Corruption

Former Anaheim Mayor Sidhu Agrees to Plea Deal for Federal Corruption Charges

August 18, 2023 By Michael Slater Leave a Comment

Former Anaheim Mayor Harry Sidhu has agreed to plead guilty to four federal charges, capping a years-long federal investigation into alleged corruption that led to his resignation and torpedoed the city’s $320 million sale of Angel Stadium.

In a deal announced Wednesday, Aug. 16, Sidhu will plead guilty to obstruction of justice, wire fraud, false statement to the Federal Aviation Administration and false statement to the FBI.

“Mr. Sidhu was elected by and pledged to work for the residents of Anaheim, but he violated that pledge and their trust on numerous occasions to look out for special interests,” Donald Alway, the FBI’s assistant director in charge of the Los Angeles field office, said in a statement. “Mr. Sidhu deceived his colleagues and weakened the city’s official strategy by divulging intellectual property, then lied to the government when his corruption was discovered.”

In a statement Wednesday, Sidhu’s attorney Paul S. Meyer said, “Former Mayor Sidhu appreciates the thorough and fair investigation by the United States Attorney’s Office leading to a resolution in this matter.”

The total maximum sentence for all the offenses for which Sidhu has agreed to plea to is up to 50 years in prison, according to the agreement. He will next need to enter his plea in court and his actual sentencing is up to a judge at a later date and could be significantly shorter.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office agreed that if the court imposes a prison term of no less than 30 months, it would waive its right to appeal the sentence.

The agreement comes two weeks after an independent city-commissioned investigation was released providing new details for how Sidhu and allies appear to have gone unchecked in City Hall dealings.

During the city’s negotiations to sell Angel Stadium to team owner Arte Moreno’s business partnership, Sidhu sought to become a member of the city’s negotiating team and then provided “confidential inside information belonging to the city” to former Anaheim Chamber of Commerce CEO Todd Ament and to a consultant working for the Angels, “so that the Angels could buy Angel Stadium on terms beneficial to the Angels,” according to the plea agreement.

In 2019, Sidhu had also provided a confidential appraisal range related to Angel Stadium to Ament to give to the Angels before that figure was public, according to the plea agreement.

Sidhu was secretly recorded several months later saying he expected to ask for a $1 million campaign contribution toward his reelection from the Angels if they succeeded in buying the stadium, the plea agreement says. In an interview with FBI agents on May 12, 2022, days before the FBI’s investigation became public, Sidhu lied to the agents about expecting “nothing” from the Angels after the stadium deal closed, according to the plea agreement. Prosecutors also said Sidhu “falsely” told investigators that he did not recall providing stadium sale information during the negotiations.

Sidhu resigned in May 2022 following the revelation that the FBI was investigating the former mayor and the $320 million stadium deal was scuttled by the City Council.

Angels Organization spokesperson Marie Garvey said, “It is important to note both the plea agreement along with the city’s investigation showed no evidence of any wrongdoing by the Angels Organization.”

Ament’s attorneys, Joshua Robbins and Andrew Selesnick of Buchalter law firm, declined to comment through a spokesperson.

The FBI’s investigation was underway since at least 2019, according to an affidavit filed last year in support of a request for search warrants that included information investigators said was gleaned from wiretaps and intercepted emails.

The plea agreement gives details about how Sidhu attempted to not pay California sales tax for a used helicopter he purchased for $205,000. He had registered the helicopter using a mailing address in Scottsdale, Arizona, to avoid paying $15,887 in taxes. The helicopter was stored in Chino.

Sidhu has already paid back the taxes, according to the plea agreement.

He also provided false information to the FAA when he submitted the Arizona mailing address as his own, the agreement says. The mailing address belonged to an unnamed Anaheim businessperson.

Sidhu and his attorneys signed the plea agreement on Monday, Aug. 14.

For the obstruction of justice charge, Sidhu would admit that he destroyed multiple email messages and documents “with the intent to impede the FBI’s investigation of public corruption surrounding the city’s potential sale of Angel Stadium,” according to the plea agreement.

One of the emails deleted was related to the Angel Stadium deal, which had “confidential negotiation information,” including issues around the price and terms, the plea agreement says.

The document, drafted by attorneys for the city, included a section about parking and how it affected the value of land, the agreement says, and gave the example of how the team could “eliminate the requirement that they maintain at least 12,500 parking spaces so upon closing they could immediately amend the lease to limit their parking obligation and then flip the land for millions more than they paid for it.”

“Reducing their parking obligation by 4,000 spaces would translate to $64 million in increased land value,” according to the document referenced in the plea agreement.

Prosecutors said Sidhu told investigators he did not conduct city business using his personal email.

Also in the plea agreement are details about planning for mock council meeting sessions in advance of the council’s vote on the Angel Stadium sale.

Sidhu had deleted an email about the sessions that used personal addresses for him, two other unnamed council members and other city staff, the agreement says. Sidhu would purposely conduct city business using his personal email and communicate with some city staff’s personal email addresses as well, prosecutors said.

The deleted email, according to the agreement, said the prep sessions would include the then-mayor pro tem, another council member, the city’s chief communications officer, another city staffer, the unnamed Angels consultant, Ament, the president of the Angels and an attorney for the Angels.

The practice meeting would be held in three sessions, according to the agreement’s description, during which participants would debate the strengths, pitfalls and vulnerabilities of the stadium deal. The Angels team would develop what the agreement called “zingers,” responses and other points to improve the participants’ performance.

It appeared the mock meetings were intended be a dress rehearsal for the real one.

In strongly worded comments Wednesday, Mayor Ashleigh Aitken said she was appalled by the alleged collusion between Sidhu, former council members and the Angels organization.

“If the allegations surrounding the Angels organization setting up a shadow council meeting are true, I don’t think the negotiations were in good faith and I would like to look into that,” Aitken said.

The Angels were supposed to be at arm’s length during the negotiations, Aitken said, and any future talks would have to be more transparent and with more community participation.

Overall, Aitken said Sidhu’s plea agreement unveiled just the “tip of the iceberg” of the problems with the city and further confirmed the need for reform.

She said the city also needs stronger restrictions and better enforcement to harness campaign financing and lobbyists who have run unfettered at City Hall.

“We need to make sure our policies are in line with other cities our size,” said Aitken.

In a city statement late Wednesday, a city spokesman said, “We are aware of and are reviewing the plea agreement, which reflects what was a challenging time for Anaheim. We look forward to our City Council’s ongoing consideration of reforms to protect our city and keep moving forward.”

Click here to read the full article in the OC Register

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: Anaheim, Corruption, FBI

Alameda DA’s office Hired Pamela Price’s Boyfriend, Raising Nepotism Concerns

August 15, 2023 By Jakob Rogers 3 Comments

OAKLAND — The office of Alameda County District Attorney Pamela Price hired her boyfriend for a six-figure salary, despite a past that includes allegations he extorted Richmond business owners for tens of thousands of dollars — a claim that drew the attention of the FBI.

Antwon Cloird joined Price’s team at the beginning of her administration, occupying an office at her headquarters as a “senior program specialist” whose responsibilities the county declined to detail.

Good government groups have long criticized Alameda County for not having a clear nepotism policy, and the lack of rules surrounding the hiring of a romantic partner seems to have benefited Price and Cloird. County officials told this news organization they could not find any documents showing Price voluntarily notified them of the potential conflict of interest.

The couple’s relationship has been an open secret at work, raising the eyebrows of colleagues. And his time in Richmond has brought its own concerns.

Emails obtained by this news organization highlight those concerns. They show that in 2015, Richmond’s mayor, city manager and police chief suspected Cloird, at the time a politically connected nonprofit executive, of shaking down businesses to the tune of $5,000 to $20,000.

Around that time, the FBI began investigating Cloird’s dealings in the city, according to emails and a sworn affidavit filed by an attorney claiming to be an FBI informant in a lawsuit that quoted Cloird as saying “you gots to pay to play” in Richmond. Cloird ultimately was not charged.

Since her historic victory in November, Price has faced heightened scrutiny — and now a budding recall effort — for seeking to recast how justice is dispensed across the East Bay.

Now, the hiring of Cloird has brought questions about her workplace ethics.

“I see so many problems with it. I see problems with conflict of interest. I see a problem with nepotism. I see a problem with lack of transparency. It’s problematic in every way I look at it,” said retired Santa Clara County Judge and former San Jose Independent Police Auditor LaDoris Cordell. “In public government, you don’t do this. There’s no way in my view to justify this.”

From the start, at least one member of Price’s top administration worried about the optics of Price hiring Cloird.

“I begged not for it to happen, only from a communications standpoint,” said Ryan LaLonde, Price’s top spokesperson until he resigned barely two months into her tenure. “I was like: How do I stand steadfast with someone having their significant other working in the office, and we’re talking about wanting to clean up the office from past improprieties?”

But LaLonde added that if the pair “weren’t dating, he’d be qualified enough to have the job.”

Cloird publicly acknowledged their relationship at his birthday celebration earlier this year at the Richmond Country Club, calling Price “the love of my life,” while she clutched his arm and said, “I’m blushing.”

“It takes a strong woman to deal with a strong man, and a strong man to deal with a strong woman,” said Cloird, in a video posted to YouTube. “I ain’t weak now. I’ll tell you, Pamela has stood for me through everything I’d done on my journey, and I’ve stood with her.”

Price’s office on Friday did not address specific questions about Cloird’s hiring or their relationship but called him “a valued member of the team whose distinguished work and accomplishments in communities throughout the Bay Area are well documented.”

“Cloird, who has overcome so much adversity in his own life, is a testament to what an individual can achieve and contribute to the health and well-being of fellow community members,” said a statement sent by Price’s spokesperson, Patti Lee. Cloird did not respond to a list of questions sent to him.

Alameda County, which came under fire in a 2013 Civil Grand Jury report for lacking nepotism policies, continues to lack such ethics rules a decade later. The issue has arisen before: Price’s predecessor, Nancy O’Malley, also employed relatives. O’Malley’s sister worked as a senior program specialist in her administration, while her nephew worked as a prosecutor, under both O’Malley and Price, staff rosters show.

The human resources department said there’s no record that Price or Cloird notified the department of their relationship, nor is there any policy requiring them to do so.

When asked to provide a description of his job, the agency offered a generic job listing for a county senior program specialist but it included no details specific to work within the district attorney’s office. The agency declined to provide his resume, CV or job application, claiming they were confidential.

But the county HR agency did confirm Cloird’s base pay: $115,502 a year, just shy of the top end of what someone in that position can make. As of Dec. 31, there were five senior program specialist positions in the DA’s office.

What is known about Cloird’s work over the past seven months is that it is centered in the field of re-entry for incarcerated people. Former Alameda County Assistant District Attorney Erin Loback, who worked closely with Cloird until recently joining the San Francisco DA’s office, said he helped identify candidates for early release and assess their readiness to rejoin society. Cloird presented her with lists of people he wanted to see let out of prison, an unorthodox practice that broke from the unit’s traditional process, Loback said.

“I was afraid to speak up about anything,” said Loback, who said she grew suspicious of names on Cloird’s list because he offered vague explanations when pressed about where they came from. “There was no one I could go to, to say, ‘What is this?’ I couldn’t question it, because of his relationship with her.”

Price’s office said a team of lawyers makes resentencing and re-entry decisions, not Cloird. The mission of the units is to reduce recidivism, the statement said.

Before joining the DA’s office, Cloird worked as Price’s campaign manager after spending years as a street-level activist in Richmond. He was a regular presence at City Council meetings, organized job fairs, ran Thanksgiving turkey drives and community softball games, and helped the city’s homeless population.

His redemption as an ex-offender who turned his life around from the days he was known as “29 Seconds” — a nickname he earned on the streets for getting whatever you needed within that time — was chronicled in this newspaper more than a decade ago, as part of a “Hometown Heroes” profile series.

Cloird started a nonprofit called Men and Women of Purpose that helped convicts readjust to society outside of prison, and he sat on Contra Costa County’s Alcohol and Other Drugs Advisory Board. His supporters say he’s no stranger to the task that Price has assigned him.

“You need someone who has lived that experience and who has come out of that experience,” said Rev. Andre Shumake, who has known Cloird for more than 50 years and worked together on prison re-entry issues. “So Antwon, in essence, is a symbol of hope.”

By 2015, however, his reputation took a turn.

Concerns arose of a possible “shakedown” by Cloird of a company that was moving to a new location in the city of Richmond, according to obtained city emails.

For a $5,000 fee, Cloird allegedly told the Golden Gate Meat Company’s owner that he could “expedite” permits sought by the meat packing company, according to an email then-Mayor Tom Butt sent to then-City Manager Bill Lindsay.

A few months later, the owner of a Peruvian restaurant relayed to Butt that Cloird had asked for $20,000 to “facilitate” a conditional use permit to open the new eatery with a liquor license in the Pacific East Mall, another city email shows. Attempts to reach the restaurant owner were not successful and the meat company owner declined to comment for this story.

The restaurant owner appeared resigned to paying Cloird, telling Butt that “otherwise he will bring a bunch of people to speak against it,” the email said.

“I don’t know if this is illegal or not, but it doesn’t make our city look good when businesses feel they have to pay someone off to get a permit,” Butt wrote to the city manager, police chief and planning and development manager.

To Butt’s eyes, “essentially, he is paying protection money,” another of the emails said.

“I will be following up with the FBI about this,” added then-Chief Chris Magnus, in another message.

It remains unclear what became of that inquiry, but one email shows that an FBI agent requested a meeting with Butt and Magnus. Magnus, now Washington D.C.’s deputy auditor for public safety, declined to comment for this story.

Reached by this news organization, Butt lamented the reported shakedowns, saying that it “diminishes the confidence that people have in doing business in the city.”

A year later, in 2016, three businesses – all marijuana dispensaries – became the subject of a multimillion-dollar lawsuit alleging that they hired Cloird and other Richmond influencers to drum up opposition to an incoming fourth dispensary. The alleged conspirators’ goal: monopolize the marijuana market to keep prices fixed abnormally high, the lawsuit alleged.

The lawsuit by Richmond Compassionate Care Collective included bombshell allegations that Cloird sought to pay off Richmond City Council members for their votes on the proposed dispensary. In the process, Cloird was said to have leaned on the collective’s attorney for payoffs, the lawsuit said, while other court documents show he allegedly said that “you gots to pay to play” in Richmond.

The attorney suing those other dispensaries claimed in a court filing sworn under penalty of perjury to have been an FBI informant at a time when federal investigators were looking into corruption on Richmond’s City Council. Cloird and another community member were also subjects of that investigation, the attorney claimed.

In 2022, a nearly-$20 million judgment was entered against multiple defendants in that lawsuit, although by then Cloird successfully argued to have his name removed as a defendant in the lawsuit, after arguing the lawsuit failed to prove a conspiracy between Cloird and the other defendants under the state’s Cartwright Act, which prohibits agreements to restrain competition or fix prices.

By that time, Cloird had moved on to other ventures. Around 2018, Cloird appears to have stepped away from his nonprofit, federal tax records show. He took a position that year to help Price run her first campaign for district attorney. That same year, Price listed income between $10,001 and $100,000 for work at Cloird’s nonprofit, according to state financial records she filed that year.

The pair are now working out of an East Oakland branch of the DA’s office, where Price moved her administration months after taking office.

In interviews, one ethics expert said while politicians often hire well-qualified campaign staff members, transparency is paramount, especially for district attorneys.

“Lawyers are bound to uphold professional responsibilities — uphold the rule of law — and one of the core responsibilities that lawyers have is avoiding conflicts of interest,” said Scott Cummings, a UCLA law professor specializing in ethics.

Another ethics scholar called the top prosecutor’s hiring of her boyfriend “surprising,” because it raises the question of whether a public official is “feathering their own friends or family members’ financial situation.”

Click here to read the full article in the Mercury News

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: Alameda, California Politics, Corruption

The Miraculously Changing Narrative Around Biden’s Involvement in Hunter Inc.

August 7, 2023 By Becket Adams 2 Comments

The media are committed to defending the first family, no matter what facts emerge.

Rarely have newsrooms committed so much effort to protecting men of such little character.

As recently as just four years ago, the New York Times and other news outlets would have jumped at the chance to investigate allegations that the president and his son operated an influence-peddling operation involving foreign nationals. Every editor at every major newsroom would be barking at his staff right now, demanding that they look into whether the president’s son had, in fact, leveraged the family name in return for huge sums of cash, whether the president got a cut of the action, and whether the president himself coordinated quid pro quos with well-heeled foreign interests.

But that was then. Now, there’s a Democrat in the Oval Office. For major media, most especially the New York Times, there’s not much value to the Biden family corruption story, which alleges President Joe Biden conspired with his son, Hunter, to rake in mountains of cash from foreign entities in return for certain preferred policies toward their countries. After all, according to the Times, the story is old news. It’s also none of your damn business.

Last week, after yet another fact emerged suggesting that Joe Biden had indeed been involved to some degree with his son’s overseas business dealings, contrary to what he himself stated unequivocally during the 2020 presidential election, the New York Times ran to the president’s aid with the classic “old news!” defense.

“It has long been known that the elder Mr. Biden at times interacted with his son’s business partners,” the paper of record declared on Monday.

Is that so? This thing Joe Biden vigorously denied in the 2020 election has “long been known”?

Recall that Biden declared in the 2020 election, “I have never discussed, with my son or my brother or with anyone else, anything having to do with their businesses. Period.”

“And what I will do is the same thing we did in our administration,” he added. “There will be an absolute wall between personal and private [business interests] and the government. There wasn’t any hint of scandal at all when we were there. And I’m going to propose the same kind of strict, strict rules. That’s why I never talked with my son or my brother or anyone else — even distant family — about their business interests. Period.”

That same year, during a campaign event in Iowa, Biden insisted again that he had never, ever spoken to his son about his business interests.

“I have never spoken to my son about his overseas business dealings,” Biden said. “I know Trump deserves to be investigated. He is violating every basic norm of a president. You should be looking at Trump. . . . Everybody looked at [allegations that I spoke with Hunter about his overseas business activities] and everybody looked at it and said there is nothing there. Ask the right questions.”

Later, after it became increasingly likely that Joe Biden had, in fact, interacted with his son’s business partners, the White House amended, ever so slightly, the president’s earlier assurances.

“The answer remains the same,” White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said in July. “The president was never in business with his son. I just don’t have anything else to add.”

Click here to read the full article in the National Review

Filed Under: Trending News Tagged With: Biden, Corruption, Hunter Biden

Anaheim independent investigation talks of conspiracy, Brown Act violations

August 2, 2023 By Michael Slater Leave a Comment

A highly anticipated investigation into alleged corruption in Anaheim detailed dealings by a mayor and his allies who went unchecked, money that appeared funneled to the Anaheim Chamber of Commerce and Visit Anaheim and instances of potential Brown Act violations in a 353-page report released Monday.

The $1.5 million probe, which was ordered by the City Council, followed the 2022 revelation of FBI investigations into former Mayor Harry Sidhu and former Anaheim Chamber of Commerce Executive Director Todd Ament, which included allegations a self-described “cabal” of business and political leaders had exerted significant influence in Anaheim City Hall. Sidhu resigned and the City Council canceled the sale of Angel Stadium.

The report by the JL Group accused Sidhu and Ament of “influence peddling” and describes a close relationship between the city and the Anaheim Chamber of Commerce, saying that it appeared “as if the city was merely subsidizing the Anaheim Chamber with infusions of money on a near-yearly basis.”

While the version of the report by the JL Group made public has several redactions, the city shared a complete copy with the Orange County District Attorney, California Attorney General Rob Bonta and the FBI, officials have said. Anaheim councilmembers also received an unredacted copy on Monday.

The city-commissioned investigators also explored ties to Visit Anaheim, alleging in their report Sidhu directed that $6.5 million in “grant” funds during the early days of the coronavirus pandemic shutdowns be given to the tourism bureau and when City Manager Chris Zapata suggested the city should be paid back the money with interest, Sidhu orchestrated Zapata’s firing.

Zapata is now the city manager for Sausalito.

The purpose of the money was to fund services promoting the city’s reopening during the pandemic, but the contract was “vague and lacked oversight.”

Sidhu then directed CEO and President of Visit Anaheim Jay Burress to divert $1.5 million of that money to the chamber, investigators said. Sidhu directed Burress to cover his story, if ever questioned about the money, by saying it came from other reserve funds from Visit Anaheim, investigators said, calling the diversion “unlawful.”

Investigators could not determine how the chamber used the $1.5 million. The chamber did not cooperate or provide any documents, investigators said.

Sidhu, Ament and Burress did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Anaheim city spokesperson Mike Lyster said in a statement that the city has begun reviewing the report and will continue to do so in the coming days.

“The report is part of a process with constructive insights welcomed,” Lyster said. “We will also look to any direction from our City Council.”

Orange County District Attorney Todd Spitzer also was taking a magnifying glass to the report.

“I am reviewing with my team to evaluate it for potential criminal conduct and I have no time frame at this time on any decisions,” Spitzer said.

Beginning last September, investigators from the JL Group collected nearly a million emails, more than 50,000 documents and conducted more than 150 interviews. The investigation took more time and money than expected, and at one point even caused the City Council to consider ending it prematurely.

The city-funded investigation was tasked with examining questions of corruption, past campaign contributions, contracts, city dealings, including the sale of Angel Stadium, council decisions and potential Brown Act violations, among other raised concerns.

The JL Group is a Laguna Niguel-based workplace consulting firm composed of former law enforcement officials.

Investigators noted in their report that the Walt Disney Company and Angels Baseball declined repeated requests for interviews or to participate.

While Disney is mentioned throughout the report, the JL Group did not make any accusations against the company.

The JL Group submitted written questions to Carrie Nocella, the Disneyland Resort director of external affairs, but her attorney declined to have her respond.

Former councilman Jose Moreno, who long has complained about outside influences on City Hall, criticized those who refused to speak to investigators.

“Choosing not to say anything says a lot,” Moreno said.

“It was deliberate, it was organized and it was a syndicate,” Moreno said, adding that taxpayer money was doled out by this cabal “like it was a rummage sale.”

JL Group investigators argued elected officials in recent years have sidestepped the city manager and given orders to city staff directly, especially Sidhu, which violates the city’s charter.

Sidhu would give key staff members direction and strongly suggest a course of action, it said. The report also criticized current Councilmember Natalie Rubalcava for directing a city staffer to work with the Orange County Business Council, for which she previously worked.

The JL Group and City Manager James Vanderpool said Rubalcava’s action would be a violation of the city’s charter. Rubalcava did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The shift away of power from the city manager’s executive position to elected officials “further created the environment that gave rise to many of the issues concerning influence peddling, lack of compliance with lobbying rules, the proliferation of no-bid contracts, potential Brown Act violations and acts of preferential treatment,” the JL Group report said.

Former city development officials, some business leaders, and former elected officials described a business culture, JL Group investigators said, in which Sidhu and Ament controlled development projects in return for financial considerations.

The change in tone at the city was noted by developers and others who worked with Anaheim in the past.

Investigators interviewed Shaheen Sadeghi, a Laguna Beach-based developer of retail projects such as the LAB Anti-Mall in Costa Mesa and several projects in Anaheim, and reported that Sadeghi experienced what he termed “a cultural shift” following Sidhu’s election.

In previous years, Sadeghi and other developers would be asked to submit proposals on certain possible projects, depending on their interest. But, after Sidhu’s election, Sadeghi said he was no longer able to get a return call from the new mayor.

Sadeghi told investigators that during a lunch with former Anaheim Mayor Curt Pringle he asked Pringle “What’s the deal with this guy (Sidhu)? I called him like three times, and he won’t meet with me.’ Curt said, ‘Well, he is a pay to play mayor.’”

Last year, an FBI investigator alleged that Sidhu may have tried to slip confidential information to a representative of Angels owner Arte Moreno and his business group in negotiations to purchase the city-owned stadium with the intention of soliciting a large campaign donation later. He also was heard on an FBI wiretap telling Ament that he wanted money from the Angels after the completion of the sale.

The $320 million deal was scuttled by the City Council after news broke of the allegations and Sidhu resigned.

No criminal charges have been filed against Sidhu and his attorney has maintained that a thorough investigation would find no wrongdoing. FBI investigators noted in their search warrant affidavit it was unclear if the Angels representative knew of Sidhu’s intentions.

The city-commission investigators allege Sidhu leaked confidential information — including an appraisal of the Angel Stadium property that had not yet been made public and another document titled in part “Key Issues – Stadium Transaction Agreements” — through Ament and lobbyist Jeff Flint of FSB Public Affairs to the Angels Baseball Organization.

The FBI investigators never named the political consultant who was considered a ringleader with Ament of the so-called cabal that held sway in City Hall, but among the details provided are the consultant’s firm was in the same building as the Anaheim chamber, and lobbying reports required by Anaheim showed the consultant did work for stadium buyer SRB Management, Moreno’s business partnership, and those are consistent with Flint.

Shortly after the release of the affidavits, Flint said in a statement, “I have no hesitation in saying that I firmly believe I did nothing wrong nor illegal” and in case the allegations being made could harm his company, he was taking a leave of absence as its CEO. Flint was not immediately reached for comment on Monday.

Sidhu, JL Group investigators said, sent the documents from his personal email to Ament and Flint in July 2020.

The use of the personal email address “appeared to be an attempt to mask his activity and to potentially sidestep any Public Record Act requests,” the report said of Sidhu.

The reason for the leaked information, the report said, was to move the Angel Stadium sale along so Sidhu could “curry favor with the Angels Baseball organization” and “to support his political future.”

The city-commissioned investigators surmised that the FBI released its search warrant affidavit regarding Sidhu, along with Ament’s criminal complaint affidavit, in an effort to stop a stadium sale that could have been problematic.

“One can reasonably conclude that the real time evidence collection by the FBI rose to a level to which they felt the necessity to intercede and shed light” on their findings and “preclude the potentially tainted sale of one of the largest public land purchases in recent history,” the report said.

The investigation found that Sidhu’s expressed desire to have Ament solicit up to $3 million from the Angels upon completion of the stadium sale likely never led to an actual request because the sale was terminated. And while it noted that Sidhu was seen meeting with Moreno, Flint and Ament during the negotiating process, that alone didn’t make it a Brown Act violation without knowing what was discussed.

While the stadium deal was attacked by many, “the greater weight of credible evidence indicates that the city of Anaheim made an informed decision and entered into an agreement to sell the Angel Stadium site to the Angels,” the report said.

It acknowledged a “rush to complete the sale for a multitude of reasons,” but said it could not be determined that Sidhu’s “push to complete the sale had a negative effect on the sale.”

Additionally, the report alleged that Ament acted as a “hub” for elected officials to communicate through to garner favorable votes for various projects and developments. This practice, the report said, meant Ament was acting as “an unreported lobbyist” and conducting what the Brown Act would consider to be unlawful meetings.

“(T)here has seemingly existed a genuine contempt for government transparency and public participation relating to governmental projects and agreements concerning the actions of certain powerful actors in the city, including Ament, Flint and Sidhu,” the report said. “The rules and law seem to get in the way of certain elites’ desires and interests.”

“Whether it was handing over confidential documents during a negotiation to improve the chances of a successful Angel Stadium property sale negotiation or ‘fixing’ projects in favor of the ruling structure, the result of these corrupt practices has been to shortchange the public’s rights in terms of meaningful government participation, knowledge and understanding.”

From the early revelations of the FBI investigation, accusations that Sidhu instructed Ament to lie to the Orange County Grand Jury stood out to some legal experts as more problematic than other allegations surrounding the former mayor.

The JL Group report surmised the FBI used Ament’s letter to appear before the grand jury “to conduct an integrity assessment” of Sidhu.

“When Ament met with Mayor Sidhu, he (Sidhu) implored him to lie to the Orange County Grand Jury and not reveal any of the documents that were provided by the mayor to Ament,” the report said. It also said that when Ament, who was wearing a wiretap, feigned concern about email and text messages being discovered, Sidhu told him they were not on his city accounts and “he had erased everything already.”

Democratic State Sen. Tom Umberg, whose district includes Anaheim, called Monday for more accountability.

“I just received a copy of this report. Already as a quick scan, it reads like a soap opera: fraud, helicopters, cannabis, cabals,” Umberg said. “It’s going to take some time to digest the implications, findings, and recommendations and even still, I know another investigation is occurring by the FBI.”

Mayor Ashleigh Aitken said Monday she is creating a Mayor’s Advisory Committee that would include “government, community, business, and legal leaders” to review the report and offer reforms for council discussion.

“This will be a public-facing process, and I look forward to discussing it with the residents of our city in the weeks and months ahead,” she said in a statement. “Together, we will rebuild public trust and work to make sure Anaheim’s city government lives up to its obligations to our residents.”

The JL Group investigators offered a laundry list of recommendations for the City Council to consider.

The investigation recommends placing a tighter hold on city money contributed to the Chamber of Commerce and the Visit Anaheim tourism office and that the city try to “claw back” any money illegally received.

Under those recommendations no more money would be given by the city until full forensic audits were conducted on the chamber and Visit Anaheim and all their controlled nonprofits for the last seven years. Another accounting for a five-year period would be done each year before public money was given.

Other recommendations included creating a city ombudsman/ethics officer who could only be removed for misconduct, malfeasance or incompetence. The ombudsman’s duties would include monitoring political contributions, independent expenditures and other money spent on city races, as well as lobbying.

Employees who are lobbied would be required to report it to the ombudsman, who would check it against the lobbyists official disclosures.

Click here to read the full article in the OC Register

Filed Under: Trending News Tagged With: Anaheim, Anaheim Angels, Corruption, Disney

Hunter Biden Whistleblower’s Legal Team Releases Names of Other Alleged Witnesses

June 28, 2023 By Kristina Wong 2 Comments

Hunter Biden probe whistleblower Gary Shapley’s legal team released a letter over the weekend revealing the names of six witnesses who allegedly also heard U.S. Attorney for Delaware David Weiss say he did not have authority to charge in other districts and had requested special counsel status.

The IRS supervisory special agent’s team wrote in a June 24, 2023, letter:

In an October 7, 2022, meeting at the Delaware U.S. Attorney’s Office, U.S. Attorney David Weiss told six witnesses he did not have authority to charge in other districts and had thus requested special counsel status. Those six witnesses include Baltimore FBI Special Agent in Charge Tom Sobocinski and Assistant Special Agent in Charge Ryeshia Holley, IRS Assistant Special Agent in Charge Gary Shapley and Special Agent in Charge Darrell Waldon, who also independently and contemporaneously corroborated Mr. Shapley’s account in an email, now public as Exhibit 10, following p. 148 of his testimony transcript. Mr. Shapley would have no insight into why Mr. Weiss’s would make these statements at the October 7, 2022 meeting if they were false. That Mr. Weiss made these statements is easily corroborated, and it is up to him and the Justice Department to reconcile the evidence of his October 7, 2022 statements with contrary statements by Mr. Weiss and the Attorney General to Congress.

The letter was signed by Mark D. Lytle with Nixon Peabody LLP, and Jason Foster and Tristan Leavitt with Empower Oversight.

The letter came after the House Ways and Means Committee last week released transcripts of IRS whistleblower interviews, which included shocking allegations from Shapley.

Shapley told congressional investigators, according to the transcript;

From March 2022 through October 7th, 2022, I was under the impression that, based on AG Garland’s testimony before Congress and statements by U.S. Attorney Weiss and prosecutors, that they were still deciding whether to charge 2014 and 2015 tax violations.

However, I would later be told by United States Attorney Weiss that the D.C. U.S. Attorney would not allow U.S. Attorney Weiss to charge those years in his district. This resulted in United States Attorney Weiss requesting special counsel authority from Main DOJ to charge in the District of Columbia. I don’t know if he asked before or after the Attorney General’s April 26th, 2022, statement, but Weiss said his request for that authority was denied and that he was told to follow DOJ’s process.

That process meant no charges would ever be brought in the District of Columbia, where the statute of limitations on the 2014 and ’15 charges would eventually expire. The years in question included foreign income from Burisma and a scheme to evade his income taxes through a partnership with a convicted felon. There were also potential FARA issues relating to 2014 and 2015. The purposeful exclusion of the 2014 and 2015 years sanitized the most substantive criminal conduct and concealed material facts.

House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (CA) tweeted after the letter was released that if Shapley’s allegations are true, they would be a “significant part” of a larger impeachment inquiry into Garland. McCarthy tweeted:

We need to get to the facts, and that includes reconciling these clear disparities. U.S. Attorney David Weiss must provide answers to the House Judiciary Committee. If the whistleblowers’ allegations are true, this will be a significant part of a larger impeachment inquiry into Merrick Garland’s weaponization of DOJ.

Attorney General Merrick Garland on Friday denied that Weiss, who was investigating Hunter Biden, had ever asked for special counsel authority to investigate Hunter Biden.

“He was never told no. I’m saying, he was given complete authority to make all decisions on his own,” Garland said.

“I don’t know how it would be possible for anybody to block him from bringing a prosecution given that he has this authority. He was never told no. I’m saying he was given complete authority to make all decisions on his own,” he continued.

“The only person with authority to make somebody a special counsel or refuse to make somebody a special counsel is the Attorney General. Mr. Weiss never made that request to me.”

Asked by a reporter why he did not appoint a special counsel, Garland did not directly answer the question.

“Weiss had, in fact, more authority than a special counsel would have had — he had and he has complete authority as I said, to bring a case anywhere he wants in his discretion,” he said.

Click here to read the full article in BreitbartCA

Filed Under: Trending News Tagged With: Biden, Corruption, Hunter Biden

Corruption Trial of Former L.A. Deputy Mayor is on Hold After Defense Lawyer Falls Ill

March 8, 2023 By David Zahnister Leave a Comment

A federal judge called Monday for a three-week delay in the corruption trial of former Los Angeles Deputy Mayor Raymond Chan, after learning that Chan’s main lawyer was still in the hospital after an unexpected surgery.

U.S. District Judge John F. Walter said he will seek to resume witness testimony March 27, giving time for Harland Braun, Chan’s lawyer, to recover from what has been described in court as an infection.

Chan, a onetime aide to Mayor Eric Garcetti and former head of the Department of Building and Safety, is accused of participating in a bribery and racketeering scheme led by former Councilmember Jose Huizar and involving downtown high-rise development projects. Braun, who has been leading the defense team, went to the hospital last week, prompting the cancellation of testimony Friday.

Braun’s abrupt absence has created a new atmosphere of uncertainty around the trial, which has been underway since Feb. 21.

Braun, 80, is a seasoned attorney who has represented many high-profile defendants, including actor Robert Blake, director Roman Polanski and Theodore J. Briseno, a former LAPD officer who was twice acquitted of criminal charges in the Rodney King beating case.

The other attorney on Chan’s defense team, Brendan Pratt, earned his law degree in 2021. Also seated at the defense table is Even Chan, the defendant’s daughter-in-law, who described herself as an assistant when approached by The Times.

Pratt told the court Monday that doctors had not determined the source of Chan’s infection. He did not say what type of surgery had been performed, describing it as a “half measure.” Pratt said he has been relying on Braun’s son for medical information on the veteran attorney, but also had also spoken with Braun directly.

“He sounded very weak, and expressed his concern that he does not know when he will be discharged from the hospital,” Pratt said.

“We still don’t have a diagnosis, do we?” the judge asked minutes later.

“No we don’t, your honor,” Pratt said.

Prosecutors have four witnesses left in the case. Jurors have heard from former Planning Commissioner David Ambroz, mayoral aide Kevin Keller and Richelle Rios, Huizar’s estranged wife, among others.

Click here to read the full article in the LA Times

Filed Under: Trending News Tagged With: California Politics, Corruption, Legislature, Los Angeles

In Sacramento, Power Can Often Reside Within Families

February 28, 2023 By Laurel Rosenhall 3 Comments

Saga of Mia and Rob Bonta is at once familiar — and jarring

SACRAMENTO — Inside the California Capitol, political power often rests within families.

Seats in the Legislature often pass from parent to child or from husband to wife. Five members of the fabled Calderon family of Los Angeles County — three brothers, a son and current Assemblymember Lisa Calderon, the wife of a former assemblyman — have served in the Legislature. And a few years ago, Assemblymember Blanca Rubio and state Sen. Susan Rubio made history as California’s first set of sister lawmakers.

So the story of Assemblymember Mia Bonta and her husband, Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta, is at once familiar and also jarring.

They are Democrats from the Bay Area city of Alameda. Mia Bonta was elected in 2021 to fill the Assembly seat her husband had held after Rob Bonta was appointed attorney general. The pair have been in the news in recent weeks as reporters questioned whether it was ethical for Assemblymember Bonta to oversee taxpayer funding for the office of Atty. Gen. Bonta. Mia Bonta heads the Assembly budget panel focused on public safety, which had purview over the Department of Justice, which is led by her husband.

Political ethics experts raised concerns about the arrangement, and editorial boards criticized legislative leaders for the apparent conflict of interest. Even Chuck Todd, moderator of NBC News’ “Meet the Press,” weighed in.

“It’s a bad look and it’s only going to reinforce what happens when you have one-party rule,” he said after reporter Ashley Zavala of NBC’s Sacramento affiliate broke the story.

Assemblymember Bonta eventually said she would recuse herself from decisions affecting the Department of Justice. Days later, the separation was made formal when the budget chairman moved oversight of the Department of Justice to a different subcommittee. The immediate conflict appears to have been resolved.

Mia Bonta maintains that her position had been cleared by Assembly ethics officials and that she recused herself to support transparency and stop distractions.

“I definitely note that it’s a thing that needs to be navigated carefully,” she said.

Still, a larger question lingers: Where should public officials who are family members draw the line between their shared interests and their separate responsibilities?

In addition to the many family members who serve together in the Legislature, several state lawmakers have had spouses who work on policy issues that come before the Legislature or serve in local governments that receive state funding.

“I don’t see those situations different from this particular situation,” Mia Bonta said.

The Bontas call themselves partners in life and partners in service. They’ve shared a passion for social justice since they got together as freshmen at Yale. And they’ve used their respective offices to advance some of the same causes.

Last year, Assemblymember Bonta wrote a bill to create an office in the Department of Justice to research policies to curb gun violence. A few months after it stalled in the Legislature, she joined her husband as he announced his department would form the office anyway, but that didn’t spark controversy.

But before Mia Bonta was elected to the Assembly, there was a financial transaction involving the couple that several experts said was legal but unethical. As an Assembly member, Rob Bonta created a nonprofit foundation and solicited donations to it from companies that lobbied the Legislature. He then used the foundation’s money to make a payment to the nonprofit organization that employed his wife.

(He described the $25,000 as a loan in 2020, though tax returns at the time didn’t reflect that.)

It wasn’t the first time Rob Bonta had directed money to Mia Bonta’s employer.

Over several years he donated money from his campaign funds to organizations where she worked, obtaining letters saying the groups would not use the funds for her salary because state law prohibits politicians from using campaign funds for personal benefit. He also asked interest groups to donate to nonprofits where she was employed.

“We’re working on areas of shared passion,” he told me at the time.

After a news story was published about the matter, Rob Bonta stepped down from the board of his foundation and it established new rules prohibiting both members of the couple from making spending decisions and banning donations to organizations that employ either one of them.

And California’s political watchdog agency approved a new rule requiring officials to report their ties to an organization when they ask donors to give money to a group that employs, or is controlled by, the official, their staff or their family members.

“These are relationships with a potential for influence or self-dealing that the public would want to have disclosed,” says a staff report to the commission.

Officials should not direct money to organizations that employ their family members because of the potential for their personal benefit, said Jessica Levinson, a professor at Loyola Law School and former president of the Los Angeles Ethics Commission.

In other cases, she said, defining where to draw the line is not always obvious.

Click here to read the full article in the LA Times

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: Bonta, California Politics, Corruption, Gavin Newsom

Ex-Deputy Mayor Accused of Taking Bribes as L.A. City Hall Graft Trial Opens

February 23, 2023 By Michael Finnegan 1 Comment

A federal prosecutor told a jury Tuesday that former Los Angeles Deputy Mayor Raymond Chan was a central player in a sprawling extortion racket that corrupted downtown development projects for years.

In an opening statement at Chan’s criminal trial, Assistant U.S. Atty. Susan Har accused him of playing multiple roles in a shakedown scheme led by Jose Huizar when Huizar served on the City Council.

Chan accepted tens of thousands of dollars in bribes, Har said, while also serving as a go-between who facilitated payoffs by Chinese developers to the councilman.

“They needed one another for the pay-to-play scheme to work,” the prosecutor told the jury.

Huizar used Chan, a Chinese immigrant, to extort the developers, Har said, while Chan got the powerful councilman to shepherd their projects through the city’s byzantine approval process.

Chan’s attorney, Harland Braun, told jurors his client was innocent and urged them to keep an open mind until Chan takes the stand and testifies after prosecutors rest their case.

“You’ll find out that the story the government just gave you is not true,” Braun said.

Defying an order by U.S. District Judge John F. Walter, Braun cast the prosecution as motivated by anti-Chinese bias, an allegation the government denies and Walter has ruled off limits.

“Chinese this, Chinese that,” Braun said, adding a moment later, “Stop using race.”

Walter sustained Har’s objection to Braun’s line of attack. Braun persisted. “It’s not a crime to speak a foreign language,” he told jurors.

Chan, who had been general manager of the city’s buildings department for three years when Mayor Eric Garcetti promoted him to deputy mayor in 2016, is charged with racketeering, bribery, wire fraud and making false statements to the FBI. Chan left his city job in July 2017 and became a consultant to developers.

A challenge for Chan will be to refute the testimony of three witnesses who have pleaded guilty to felonies and admitted their roles in bribe schemes: Chan’s former business partner George Chiang, real estate consultant Morrie Goldman and Huizar’s former aide George Esparza.

Huizar, who has admitted taking more than $1.5 million in bribes, implicated Chan when he pleaded guilty last month to racketeering and tax evasion, but the former councilman is not expected to testify.

Prosecutors plan to play recordings of wiretapped phone calls and other covertly taped conversations between Chan and witnesses who were working with the FBI.

Braun tried to undermine their credibility, telling jurors they “can’t rely on a witness who’s a convicted felon.” Braun singled out Chiang, an admitted bagman, as especially untrustworthy. Chiang says he passed along more than $100,000 in developer bribes to Chan.

“If he’d been a little more with it,” Braun said of his client, “he’d have seen that George Chiang was a crook.”

Braun tried to distinguish Chan from others ensnared in the case, noting that unlike Huizar and Esparza, Chan never accepted casino gambling chips, private jet flights, luxury hotel stays and other favors on more than a dozen lavish Las Vegas holidays funded by a Chinese skyscraper developer.

Braun questioned the strength of prosecution evidence that Chan helped arrange that developer’s $600,000 loan to Huizar to settle a sexual harassment lawsuit that threatened his 2015 run for reelection. When the developer, Shen Zhen New World I, was convicted of bribery and wire fraud in November, the jury found the loan was an illegal payoff.

Har told the jury the case against Chan boils down to a conspiracy “to get money, keep power and avoid the feds.” Chan, she said, took advantage of an influx in Chinese developers pursuing projects during a downtown L.A. real estate boom.

“The defendant saw an opportunity to make himself the indispensable person in the middle,” Har said.

As deputy mayor, Chan became a secret business partner with Chiang, who was hired by an arm of Chinese developer Shenzhen Hazens as a consultant on its proposed Luxe City Center Hotel project near what was then called Staples Center, according to Har.

Click here to read the full article in the LA Times

Filed Under: Trending News Tagged With: California Politics, Corruption, Los Angeles

Open the Books Exposes the ‘Legalized’ Pay-to-Play Scheme by ‘Newsom Inc.’

February 15, 2023 By Katy Grimes 2 Comments

Newsom’s divisive Covid policies and Jennifer’s films/curricula arguably fueled the youth mental health problem

Open the Books has focused its government transparency and auditing attention on Governor and Mrs. Newsom’s pay-to-play schemes, which have been personally benefitting California’s first couple.

In one report, Open the Books reveal that large corporate campaign contributors gave campaign cash to Gov. Newsom and separately received significantly more in state payments – corporations gave $691,615 in campaign donations and received $1.9 billion in state payments. That’s a very nice return on investment – a $10.6 million investment for a $6.3 billion return.

Another report revealed that Open the Books had to sue and then had to file 442 California Public Record Act requests – one with each state agency – in order to obtain California’s line-by-line spending by state agencies, because California’s Controller, Betty Yee, rejected their sunshine request for state spending, claiming she “couldn’t locate” any of the nearly 50 million bills she paid in 2019.

The recent report in January found California’s First Lady Jennifer Siebel Newsom produces ‘Gender Justice’ films, and then sells them to the state’s public schools:

“Jennifer Siebel Newsom solicited state vendors and the governor’s campaign donors for large gifts to her charity, The Representation Project,” the Globe reported.

Siebel Newsom, through her non-profit The Representation Project, has released four films advocating gender justice. The films are leased for screenings to individuals, corporations, and schools, and come with their own lesson plans.

Open the Books notes that Siebel Newsom’s own companion curriculum allows that kids may need to see a school counselor after being subjected to some of the activities about social privilege, gender, etc.—and that they should be on hand. Aside from COVID lockdowns, this is another perverse layer to creating a problem and then “solving” it with funding for more school counselors!

Even more counterintuitively, Siebel Newsom has recognized that her films and curricula can trigger youth mental health interventions. In fact, the curricula provided for her movie The Mask You Live In warns teachers that the related lessons may lead children to seek the help of mental health providers and that therapists should be on-hand during curriculum activities.

Parents have complained about the pornographic content in Newsom’s films shown to 11-year-olds (such as an animated, upside-down stripper with tape over breasts) and 15-year-olds (nearly naked women being slapped, handcuffed, and brutalized in images taken from porn sites) — to view images, viewer discretion is advised.

Editorials have criticized the activities in Newsom’s film The Great American Lie as “emotionally abusive.” The activities ask students to publicly reveal personal information and force commentary on their relative “privilege” and “oppression.”

Just a little conflict of interest?

Over the weekend Open the Books dropped another chapter in the Newsom’s saga of political grift. This one exposes a “legalized” pay-to-play scheme in California: “the Newsom’s create problems, then ‘solve’ them, and cash checks along the way,” according to Open the Books.

“Since inception, Siebel Newsom’s office has received nearly $4.8 million in directed taxpayer funding. The Office of First Partner has grown from seven employees with a budget of $791,000, to nine employees with a budget of$1,166,000 proposed for 2023-2024.”

Here is what Open the Books found:

In the summer of 2022, Governor Gavin Newsom convinced the state legislature to provide $4.7 billion for K-12 mental health services, which, among other things, funded 10,000 new school counselors.

Gavin Newsom convinced the legislature because Jennifer Siebel Newsom, the wife of the governor, convinced him. The biggest advocate for mental health funding within the K-12 California public schools in the Newsom administration was Mrs. Newsom, according to published accounts.

In fact, Gavin Newsom created The Office of First Partner so his wife could promote her policy agenda using taxpayer money. Since 2019, Siebel Newsom’s been armed with nearly $5 million and nine staffers within her subdivision of the governor’s office.

The Representation Project, that licenses “gender justice” films and curricula to 5,000 schools in all 50 states.

The year Gavin Newsom became governor, the California Board of Education adopted guidance that recommended her films and curriculum be licensed and used in classrooms.

Open the Books summarizes the Newsom’s pay-to-play schemes, as well as the devastating results on children, particularly after “Gov. Newsom’s Covid policies took away nearly every opportunity for kids to interact outside the home:”

Newsom’s divisive Covid policies and Jennifer’s films/curricula arguably fueled the youth mental health problem. However, by addressing it with nearly $5 billion and 10,000 school counselors, the Newsom’s generated a policy win for the governor and a business win for Siebel Newsom and her nonprofit, The Representation Project.

They deeply examine “the $4.8 million ‘Office of the First Partner’ Gavin Newsom established for his wife’s policy work, and how Jennifer Siebel Newsom used her position to impact social and political processes, cashing checks along the way.”

Click here to read the full article in the California Globe

Filed Under: Trending News Tagged With: California Politics, Corruption, Gavin Newsom

Former Anaheim Mayor Sidhu Agrees to Plea Deal for Federal Corruption Charges

Alameda DA’s office Hired Pamela Price’s Boyfriend, Raising Nepotism Concerns

In Sacramento, Power Can Often Reside Within Families

Recent Posts

Connect With CPR On Twitter