ReportWire

Tag: Case

  • Tribal leaders cite problems with California’s Feather Alert for Native people who go missing

    Tribal leaders cite problems with California’s Feather Alert for Native people who go missing

    When Yurok tribal member Danielle Ipiña-Vigil disappeared in San Francisco last summer, her family requested that state police issue a Feather Alert — an emergency notification meant to help authorities locate Indigenous people who go missing in California.

    But the request was denied, making Ipiña-Vigil one of three known cases of Native people living in California who went missing in the last year and for whom a Feather Alert request was dismissed. Since the system began a year ago, authorities have issued just two of the five Feather Alerts requested, according to the California Highway Patrol.

    A CHP official said local officers denied the requests because they did not meet the criteria, which include that the person went missing under suspicious circumstances and is believed by officials to be in danger.

    But the denials have fueled concerns in Native communities that the system meant to help locate missing Indigenous people is not working as intended.

    “We’ve had two successful Feather Alerts and numerous denials,” Taralyn Ipiña said while talking about her sister Danielle, who went missing in June, during a somber news conference Wednesday. She was later found, and details on her case are limited. “Being denied a Feather Alert based on opinions contradicts the very basis of [this] legislation.”

    Now Sacramento policymakers are re-evaluating how well the law is working. More than a dozen California tribal members gathered at the Capitol last week demanding information about the three denied missing-person alerts. They are also asking to remove a statute that requires local law enforcement to act as the buffer between tribes and the CHP, and to instead open the door for state and tribal police to work together.

    “The alert has to be issued by CHP the way it’s structured. But the middleman is the local law enforcement agency that the request comes into,” said CHP Commissioner Sean Duryee, who testified at the hearing. “Some do really, really good. What’s been expressed to us is that sometimes that middleman creates issues for the tribal communities.”

    The Feather Alert, signed into law in 2022, was designed to be similar to the Amber Alert, which since its inception in 1996 has located more than 1,100 missing children nationwide. Assemblymember James Ramos (D-Highland), who was the first California Native American elected to the Legislature, argued that the state needed a separate system for missing Indigenous people because of high rates of violence and abductions in tribal communities. It’s one of seven categories of missing-person alerts in California.

    New data show that the CHP approved all six Amber Alert requests it received in the same year it denied three of the Feather Alert requests.

    Leaders and members from tribes around the state, including the Yurok and Me-wuk, arrived early at the Capitol asking for clarity on those requirements and for reports of missing persons to be treated with urgency.

    “We can’t be caught in the middle of California Highway Patrol and the tribe,” said Chairman Joe James of the Yurok Tribe, who live near the lower Klamath River. “Why were they getting denied?”

    There are 151 active cases of missing American Indian/Alaska Natives in California. At least one of the denied Feather Alerts came out of Humboldt County, which currently has the highest number of cases.

    Duryee didn’t go into detail during the hearing about the denied cases, citing privacy laws, but said that the officer who responded to the requests “didn’t feel like the criteria were met.”

    Tribal members said these denials are reminiscent of historical traumas linked to decades of under-reported cases of missing and murdered people — the reason the Feather Alert was created in the first place.

    “There are so many factors that go into determining if they’re missing,” Duryee said. “Just because someone doesn’t qualify for Feather Alert doesn’t mean we wash our hands clean.”

    Duryee said law enforcement agencies still have the power to do “traditional police work,” such as using license plate recognition or cellphone data. “Just because an alert is not issued doesn’t mean law enforcement isn’t working on it,” he said.

    During the emotional hours-long hearing before the Assembly Select Committee on Native American Affairs, Indigenous individuals voiced mistrust in the state’s system for reporting crimes and missing persons.

    Merri Lopez-Keifer, director of Native Affairs for the California Department of Justice, testified that her team is re-evaluating data about crime against tribal members, citing potential “misidentification” of race and “underreporting.” She said missing-person reports allow for only one race category to be selected, which does not account for the “vast landscape and regional variations” across the state.

    “This approach may overlook potential cases involving multi-racial individuals,” Lopez-Keifer said. “It is especially relevant in the context of American Indian/Alaska Natives who are often racially misclassified as white, Hispanic or Asian.”

    “We don’t necessarily know the number, it’s the truth,” she said.

    Tribal communities are asking for amendments to the law, including giving tribal law enforcement authority to issue Feather Alerts. Ramos said he plans to propose legislation in the coming weeks.

    “Today’s hearing was meant to put ideas out into the open,” he told The Times. “And now we will go to work.”



    Anabel Sosa

    Source link

  • State wins a round in fight with Huntington Beach to build more housing

    State wins a round in fight with Huntington Beach to build more housing

    California’s lawsuit against Huntington Beach, which accused the city of defying state efforts to ease the housing crisis, appears to be back on a fast track after the suit was temporarily halted by a Superior Court judge in November.

    A three-judge panel at California’s 4th Circuit Court of Appeal instructed a lower court Thursday that Huntington Beach’s status as a charter city did not stop the state from seeking a rapid hearing on its lawsuit. Charter cities adopt a voter-approved set of governing rules that give them more say over local affairs.

    The lawsuit, brought by Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta, Gov. Gavin Newsom and the state Department of Housing and Community Development, alleges that the city violated state law by rejecting a plan to provide enough houses and apartments to meet the region’s expected population growth.

    Thursday’s action did not decide the merits of the state’s case against Huntington Beach. Instead, it paves the way for the case to continue on an expedited basis, unless the city can persuade the courts to halt the lawsuit for other reasons.

    Although numerous cities have been slow to increase their housing supplies, Huntington Beach has drawn fire repeatedly from state officials because it has pointedly refused to follow state laws that address the housing crisis.

    Triggering the latest battle, Huntington Beach’s council voted in March against a proposal to zone for roughly 13,400 additional housing units — the number assigned to the city by the Southern California Assn. of Governments in 2021. Under state law, cities have to revise the housing element of their general plans periodically to comply with a “regional housing needs assessment” done by intergovernmental groups such as SCAG.

    The day after state officials filed an early version of its current lawsuit, Huntington Beach sought protection in federal court. In that case, the city claims the state-mandated regional housing needs assessment and its additional housing demands usurp Huntington Beach’s authority as a charter city, in violation of the California Constitution. It also argues that the mandates violate the city’s rights under the U.S. Constitution’s 1st and 14th Amendments, as well as the Commerce Clause.

    For the record:

    7:50 p.m. Jan. 19, 2024A previous version of this story said a federal judge rejected the state’s lawsuit. The ruling was against the city’s suit.

    Huntington Beach persuaded San Diego County Superior Court Judge Katherine Bacal in November to put the state’s lawsuit on hold until after the city’s federal lawsuit could be decided. Shortly thereafter, a federal judge rejected the city’s lawsuit, saying the city had no standing to sue. Huntington Beach has since taken its case to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

    On Thursday, the state 4th Circuit panel wrote that by state statute, “charter cities are exempt from some requirements of state planning and zoning law,” but “like all other cities, charter cities must adopt general plans with the mandatory elements specified by state law, including a housing element.”

    It went on to say that state law gives top priority to lawsuits against a city’s general plan, obligating the court to hold a hearing within 120 days if requested.

    In a statement Thursday, Bonta said, “Today the Court of Appeal affirmed that every city will be held to the same standard…. No one, including Huntington Beach, is exempt from following the law. We’ll continue to use every legal tool available to hold those who break state housing laws accountable.”

    Huntington Beach City Atty. Michael E. Gates, however, said the appeals court misread state law. “We will continue to challenge any ruling that applies state law to charter cities that do not apply to charter cities,” he said in an interview.

    Bacal has set a hearing for Jan. 26 on Bonta’s motion to let the state’s lawsuit proceed. Gates said Bacal “could continue the stay on other bases,” or she could lift the stay and have the two sides start litigating.

    Jon Healey

    Source link

  • A fiery lawyer's longshot bid to put Donald Trump in the hot seat goes cold

    A fiery lawyer's longshot bid to put Donald Trump in the hot seat goes cold

    The named defendant in the federal lawsuit was California Secretary of State Shirley Weber, but there was never a doubt that the target was Donald J. Trump.

    For a time, as the legal maneuvering proceeded through the fall, it appeared that Los Angeles could be treated to another of its celebrated courtroom dramas, this one a constitutional showdown pitting a colorful civil rights attorney against a volcanic former president in the courtroom of a judge known for his fiery judicial flair.

    The case sought an order prohibiting Weber from placing the Republican presidential front-runner on the California ballot, based on the 14th Amendment’s insurrection clause.

    It was also intended to be a trap. If Trump’s legal team took the bait and joined the case, then the former president could be forced to face a grilling under oath on his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol.

    At least that was the theory of Stephen Yagman, an attorney both admired and reviled in local lore for his history of toppling sacred cows.

    Over a span of two decades, Yagman broke legal ground in cases against the LAPD and the U.S. government, establishing that Los Angeles Police Department officers and their leaders can be held personally liable for civil rights violations and that prisoners at the Guantanamo Bay detention center had a right to due process. Then he suffered an ignominious fall with a 2007 federal conviction for tax evasion and bankruptcy fraud. In his 70s, more than a decade after serving 29 months in prison, Yagman regained his law license and resumed fighting for indigent victims of government abuse.

    U.S. District Judge David O. Carter, a no less colorful figure than Yagman, has built a reputation for judicial unorothodoxy bordering on heavy-handedness. He’s held court on Skid Row and summoned mayors and supervisors to answer for their ineffective responses to homelessness. In two cases that were active at the time, Carter was holding L.A. County officials’ feet to the fire to extract a commitment for thousands of mental health beds and rebuffing efforts of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs to wiggle out of a lawsuit over veterans housing.

    More to the point of Yagman’s case, Carter had found in a 2022 ruling that stripped Trump legal adviser John Eastman’s attorney-client privilege that the two had “more likely than not” attempted to illegally obstruct Congress, calling it “a coup in search of a legal theory.”

    Would Carter, who drew Yagman’s case because it was related to the earlier one, follow through with that reasoning? Yagman hoped so.

    When Trump’s lawyers took the bait and petitioned Carter to intervene, Yagman virtually frothed with anticipation.

    “This court, right here and now, has a unique opportunity to prevent a truly deranged and dangerous fool, Donald Trump, who perpetrated an assault on American Democracy, from again being president of the United States,” he wrote in a motion, noting that Trump “improvidently (for him) has intervened to make himself a party-defendant to the instant action.”

    He buttressed his ever eccentric legalese with a flight of literary allusion invoking both Socrates and The Rolling Stones.

    “Trump is a vile man. He has no virtue whatsoever,” Yagman wrote, appending a long footnote on the Greek philosopher’s concept of civic virtue.

    “And contrary to what the Rolling Stones’ Mick Jagger sings … Trump, as today’s embodiment of the devil … deserves no sympathy….”

    But it was to no avail. Not once, but twice in the months that followed, Trump’s lawyers raised legal technicalities to knock down Yagman’s flaming rhetoric.

    The first was based on standing, a slippery legal concept meaning something akin to skin in the game.

    Yagman’s case made the tortuous argument that his client, a Republican voter who planned to vote for Trump, would be disenfranchised if, after the March California primary, Trump was ruled ineligible to be president.

    Carter dismissed the case in November, finding his client did not have standing because “the harm he alleges is too generalized.”

    Yagman had a backup strategy, an amended complaint changing his case to a class action representing all Republican voters and naming Trump himself as a defendant on a novel theory of negligent infliction of emotional distress.

    His clients, he argued, were “direct victims of Trump’s acts in creating and participating in insurrection,” both on Jan. 6 and in the “innumerable viewings of those acts on television, on the radio and in numerous publications….”

    Reconsidering, Carter set a hearing for Jan. 8. But, over the holidays, Trump’s lawyers convinced the judge that a hearing was not necessary. In a Dec. 22 filing, Shawn E. Cowles of the Dhillon Law Group gave eight reasons why the case had no merit, ranging from presidential immunity and 1st Amendment protection to “reasons to doubt the veracity of Plaintiff’s claim that he is a registered Republican voter in Los Angeles County.”

    The argument that carried the day for the former president was based on the statute of limitations. Ignoring Yagman’s contention that the injury was repeated every time Jan. 6 imagery appeared on TV, radio or in print, Carter ruled the case “time-barred” based on California’s two-year statute for negligent infliction of emotional distress.

    Yagman, whose past victories included establishing that lawyers cannot be sanctioned for making disparaging comments about their judges, showed uncharacteristic magnanimity in defeat.

    Carter, he said, is a good judge and decent human being.

    “I’m happy enough with it because it’s him,” he told The Times. “Part of me is really sorry to see it go, I really wanted to depose Trump. But I’m ashamed of that because it would just be me playing games. I wouldn’t get anything out of that except chuckles.”

    Times researcher Scott Wilson contributed to this story.

    Doug Smith

    Source link

  • Body camera footage shows L.A. County deputy fatally shooting Lancaster woman

    Body camera footage shows L.A. County deputy fatally shooting Lancaster woman

    The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department released body camera footage Friday showing the moments leading up to a deputy fatally shooting a 27-year-old Black woman in Lancaster.

    Niani Finlayson, who authorities said was armed with a kitchen knife, was shot in front of her 9-year-old daughter on Dec. 4. She had called the police for help during a domestic dispute with a man authorities described as her boyfriend.

    The footage released Friday shows that the deputy who shot her was first handed a Taser, but he dropped it and fired a handgun instead.

    Investigators are continuing to review the case, which is expected to be sent to the district attorney’s office to determine if any charges will be filed.

    “Any time a life is lost, regardless of the circumstances, is a difficult time for everyone involved,” L.A. County Sheriff Robert Luna said in a statement. “The department released the body-worn camera footage ahead of the legal time frame to demonstrate our commitment to transparency and the visual representation of the facts in this case. As the comprehensive review process continues, the department will gain additional insight into the incident with the goal of improving public safety.”

    Shortly after 6 p.m. on Dec. 4, Finlayson called 911 to report that her boyfriend wouldn’t leave her Lancaster apartment, authorities said. During a frantic call with a police dispatcher, audio of which was released along with the body camera footage, Finlayson said the man would not leave her house or “get his hands off of me.”

    Three deputies heard screaming as they approached the apartment in the 2100 block of East Avenue J-8. Body camera video shows one of the deputies attempting to kick in the front door.

    The door opens and Finlayson appears — holding what authorities say was an 8-inch kitchen knife.

    “I’m going to stab him,” she can be heard telling the deputies before moving out of sight toward the living room.

    The body camera video shows a deputy, identified by the department as Ty Shelton, entering the apartment closely behind another deputy. On his way in, Shelton asks the other deputy to give him a Taser.

    After deputies moved into the apartment, Finlayson can be seen standing next to a man, with one hand on him and the other appearing to hold a knife. Shelton drops the Taser , raises his handgun and fires four shots at Finlayson.

    The man then yells, “Why did you shoot?”

    Finlayson was taken to a hospital where she later died. The man was arrested on suspicion of child abuse and assault on a peace officer but was later released, according to the sheriff’s department.

    Shelton did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

    Finlayson’s family filed a claim last week signaling they plan to sue the county and the department for $30 million.

    “She was not engaging in any type of physically threatening behavior at all,” Bradley Gage, the family’s attorney, said at a news conference Dec. 21. “In fact, she was the victim.”

    Shelton was involved in at least one other fatal shooting in Lancaster, according to county records. In 2020, Shelton killed 62-year-old Michael Thomas as he and another deputy tried to detain him during a domestic violence call.

    The deputies said Thomas tried to grab one of their guns. His fiancee disputed that, telling a local TV station that Thomas had refused to let the deputies enter the house and was turning away from them when he was shot.

    Prosecutors declined to file charges against Shelton in that case, county records show, though they acknowledged “there may have been other reasonable options available” to him instead of killing Thomas.

    The union representing L.A. County sheriff’s deputies urged the public to allow for a thorough investigation before coming to any final conclusions.

    “This was obviously a tragic outcome, an outcome attributable to a violent and highly volatile situation in that apartment that night,” Richard Pippin, president of the Assn. for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs said in an emailed statement Friday.

    “Our deputy found himself faced with a woman who threatened to stab someone and was then poised, knife in hand, to carry out that threat. This video exemplifies the profound challenges and no-win situations our deputies frequently face. The true motives of groups or individuals who jumped out with outrageous assertions before even seeing the video should be apparent to everyone.”

    Tony Briscoe

    Source link

  • Opinion: My client Jose was the luckiest man in an unlucky place. He got to go home for the holidays

    Opinion: My client Jose was the luckiest man in an unlucky place. He got to go home for the holidays

    The holidays can be a challenging time. It’s an especially challenging time for detainees at the Adelanto Immigration and Customs Enforcement Processing Center.

    This wind-scoured private prison lurks on the western boundary of the Mojave Desert, about 10 miles from Victorville. With a built-in immigration court, it’s something of a one-stop deportation shop.

    Sundays are a busy day here. The waiting room at the Desert View Annex is crowded with families. Parents. Grandparents. More children than you would expect. The visitors are nervous, if not resigned.

    A kindly man with a Sinaloan accent makes small talk with me while we wait.

    “You here to visit family?”

    “No. A client.”

    “Lawyer?”

    “Yes, in a public defender’s office.”

    “You do immigration law?”

    “Not really. I’m here to fix the wrongful conviction that took away my client’s green card and got him put in deportation.”

    He asks for my card. “My son has a conviction like that too. Can you talk to him?”

    The staff here are pleasant, kind. A guard in a blue polo shirt exchanges the IDs of people in the waiting room for visitors’ badges. Another walks us through a series of imposing steel doors to a visiting room. Some Christmas ornaments hang from the ceiling. Clumps of plastic furniture line the periphery. A play area for children sits on the far wall. A dozen men in red and orange jumpsuits greet the arrivals.

    It is palpably sad. All but one or two of these men will be deported; all but one or two of these families will be missing a son or husband or father during the holidays.

    A friendly guard with perfect fake eyelashes places me in a private attorney room. I hand her a stack of papers for my client Jose. Across the reinforced glass, tears well in his eyes as he signs the documents mending the legal errors that landed him here.

    Jose is in his late 50s. Been in the U.S. as a lawful permanent resident since he was 6 months old. His entire family is here. He has five adult children. Six grandchildren. Elderly parents. Owns a small business. Has no contact with his country of his birth.

    In the 1990s, he pleaded guilty to possession of less than a gram of cocaine. His lawyer never asked about his immigration status, nor told him the conviction would result in him losing his green card and being placed in deportation. Not understanding the immigration consequences, he pleaded guilty. He attended some drug classes and when the judge said “case dismissed,” he thought the matter was closed. But a “dismissed” case is still a federal controlled substances conviction.

    Three decades later, Jose was arrested by men in windbreakers and placed in deportation proceedings.

    Last Monday, I was in court for him, and a judge signed an order vacating the conviction because it violated his 5th and 6th Amendment rights. On Tuesday, Jose’s immigration attorney filed a motion to terminate removal proceedings with the judge’s order attached. With no criminal conviction to trigger deportation grounds, Jose made it home to watch his grandkids tear into presents.

    He was the luckiest man in an unlucky place. Had his conviction come from other counties in California, the public defender’s offices in those counties would very likely have refused to take his case, despite having been allocated money to do so.

    In 2021, the California Board of State and Community Corrections created the Public Defense Pilot Program, which provided funds so that public defender’s offices could represent clients under several statutes, including Penal Code §1473.7. This law allows defendants to vacate criminal convictions if newly discovered evidence appears; if the conviction was obtained on the basis of race, ethnicity or national origin; or if it’s legally invalid because the person did not understand and appreciate the immigration consequences.

    Although the other statutes in the pilot program also require a public defender’s office to open old cases where, almost always, mistakes of some kind will be found, many defender’s offices resist taking on cases involving immigrants because of workloads or concerns about potential conflicts of interest.

    In my office in Ventura County, I was transferred from felony trials to the immigration unit to help as many eligible people as possible. Although this decision significantly increased the office’s workload, the positive results are tangible. In 2023, we prepared more than 200 §1473.7 cases on behalf of 93 immigrants like Jose.

    If every public defender’s office in the state could make indigent representation under this statute a priority, we would see more justice and many more immigrants, who’ve been unfairly swept up, have an increased opportunity to make it home to their families for the holidays and in the coming year.

    Michael Albers is a senior deputy public defender in the Ventura County Public Defender’s Office.

    Michael Albers

    Source link

  • Ozempic overdose? Poison control experts explain why thousands OD'd this year

    Ozempic overdose? Poison control experts explain why thousands OD'd this year

    Some of those taking Ozempic or Wegovy are learning that too much of a good thing is never good.

    Semaglutide, the medication prescribed under the brand names Ozempic, for treating Type 2 diabetes, and Wegovy, for weight management, works by mimicking the hormone GLP-1, which is released by the gut after eating. The hormone has several effects in the body, such as stimulating insulin production, slowing gastric emptying and lowering blood sugar.

    It has been hailed for its weight-loss benefits, most conspicuously among celebrities. Oprah Winfrey recently said she uses weight-loss medication and lauded “the fact that there’s a medically approved prescription for managing weight and staying healthier, in my lifetime.” She said it felt “like a gift.”

    But between Jan. 1 and Nov. 30 this year, at least 2,941 Americans reported overdose exposures to semaglutide, according to a recent report from America’s Poison Centers, a national nonprofit representing 55 poison centers in the United States.

    California accounted for about 350 of the reports, or around 12%, according to Raymond Ho, the managing director of the California Poison Control System. Ho said the number roughly corresponds to the proportion of California’s population to the rest of the country.

    The nationwide number of semaglutide overdoses this year is more than double the 1,447 reported in 2022, which was more than double the 607 semaglutide overdoses reported in 2021.

    There were only 364 reported semaglutide overdoses in 2020 and 196 in 2019, less than 10% of the number that occurred so far this year.

    America’s Poison Centers released the data with a disclaimer that the figures likely represent an undercount in the number of cases involving semaglutide, as the center only included those voluntarily reported to poison control centers.

    “It is an alarming trend from a poison center perspective,” Ho said. “We get the usual dosing error calls, and all of a sudden there’s an explosion of people calling much more regularly about this.”

    The use of semaglutide and other GLP-1 imitators has surged in popularity over the last year as a quick and effective way to manage weight loss. More than 4 million prescriptions for semaglutide were issued in the United States in 2020, according to federal data, and usage of the drug has continued to grow since then.

    Dr. Stephen Petrou, an emergency medicine physician and toxicology fellow with California Poison Control, said there were multiple factors contributing to the increase in overdoses.

    “Not only is there rising social popularity” of the drug, Petrou said, “but there’s also wider FDA indications for use.”

    Semaglutide was patented by the Danish pharmaceutical company Novo Nordisk in 2012 and has been available in the United States since the FDA approved it in 2017. The drug was originally released as Ozempic for Type 2 diabetics to manage blood sugar levels. Moderate weight loss was found to be a common side effect of the drug, and the FDA approved a different formulation of semaglutide, called Wegovy, for that purpose in 2021.

    Ho and Petrou said the different formulations of semaglutide could help explain why it has led to so many more overdoses than other drugs of its class. Both are administered via weekly injections, with Wegovy in single-use pens and Ozempic in needles that can vary in dosage. Standard dosages range from 0.25 mg to 2.4 mg for weekly injections, depending on the prescription.

    “Someone who is unable to get Wegovy can resort to using Ozempic instead, because it is the same medication, but they may start to [adjust] their dose” upward, Petrou said. “That’s when they might encounter problems.”

    Ho and Petrou said the vast majority of semaglutide overdose reports are accidental, either due to patients not waiting a week between doses or by misunderstanding dosing instructions. Unlike the GLP-1 hormone, which is rapidly metabolized by the body, semaglutide and similar medications have much longer half-lives, meaning the medication can build up inside the body if not enough time elapses between doses.

    Furthermore, semaglutide can also be taken orally as a daily pill — sold under the name Rybelsus — but overdoses are rarely reported.

    “We’re not seeing cases of mis-administration or toxicity or overdose with that medication,” Petrou said.

    Ho and Petrou explained the signs of semaglutide overdose can resemble those of hypoglycemia, also known as low blood sugar. Symptoms can begin with increased heart rate, sweating, dizziness and irritability. More serious cases can cause confusion, delirium and coma.

    “If they have hypoglycemia, the good majority of them will have to be admitted to the hospital and monitored and watched closely, because of how long these drugs last,” Ho said.

    Ho encourages everyone who is prescribed semaglutide to thoroughly read the medication’s label and follow the dosing instructions listed.

    “We always say this: The dose makes the poison,” Ho said.

    Anyone who needs emergency poison assistance or has other poisoning-related inquiries can call the national Poison Helpline at (800) 222-1222 or visit the Poison Help website.

    Jeremy Childs

    Source link

  • 'Real Housewives' broker lawsuit settled with donation to pro-Israel charity

    'Real Housewives' broker lawsuit settled with donation to pro-Israel charity

    Celebrity real estate agent Mauricio Umansky will not face a civil trial for allegedly violating his duties as a broker in the sale of a prominent Malibu hilltop mansion that he flipped for nearly $70 million.

    Real estate investor Sam Hakim and his agent dropped their consolidated Superior Court lawsuits this month against Umansky, his development partner Mauricio Oberfeld and other defendants. The legal action accused the two men of conspiring to buy the mansion in 2016 for $32.5 million — despite an alleged higher offer from Hakim — so they could fix it up and sell it for a big profit.

    Umansky and his luxury Beverly Hills real estate firm, The Agency, not only represented the buyer and seller in the transaction, but Umansky had a stake in the buyer’s limited liability company fronted by Oberfeld. The 2019 lawsuit sought at least $35 million in damages, or roughly the profit made flipping the property in 2017 to the heir of a Hong Kong drink manufacturer.

    Jennifer Shakouri and Alan Hearty, attorneys for Hakim, a Beverly Hills resident who runs a family real estate investment firm, said in a statement that their client, who is Jewish, decided to “put this matter behind him” amid the war in Gaza.

    “In light of current global events, including the shocking attack on the state of Israel on October 7, Mr. Hakim decided his time and energy would be better served on matters other than this litigation. This led him to resolve this matter,” said the statement, which noted that as part of the settlement Umansky agreed to give money to a “pro-Israel charitable organization.”

    “Regarding the issue of wrongdoing by Mr. Umansky, the court records speak for themselves,” the statement concluded.

    In an interview, Umansky, who is also Jewish, said the donation by himself and his brokerage was something he would have gladly done anyway. He declined to disclose the value of the donation. He said the decision by Hakim and his agent to drop the litigation was an indication of its lack of merit.

    “At the end of the day, I believe that from the beginning I did not do anything wrong,” he said.

    Hakim’s decision followed the production of text messages that had long been sought by the defendants in discovery. Texts between Hakim and his broker, Aitan Segal, suggested that Hakim was first made aware of the partnership that Umansky and Oberfeld had formed to buy and flip the property through a 2017 article — not one he read in 2018 as he had claimed.

    Real estate investor Sam Hakim poses in front of the Malibu mansion whose $70-million sale prompted his lawsuit against Mauricio Umansky.

    (Mel Melcon / Los Angeles Times)

    The issue of when he first knew of Umansky’s involvement is relevant to how long he had to file the case before the statute of limitations expired. Attorneys for the defendants sought to have the case terminated over the delayed production of the texts; Judge Mark Epstein rejected that bid in an October decision while leaving open the possibility of monetary sanctions.

    Jeremiah Reynolds, an attorney for Oberfeld and another defendant, Matt Dugally, who also was a member of the buyer’s group and owns a luxury home builder with Oberfeld, said in a statement that neither client paid Hakim “to settle this frivolous case against them.”

    “Sam Hakim voluntarily dropped his lawsuit under threat of court ordered sanctions for his failure to turn over text messages that demonstrated his case never should have been filed,” the statement said.

    The Hakim lawsuit was not the first filed against Umansky over the 16.5-acre Malibu compound, a conspicuous piece of real estate featuring a 15,000-square-foot mansion overlooking the city’s pier. The compound was featured on “Real Housewives of Beverly Hills,” a show featuring Umansky’s spouse Kyle Richards, when the broker — the star of his own Netflix reality show — was readying it for resale.

    The estate was acquired in 2006 by Teodoro Nguema Obiang Mangue, the playboy son of the president of Equatorial Guinea. He was forced to sell the home in 2014 after the U.S. government filed an asset forfeiture case that accused him of buying the mansion, a jet and other luxury items with laundered funds generated by corrupt business dealings in his native country.

    Umansky was hired by Nguema to conduct the sale, with the first $10.3 million in proceeds going to the U.S. government and the remainder for the benefit of the people of Equatorial Guinea. After it was reported in the media that Umansky was a member of the group that flipped the home in 2017 for $69.9 million, Nguema sued Umansky, accusing him of self-dealing that lowered the initial sale price.

    Umansky reached a settlement with Nguema, who is no longer in the U.S., that provided $6.35 million to a healthcare nonprofit working in Equatorial Guinea, as part of the asset forfeiture case that wrapped up in 2021.

    The Agency’s insurance company also sued after the brokerage filed an insurance claim to help fund the Nguema settlement. The insurer accused Umansky of a conflict of interest in the deals and sought to rescind the brokerage’s policy. An undisclosed settlement was reached.

    Umansky said that he was unable to comment on those cases and settlements due to nondisclosure agreements.

    At the same time, Hakim’s case had been wending its way through Santa Monica Superior Court, with voluminous filings by both sides. The original complaint accused Umansky, Oberfeld and other defendants of eight causes of action, including fraud, breaches of duty and negligent misrepresentation.

    Not every allegation applied to every defendant and over the years Epstein struck several, including the fraud allegation. A trial was set for next year on the remaining causes of action — including an allegation Umansky breached his duty to be an honest and fair broker — assuming the case survived a motion for summary judgment and wasn’t dismissed by Epstein.

    A core issue was Hakim’s allegation that he and Segal verbally offered at least $40 million for the property, but that Umansky never passed the offer on to his client Nguema. They also claimed Umansky told them not to bother to put the offer in writing because of the unusual nature of the transaction, since Nguema would not personally benefit from a higher price.

    Umansky has denied Hakim made such an offer or that he told him to not put it in writing — something he said a sophisticated investor would always do. “It’s a ‘he said, she said.’ I know what happened. And I know that there was no verbal offer made. Period. End the story,” Umansky said.

    Hakim’s attorneys have disputed that there was no evidence. Last year, they submitted into the court file the transcription of a voicemail left for Umansky by Segal in May 2015. During it, the agent notes that his client is ready with an all-cash offer in the “40 range.”

    Umansky dismissed the voicemail, saying it was left with him prior to Segal visiting the property. “I am well aware of that. We do that all the time, ‘Hey, I’ve got a client looking up to $60 million. What can I have? What can you show?’ That’s not evidence of any sort of offer.”

    Attorneys for Umansky also have questioned whether Hakim had the financial wherewithal to make an all-cash offer that would close the deal fast, though Umansky’s and Oberfeld’s limited liability company itself needed to bring in other investors.

    Perhaps the most central issue of the case revolved around when Umansky and Oberfeld reached their own agreement to buy the property. Umansky informed Nguema and the Department of Justice in June 2016 — weeks before the sale closed and long after negotiations with Hakim had ceased — that he had only recently been invited to participate in the buyers’ group.

    But Epstein cast doubt on that in a ruling this year, stating there were documents indicating a “concrete February 2016 plan for a joint partnership that had long been in the works.”

    The court notes that the evidence does seem pretty clear that Umansky’s suggestion that the discussions only started a little bit before May 2016 was simply false and he knew it when he said it,” the judge wrote.

    Umansky said the “judge was completely wrong in those statements” — and almost seemed to rue the case was dropped.

    “Unfortunately, or fortunately, it’s not going to be heard at trial,” he said.

    Laurence Darmiento

    Source link

  • Trump Isn’t Bluffing

    Trump Isn’t Bluffing

    Mandel Ngan / Getty

    We’ve become inured to his rhetoric, but his message has grown darker.

    Editor’s Note: This article is part of “If Trump Wins,” a project considering what Donald Trump might do if reelected in 2024.

    “We pledge to you that we will root out the Communists, Marxists, fascists, and the radical-left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country, that lie and steal and cheat on elections,” Donald Trump said this past November, in a campaign speech that was ostensibly honoring Veterans Day. “The real threat is not from the radical right; the real threat is from the radical left … The threat from outside forces is far less sinister, dangerous, and grave than the threat from within. Our threat is from within.”

    What immediately leaps out here is the word vermin, with its echoes of Hitler and Mussolini. But Trump’s inflammatory language can overshadow and distract from the substance of what he’s saying—in this case, appearing to promise a purge or repression of those who disagree with him politically.

    Explore the January/February 2024 Issue

    Check out more from this issue and find your next story to read.

    View More

    This sort of language isn’t entirely new. Trump spoke in Manichaean terms throughout his first campaign and term, encouraging chants to lock up Hillary Clinton in 2016, and in 2018 referring to undocumented immigrants as “animals” who would “infest our country.” Over time, the shock of Trump’s rhetoric has worn off, making it easy to miss the fact that his message has grown even darker.

    Trump himself has changed, too—the old Trump seemed to be running for office partly for fun and partly in service of his signature views, such as opposition to immigration and support for protectionism. Today’s Trump is different. His fury over his 2020 election defeat, the legal cases against him, and a desire for revenge against political opponents have come to eclipse everything else.

    In the past few months, the former president has described himself as a “very proud election denier.” He has repeatedly threatened and intimidated judges, witnesses, prosecutors, and even the family of prosecutors involved in the cases against him, going so far as to say that his legal opponents will be consigned to mental asylums if he’s reelected. He has suggested that the man he picked for chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff deserves to be executed on grounds of treason. He’s called for investigating NBC and possibly yanking the network off the air, also on grounds of treason—one of his most direct attacks on the First Amendment. And he’s vowed to arrest and indict President Joe Biden and other political opponents for no apparent reason other than that they oppose him.

    The fact that Trump’s ideas have become more authoritarian is not yet fully appreciated. One reason is people have heard Trump say outlandish things for so long that they can’t identify what’s new, or they’ve become numb. Another is venue: Once Trump left the White House and stopped tweeting, his vitriol became less noticeable to anyone who didn’t attend his rallies, seek out videos of them, or join Trump’s own Truth Social network.

    Even when a comment is so extreme that it does break into the mainstream, what happens next is predictable. The first time Trump says something, people react with shock and compare him to Hitler. The second time, people say Trump is at it again. By the third time, it becomes background noise—an appalling but familiar part of the Trump shtick.

    This is just the sort of “normalization” that Trump’s critics warned against from the start, but it’s also a natural human response to repeated exposure. The result is that Trump has been able to acclimate the nation to authoritarianism by introducing it early and often. When a second-term President Trump directs the Justice Department to lock up Democratic politicians or generals or reporters or activists on flimsy or no grounds at all, people will wring their hands, but they’ll also shrug and wonder why he didn’t do it sooner. After all, he’s been promising to do it forever, right?


    This article appears in the January/February 2024 print edition with the headline “Trump Isn’t Bluffing.”

    David A. Graham

    Source link

  • Bird flu concerns grow in California as deadly virus infects more farms

    Bird flu concerns grow in California as deadly virus infects more farms

    Federal and state officials have confirmed outbreaks in the last few weeks of a fast-spreading avian influenza strain — commonly known as bird flu — in four new California counties, sparking concerns about the possible agricultural and financial blow of the virus.

    The “highly pathogenic” bird flu was confirmed Wednesday at two commercial farms in Stanislaus County, joining recent outbreaks at poultry farms in Fresno, San Benito and Sonoma counties, according to updates from the California Department of Food and Agriculture. The strain is easily spread among birds and often fatal for them.

    “It is important to note that [the bird flu] is widespread in California and may also be present in other counties that are not listed,” the agency said in a statement Wednesday. “Enhanced biosecurity is critical in the face of ongoing disease outbreaks.”

    Surging egg prices earlier this year were blamed on an outbreak of the bird flu that killed millions of hens and left grocers struggling to keep shelves stocked.

    California agriculture officials said that in order to protect other flocks from the disease, the farms where outbreaks were reported are being quarantined and their birds euthanized.

    After cases were confirmed earlier this week at two Sonoma County poultry farms, officials there declared a state of emergency, calling the outbreak a local disaster.

    “We need to promote and protect our local food shed and the agricultural producers who dedicate their livelihoods to producing food for our local populations and beyond,” Sonoma County Agricultural Commissioner Andrew Smith said in a statement. “These producers are integral in maintaining and increasing food security in our communities.”

    Sonoma County Supervisor David Rabbitt said he is concerned about economic and supply-chain issues that could result from the emergency, noting that south Sonoma County has about “one million farm birds within a five-mile radius” of one of the facilities hit by the outbreak, and that they provide as many as hundreds of thousands of eggs daily.

    Rabbitt also said that more than 200 employees work at the two affected Sonoma County facilities, and will be hurt by the losses.

    In October, as cases of avian flu increased nationally and the first California outbreak of the season was detected in Merced County, the state veterinarian urged that California bird farmers move their flocks indoors for now.

    The Merced County outbreak was confirmed at a commercial turkey farm, home to about 30,000 birds, according to USDA data tracking the virus’ spread.

    The most recent outbreaks confirmed in Stanislaus County were at two commercial farms that are raising about 250,000 chickens each. The infected Sonoma County farms were a duck farm with 169,000 birds, and a commercial egg producer with more than 80,000 birds.

    The San Benito and Fresno county cases also included commercial duck farms, with 5,000 birds in San Benito and 23,000 in Fresno, according to the USDA data.

    State officials did not disclose the names of the companies involved, and USDA data was limited.

    Avian infuenza can be found in both wild and domesticated fowl, including chickens, turkeys, pheasants, quail, ducks and geese, and its typically spread through bird-to-bird contact, according to the state Department of Food and Agriculture.

    There have also been confirmed cases in wild birds over the last month in Sacramento and Santa Clara counties, according to the USDA.

    Officials noted this spring that continued spread of the virus could soon become a concern for the still-endangered California condor.

    According to the federal Centers for Disease Control and Protection, this bird flu strain is considered a low risk to humans. However, the World Health Organization has said there is some cause for worry due to some reports of the virus infecting humans.

    Californians can report unusual sick or dead pets or domesticated birds via the state Department of Food and Agriculture Sick Bird Hotline at (866) 922-2473. Any unusual or dead wild birds should be reported to the state Department of Fish and Wildlife online.

    Grace Toohey

    Source link

  • LAPD officer sues former assistant chief accused of monitoring her with AirTag

    LAPD officer sues former assistant chief accused of monitoring her with AirTag

    A female LAPD officer who accused former assistant chief Alfred “Al” Labrada of unlawfully tracking her has filed a legal claim alleging department leadership failed to shield her from backlash, both inside the department and on social media.

    The officer, Dawn Silva, said in a government claim filed Tuesday that her decision to report Labrada unleashed a torrent of abuse from his defenders, who she claims have continued to contact her privately since an Oct. 7 press conference in which Labrada publicly dismissed the allegations.

    Silva, a senior officer with the department’s training division, said in the claim that she went on medical leave on Sept. 18 “[d]ue to the significant pressure and anxiety that [she] was facing from the persistent rumors.”

    Silva’s claim says she has been “harassed and discriminated against based on her sex and gender and has been retaliated against” for reporting the alleged misconduct.

    Some of the harassment has come from fellow LAPD officers, the claim says, noting that some comments were receieved from LAPD-adjacent accounts on Instagram. One such account, called @defendthelapd, posted a story characterizing Labrada as a “sacrificial lamb,” while accusing the officer who filed the police report against him of “lying and pulling a #metoo…because she’s scorned.”

    After news of the allegations broke, Labrada was demoted to the rank of commander and has been sent to a disciplinary panel, where he faces possible termination. He has been on leave since early October.

    Silva said Labrada has “continuously and on an ongoing basis” emailed and texted her, “despite assurances” from the department that the he had been given two “stay away” orders. Such orders are an administrative tool regularly used to separate department employees who are involved in interpersonal or romantic disputes; repeated violations can result in an officer’s termination.

    In a statement Tuesday, Labrada’s attorney, Jeremy Tissot, said he had not yet reviewed the claim, but he stood by his comments at a news conference in October where he defended his client. Tissot pointed out that prosecutors in San Bernardino County declined to file any charges against Labrada.

    “Mr. Labrada has never engaged in any stalking, harassment, abuse or other illegal actions, in my opinion,” Tissot wrote in a statement.

    At the news conference in October, Labrada said the case had caused him “significant emotional and physical distress.” He accused department leadership — singling out Chief Michel Moore on several occasions — for making details about the case public that he said should have been protected by state privacy laws. Labrada argued that he was being treated differently from other department officials facing allegations of misconduct, echoing a double standard argument made in several other recent lawsuits against the LAPD.

    Tissot also scolded news outlets for their repeated characterization of the allegations against Labrada as “stalking,” a label that he said carries a dark connotation. Tissot said the allegations against Labrada do not meet the state’s legal definition of stalking. The attorney added that he was limited in what he could say because of the department’s pending disciplinary case against his client.

    An LAPD spokeswoman declined to comment on Tuesday, saying the department generally doesn’t discuss ongoing litigation.

    Silva’s attorney, Matthew McNicholas, accused the department Tuesday of mishandling the case against his client.

    “It’s entirely inappropriate for an assistant chief in LAPD to place what is in effect an electronic dog collar on a simple police officer that he was in a romantic relationship with,” said McNicholas, adding that Silva began receiving text messages from colleagues shortly after she reported Labrada to internal affairs. “How does that happen? She didn’t tell anybody else in the department. Her mother didn’t tell anyone else in the department. So it is her belief, it is our belief that it was leaked.”

    Silva said she discovered a tracking device called an AirTag on Sept. 3 during a getaway with friends at a hotel in Palm Springs, when he emailed her a copy of their domestic partnership separation agreement, according to the police report. The timing of the message made her suspect that Labrada knew her whereabouts, and she then asked a friend to help her inspect her car, according to the report.

    The search turned up an AirTag in a black Pelican case that was attached to the undercarriage, behind the rear passenger wheel, her claim said. A friend of hers “scanned” the device, which revealed that it was registered to Labrada’s city-owned cellphone, according to her claim.

    Several investigators from internal affairs showed up at her home to interview her the day after she filed a report with Ontario police, she said. But, when they rechecked the AirTag, Labrada’s information had been wiped, leading Silva to believe that someone had tipped him off.

    She said her relationship with Labrada dates back to October 2017, when he was a captain in Hollenbeck Division. in May 2021, they filed paperwork to become domestic partners. Silva maintains that she ended their relationship last July “due to its continually toxic nature.”

    Silva was granted a temporary restraining order against Labrada on Nov. 16; in her application for the order, she described the emotional anguish that the ongoing abuse had caused her and said she feared for her safety, She also detailed Labrada’s ongoing efforts to contact her, including through friends and family members, according to the document.

    Times staff writer Richard Winton contributed to this report.

    Libor Jany

    Source link

  • Redondo Beach high school closed after 2nd student brings loaded firearm onto campus

    Redondo Beach high school closed after 2nd student brings loaded firearm onto campus

    A 10th-grader was arrested Tuesday after bringing a loaded firearm onto the campus of a Redondo Beach high school, officials say.

    The same thing happened Monday.

    Classes at Redondo Union High School will be canceled Wednesday after the second incident in as many days in which a student brought a loaded weapon to school, officials said. Tuesday’s incident included a false report of a school shooting.

    In both cases, officers with the Redondo Beach Police Department said they had apprehended a 15-year-old sophomore who was carrying a loaded firearm and a high-capacity magazine on campus — although in each case, police said, there was “no evidence of a specific threat or plan for violence.”

    Tuesday’s incident was reported to police at 9:23 a.m. as a student with a weapon.

    Officers were already on campus as security had been beefed up after Monday’s arrest, and said they found the student with the firearm within minutes. The student tried running away from police, according to the department, prompting a school lockdown that lasted less than 40 minutes.

    The student was apprehended by a school employee and two police officers. No injuries were reported during the incident, and police said that earlier reports of shots fired or a school shooting were false.

    Monday’s arrest occurred around 10:30 a.m. at the school located at 1 Sea Hawk Way. The campus, which had over 3,100 students enrolled as of 2021, is the only public high school in the district.

    Administrators had contacted police on Monday, saying students had reported a student with a gun on campus. Police responded and arrested the male student, who was not identified because he is a minor.

    In both cases, the suspects were arrested on suspicion of multiple firearm violations, including being a juvenile with a firearm, possessing a firearm on school grounds, having a high-capacity magazine, carrying a loaded firearm in public and possessing an unregistered loaded firearm.

    Police gave no details about the type of firearm carried by each student, nor did they say how the students acquired their firearms, citing the ongoing investigation. Investigators have neither confirmed nor denied whether the two incidents are related.

    Officials with the Redondo Beach Unified School District will host an online meeting at 8:30 a.m. Wednesday to discuss the incidents and safety protocols for Redondo Union High School.

    “The two back-to-back incidents are something we would have never imagined,” district officials said in a statement. “We are going to need to work together to solve the issue of access to guns.”

    The campus closure on Wednesday will allow Redondo Beach police to sweep the campus for weapons and explosives, school officials said.

    When school resumes on Thursday, only three entry points will be open on the campus, and each will be monitored by police officers and school administrators. Police will also perform additional patrols at the high school and all other campuses within the school district.

    Jeremy Childs

    Source link

  • Prosecutors drop charges in 'ghost gun' case linked to LAPD gang unit scandal

    Prosecutors drop charges in 'ghost gun' case linked to LAPD gang unit scandal

    Los Angeles County prosecutors have dismissed a gun possession charge against a man who was stopped by police officers from a scandal-plagued gang unit within the LAPD’s Mission Division, one of the first instances of a case being compromised by the department’s latest corruption scandal.

    The decision came after a preliminary hearing Thursday for Raphael DeLeon on a felony charge of having a concealed unregistered firearm in a vehicle, according to his attorney, Ninaz Saffari.

    After the defense argued the gun was recovered during an illegal stop, Saffari said Monday, prosecutors told the court they couldn’t proceed because three of the officers involved in the stop would not be available to testify because of a pending investigation.

    Saffari said DeLeon was pulled over because of his race, and she believes prosecutors dropped the case because the officers would have been called to testify about why they made the stop.

    “Latino guy driving around, and basically police officers were going on a fishing expedition and they say let’s pull this guy over,” she said. “I think that it’s a pattern of conduct and I think that they got caught this time.”

    In a motion filed before the hearing, Saffari argued the gun charge should be thrown out because the officers had no probable cause to search DeLeon’s car after pulling him over for reportedly failing to signal while making an improper lane change.

    The motion criticized the officers’ apparent delay in activating their body-worn cameras — a convenient lapse that Saffari said ensured there was no video of her client’s supposed traffic violations. There was also no footage of the “furtive movement” that officers said DeLeon made while reaching for a gun. DeLeon has denied both allegations.

    “There is only one logical reason all three Officers did not activate their (body cameras) earlier, including when Mr. DeLeon was first interrogated — all three knew this was a bogus stop that would lead to an unconstitutional search,” Saffari wrote.

    Prosecutors have identified as many as 350 criminal cases that are potentially compromised because they relied on the testimony of or evidence gathered by two Mission gang officers, according to sources who spoke previously with The Times on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the ongoing investigation.

    The LAPD’s internal investigation has dragged on for nearly a year, the sources said, and the probe has allegedly uncovered a range of misconduct, including inappropriate stops, misuse of body-worn cameras, and possibly a robbery.

    The district attorney has said the LAPD has provided the results of its investigation into two of the officers, and charges are under consideration.

    The FBI is also investigating the unit for potential constitutional violations.

    The gang unit’s alleged misconduct came to light after a traffic stop last December. A motorist filed a complaint, claiming the officers were rude and didn’t have a legal basis for searching their vehicle. An internal affairs detective assigned to the case noticed discrepancies in the involved officers’ account of the stop. The department’s inquiry widened to include stops carried by others in the unit, uncovering numerous instances in which officers were late to activate their body cameras or otherwise failed to document the encounter, in violation of department policy, officials have said.

    At DeLeon’s hearing, the prosecutor announced that the charges would be dropped because three of the involved officers were not available to testify, Saffari said.

    Tiffiny Blacknell, a spokeswoman for the district attorney, said the case was “unable to proceed because the necessary witnesses were unavailable.” Blacknell said those witnesses are Mission gang officers.

    The dismissal is thought to be one of the first cases linked to the Mission Division to have charges dropped. Legal experts have said prosecutors will have to weigh whether they have enough evidence to proceed with pending cases, while also potentially revisiting prior convictions or guilty pleas that hinged on the testimony of officers tainted by the scandal.

    Up to 15 officers from the Mission Division are under suspicion, according to sources who requested anonymity to discuss confidential personnel matters. The department has declined to identify the officers.

    The officers mentioned in Saffari’s motion were Alan Carrillo, Anthony Cardoza and Marvin Perez.

    In an email to The Times, Perez said the “situation is still under investigation and should be treated with delicacy.” He referred further questions to his commanding officer at the Mission Division and to his attorney. Cardoza declined to comment and Carrillo did not respond to an email.

    An LAPD spokesperson said the three officers are still working at Mission Division but are no longer with the gang unit. Internal affairs investigators have continued to notify the D.A’.s office “of any discrepancies between the arrest report and the video evidence” of former Mission gang officers, the LAPD said.

    The case against DeLeon was dismissed on procedural grounds, the LAPD said, and the recovered “ghost gun” “was ordered to be destroyed by the judge and remains off the streets of Los Angeles.”

    LAPD officials said previously that two Mission officers suspected of misconduct have been sent to face a disciplinary panel called a board of rights, indicating the department is seeking to terminate them for misconduct. The three officers named in connection with the DeLeon case are not believed to be among those facing the disciplinary panel.

    The remaining officers from the unit have been assigned home or placed on restrictive duties that take them off the streets, according to the department.

    Though prosecutors in the past have notified attorneys when their cases involve officers suspected of misconduct, Saffari said she learned of the allegations against Mission officers only after reading news accounts of the case.

    The stop of DeLeon occurred May 28 in the area of Woodman Avenue and Roscoe Boulevard. Saffari argued it was problematic from the start. Carrillo wrote in his report that he and his partners pulled Deleon over after he swerved into another lane while driving in an area known as a hotbed of gang activity and violence.

    The officers discovered DeLeon’s license was invalid and that he had a prior misdemeanor conviction for firearm possession, Saffari said. Instead of arresting DeLeon for the misdeameanor of driving without a valid license and obtaining a warrant to search the car, the attorney said, the officers ordered Deleon and a female passenger to stand on the sidewalk while they performed a “protective sweep” of the vehicle.

    “The invalid license did not give the police carte blanche to search his vehicle,” Saffari said.

    The officers also failed to activate their cameras until after running DeLeon’s license, she said, despite a department policy that says officers should record the entirety of all public encounters.

    Officers did find a Polymer80-brand “ghost gun” under the front driver’s seat, the motion said. But their explanation for looking there — that DeLeon reached in that area after being stopped and was “shaking and repeatedly looking downward in a furtive manner” — was not captured on any of the three officers’ body cameras.

    The search was illegal, Saffari argued, probably based on a hunch that DeLeon might be armed because of his past criminal record and the area where he was stopped. “The police failed to articulate any legitimate, truthful facts whatsoever that would lead a reasonable person to believe there was an unregistered firearm or other illegal contraband in the vehicle,” her motion read.

    The gun and any other items seized from DeLeon could not be used in court because they were recovered during an illegal stop, Saffari said, calling the evidence “the fruit of a poisonous tree.”

    Times staff writer Richard Winton contributed to this report.

    Libor Jany

    Source link

  • Why the Fifth Circuit Keeps Making Such Outlandish Decisions

    Why the Fifth Circuit Keeps Making Such Outlandish Decisions

    Where to even start in cataloging the most ridiculous—and alarming—recent rulings to come out of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit?

    There’s a case about whether a class action could go forward that boiled down to a dispute among three Fifth Circuit judges over the meaning of a Bible verse. There’s a case in which the Fifth Circuit allowed three doctors to sue the FDA over a tweet intended to discourage ivermectin use that read, “You are not a horse. You are not a cow. Seriously, y’all. Stop it.” There’s a case in which the Fifth Circuit barred the Biden administration from requiring Navy SEALs to be vaccinated against COVID, because the court’s conception of religious liberty supersedes the military’s need for frontline troops to be healthy. There’s a case in which the Fifth Circuit held that the way Congress funds the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (a mechanism Congress has regularly used since America’s founding) is unconstitutional because Congress only imposed a limit on the appropriation, rather than putting a precise dollar figure on it. There’s the Fifth Circuit’s repeated insinuation that individual district judges, rather than the Biden administration, are better situated to supervise and direct federal immigration policy. There’s … you get the idea. When the hosts of the popular Strict Scrutiny podcast devoted an entire hour-long episode to flagging especially problematic Fifth Circuit rulings, they ran out of time.

    The Fifth Circuit is the federal appeals court covering Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas (where I live), and it has in recent years become the place where just about every right-wing litigant who can brings lawsuits to test novel and extreme legal arguments. It’s not that a disproportionate percentage of major legal issues are arising in those three states; it’s that conservative and right-wing litigants are deliberately steering disputes to a handful of sympathetic district judges in Texas, from where they know that any appeal will go to the Fifth Circuit—whose judges are far more likely than others in the country to take their side.

    A nationwide challenge to the FDA’s approval of mifepristone? Filed in Amarillo. Nationwide challenges to the Biden administration’s immigration policies? Filed in Victoria. Elon Musk’s new (and laughably weak) lawsuit against Media Matters, which has no geographic connection to the Fifth Circuit whatsoever? Filed in Fort Worth. These aren’t exactly destinations for vacations, but they’re the typical destinations today for overwhelming majority of litigation with an obvious rightward ideological or partisan tilt.

    Back in April, David A. Graham wrote in The Atlantic about the rise of “total politics”—where our political institutions have gravitated away from behaving with prudence in favor of scoring short-term political points. All that matters is #winning, long-term institutional consequences be damned.

    As alarming a development as that is in the context of the democratically elected branches (where voters could at least theoretically push back), it’s even worse when it comes from unelected judges—whose legitimacy depends on at least a loose public belief in their prudence. And especially when these rulings have consequences far outside the borders of its three states, the Fifth Circuit’s run of sweeping decisions undermines public faith in the federal judiciary nationally—not just from the eastern border of New Mexico to the western border of Alabama.

    What the Fifth Circuit is doing is participating in an extraordinary power grab, indifferent to the procedural rules that are supposed to constrain the powers of unelected judges. For instance, the Fifth Circuit regularly holds that challengers to whom it is sympathetic have standing—the right to bring a suit—in contexts in which the Supreme Court has, for decades, held to the contrary.

    The judges do this not because they have an unusually capacious approach to standing; they routinely reject the standing of plaintiffs to whom they are less sympathetic. Rather, they bend over backwards to take procedural shortcuts when they want to rule on the merits, such as in the challenges to the Biden administration’s proposed requirement that large employers require COVID vaccinations or regular tests. Even though the Fifth Circuit had only a 10 percent chance of winning the “inter-circuit lottery” that randomly assigns this type of dispute to a federal appeals court, it decided to jump the gun—issuing a premature decision, before the lottery took away its power, that the Biden rule was unlawful. (The Sixth Circuit, which “won” the lottery, quickly vacated the Fifth Circuit’s decision.)

    Moreover, the Fifth Circuit’s approach to both constitutional and statutory interpretation reflects a rather wooden application of even the conservative methodologies championed by the current Supreme Court. Consider the court of appeals’ ruling in United States v. Rahimi, in which the panel struck down a federal law barring people subject to domestic-violence-related restraining orders from possessing firearms. Even though the federal government offered numerous examples of founding-era laws that restricted firearm possession by “dangerous” individuals, the court of appeals rejected that analogy—concluding that domestic-violence restraining orders were too specific a subcategory of danger for the comparison to hold. (In another bizarre procedural move, the court subsequently amended its analysis although no party asked it to—perhaps in response to some of the public criticisms that had emerged.)

    The same cherry-picking of historical examples can be found in the CFPB case, in which the court of appeals either ignored or unpersuasively distinguished countless historical examples of similar congressional-funding statutes. When, at the recent Supreme Court oral argument in the case, Justice Samuel Alito tried to defend the Fifth Circuit’s efforts, U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar sarcastically conceded that, at the very least, none of those examples involved an agency with the same name.

    The Fifth Circuit’s approach to statutory interpretation has been just as transparently results-oriented. One especially notorious example is the court’s conclusion that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission lacks the statutory power to promulgate rules for the temporary storage of spent nuclear fuel—at least in part because the court determined that the Atomic Energy Act didn’t clearly delegate such authority. But if the NRC isn’t authorized to provide for the temporary storage of nuclear waste, who is? (The court’s opinion doesn’t say.)

    The upshot of these statutory holdings is not, as some of the court’s judges have insisted, to return power to Congress; it’s to frustrate federal regulation in general—because even a functioning Congress (to say nothing of the current one) would have neither the time nor the wherewithal to legislate with the amount of subject-matter specificity that the Fifth Circuit demands.

    Throughout these decisions, the Fifth Circuit has shown a remarkable lack of regard for the Supreme Court—which not only keeps reversing it, but keeps granting emergency relief in cases in which the Fifth Circuit refused to do so, or vacating emergency relief that the Fifth Circuit agreed to provide. Take just three examples: After a federal judge blocked a controversial Texas law barring most content moderation by social-media providers, the Fifth Circuit unblocked it pending appeal, only to have the Supreme Court step in to put the law back on hold. Even though the Supreme Court’s intervention signaled that at least five justices were likely to side with the district court and conclude that the Texas law was unconstitutional, the Fifth Circuit went ahead and decided that the Texas law was kosher.

    A similar story unfolded in the mifepristone case—where the Supreme Court issued a stay of Judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk’s ruling (which would have massively limited nationwide access to the abortion pill), after the Fifth Circuit had refused to do so. Once again, the Supreme Court sent a pretty clear message that Kacsmaryk’s ruling was not likely to survive, but the Fifth Circuit affirmed it on the merits anyway. And just last month, the Fifth Circuit struck down the Biden administration’s rule limiting the distribution of “ghost guns,” even though the Supreme Court intervened twice earlier this summer to put the rule back into effect after the Fifth Circuit had blocked it. So far this term, the Supreme Court has granted emergency relief three times. Not only did all three of those cases come from the Fifth Circuit; in all three, the Fifth Circuit had gone the other way.

    This disregard for the Supreme Court has the ironic effect of making the justices look more moderate. Last term, for example, the Supreme Court reversed the Fifth Circuit in seven of the nine cases it reviewed—the highest rate for any lower court in the country. A similar theme is likely to emerge from this term, in which as many as 20 percent of the cases the justices decide are likely to come from Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas, and most are likely heading for reversal. The point is not that the Supreme Court is less ideologically extreme than its critics charge; it’s that the Court is less ideologically extreme than the Fifth Circuit. These days, that’s not saying all that much.

    Even conservative scholars have started expressing alarm about these trends. In the November issue of the Harvard Law Review, the professors William Baude and Samuel Bray warned that “we have arrived, for the first time in our national history, at a state of affairs where almost every major presidential act is immediately frozen” by federal courts—most commonly in the Fifth Circuit—forcing the Supreme Court to step in at premature stages. In their words, “This is bad law and bad democracy. It cannot go on forever.”

    But whereas conservative scholars have begun to raise concerns about these developments, the Supreme Court, which has not been shy about chastising misbehaving lower courts in the past, has thus far been mum. The lack of rebuke may explain why some Fifth Circuit judges are leaning into their newfound infamy. One of the court’s most visible judges, James Ho, regularly lectures law-school audiences about the importance of judicial “courage”—that judges shouldn’t shy away from unpopular opinions.

    Ho’s not-so-subtle message is that criticism is actually evidence of good judicial rulings; in his world, there’s no such thing as bad publicity. But whether this is what these judges truly believe or just how they think they need to behave in order to have any shot at a Supreme Court nomination in a future Republican presidency, the bottom line is the same: The Fifth Circuit is the bull in the rule-of-law china shop—and it seems remarkably indifferent to what happens to public faith in the judiciary when it keeps breaking things.

    Stephen I. Vladeck

    Source link

  • Court orders reporter to hand over jailhouse interview notes — a threat to free press, critics say

    Court orders reporter to hand over jailhouse interview notes — a threat to free press, critics say

    Ishani Desai was just doing her job. As a reporter on a murder case, she needed information she felt she could get from only one person: the man who was behind bars.

    “I went to the source,” said Desai, a former reporter for the Bakersfield Californian.

    She couldn’t have known at the time that the notes from her jailhouse interview would spur a court order that, legal experts say, could threaten freedom of the press in California.

    The suspect, Sebastian Parra, was in custody on suspicion of his alleged role in the Aug. 24, 2022, death of 43-year-old Benny Alcala Jr., a counselor for the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

    Alcala was fatally shot at an electric vehicle charging station outside a Target store in Bakersfield. Witnesses reported seeing two men flee the area of the shooting. One was identified as Robert Pernell Roberts, who was arrested on suspicion of murder, and the second was Parra, who denied involvement in the shooting and, initially, was not arrested.

    Parra testified at Roberts’ preliminary hearing, as did law enforcement. Roberts’ attorney, Lexi Blythe of the Kern County Public Defender’s Office, pointed out inconsistencies between Parra’s testimony and that of law enforcement.

    Parra was subsequently indicted by a grand jury. Like Roberts, he has pleaded not guilty to murder.

    Blythe then filed a subpoena for Parra’s February jailhouse interview with Desai — which consisted solely of Desai’s handwritten notes — saying it was necessary for her defense of Roberts.

    The Californian challenged Blythe’s subpoena, citing the 1st Amendment as well as California’s shield law, a section of the state constitution that protects news organizations from being held in contempt of court for withholding sources and unpublished information, including interview notes.

    The Kern County Superior Court ruled the newspaper was in contempt of court and ordered the notes be turned over, as they were “reasonably necessary” for Roberts’ defense and his constitutional right to a fair trial.

    The Californian appealed the decision to the California 5th Circuit Court of Appeal, which upheld the lower court’s decision but reversed the contempt-of-court ruling.

    As a result, the Californian handed over the unpublished notes to the Kern County Public Defender’s Office on Nov. 15. The news outlet also published the notes online.

    Desai, now a reporter at the Sacramento Bee, said in an emailed statement to The Times that she had decided to interview Parra to answer a question she faced while covering the murder case.

    “No one would tell me why the man who was once the prosecution’s star witness now faced an egregious murder charge,” Desai, 25, said. “So, I went to the source.”

    Desai said, however, that there was nothing significant that she wrote down that day at the jail that wasn’t also included in her Feb. 26 story in the Californian.

    The Californian’s own story on the appellate decision states the newspaper will not pursue an appeal at the California Supreme Court because the case would be unlikely to be reviewed and because of the outsize expense. The news outlet cited legal expenditures “exceeding $100,000” in the case so far.

    The paper, however, does seek to make the ruling unpublished, a legal process that would make the opinion unusable in future cases. Though the opinion remains public record, unpublishing it would render the case unusable as a citation and limit the precedent it sets in similar cases for California news organizations.

    Even if the decision is unpublished, the ruling is viewed as a worrying setback by advocates of press freedom, who fear it could affect the ability of journalists to do their job in the Golden State.

    David Loy, the legal director of the First Amendment Coalition, worries this decision could be chilling for journalists reporting on criminal cases.

    “It, in effect, makes the bar lower than it should be to pierce the reporter’s shield,” said Loy, whose organization filed an amicus brief in the case. He called the appellate court decision disappointing.

    Although California’s shield law remains strong, he said the ruling makes it easier for attorneys to use the only exception under which journalists must turn over unpublished material: when a criminal defendant seeks such information. In such cases, the California Supreme Court has established a balancing test to weigh the rights of a reporter against those of the defendant.

    Loy said this test has for decades found that only in an “extraordinarily compelling situation” would a journalist have to turn over their notes, something he didn’t see in this case.

    “The function of the court is to balance the interests,” Loy said. “It seems like that balance has been somewhat skewed by this opinion.”

    Loy said he’s worried the ruling could make reporters and editors hesitate when considering whether to interview someone in jail or a witness to a crime — interviews that he called a cornerstone of good journalism.

    “If that cost and risk is too high, that’s going to be a deterrent to report that story in that way,” Loy said, noting the potential legal fees. “It’s going to make reporters, and, I assume, editors and publishers, risk-averse.”

    Another organization that filed an amicus brief in the case was the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. Lisa Zycherman, the organization’s deputy legal director and policy counsel, said the chilling effect of the ruling would affect not just journalists but also potential sources.

    “Forcing a journalist to betray a promise of confidentiality could make sources think twice, or they might just not come forward,” Zycherman said. “That chills the free flow of information to the public, and it compromises the ability of journalists to do their jobs.”

    Christine Peterson, the Californian’s executive editor, said that since the legal battle over the notes began, she had already had a colleague walk away from an interview with an incarcerated source.

    “He decided that, for the kind of story it was, that it wasn’t critical,” Peterson said. “That’s not to say we won’t continue to interview criminal defendants who agree to it and are in custody, but I think it’s fair to say this gave him pause.”

    Desai, however, said her determination had only grown after the ruling.

    “Many reporters — including myself — wonder if our work and sources are safe,” she wrote in her statement to The Times. “But the alternative is to shirk my duty, letting our community go uninformed and unaware of the powerful criminal justice system. That option is untenable for me and I refuse to back down when encountering threats to my work’s sanctity.”

    Jeremy Childs, Grace Toohey

    Source link

  • A skeleton and a smoking gun: Why a newly elected deputy union board member’s tattoo is sparking concern

    A skeleton and a smoking gun: Why a newly elected deputy union board member’s tattoo is sparking concern

    A union representing Los Angeles County sheriff deputies recently elected to its board of directors a veteran lawman who has a controversial tattoo and was involved in two fatal shootings that cost the county $4 million in legal payouts, sparking concern among oversight officials and justice advocates.

    Incoming Assn. of Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs board member Jason Zabala previously described his tattoo under oath, saying it depicted a skeleton in a cowboy hat with a smoking rifle and the number 140. He called the stark combination of imagery a “station tattoo,” but others described it as the symbol of a deputy gang known as the Regulators.

    Zabala has previously denied being part of the group, saying that the number simply meant he was the 140th person to get that same design, and describing the tattoo as a proud mark of camaraderie among fellow deputies. This week he did not respond to a request for comment.

    Union president Richard Pippin defended Zabala in an emailed statement Thursday, calling him a “family oriented guy with a big heart” who has dedicated his life to helping others.

    Still, advocates — such as James Nelson, campaign and program manager for the community coalition Dignity and Power Now — worried Zabala’s election would not bode well for the department’s efforts to rein in deputy gangs and gang tattoos.

    “It’s a bad sign,” Nelson said. “It isn’t the sheriff that runs the department — it’s the unions.”

    For decades, the Sheriff’s Department has been plagued by gangs of deputies running roughshod over certain stations and floors of the jail. The groups are known by monikers such as the Executioners, the Vikings and the Regulators, and their members often bear the same sequentially numbered tattoos.

    During his swearing-in ceremony nearly a year ago, Sheriff Robert Luna spoke of the need to “eliminate deputy gangs” from the department. Though he created a new office to do that, the department has not yet settled on a policy banning gangs or gang tattoos.

    One hurdle to clear before implementing any sweeping new policy is the back-and-forth of the bargaining process with labor leaders, including ALADS.

    “We’ve been hearing that the reason we can’t move forward with passing an anti-gang policy — which is the first step in making good on the pledge to get rid of them — is because the sheriff has to negotiate with ALADS,” said Sean Kennedy, who chairs the Civilian Oversight Commission.

    “Those sessions are taking much longer than we anticipated,” Kennedy said. “And then, when we hear that he’ll be meeting and conferring with an organization with a tattooed Regulator on the board of directors, it makes everyone believe that we’re engaged in a futile process.”

    Pippin disputed that, saying the election outcome “will not change” the organization’s mission and values when it comes to the bargaining process.

    “We remain committed to working with the department and the county to achieve the best possible outcomes, not only for our members, but also for members of the communities they serve,” he said.

    He did not address the nature or significance of Zabala’s tattoo.

    County records show Zabala first started working for the Sheriff’s Department in 2002. Nine years later, he was involved in an on-duty crash that left a woman with spinal injuries. The case settled for $80,000 before trial, according to the news site Knock LA.

    Then in 2013, Zabala and his partner stopped a man riding a bicycle and ended up shooting him as he lay face down in his backyard. Prosecutors said the man — Terry Laffitte — had been resisting, so they deemed the shooting lawful. After Laffitte’s family filed suit, the county settled the case for $1.5 million.

    The year after that, Zabala was involved in the killing of Johnny Martinez, a 28-year-old man with schizophrenia who was shot 36 times by deputies outside his Vermont Knolls home. Prosecutors also deemed that shooting justified, though in 2018 a civil lawsuit on behalf of the Martinez family ended with a hefty $2.5 million settlement.

    It was the 2013 shooting that brought Zabala’s ink to the fore. In connection with the civil lawsuit, Zabala was deposed three times in 2015 and 2016 and asked to describe his tattoo.

    Over the course of those depositions he offered additional details about the ink, including that in addition to a smoking gun, the skeleton is holding a “memorial stone” with “CEN” — for Century Station — written on it, along with the Roman numerals XXI. According to Kennedy, those are all key elements of a Regulators’ tattoo.

    “The tombstone in the background with the letters for Century Station is some of the main iconography for the Regulators,” he told The Times.

    In Zabala’s tattoo, there are also flames along the bottom of the tattoo along with the words “Beati Pacifici,” which he said under oath translates to “Blessed are the Peacemakers.” The entire tattoo is 5 to 6 inches high, on the lower part of his left leg.

    At the time, Zabala said in depositions that the Old West style of his tattoo honored the Sheriff’s Department’s founding in 1850 and that skeletons are “an icon of the peace officer.” A Loyola Marymount University report later described Zabala’s ink as “Regulators tattoo #140.”

    The district attorney’s office later investigated whether Zabala committed perjury when he described the significance of the number 140 on his tattoo.

    Ultimately prosecutors declined to pursue the case, saying it wasn’t clear that Zabala committed perjury. Even if he did lie about his tattoo, they said, it would not have made a difference in the outcome of the case.

    “It is unlikely that a false statement about one aspect of one tattoo, among several, would probably influence the outcome of the wrongful death lawsuit,” prosecutors wrote.

    When lawyers for the county agreed to settle the lawsuit in 2017, records show they told a Sheriff’s Department investigator that the allegation of perjury was a factor in their decision.

    In this year’s union election, Zabala was one of eight candidates for four open seats. He will be sworn in to the seven-member board at Friday morning’s meeting, along with Julian Stern, John Perez and Tony Meraz.

    Keri Blakinger

    Source link

  • Woman at center of Gascón juvenile sentencing controversy takes plea deal in Kern County killing

    Woman at center of Gascón juvenile sentencing controversy takes plea deal in Kern County killing

    Hannah Tubbs — whose prosecution on sexual assault charges in 2021 marked one of the biggest controversies of L.A. County Dist. Atty. George Gascón’s first term — pleaded no contest Tuesday in the killing of a homeless man in Kern County, prosecutors said.

    Tubbs, 27, entered the plea to charges of voluntary manslaughter, robbery and witness intimidation in the 2019 killing of Michael Clark near Lake Isabella, according to Kern County Dist. Atty. Cynthia Zimmer.

    Prosecutors filed murder charges against Tubbs last May, months after Gascón faced criticism for allowing Tubbs to be tried as a juvenile for the sexual assault of a child inside an Antelope Valley restaurant in 2014.

    Tubbs was 17 at the time of the assault but wasn’t linked to the attack until 2019, after police obtained her DNA when she was arrested in another state. By the time the case worked its way into an L.A. County courtroom, Gascón had been elected on a reform platform that included a blanket ban on trying juveniles as adults.

    The case exploded into a national debate over criminal justice reform early last year when Fox News obtained recordings of Tubbs bragging about receiving a light sentence on a jailhouse phone call and making crass remarks about her victim, who was 10 at the time of the attack.

    The Times later obtained law enforcement documents largely corroborating the Fox report and Gascón even questioned whether Tubbs, who is a transgender woman, had lied about her gender identity in order to receive lenient treatment.

    “It’s unfortunate that she gamed the system,” Gascón said in an interview with The Times last year. “If I had to do it all over again, she would be prosecuted in adult court.”

    The case led Gascón to backpedal on his juvenile policy and create a committee that could approve requests to try juveniles as adults. The panel has approved only one such case, but a judge later ruled that defendant should still be tried as a juvenile, citing changes in California law.

    The L.A. County district attorney’s office did not respond to an inquiry about Tubbs’ plea. Kern County prosecutors were investigating the homicide at the same time Tubbs’ case was playing out in L.A. County last year.

    In the Kern County case, Tubbs was charged with killing Clark after an argument at a homeless encampment where the two were living in April 2019. Clark’s body was not found until four months later. The local medical examiner’s office ruled that his drowning death was not an accident or suicide, according to Kern County Deputy Dist. Atty. Cole Sherman, who prosecuted Tubbs.

    Sherman said Clark also suffered broken ribs, indicating a struggle.

    Tubbs faces up to 15 years in prison at sentencing, according to Zimmer, who called the defendant a “dangerous individual.”

    James Queally

    Source link

  • L.A. Unified to pay $19.9 million to settle sexual abuse claims against teacher’s aide

    L.A. Unified to pay $19.9 million to settle sexual abuse claims against teacher’s aide

    The Los Angeles school district will pay $19.9 million to settle claims against a former teacher’s assistant who sexually abused children at an elementary school in North Hollywood, attorneys for the families announced Thursday.

    The former teacher’s assistant, Lino Cabrera, was originally charged with five felony counts of lewd acts on a child under 14 and one count of continued sexual abuse — and had been accused of sexually abusing six girls, ages 10 and 11, between September 2016 and May 2019.

    Cabrera pleaded no contest in January 2020 to a felony count of continuous sexual abuse, a felony count of a lewd act upon a child under 14 and four misdemeanor counts of child molestation, according to the L.A. County district attorney’s office. As part of the plea deal, Cabrera agreed to register as a sex offender for life.

    Cabrera was sentenced to eight years in state prison, according to attorneys for the victims.

    Cabrera assisted in the school’s computer lab, prosecutors said. According to Los Angeles Unified School District officials, he worked at the elementary school for almost a decade and was placed on unpaid suspension May 30, 2019, when the arrest warrant was filed. State law requires school districts to fire people convicted of sexual abuse and bars them from working in schools.

    “He used his position of trust at the school to molest multiple children on campus over the course of several years,” attorneys for the victims said in a release.

    School district officials were not immediately available for comment.

    If the case had gone to trial, the school district’s liability would have hinged on whether other employees of the school district could have or should have known about the abuse. In settling the case, the school district admitted no wrongdoing.

    This is a developing story and will be updated.

    Howard Blume

    Source link

  • L.A. Zoo helps launch first-of-its-kind network to combat wildlife trafficking

    L.A. Zoo helps launch first-of-its-kind network to combat wildlife trafficking

    Ninja poked his head out from under his shell and nibbled away at food scraps next to a podium at the Los Angeles Zoo as Chief Executive and Director Denise Verret made a landmark announcement.

    The radiated tortoise, who was confiscated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service alongside dozens of other critically endangered, trafficked reptiles and brought to the zoo in 1998, is now “thriving and healthy,” Verret said.

    Ninja is one of 50 animals at the Los Angeles Zoo that were placed there after being confiscated — a success story that officials hope will be replicated by the first-of-its-kind program announced Friday: the Southern California Wildlife Confiscations Network.

    A tomistoma, a freshwater crocodilian confiscated in 1998 as a hatchling, is shown at the Los Angeles Zoo.

    (Myung J. Chun / Los Angeles Times)

    The partnership between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Assn. of Zoos and Aquariums aims to simplify the placement of confiscated animals by having a regional point of contact for wildlife enforcement officers to find trusted animal care facilities. The logistics of finding placement for a confiscated animal can be a challenge for federal wildlife officers, who must also juggle the trafficking investigation.

    In the past, wildlife enforcement agents have had to rely on informal contacts and relationships with local zoos, aquariums, sanctuaries and wildlife rescues.

    Under the wildlife confiscations network, a pilot program that officials plan to replicate nationwide beginning next year, a newly established confiscations coordinator will note the specific housing needs of the species involved and refer to a list of “fully vetted and permitted professional animal care facilities in the region to determine which can meet the case needs.”

    Matthew Martin, assistant special agent for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, said the partnership will help authorities “free up time and follow up on investigative leads while they’re still fresh.”

    A bird hangs onto a cage.

    Colonel, a scarlet macaw, was confiscated at Los Angeles International Airport in 2014 and brought to the Los Angeles Zoo.

    (Myung J. Chun / Los Angeles Times)

    Wildlife trafficking is often thought of as something that happens in “far away places like Africa, Asia or Australia,” said Dan Ashe, president of the Assn. of Zoos and Aquariums, “but it’s very much an American problem as well.”

    Southern California is an epicenter for the trafficking of wild animals, often smuggled for the illegal pet trade and regularly moved through ports of entry, he said.

    For at least the last decade, Martin said, U.S. native turtles have been exported overseas.

    At the southern border, he said, the Fish and Wildlife Service has intercepted a lot of trafficked sea cucumbers and swim bladders from totoaba fish, an endangered species since 1979.

    A small bird with white feathers

    Star, a Bali myna, was one of eight survivors from 93 birds confiscated in 2017 and brought to the Los Angeles Zoo.

    (Myung J. Chun / Los Angeles Times)

    At ports of entry or exit such as Los Angeles International Airport or a U.S. Postal Service facility, Fish and Wildlife officials search incoming shipments of permitted live animals to ensure there isn’t any activity of illegal trade. Inspectors check labels and open boxes, and if the shipment matches its documentation, it is sealed up and ready to be transported to its destination. For extra assurance, a trained K-9 is also on scene to sniff out any smuggled animals.

    In 2022, Fish and Wildlife special agents and the service’s law enforcement partners investigated more than 10,000 wildlife trafficking cases and collected more than $11 million in criminal penalties.

    “Illegal wildlife trafficking, whether driven by profit or personal gain, has devastating consequences for our environment and biodiversity,” said Verret of the Los Angeles Zoo.

    The global issue puts countless species on the brink of extinction and affects entire ecosystems, she said, and officials are hopeful that the Southern California Wildlife Confiscations Network will help them focus on stamping out the illegal trade.

    From 2015 to 2019, the Assn. of Zoos and Aquariums noted, federal authorities had 834 cases of live wildlife that was refused clearance, including 48,793 individual animals and plants that required placement. Los Angeles led the nation in number of cases, with 177.

    Karen Garcia

    Source link

  • A mother allegedly abducts her 8 children, flees across five states to ‘start a new life’ before her arrest

    A mother allegedly abducts her 8 children, flees across five states to ‘start a new life’ before her arrest

    A mother of eight children is accused of abducting her children, taking them from their foster care facilities, and then fleeing across five states until police caught up with her in a small town in northern California.

    Trista Fullerton, 36, allegedly violated a court order of custody for the eight children, as well as the terms of her probation for a domestic violence conviction, when she took the kids from the town of Rogers, Ark., and fled across the country while Arkansas police tried to reach her, according to court records.

    Her father told police that Fullerton planned on heading to Arizona “to start a new life,” according to a warrant for her arrest. Instead, Fullerton was found in Anderson, Calif. — 150 miles north of Sacramento — where police said they spotted her and six of her children in a pickup truck filled with trash after someone reported that Fullerton was “displaying bizarre behavior.”

    According to an arrest warrant affidavit obtained by The Times, police from Rogers began trying to contact Fullerton on Oct. 17, after receiving a report that she had “interfered with court ordered custody of eight children.”

    Rogers Police officials declined to provide additional details on the case, including who made the initial report. A spokesperson for the department said the case is still under investigation.

    According to the affidavit, police reached out to Fullerton’s father, David Fullerton, on Oct. 18, and he told police that his daughter had told him about taking the children to Arizona. Police learned the following day that she and the children were in California, according to the affidavit.

    Police had made contact with her and the children in Redding, about 15 miles north of Anderson, but she and the children were not detained because there was no warrant.

    Rogers Police filed an arrest warrant Oct. 20, and the next day, police in Anderson, Calif., spotted her and six of her children in a Dodge pickup with Arkansas plates, according to a statement from the Anderson Police Department.

    Two of her other children were located at a nearby home in Cottonwood, according to the statement, and they were taken into custody by Shasta County Children and Family Services.

    Fullerton was booked at Shasta County Jail and is being held without bail, according to jail records. She is expected to appear in court Thursday.

    Trista Fullerton, 36, allegedly violated a court order of custody for her eight children, as well as the terms of her probation for a domestic violence conviction.

    (Anderson Police Department)

    David Fullerton, said during a brief call with a reporter that his daughter had made a “mistake” and is “innocent.”

    “My daughter stands a chance, you know,” he said. “She made a mistake. She went across the line taking her babies but she didn’t know she wasn’t supposed to.”

    Court records indicate that Fullerton was on probation at the time of her arrest in Anderson. Records also show that she had been involved in at least two instances of domestic violence, twice violating court orders to stay away from the victim. In one incident, she was accused of punching the father of one of her children in the face.

    Fullerton pleaded guilty to domestic violence on July 12, 2022 in Arkansas, after she “hit the father of her child in the face, causing physical injury” in June 2021.

    The victim is only identified in the court documents as a 40-year-old Hispanic male.

    In a court record dated Aug. 9, 2021, Fullerton indicated she had seven children at the time, ages 15, 14, 11, 7, 3, 4, and 5 months.

    She also pleaded guilty to another case of domestic battery for a Feb. 5, 2020, incident in which she “punched her boyfriend in the head multiple times and scratched his face, causing redness and bleeding on his face,” according to court records.

    Fullerton pleaded guilty to both incidents, and was sentenced to two years of probation, court records show. The terms of her probation, however, required that she not drink alcohol, not break the law and not leave the state of Arkansas without the approval of her probation officer.

    The agreement stipulated that if she violated the terms of her probation, she could face a sentence of 12 years in jail.

    On Wednesday, prosecutors requested her probation be rescinded and a $50,000 warrant was issued for her arrest.

    Prosecutors said the case is currently being reviewed and it was unclear what, if any, new charge might be filed.

    Salvador Hernandez

    Source link