "no big deal.
"I didn't remember it at the time," Merritt said.
On Aug. 13, 2004, Merritt was served with a "notice of proposed dismissal," which cited him for the leaks as well as disrespectful behavior toward court officials. Records of Merritt's annual job evaluations, included in federal court records, show Merritt received several below-average grades for his inability to work well with office staff and court officials.
Merritt was escorted out of the office.
"1:34 p.m.," Merritt said in a recent interview. "I won't forget that one anytime soon."
The following month, Merritt's attorney provided a sworn statement from Gutglueck saying Merritt was not the source of the anonymous documents, court records say.
Gutglueck declined to comment.
Firing Back
Merritt appealed his termination on Oct. 7, 2004, the day after he was officially fired.
Nine days of hearings before the San Bernardino County Civil Service Commission began the following April. In July 2005, hearing officer Doug Hart ruled that the district attorney's office failed to substantiate the firing.
Hart ordered that Merritt receive his old job and 10 months of back pay.
The ruling said there was no direct evidence proving Merritt was the leak source. The ruling did not say if anyone else in the district attorney's office was the source.
"Evidence also showed many people in the district attorney's office talked to or called phone numbers associated with Gutglueck, including Assistant District Attorney Risley," Hart wrote in his ruling.
Hart noted that Risley had a "long-standing personal relationship" with the publisher of Valleywide Newspapers, Ray Pryke, which included helping Risley win a seat on the Town Council of Apple Valley.
Pryke said recently that he and Risley were close friends, but they have not really talked since 2004 because they were both witnesses in the Merritt lawsuit.
"Risley is a very good prosecutor," Pryke said. "He has good moral values."
He declined to discuss how his newspaper chain obtained the confidential information.
Back to Work
Merritt returned to work in the district attorney's office in August 2005, but as a courtroom prosecutor, not as Appellate Services Unit chief, his previous position.
He viewed his new position as a demotion and a "sham." District attorney's office officials said his previous position was eliminated in an office reorganization.
On Oct. 11, 2005, Merritt filed a federal lawsuit against Ramos, Risley and San Bernardino County on nine grounds, including violating his civil rights, wrongful termination and inflicting emotional distress.
In his lawsuit, Merritt focused on a July 2004 conversation with Ramos at a California District Attorneys Association conference in Napa. The lawsuit states that Ramos boasted about his contacts with Gov. Schwarzenegger and dangled a judgeship in front of Merritt as a "thinly veiled" offer to dissuade him from running in 2006.
Merritt said he found the timing of the conversation odd considering he was already the target of a leak investigation.
Ramos said in the federal court records that he initiated the topic during polite conversation but didn't promise a judgeship.
Merritt said recently that he was only considering running for district attorney and never made a final decision in 2004 to challenge Ramos. He said he does not have a passion for running for office, but he declined to dismiss the possibility outright.
In November, Merritt was elected president of the San Bernardino County Public Attorneys Association, the union that represents nearly 400 prosecutors and public defenders. His duties dealing with the district attorney's office on union issues.
Reach John F. Berry at 909-806-3058 or jberry@PE.com
dispute
The conflict between San Bernardino County District Attorney Michael Ramos and Deputy District Attorney Grover Merritt lasted more than two years:
2002: Merritt is named Prosecutor of the Year and successfully argues California's "three strikes" law before the U.S. Supreme Court.
Late 2003-early 2004: Rumors and e-mails circulate suggesting that Merritt is considering running for San Bernardino County district attorney in 2006.
May 2004: A top official in the district attorney's office heads an investigation of leaks to the press and identifies Merritt as the likely source.
Early July 2004: Ramos offers to support Merritt in an application for a judgeship.
Aug. 13, 2004: Merritt is escorted out of the district attorney's office and fired two months later.
July 7, 2005: After nine days of hearings, a civil service examiner rules that the district attorney failed to justify Merritt's firing and that Merritt is owed back pay and his old job.
Aug. 1, 2005: Merritt resumes work, but as a courtroom prosecutor rather than Appellate Services Unit chief, his previous position. .
Oct. 11, 2005: Merritt files a federal wrongful-termination lawsuit.
Dec. 21, 2006: Merritt wins nearly $300,000 in a settlement.
Jan. 8: Merritt returns to his old job as the lead deputy district attorney for the Appellate Services Unit.
SOURCE: U.S. District and Superior Court records; San Bernardino County
2007-05-13
Online site details gifts to S.B. county officials
By DUANE W. GANG
The Press-Enterprise
Sports and alcohol.
Those two dominate when it comes to the gifts San Bernardino County's elected officials receive.
The gifts are outlined in conflict-of-interest forms newly available on the Internet, making San Bernardino County the first in the state to allow public access of the documents online.
It is all supposed to be listed there, from a $65 bottle of cognac and $250 in champagne to a $50 signed football and hundreds of dollars in baseball tickets.
The forms also list sources of income, loans and real-estate holdings as a way for residents to gauge leaders' potential conflicts of interest.
"To me, it is important for us not to hide behind anything," said Supervisor Gary Ovitt, the board's chief proponent in placing the Form 700s online.
Transparency
Putting the documents online is the latest effort by county leaders to make local government more transparent to residents. The Board of Supervisors' weekly meetings are now shown live over the Internet and campaign finance reports soon go online.
From April 24 through Thursday, the clerk of the board's Web site, which includes links to the webcast and statements of economic interest, had more than 86,000 hits. The Form 700 site had 12,000 hits, according to the county.
In the past, between 200 and 300 people per year would visit the clerk's office to view Form 700s, Ovitt said.
"Twelve thousand in a month's time shows this is a valuable tool," he said.
While the county is making documents available online, it has fought to keep others private. The county denies access to e-mails supervisors write and has fought in court this year to prevent a local newspaper from gaining access to two supervisors' calendars.
Scandal Ripples
Supervisor Josie Gonzales said all county leaders have been "painted with a broad brush" because of past corruption scandals. Putting the forms online "goes a long way toward that transparency we are looking for," she said.
Gonzales, who has released calendars, said she doesn't see any hypocrisy in allowing access to the public documents online but fighting to keep others private. She said the county must protect certain confidentialities and must keep in mind potential liabilities.
Bob Stern, president of the Los Angeles-based Center for Governmental Studies, said he would have preferred for the county to make campaign finance data available online first.
But allowing access to conflict-of-interest documents is a service to residents, Stern said.
"It gives the public an idea of potential conflicts and that's what this is all about," he said. "It makes the officials much more careful about reporting and reporting everything."
The forms available online cover all of 2006 and are available for elected leaders and other top officials, from supervisors to County Administrative Officer Mark Uffer and chiefs of staff.
So what can one find detailed in the forms?
Assessor Bill Postmus, a former supervisor, accepted the most in gifts of the county's elected leaders, $513.34 worth last year.
The majority, about $378 worth, came in the form of baseball tickets from organizations including Southern California Edison and the investment firm Lehman Brothers. Postmus is an avid Angels fan.
His disclosure form also reports income he received as chairman of the San Bernardino County Republican Party. Postmus' income from the party ranged between $10,000 and $100,000. The forms include a range of value, not the exact amount of income.
"He loves baseball and when there is an opportunity when someone invites him to a game, he is going to take it up as a friendly gesture," spokesman Adam Aleman said.
Postmus doesn't "make any promises or commitments" based on tickets to baseball games, Aleman said.
Board of Supervisors Chairman Paul Biane accepted a $65 bottle of cognac from a company called DW Development, a $75 gift basket from the National Community Renaissance; and dinner and Colorado Rockies tickets from the law firm of Best, Best and Krieger valued at $105.62.
Biane also has investments in a host of real-estate and farming interests, including a Kern County farm where he is a partner with his brother.
Ovitt received a $50 signed football and $75 in wine from Dr. James Lally, president of Chino Valley Medical Center. Ovitt also accepted a $150 Chino Hills logo jacket from the city's mayor pro tem, Curt Hagman.
Gonzales accepted $249.99 in champagne, $82 in tequila and $13 worth of candy from DW Development.
Her form, the longest of the five supervisors at 10 pages, outlines interests in her family's restaurant, Mexico Lindo in Fontana, and rental properties in Fontana and Colton.
Supervisor Brad Mitzelfelt, appointed to the board in January, reported one gift, a $100 gift card from Postmus, his former boss. Mitzelfelt served as chief of staff during Postmus' tenure as a supervisor from 2000 to 2006.
Supervisor Dennis Hansberger last year reported receiving no gifts. His form outlines a property he owns in Fawnskin near Big Bear Lake and lists his wife's medical practice.
Reach Duane W. Gang at 909-806-3062 or dgang@PE.com
Gifts to elected leaders
Statements of economic interest, which detail gifts and sources of income, are now available online for San Bernardino County officials at http://ww.sbcounty.gov/cob. Gifts included:
$50 football to Supervisor Gary Ovitt.
$65 bottle of cognac to Supervisor Paul Biane.
$75 Clipper tickets to District Attorney Mike Ramos.
$249.99 in champagne to Supervisor Josie Gonzales.
$378 in baseball tickets to Assessor Bill Postmus, a former supervisor.
Source: San Bernardino County Form 700s
The Press-Enterprise
Sports and alcohol.
Those two dominate when it comes to the gifts San Bernardino County's elected officials receive.
The gifts are outlined in conflict-of-interest forms newly available on the Internet, making San Bernardino County the first in the state to allow public access of the documents online.
It is all supposed to be listed there, from a $65 bottle of cognac and $250 in champagne to a $50 signed football and hundreds of dollars in baseball tickets.
The forms also list sources of income, loans and real-estate holdings as a way for residents to gauge leaders' potential conflicts of interest.
"To me, it is important for us not to hide behind anything," said Supervisor Gary Ovitt, the board's chief proponent in placing the Form 700s online.
Transparency
Putting the documents online is the latest effort by county leaders to make local government more transparent to residents. The Board of Supervisors' weekly meetings are now shown live over the Internet and campaign finance reports soon go online.
From April 24 through Thursday, the clerk of the board's Web site, which includes links to the webcast and statements of economic interest, had more than 86,000 hits. The Form 700 site had 12,000 hits, according to the county.
In the past, between 200 and 300 people per year would visit the clerk's office to view Form 700s, Ovitt said.
"Twelve thousand in a month's time shows this is a valuable tool," he said.
While the county is making documents available online, it has fought to keep others private. The county denies access to e-mails supervisors write and has fought in court this year to prevent a local newspaper from gaining access to two supervisors' calendars.
Scandal Ripples
Supervisor Josie Gonzales said all county leaders have been "painted with a broad brush" because of past corruption scandals. Putting the forms online "goes a long way toward that transparency we are looking for," she said.
Gonzales, who has released calendars, said she doesn't see any hypocrisy in allowing access to the public documents online but fighting to keep others private. She said the county must protect certain confidentialities and must keep in mind potential liabilities.
Bob Stern, president of the Los Angeles-based Center for Governmental Studies, said he would have preferred for the county to make campaign finance data available online first.
But allowing access to conflict-of-interest documents is a service to residents, Stern said.
"It gives the public an idea of potential conflicts and that's what this is all about," he said. "It makes the officials much more careful about reporting and reporting everything."
The forms available online cover all of 2006 and are available for elected leaders and other top officials, from supervisors to County Administrative Officer Mark Uffer and chiefs of staff.
So what can one find detailed in the forms?
Assessor Bill Postmus, a former supervisor, accepted the most in gifts of the county's elected leaders, $513.34 worth last year.
The majority, about $378 worth, came in the form of baseball tickets from organizations including Southern California Edison and the investment firm Lehman Brothers. Postmus is an avid Angels fan.
His disclosure form also reports income he received as chairman of the San Bernardino County Republican Party. Postmus' income from the party ranged between $10,000 and $100,000. The forms include a range of value, not the exact amount of income.
"He loves baseball and when there is an opportunity when someone invites him to a game, he is going to take it up as a friendly gesture," spokesman Adam Aleman said.
Postmus doesn't "make any promises or commitments" based on tickets to baseball games, Aleman said.
Board of Supervisors Chairman Paul Biane accepted a $65 bottle of cognac from a company called DW Development, a $75 gift basket from the National Community Renaissance; and dinner and Colorado Rockies tickets from the law firm of Best, Best and Krieger valued at $105.62.
Biane also has investments in a host of real-estate and farming interests, including a Kern County farm where he is a partner with his brother.
Ovitt received a $50 signed football and $75 in wine from Dr. James Lally, president of Chino Valley Medical Center. Ovitt also accepted a $150 Chino Hills logo jacket from the city's mayor pro tem, Curt Hagman.
Gonzales accepted $249.99 in champagne, $82 in tequila and $13 worth of candy from DW Development.
Her form, the longest of the five supervisors at 10 pages, outlines interests in her family's restaurant, Mexico Lindo in Fontana, and rental properties in Fontana and Colton.
Supervisor Brad Mitzelfelt, appointed to the board in January, reported one gift, a $100 gift card from Postmus, his former boss. Mitzelfelt served as chief of staff during Postmus' tenure as a supervisor from 2000 to 2006.
Supervisor Dennis Hansberger last year reported receiving no gifts. His form outlines a property he owns in Fawnskin near Big Bear Lake and lists his wife's medical practice.
Reach Duane W. Gang at 909-806-3062 or dgang@PE.com
Gifts to elected leaders
Statements of economic interest, which detail gifts and sources of income, are now available online for San Bernardino County officials at http://ww.sbcounty.gov/cob. Gifts included:
$50 football to Supervisor Gary Ovitt.
$65 bottle of cognac to Supervisor Paul Biane.
$75 Clipper tickets to District Attorney Mike Ramos.
$249.99 in champagne to Supervisor Josie Gonzales.
$378 in baseball tickets to Assessor Bill Postmus, a former supervisor.
Source: San Bernardino County Form 700s
2007-05-09
Calif. appeals court overturns $3 million libel judgment to sheriff's wife
Calif. appeals court overturns $3 million libel judgment
By The Associated Press
05.09.07
RIVERSIDE, Calif. — A state appellate court has tossed a $3 million judgment against a newspaper publisher in a libel suit brought by the wife of San Bernardino County Sheriff Gary Penrod.
The 4th District Court of Appeal said Hesperia-based newspaper publisher Ray Pryke doesn't have to pay the money to Nancy Bohl, who sued Pryke in 2000 over a series of stories criticizing San Bernardino County's contract with her counseling service.
The stories implied she benefited financially from her intimate relationship with Penrod. She married him in May 2000.
The stories ran in the Hesperia Resorter, Apple Valley News and the Adelanto Bulletin, small weekly newspapers published by Valleywide Newspapers.
In 2005, Superior Court Judge Christopher Warner ruled the articles were libelous. The newspaper said Bohl, a psychotherapist and owner of the Counseling Team, gave Penrod confidential information about sheriff's employees undergoing treatment.
Pryke and reporter Mark Gutglueck have steadfastly defended the stories.
Warner said in his ruling that the articles impugned the integrity and reputation of Bohl and her company.
But the appellate justices ruled on May 4 that Warner abused his discretion when he imposed the judgment against Pryke, who was then under a court order to reveal article sources.
"Pryke had a legitimate argument as to why he was not required to reveal the information, namely, California reporter's shield law," the justices said.
The appeals court sent the case back to San Bernardino County for a new trial.
Pryke said on May 4 that he had rejected an earlier settlement offer that included a retraction and sale of Valleywide Newspapers, his chain of eight weekly newspapers based in the high desert.
"They wanted me out of business," Pryke, 84, said. "And I got a new lawyer."
Bohl's attorney John Rowell said he was disappointed.
By The Associated Press
05.09.07
RIVERSIDE, Calif. — A state appellate court has tossed a $3 million judgment against a newspaper publisher in a libel suit brought by the wife of San Bernardino County Sheriff Gary Penrod.
The 4th District Court of Appeal said Hesperia-based newspaper publisher Ray Pryke doesn't have to pay the money to Nancy Bohl, who sued Pryke in 2000 over a series of stories criticizing San Bernardino County's contract with her counseling service.
The stories implied she benefited financially from her intimate relationship with Penrod. She married him in May 2000.
The stories ran in the Hesperia Resorter, Apple Valley News and the Adelanto Bulletin, small weekly newspapers published by Valleywide Newspapers.
In 2005, Superior Court Judge Christopher Warner ruled the articles were libelous. The newspaper said Bohl, a psychotherapist and owner of the Counseling Team, gave Penrod confidential information about sheriff's employees undergoing treatment.
Pryke and reporter Mark Gutglueck have steadfastly defended the stories.
Warner said in his ruling that the articles impugned the integrity and reputation of Bohl and her company.
But the appellate justices ruled on May 4 that Warner abused his discretion when he imposed the judgment against Pryke, who was then under a court order to reveal article sources.
"Pryke had a legitimate argument as to why he was not required to reveal the information, namely, California reporter's shield law," the justices said.
The appeals court sent the case back to San Bernardino County for a new trial.
Pryke said on May 4 that he had rejected an earlier settlement offer that included a retraction and sale of Valleywide Newspapers, his chain of eight weekly newspapers based in the high desert.
"They wanted me out of business," Pryke, 84, said. "And I got a new lawyer."
Bohl's attorney John Rowell said he was disappointed.
2007-05-04
Bohl v. Pryke
  | ||||
 | ||||
 | ||||
| ||||
| ||||
2007-04-23
Local businessman accuses TP sheriffs of harassment
In most people’s eyes, Crestline businessman Jeffrey Grotewold would seem to “have it all.” After all, he’s the owner of a successful multi-store carpet outlet (The Carpet Station), he’s married to a wealthy businesswoman – reportedly a member of the Goodwin’s Market family – and he had a remarkable career in major league baseball, tying the record for most consecutive home runs (three in all) as a pinch-hitter for the Philadelphia Phillies, for whom he played three seasons, beginning in 1992.
2007-04-16
ACLU Renews Fight to Overturn Law That Denies Financial Aid to Students With Drug Convictions
CONTACT: media@aclu.org
ST. LOUIS, MO -- The American Civil Liberties Union today filed an appeal asking that a federal court be compelled to weigh the full body of evidence in determining the constitutional validity of a provision of the Higher Education Act that denies financial aid to students convicted of a drug offense. The U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota dismissed the case last year after refusing to consider significant legislative history demonstrating the law to be unconstitutional.
“The law’s purpose is to impose a second criminal punishment on students who have already served their sentences, which makes it unconstitutional,” said Adam Wolf, an attorney with the ACLU Drug Law Reform Project. “Judges must assess, not ignore, lawmakers’ intentions. All we ask is that the court consider the evidence.”
The ACLU filed a motion in federal district court in March 2006 seeking to strike down the Higher Education Act’s Aid Elimination Penalty as unconstitutional. Since its enactment by Congress in 2000, the Aid Elimination Penalty has blocked aid to more than 200,000 would-be students.
The ACLU argued, in part, that the denial of student aid by the Department of Education (DOE), as mandated by the Aid Elimination Penalty, constitutes a second criminal punishment for a student who has already served a sentence imposed by the courts. This second penalty violates the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
District Court Judge Charles Kornmann upheld the Aid Elimination Penalty in October 2006, ruling that insufficient evidence had been presented to prove the law violated the Double Jeopardy Clause. The court, however, declined to consider a wealth of evidence relating to the legislative history of the Aid Elimination Penalty and similar measures.
The ACLU’s appeal asks that the district court be ordered to consider this legislative history and to reassess whether the law runs afoul of the Constitution’s double jeopardy provision.
The Aid Elimination Penalty initially appeared in 1988 as part of a federal law that allowed judges, at their discretion, to rescind drug offenders’ eligibility for student aid as part of their criminal sentence. Judges, however, by and large declined to suspend aid.
For the first two years of the law’s existence, not a single judge suspended aid. From 1990 onward, courts suspended student aid in less than two out of one thousand eligible cases, according to a Government Accountability Office report.
Due to judges’ reluctance to revoke student aid, Congress sought alternative means to strip aid eligibility from drug offenders. Beginning in 1990, the House of Representatives introduced twin bills on a near an annual basis that would have required the mandatory denial of student aid for all people convicted of a drug offense.
A decade later, these congressional efforts culminated in passage of the Aid Elimination Penalty, which mandated that the DOE rescind the aid eligibility of anyone convicted of a drug offense. In shifting responsibility for imposing this punishment from the courts to the DOE, Congress made clear that the Aid Elimination Penalty was primarily intended to serve the criminal-law functions of retribution and deterrence.
Although the Supreme Court has held that such legislative history can be highly relevant to whether this type of punishment violates the Constitution, the district court expressly ignored this evidence.
“The Aid Elimination Penalty represents the culmination of a decade of legislative efforts to impose an additional criminal punishment on students who have already paid their debts to society,” said Wolf. “The Penalty’s legislative history makes clear that this law is an affront to the constitutional rights of students.”
The ACLU’s appeal, filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, stems from a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of the thousands of students nationwide impacted by the penalty, including the national organization Students for Sensible Drug Policy, as well as three individuals denied aid under the provision.
The case, SSDP v. Spellings, names Margaret Spellings, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education, as the defendant.
The ACLU’s appellate brief may be viewed online at: www.aclu.org/drugpolicy/youth/29379lgl20070416.html
Further background on the case, including the initial ACLU complaint, may be found online at: www.aclu.org/drugpolicy/gen/24713prs20060322.html
A recent SSDP report on the state-by-state impact of the penalty can be found at: www.aclu.org/drugpolicy/youth/25691res20060417.html
For a list of organizations supporting full repeal of the aid elimination penalty, see: www.raiseyourvoice.com/supporters.shtml
ST. LOUIS, MO -- The American Civil Liberties Union today filed an appeal asking that a federal court be compelled to weigh the full body of evidence in determining the constitutional validity of a provision of the Higher Education Act that denies financial aid to students convicted of a drug offense. The U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota dismissed the case last year after refusing to consider significant legislative history demonstrating the law to be unconstitutional.
“The law’s purpose is to impose a second criminal punishment on students who have already served their sentences, which makes it unconstitutional,” said Adam Wolf, an attorney with the ACLU Drug Law Reform Project. “Judges must assess, not ignore, lawmakers’ intentions. All we ask is that the court consider the evidence.”
The ACLU filed a motion in federal district court in March 2006 seeking to strike down the Higher Education Act’s Aid Elimination Penalty as unconstitutional. Since its enactment by Congress in 2000, the Aid Elimination Penalty has blocked aid to more than 200,000 would-be students.
The ACLU argued, in part, that the denial of student aid by the Department of Education (DOE), as mandated by the Aid Elimination Penalty, constitutes a second criminal punishment for a student who has already served a sentence imposed by the courts. This second penalty violates the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
District Court Judge Charles Kornmann upheld the Aid Elimination Penalty in October 2006, ruling that insufficient evidence had been presented to prove the law violated the Double Jeopardy Clause. The court, however, declined to consider a wealth of evidence relating to the legislative history of the Aid Elimination Penalty and similar measures.
The ACLU’s appeal asks that the district court be ordered to consider this legislative history and to reassess whether the law runs afoul of the Constitution’s double jeopardy provision.
The Aid Elimination Penalty initially appeared in 1988 as part of a federal law that allowed judges, at their discretion, to rescind drug offenders’ eligibility for student aid as part of their criminal sentence. Judges, however, by and large declined to suspend aid.
For the first two years of the law’s existence, not a single judge suspended aid. From 1990 onward, courts suspended student aid in less than two out of one thousand eligible cases, according to a Government Accountability Office report.
Due to judges’ reluctance to revoke student aid, Congress sought alternative means to strip aid eligibility from drug offenders. Beginning in 1990, the House of Representatives introduced twin bills on a near an annual basis that would have required the mandatory denial of student aid for all people convicted of a drug offense.
A decade later, these congressional efforts culminated in passage of the Aid Elimination Penalty, which mandated that the DOE rescind the aid eligibility of anyone convicted of a drug offense. In shifting responsibility for imposing this punishment from the courts to the DOE, Congress made clear that the Aid Elimination Penalty was primarily intended to serve the criminal-law functions of retribution and deterrence.
Although the Supreme Court has held that such legislative history can be highly relevant to whether this type of punishment violates the Constitution, the district court expressly ignored this evidence.
“The Aid Elimination Penalty represents the culmination of a decade of legislative efforts to impose an additional criminal punishment on students who have already paid their debts to society,” said Wolf. “The Penalty’s legislative history makes clear that this law is an affront to the constitutional rights of students.”
The ACLU’s appeal, filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, stems from a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of the thousands of students nationwide impacted by the penalty, including the national organization Students for Sensible Drug Policy, as well as three individuals denied aid under the provision.
The case, SSDP v. Spellings, names Margaret Spellings, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education, as the defendant.
The ACLU’s appellate brief may be viewed online at: www.aclu.org/drugpolicy/youth/29379lgl20070416.html
Further background on the case, including the initial ACLU complaint, may be found online at: www.aclu.org/drugpolicy/gen/24713prs20060322.html
A recent SSDP report on the state-by-state impact of the penalty can be found at: www.aclu.org/drugpolicy/youth/25691res20060417.html
For a list of organizations supporting full repeal of the aid elimination penalty, see: www.raiseyourvoice.com/supporters.shtml
2007-03-30
More on Barry Bruins: 'It sounds just like him'
Today's story about Mike Aguirre's latest outrage mentioned this about one of his key aides:
The affidavit [seeking the Sunroad search warrant] was signed by Barry Bruins, an investigator in Aguirre's office. Before joining Aguirre's public integrity unit, Bruins worked in the San Bernardino County District Attorney's Office, where he was demoted after he was accused of helping leak information about an ongoing corruption investigation to the political opponent of one of the targets.
Bruins sued San Bernardino County for $1.7 million, claiming he was made a scapegoat in a political dust-up. The case was later dismissed.
Here's a little more about Bruins' past, from a 2001 Riverside Press-Enterprise story:
In a second move to discipline staffers, [San Bernardino County] District Attorney Dennis Stout on Monday demoted his chief investigator, who was secretly tape-recorded aiding an opponent of Supervisor Jerry Eaves.
Barry Bruins was demoted to supervising investigator, said Mike Donovan, Bruins' interim replacement. ...
Former Rialto City Councilman Ed Scott recorded Bruins, Stout and former Assistant District Attorney Dan Lough discussing their investigation of Eaves last year. Scott made the tapes for a Sheriff's Department/FBI task force.
Here's a link to the internal investigation stemming from the scandal. Keep in mind when reading it that the agency it comes from -- the San Bernardino County D.A. -- had a vested interest in downplaying what Bruins and others had done because of how it reflected on the D.A.'s office.
The D.A. staffer who wrote the report nevertheless concluded, among other things, that in providing information on a county supervisor to his election opponent, Bruins had not met professional standards; that the D.A. should turn over a huge pending corruption probe of that county supervisor to the state attorney general because of the failings of Bruins and two of his colleagues, including the D.A. himself; and that the D.A.'s office should strive to reform its ways in dealing with "Public Integrity Crimes" and the leaking of info in such investigations.
I happen to have known Ed Scott, the Rialto councilman who wore a wire at the FBI's behest in his dealings with Bruins, since 1997. When I was a metro columnist at the Daily Bulletin in Ontario, I found that Scott lived up to his reputation as the truest, bluest Boy Scout politician one could imagine. He was -- is -- a straightshooter. A great example: Scott never used the info on Eaves that was provided to him by Bruins and another D.A. employee in his campaign against Eaves or leaked the info to a reporter. (He lost by less than 2 percent of the vote.)
Yesterday, I talked to him about Bruins and his role in Aguirre's baseless search warrant and abuse of power. Here's what Ed said:
"It sounds just like him."
Now to get back to the larger issue: What this says about Mike Aguirre. Most city attorneys would be leery of hiring someone punished by his own former agency for playing political games while in a law-enforcement position. Aguirre probably thought, hey, I could sure use a guy like that. And he did.
Posted by Chris Reed at March 30, 2007 11:51 AM2007-01-04
Prosecutors demand files of 3 House panels
Federal prosecutors in San Diego have subpoenaed documents from three House committees as part of an investigation into special-interest earmarks in spending bills.
The demand ratchets up an investigation by the U.S. attorney’s office in San Diego into contracts awarded by the Defense Department and other agencies. The probe stems from the bribery case against Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham (R-Rancho Santa Fe), who pleaded guilty and resigned in 2005.
The scope of the investigation is unclear, although the request for documents is considered unusually broad.
The subpoenas, which follow a failed attempt by the Justice Department to persuade the Republican Congress to voluntarily turn over thousands of documents, could test Democrats’ pledge to reform ethics in the new Congress. Last year, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) – who today becomes House speaker – opposed a broad-based Justice Department search warrant targeting Rep. William J. Jefferson (D-La.).
The subpoenas went to the armed services, appropriations and intelligence committees, whose Republican chairmen reported the subpoenas to outgoing House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) in letters dated two weeks ago.
The subpoenas were made public Wednesday by the Congressional Record online. The House is supposed to turn over the requested records by Jan. 11 or else file an objection with the U.S. District Court in San Diego. Typically, such deadlines are extended.
Prosecutors in San Diego and a spokesman for the general counsel of the House declined to comment, and a Pelosi spokeswoman had no immediate comment.
The subpoenas are an escalation of a nine-month tug-of-war between the Justice Department and House Republicans. Prosecutors had asked the committees to turn over the information voluntarily.
House leaders and their lawyers consider the request constitutionally suspect, saying it runs afoul of the “speech or debate” clause, which protects members of Congress from prosecution for their legislative acts, including earmarks. Some have also complained that the committees would need months to compile such data.
None of the requested documents had been turned over as of Wednesday.
Pelosi campaigned in the fall on a platform of open and honest government, and has made one of her first orders of business an ethics package that would identify members of Congress who inserted earmarks for pet projects into bills.
The use of earmarks has tripled over the last decade, the Congressional Research Service estimates, with 13,000 earmarks in the last fiscal year adding more than $67 billion to spending bills.
The “speech or debate” privilege is at the core of a legal fight over an FBI search of Jefferson’s congressional office in May. The search and seizure of documents followed an FBI sting in which about $90,000 in foil-wrapped $100 bills was found in the freezer of Jefferson’s Washington home.
Pelosi and Hastert criticized the office raid and urged the government to return the seized documents. Pelosi later led a successful effort to strip Jefferson of an influential committee assignment until the federal corruption investigation was completed. (Jefferson has not been charged.)
Former Rep. Cunningham is serving an eight-year prison term after pleading guilty to taking $2.4 million in bribes from defense contractors and evading more than $1 million in taxes.
A House Intelligence Committee report issued in October concluded that Cunningham had used his position on that panel to steer more than $70 million to companies run by cronies, with much of the money going to businessman Brent R. Wilkes of Poway, Calif.
Wilkes remains under investigation.
The San Diego federal prosecutors have also been examining the relationship between Wilkes and Kyle Dustin “Dusty” Foggo, who resigned as CIA executive director in the spring after federal agents searched his office and home.
Investigators have examined at least one contract that was awarded to Wilkes while Foggo was a senior CIA procurement officer in Germany.
rick.schmitt@latimes.com
2007-01-01
Squat for Teacher
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that school officials may search students without warrants and test them for drugs without individualized suspicion. But Congress evidently believes students still have too much privacy.
In September, on a voice vote without hearings, the House of Representatives approved the Student and Teacher Safety Act of 2006, which encourages schools to conduct broad searches on slight pretexts. The bill, which has been referred to a Senate committee, threatens to withhold federal funds from districts that do not allow searches “by a full-time teacher or school official, acting on any reasonable suspicion based on professional experience and judgment, of any minor student on the grounds of any public school, if the search is conducted to ensure that classrooms, school buildings, school property and students remain free from the threat of all weapons, dangerous materials, or illegal narcotics.”
An earlier version of the bill, which used the weaker standard of “colorable suspicion,” said the aim was to protect schools and teachers from lawsuits charging violations of students’ Fourth Amendment rights by clarifying what constitutes a “reasonable” search in this context. But requiring schools with relatively strict search policies to loosen them is a recipe for more litigation, as courts grapple with questions such as whether a school-wide strip search is justified by a whiff of marijuana or by one student’s suspiciously red eyes.
In September, on a voice vote without hearings, the House of Representatives approved the Student and Teacher Safety Act of 2006, which encourages schools to conduct broad searches on slight pretexts. The bill, which has been referred to a Senate committee, threatens to withhold federal funds from districts that do not allow searches “by a full-time teacher or school official, acting on any reasonable suspicion based on professional experience and judgment, of any minor student on the grounds of any public school, if the search is conducted to ensure that classrooms, school buildings, school property and students remain free from the threat of all weapons, dangerous materials, or illegal narcotics.”
An earlier version of the bill, which used the weaker standard of “colorable suspicion,” said the aim was to protect schools and teachers from lawsuits charging violations of students’ Fourth Amendment rights by clarifying what constitutes a “reasonable” search in this context. But requiring schools with relatively strict search policies to loosen them is a recipe for more litigation, as courts grapple with questions such as whether a school-wide strip search is justified by a whiff of marijuana or by one student’s suspiciously red eyes.
2006-12-14
Thousands More Scientists Slam Bush Science Policies
by Megan Tady
Dec. 14, 2006 – Over 10,000 scientists are calling on the US government to stop manipulating science for political reasons, a government watchdog has announced.
This week, the Union for Concerned Scientists released the names of thousands of signatories to a statement reprimanding the Bush administration for what the scientists say is a "distortion of scientific knowledge for partisan political ends."
The signers joined 62 leading scientists who first released the statement in February 2004.
The statement said the quality and independence of science has suffered from political interference, and that the practice "must cease."
The scientists allege that the Bush administration has installed political appointees who have conflicts of interest or who are unqualified to fill scientific posts. Additionally, the administration has suppressed scientific government reports when "scientific findings are in conflict with the administration?s policies or with the views of its political supporters," the statement reads.
As previously reported by The NewStandard, for example, the Bush administration came under fire in January 2005 for attempting to undermine the results of a science advisory panel?s investigation into the dangers of a rocket-fuel chemical found in water and produce.
In June, 2005, TNS reported that a White House official edited the language of scientific reports warning about the effects of greenhouse gases; the report was changed to lessen the impact of the scientists? findings.
The signers are asking Congress to establish laws forbidding the "censorship" of scientific studies, require scientists on advisory panels to have professional qualifications, and guarantee public access to government and advisory-panel studies and findings.
Dec. 14, 2006 – Over 10,000 scientists are calling on the US government to stop manipulating science for political reasons, a government watchdog has announced.
This week, the Union for Concerned Scientists released the names of thousands of signatories to a statement reprimanding the Bush administration for what the scientists say is a "distortion of scientific knowledge for partisan political ends."
The signers joined 62 leading scientists who first released the statement in February 2004.
The statement said the quality and independence of science has suffered from political interference, and that the practice "must cease."
The scientists allege that the Bush administration has installed political appointees who have conflicts of interest or who are unqualified to fill scientific posts. Additionally, the administration has suppressed scientific government reports when "scientific findings are in conflict with the administration?s policies or with the views of its political supporters," the statement reads.
As previously reported by The NewStandard, for example, the Bush administration came under fire in January 2005 for attempting to undermine the results of a science advisory panel?s investigation into the dangers of a rocket-fuel chemical found in water and produce.
In June, 2005, TNS reported that a White House official edited the language of scientific reports warning about the effects of greenhouse gases; the report was changed to lessen the impact of the scientists? findings.
The signers are asking Congress to establish laws forbidding the "censorship" of scientific studies, require scientists on advisory panels to have professional qualifications, and guarantee public access to government and advisory-panel studies and findings.
2006-11-16
Americans To Be Tortured For Refusing To Show ID?
[ Original article contains video ]
Student shocked, tortured for defending constitutional rights
Student shocked, tortured for defending constitutional rights
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Thursday, November 16, 2006
A horror video that wouldn't look out of place in Maoist China or Nazi Germany shows a student being repeatedly shot with a stun gun by UCLA police for the crime of not showing his ID. As similar cases begin to pile up how long will it be before Americans are routinely tortured for noncompliance and refusing to have their 4th amendment violated?
"A cell phone captured video of a 23-year-old student being administered multiple Taser shocks by UCLA police on Tuesday. The UCLA student was hit with the Taser shocks multiple times while he was in the Powell Library Computer Lab. According to the paper, (Mostafa) Tabatabainejad did not show ID to community service officers who were conducting a random check," reports NBC.
Watch the video above and witness as the cops bark at Tabatabainejad to get to his feet as simultaneously shock him over and over until he begins crying and screaming for them to stop.
Police are given extensive training on the use of stun guns and in most cases that training involves taking a taser shot and feeling the effects. Depending on each individual's physiology, it takes at least a minute to be able to even stand after a single Taser shot. Over a hundred deaths have occurred in America as a result of taser shocks and Taser's own manual discourages repeated shocks, yet the history of their use tells us that police simply administer repeated shocks until "compliance is gained." This is a euphemism for torture.
The video and the eyewitness reports describe multiple taser shots as Tabatabainejad begs and pleads while at one point screaming, "Here's your Patriot Act, here's your f---ing abuse of power."
The officers repeatedly order Tabatabainejad to stand even as they administer further shocks - sending 50,000 volts of current that override the nervous system and temporarily paralyze muscles shooting through his system again and again. He can't stand and the cops know it, they just get off on the maniacal ego power trip of torture and this is why Tabatabainejad is hit again and again despite his screaming and the protests of the onlookers.
Similar cases abound in the so-called land of the free, including the video above in which a housewife, Abbey Newman, is assaulted and arrested for simply refusing to tell the gestapo her name at an unconstitutional checkpoint. Another case in which an Alex Jones listener, Ferrell Montgomery, was tasered and had a dog set on him again underscores the brutal and sadistic nature of the police. Like Tabatabainejad, Montgomery was repeatedly told to put his hands behind his head and stand up while he was electric shocked and a dog savaged him for not complying.
In November 2005, Deborah Davis was reading a book on a Denver bus when a guard of a nearby federal building got on board and demanded everyone show their ID. Davis refused, leading the guard to "call on federal cops, who then dragged Davis off a public bus, handcuffed her, shoved her into the back seat of a police car and drove off to a police station within the Federal Center."
How long before Americans are tortured with taser weapons on the streets for refusing to show identification on a routine basis?
How long before we are forced to wear shock collars like some bizarre science fiction movie, where our masters can discipline us on a whim for not obeying orders?
It may be a lot sooner than we think.
Every indication suggests that there are moves afoot to implement these measures on every major street corner and transport system. A year ago we were told that Federal air marshals were to expand their work beyond airplanes, launching counter-terror surveillance at train stations and other mass transit facilities. So called "Visible Intermodal Protection and Response" teams — or VIPER teams, may soon be permanently deployed to check ID's under the banner of counter-terrorism.
We need to set a precedent now whereby police who use taser stun guns and any other kind of unreasonable force as implements of torture, simply if an individual refuses to have their 4th amendment right illegally violated, are instantly fired, sued and can never work in any sector of government, policing or security again.
Watch this space for further updates on the Tabatabainejad case.
ACTION: Call UCLA and demand an investigation into this incident. BE POLITE. 310-825-43212006-10-23
Group Sues FBI to Disclose Personal-Data 'Warehouse'
Oct. 23, 2006 – The FBI is gathering hundreds of millions of pieces of personal information in the name of fighting terrorism and storing them in a vast, secretive data "warehouse." Last week, public-interest groups went to court to find a way in.
The privacy-rights group Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) filed a lawsuit against the Department of Justice on Tuesday, demanding the government disclose information on the handling of personal data in the FBI?s "Investigative Data Warehouse." The lawsuit seeks details on the nature of the information collected and what privacy protections the agency has applied.
The EFF filed the suit in federal district court after the Justice Department failed to respond to Freedom of Information Act requests sent on August 25 and September 1. The complaint alleges that the FBI has not only "wrongfully withheld" records, but also neglected mandatory disclosure procedures. For instance, the EFF argued, the FBI had not issued an official public notice outlining the database and its contents, as required under the federal Privacy Act.
The FBI has not yet formally responded to the EFF?s complaint.
In a speech at a public-safety conference in March 2005, John Lewis, deputy assistant director of the FBI?s Counterterrorism Division, said the database included "photographs, biographical information, physical location information, and financial data for thousands of known and suspected terrorists."
FBI Director Robert Mueller testified at a May congressional hearing that the Data Warehouse was accessible to about 12,000 users from various local, state and federal agencies working on national-security issues.
In August, Gurvais Grigg, acting director of the FBI?s Foreign Terrorist Tracking Task Force, told the Washington Post that his agency maintains the database by consistently vetting its sources and conducting internal records audits. He claimed the database was in "full compliance" with federal privacy laws.
But privacy-rights activists want to see proof. EFF staff attorney Marcia Hofmann said in a press statement, "The public needs as much information as possible to evaluate tools that put our privacy at risk. The Department of Justice must abide by the law and publicly release information about these surveillance programs."
The privacy-rights group Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) filed a lawsuit against the Department of Justice on Tuesday, demanding the government disclose information on the handling of personal data in the FBI?s "Investigative Data Warehouse." The lawsuit seeks details on the nature of the information collected and what privacy protections the agency has applied.
The EFF filed the suit in federal district court after the Justice Department failed to respond to Freedom of Information Act requests sent on August 25 and September 1. The complaint alleges that the FBI has not only "wrongfully withheld" records, but also neglected mandatory disclosure procedures. For instance, the EFF argued, the FBI had not issued an official public notice outlining the database and its contents, as required under the federal Privacy Act.
The FBI has not yet formally responded to the EFF?s complaint.
In a speech at a public-safety conference in March 2005, John Lewis, deputy assistant director of the FBI?s Counterterrorism Division, said the database included "photographs, biographical information, physical location information, and financial data for thousands of known and suspected terrorists."
FBI Director Robert Mueller testified at a May congressional hearing that the Data Warehouse was accessible to about 12,000 users from various local, state and federal agencies working on national-security issues.
In August, Gurvais Grigg, acting director of the FBI?s Foreign Terrorist Tracking Task Force, told the Washington Post that his agency maintains the database by consistently vetting its sources and conducting internal records audits. He claimed the database was in "full compliance" with federal privacy laws.
But privacy-rights activists want to see proof. EFF staff attorney Marcia Hofmann said in a press statement, "The public needs as much information as possible to evaluate tools that put our privacy at risk. The Department of Justice must abide by the law and publicly release information about these surveillance programs."
2006-09-28
Pentagon Using Anti-Terror Resources to Spy on Peace Activists
by Megan Tady
Nov. 28, 2006 – More evidence emerged last week showing that the Pentagon has used counterterrorism resources to spy on peace activists.
As previously reported by The NewStandard, the military has been cataloging nonviolent anti-war protests through its terrorism-watch database, Threat and Local Observation Notice (TALON). The Pentagon says the database is meant to track potential terrorism threats.
The American Civil Liberties Union obtained the documents through a lawsuit filed in June, after the Pentagon ignored a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request initiated in February. The ACLU made the FOIA request to follow up on repeated reports that the Department of Defense was monitoring protest activities and anti-war organizations.
The newly released TALON reports reveal the Pentagon has been monitoring groups that planned demonstrations against military recruitment.
In a November 2004 TALON document, "a federal law enforcement agency" reported that Veterans for Peace was planning to protest at the Sacramento Military Entrance Processing Station. The report said Homeland Security agents had been notified, and it warned that while the protest was likely to be peaceful, "some type of vandalism is always a possibility."
According to a news report about the event, also included in the TALON database, the veterans group read the names of 18 soldiers who had been recruited through the Sacramento station and later died in Iraq.
In February 2005, a "special agent" with the Department of Homeland Security reported that the War Resisters League, along with Code Pink, United for Peace and Justice, and other groups, were planning civil disobedience and other protests at recruiting stations in various cities to coincide with the two-year anniversary of the war in Iraq.
The report warned that several marches would culminate with civil disobedience and that other protesters would "leaflet, hold banners and coffins, and talk to people."
Additionally, the report included a "church service for peace" as a planned action.
The two other new TALON reports, both from April 2005, notified the Pentagon that Veterans for Peace was planning anti-war actions on college campuses.
The ACLU is calling on Congress to investigate the surveillance of political and religious groups.
Nov. 28, 2006 – More evidence emerged last week showing that the Pentagon has used counterterrorism resources to spy on peace activists.
As previously reported by The NewStandard, the military has been cataloging nonviolent anti-war protests through its terrorism-watch database, Threat and Local Observation Notice (TALON). The Pentagon says the database is meant to track potential terrorism threats.
The American Civil Liberties Union obtained the documents through a lawsuit filed in June, after the Pentagon ignored a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request initiated in February. The ACLU made the FOIA request to follow up on repeated reports that the Department of Defense was monitoring protest activities and anti-war organizations.
The newly released TALON reports reveal the Pentagon has been monitoring groups that planned demonstrations against military recruitment.
In a November 2004 TALON document, "a federal law enforcement agency" reported that Veterans for Peace was planning to protest at the Sacramento Military Entrance Processing Station. The report said Homeland Security agents had been notified, and it warned that while the protest was likely to be peaceful, "some type of vandalism is always a possibility."
According to a news report about the event, also included in the TALON database, the veterans group read the names of 18 soldiers who had been recruited through the Sacramento station and later died in Iraq.
In February 2005, a "special agent" with the Department of Homeland Security reported that the War Resisters League, along with Code Pink, United for Peace and Justice, and other groups, were planning civil disobedience and other protests at recruiting stations in various cities to coincide with the two-year anniversary of the war in Iraq.
The report warned that several marches would culminate with civil disobedience and that other protesters would "leaflet, hold banners and coffins, and talk to people."
Additionally, the report included a "church service for peace" as a planned action.
The two other new TALON reports, both from April 2005, notified the Pentagon that Veterans for Peace was planning anti-war actions on college campuses.
The ACLU is calling on Congress to investigate the surveillance of political and religious groups.
2006-06-03
San Bernardino County Records Are Subpoenaed
A federal grand jury conducting a criminal investigation has subpoenaed San Bernardino County records related to a Washington lobbying firm with close ties to Rep. Jerry Lewis, chairman of the powerful House Appropriations Committee, according to federal documents.
Federal investigators are looking into the relationship between Lewis (R-Redlands) and a Washington lobbyist linked to disgraced former Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham (R-Rancho Santa Fe), three people familiar with the investigation told The Times last month. The city of Redlands also received a grand jury subpoena.
Investigators are said to be particularly interested in whether intermingling between Lewis’ aides and lobbyist Bill Lowery’s staff led to favorable treatment for Lowery’s clients, sources told The Times. Lewis and Lowery have denied any wrongdoing.
The subpoena delivered to the county was issued “in connection with an official criminal investigation,” according to a cover letter from the U.S. attorney’s Public Corruption and Civil Rights Section in Los Angeles.
The investigation is part of a federal probe stemming from Cunningham’s conviction for accepting $2.4 million in bribes and favors from defense contractors.
In the May 17 subpoena, obtained by The Times, the Los Angeles Grand Jury asks for e-mails, memoranda, contracts and other records regarding the county’s decision to hire Lowery’s firm – Copeland Lowery Jacquez Denton & White – as well as billing records and all other communications between the county and Lowery or members of his firm.
The grand jury also demanded “all documents relating to communications by and between you [San Bernardino County] and United States Rep. Jerry Lewis
The investigation is being conducted by the FBI, the IRS and the Defense Criminal Investigative Service, a federal prosecutor stated in a letter that accompanied the subpoena.
San Bernardino County spokesman David Wert said the county would comply with the subpoena, which asks that the documents be turned over by June 13. Wert said he could not discuss the matter further at the request of the U.S. attorney’s office.
Thom Mrozek, the attorney’s office spokesman, said it was Justice Department policy not to comment on pending investigations.
In a statement Friday, Lewis said the department had not contacted him regarding an investigation. “Throughout my career, I have also made every effort to meet the highest ethical standards, and I am absolutely certain that any review of my work will confirm this,” the congressman said.
“This is just routine, ordinary, simple appropriations,” said Patrick Dorton, a spokesman for Lowery’s firm. “It is the same as work done every single day in Washington for counties and towns in every state in the country. It was done consistent with all the laws, rules, and regulations that govern Capitol Hill lobbying.”
From 2002-06, San Bernardino County approved more than half a million dollars in lobbying contracts with Lowery’s firm to represent the county in Washington. Several other Inland Empire cities also employ the firm.
Redlands City Atty. Dan McHugh could not be reached for comment, but told the San Bernardino Sun this week that the city also had received a subpoena seeking information regarding Lowery’s firm.
San Bernardino’s city attorney, James F. Penman, had no comment as to whether federal investigators contacted the city.
Lowery, a former congressman from San Diego, has worked with such clients as Brent R. Wilkes, a defense contractor who was identified by his lawyer as the unindicted “co-conspirator No. 1” in the Cunningham corruption case.
Cunningham was sentenced to eight years and four months in prison for accepting $2.4 million in bribes and favors from “co-conspirator No. 1” and his business associate, Mitchell Wade, who pleaded guilty to bribing Cunningham.
The Cunningham case has put the spotlight on “earmarking,” a practice in which lawmakers slip parochial and special- interest projects into spending bills, often at lobbyists’ behest late in the legislative process and without advance public notice.
Wilkes and his companies are among Lewis’ largest contributors, giving the lawmaker at least $60,000 in campaign contributions over the years. At the same time, Wilkes has paid Lowery’s firm more than $160,000 in lobbying fees.
*
Times staff writers Peter Pae and Cynthia H. Cho contributed to this report.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
