In today’s newspaper, Incanto owner Mark Pastore pens an op-ed piece in response to comments made to The Chronicle by John Burton in last week’s big piece about the fight against the imminent foie gras ban. Burton is the chairman of the California Democratic Party and when he was a senator, he carried the 2004 legislation.

Pastore, who also wrote a foie gras essay last week, cites Burton’s continued use of violent rhetoric, specifically, his now-infamous quote of “I’d like to sit all 100 of them down and have duck and goose fat — better yet, dry oatmeal- shoved down their throats over and over and over again.”

For Pastore and many of the chefs, it’s a visual image that becomes even more unsettling given the history of foie gras, animal activists and violence, particularly in the Bay Area:

Use of threatening language to inspire fear violates California’s “criminal threats” law. When the threats are issued from a leadership position, such as chairman of the California Democratic Party, it sends a signal far and wide that inciting violence and causing fear are acceptable tactics in public discourse.

Sadly, not everyone understands the line between rhetoric and action … Burton owes not only the chefs but all Californians an unqualified public apology for his behavior.

 

Please continue @:

http://insidescoopsf.sfgate.com/blog/2012/05/10/california-chefs-condemn-john…

As part of a journalistic inquiry into the continuous mistreatment of attorney Phil Kay, and due to the overall circumstances involving Phil Kay, Ron Burkle, John Burton, and Antonio Villaraigosa ; The Leslie Brodie Report hereby asks Maria Lucy Armendariz  to disclose nature and type of relationship (past and present) with Mr Villaraigosa.

Please observe that, rather than contacting Ms Armendariz directly, the query is being delivered publicly, here and now.

Any information can be sent to lesliebrodie@gmx.com

As we had alleged previously, Maria Lucy Armendariz — who goes by the name of Lucy Armendariz — is a 41 years old single mother. Armendariz was born in East Los Angeles. She attended UCLA and later graduated with a law degree from Hastings College of the Law in 1997. After a short stint in private practice, she assumed a government position in Sacramento.

Ms Lucy Armendariz. In 2007, Ms. Armendariz was appointed State Bar Court Judge. At that time, the California Bar Journal reported that she was the single mother of a 7 year old daughter. (Image: courtesy photo)

ANTONIO VILLARAIGOSA

Unlike the former cocaine addict philanderer who has “platonic sex with friends, lesbians and straight, whatever” who appointed State Bar Court Judge JoAnn Remke to the bench, Antonio Villaraigosa is in a league of his own — a serial seducer who has been perpetually involved in scandals, sexual and otherwise.

For example, while carrying on an affair with Mirthala Salinas, a Telemundo reporter, she assumptively reported that the mayor was having an affair, neglecting to mention that the affair was with her. The latest and most recent scandal the Mayor is involved in relates to free tickets to various events, for which his friends in Sacramento help foot the legal bill.

At the age of 21, Villaraigosa fathered the first of his first four children, after having been involved with the mother for only six weeks. At age 25, his second daughter was born to another woman. In 1987, at age 34, Villaraigosa married Corina Raigosa, who formally ended their relationship in 2009. Villaraigosa is is pictured above with his most recent partner, Lu Parker. (photo:courtesy hollywoodcelebgossips.com)

Villaraigosa Goes to Sacramento, Alone.

In 1994, Villaraigosa ran for California State Assembly. After celebrating his victory, Villaraigosa skipped town for a few days, accompanied by the wife of his closest friend, a Los Angeles County Superior Court judge. Villaraigosa defended his actions, saying, “It is a matter of the heart.” Despite this turn of events, Villaraigosa and his wife reconcile.

Accrding to Tony Castro, a Los Angeles-based author and journalist, “in the subsequent years, after their reconciliation, friends recall that she was the reluctant political wife, rarely with Villaraigosa in Sacramento while he was in the State Assembly and usually only seen in public with him during local campaign appearances…often overlooked, say friends, is the extent of Corina Villaraigosa’s heartbreak, her sense of personal humiliation among friends in the traditionally conservative, Catholic enclave of the Latino Eastside and the emotional journey she went through to accept her husband back amid gossip and rumors of continuing womanizing.”

Lucy in Sacramento with Antonio

In 1998, Villaraigosa was chosen by his colleagues to be the first Speaker of the Assembly. From late 1998 to the year 2000, a soon to become a single mother by the name of Maria Lucy Armendariz served on his staff.

 

 

Please see @:

http://www.metnews.com/articles/2012/burt020212.htm

See generally @:

http://bit.ly/yOGwkU

 

“60 Days Suspension Scandal,” wherein a lawyer with a prior criminal history engaged in a pogrom in a San Francisco synagogue, yet was only suspended for 60 days due to his political connections within the Democratic party, and courtesy of Judy Johnson, Mike Nisperos, and JoAnn Remke.

See also @:

http://lesliebrodie.blog.co.uk/2010/04/09/more-about-that-early-morning-in-sa…

Text of suit below. Related story, please visit:  http://bit.ly/zLFTyd

—————————————————————————————

KELLY H. ARMSTRONG (SBN 213036)
THE ARMSTRONG LAW FIRM
A Professional Corporation
807 Montgomery St.
San Francisco, California 94133
Telephone; (415) 928-1293
Facsimile: (415) 928-1294

Attorney for Plaintiff
KATHLEEN DRISCOLL

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

KATHLEEN DRISCOLL, an individual,

Plaintiff,
vs.

SENATOR JOHN BURTON, an individual, and DOES 1-50, inclusive
Defendants.

 

UNLIMITED JURISDICTION

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES:

(1) SEXUAL HARASSMENT – FEHA
(2) FAILURE TO PREVENT HARASSMENT – FEHA
(3) INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Plaintiff alleges as follows:

INTRODUCTION

1. This is an action for damages due to (1) Sexual Harassment – FEHA; (2) Failure to Prevent Harassment and Retaliation – FEHA; and (3) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress.

2. This action arises out of events involving Plaintiff KATHLEEN DRISCOLL and Defendants SENATOR JOHN BURTON, an individual, and DOES 1-50. KATHLEEN DRISCOLL was employed by SENATOR JOHN BURTON at his office located in San Francisco, California and therefore jurisdiction within this judicial district is proper.

THE PARTIES

3. Plaintiff KATHLEEN DRISCOLL (hereinafter “Plaintiff” or “DRISCOLL”) is informed and believes and thereon alleges that she was employed as the Executive Director of the John Burton Foundation, created and owned by JOHN BURTON (hereinafter “Defendant” or “BURTON”). She began working for Defendant on August 21, 2006, and is currently on medical leave from her employment. DRISCOLL entered into employment and was subjected to the wrongful conduct and discriminatory actions alleged herein in San Francisco, California. Plaintiff exhausted her administrative remedies by timely filing a complaint with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (“DFEH”) against each defendant.

4. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant BURTON was at all times relevant herein an individual, Principal of the John Burton Foundation, and supervisor of DRISCOLL.

5. Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities of the defendants sued herein as DOES 1 through 50 therefore sues them by such fictitious names. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that said defendants are in some manner legally responsible for the activities and damages alleged herein. Plaintiff will amend this Complaint to allege their true names and capacities when ascertained.

6. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that at all times herein mentioned each of the defendants was acting as the partner, agent, servant, and employee of each of the remaining defendants, and in doing the things alleged herein was acting within the course and scope of such agency and with the knowledge of the remaining defendants.
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

7. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the factual allegations of paragraphs 1 through 6 above.

8. Isiah Thomas, Bill O’Reilly and Michael Bloomberg are just a few of the powerful men who have been hit with sexual harassment claims. Despite widespread publicity regarding unlawful sexual harassment by powerful men against women, the number of sexual harassment claims has remained constant over the past decade. In other words, it is hard to teach an old dog new tricks. According to statistics from the EEOC, sexual harassment in the workplace continues to be a major problem in this country with as many as 100 claims being filed every single work day of the year. Polls indicate that at least 40% of women say they have encountered unwanted sexual advances or remarks from men they work for, but very few of them say they reported the incident. Other polls indicate that perhaps as many as 90% of women said they had been subjected to unwanted sexual advances at work.

9. KATHLEEN DRISCOLL met SENATOR JOHN BURTON in 2004, when he established a donor-advised fund, The John Burton Foundation for Children Without Homes, at the San Francisco Foundation (SFF). BURTON immediately began communicating with her regarding his desire to build his fundraising organization to support homeless children. BURTON asked DRISCOLL to meet him socially, but she informed him that their relationship was strictly professional and that she would never be interested in BURTON romantically.

10. In 2005, DRISCOLL left SFF for another employment opportunity. In May 2006, BURTON’S assistant contacted DRISCOLL to inform her that BURTON sought guidance and professional advice regarding his fundraising project. DRISCOLL met with BURTON regarding his plans to create a foundation to increase and manage his fundraising efforts. As a result, BURTON created the John Burton Foundation (hereinafter JBF), a project of Community Initiative Funds (CIF) of SFF, and hired DRISCOLL as the Executive Director of JBF on August 21, 2006.

11. During DRISCOLL’S employment, BURTON engaged in hostile, demeaning and sexually abusive conduct such that DRISCOLL’S working conditions were significantly altered. His conduct over the past year easily rises to the level of severe or pervasive conduct for a hostile work environment sexual harassment claim both in California and under federal law. The harassing acts started in approximately September 2006. They consisted of numerous events, which took place throughout DRISCOLL’S employment, including but not limited to:
• Asking DRISCOLL over the phone, “What are you wearing?” on approximately 10 occasions;

• On one occasion, DRISCOLL sent a temporary employee to deliver paperwork to BURTON. BURTON ordered DRISCOLL to never send someone on her behalf again by berating her, “When you drop stuff off, stop in will ya? I mean I’m not getting laid under the fuckin’ table.”

• Singling DRISCOLL out for exorbitant demands and attention, included but not limited to excessive demands for immediate and frequent meetings to go over routine matters, including on weekends after the work week was over in contrast to her co-workers;

• On one occasion, BURTON asked DRISCOLL to meet him on a weekend. When she arrived, BURTON presented her with a movie ticket and postponed the meeting until after the movie. After several more weekend meetings, DRISCOLL informed BURTON in a voicemail message that she could not meet him on weekends and that she was uncomfortable seeing movies with him because it felt strange and inappropriate;

• On November 1, 2006, BURTON required DRISCOLL to attend a formal event with him so she could potentially meet prospective donors to JBF. BURTON instructed DRISCOLL to meet him prior to the event, which she assumed meant to meet him at his office. When DRISCOLL called BURTON to inform him that she was on her way to his office, BURTON began to scream and swear at her, telling her that he wanted her to meet him at his home in Potrero Hill. DRISCOLL responded that Potrero Hill was entirely out of her way, and instead met him in front of the event. At the event, BURTON put his hand on the back of DRISCOLL chair and rubbed her back with his thumb. DRISCOLL moved away and after the event, informed BURTON that his conduct was inappropriate and would lead others to believe they were involved romantically. BURTON responded, “That’s what I want them to think.” BURTON than asked DRISCOLL why she had not come to his house before the event by saying, “What did you think I was going to fucking rape you when you came to my house?”

• Frequently raising his voice when addressing DRISCOLL and repeating phrases such as “fuck me” in a raised voice approximately 60 times throughout her employment;

• Informing DRISCOLL on approximately 20 occasions throughout her employment, “Oh, I had a dream about you last night,” while raising his eyebrows in a sexually suggestive manner;

• Making comments regarding DRISCOLL wearing a thong on approximately 20 occasions during her employment;

• Telling DRISCOLL that she was “probably wild sexually like all Catholic girls;”

• Introducing DRISCOLL to business associates as a thong model on approximately 10 occasions, and then laughing and remarking that DRISCOLL had turned red with embarrassment;

• Constantly screaming at DRISCOLL, such as “Sit the fuck down DRISCOLL!” when she stood to leave his office after a meeting;

• Commenting on DRISCOLL’S body, particularly her breasts and her buttocks. On one occasion BURTON commented, “Your nipples aren’t showing and its cold outside.” On approximately five occasions, BURTON remarked, “Nipples standing hard;”

• Informing DRISCOLL on approximately three occasions that he often had “platonic sex with friends, lesbians and straight, whatever”;

• Making hand gestures mimicking masturbation on approximately 10 occasions;

• Screaming at DRISCOLL, “What the fuck is wrong with you?” and “Look at me when I’m talking to you!”

• Handing DRISCOLL an insurance form with a prescription for a male performance enhancing drug similar to Viagra and saying, “This stuff really works;”

• On one occasion, as DRISCOLL walked past him, BURTON raised both his hands and made a gesture as though he were squeezing DRISCOLL’S breasts;

• Hitting DRISCOLL on the buttocks with a newspaper and saying, “You do work out, you have a tight ass;”

• Telling DRISCOLL that her t-shirt turned him on because it was made from silk and silk turned him on;

• While DRISCOLL was leaving an event, BURTON raised his arm and stuck up his middle finger at her; and

• When DRISCOLL told BURTON to cease his abusive conduct, he responded, “I thought you liked to be yelled at because you have 14 brothers.”

12. DRISCOLL responded to BURTON’S advances and inappropriate comments by informing him that his conduct was inappropriate and unwelcome, yet he continued to harass her. DRISCOLL complained numerous times regarding BURTON’S abusive and harassing conduct. Specifically, she complained to Melanie Blum regarding BURTON’S weekend meetings and his requiring DRISCOLL to attend movies with him. DRISCOLL again complained to Human Resources, to Ms. Blum, and to BURTON’S daughter Kimiko Burton twice regarding the abusive conduct to which she was subjected. However, no one did anything and failed to investigate DRISCOLL’S complaints. Finally, DRISCOLL complained again on August 22, 2007 regarding the sexual harassment to which she had been subjected, and the failure to investigate her previous complaints. It was not until DRISCOLL hired San Francisco attorney Kelly Armstrong of The Armstrong Law Firm that her complaints were finally acknowledged.

13. BURTON made inappropriate sexual advances on a regular and ongoing basis, used vulgar and profane language and publicly humiliated DRISCOLL with sexual comments and behavior. BURTON engaged in a pattern and practice of sexual harassment against DRISCOLL. BURTON has a long history of being abusive, crass and profane. As recently as last month, BURTON bragged at a Sacramento luncheon about conducting State of California business at a strip club with another former State Senator. BURTON has a reputation among the Capital press corps for his vulgar language, volcanic temper and unpleasant demeanor. BURTON is his own worst enemy. DRISCOLL has experienced emotional distress as a result of BURTON’s sexual harassment of her and is presently receiving psychological treatment and prescription medication for her emotional distress.

14. BURTON has attempted to intimidate DRISCOLL by frequently stating how powerful he is and how he is above the law. However, there are basic tenets of human respect and dignity, which have been largely disregarded here. How sad and disappointing that a man who has a history of helping the underprivileged and trying to protect people could so deeply contradict his purported public values in his personal life. BURTON’s actions are against a woman who did everything within her power to try and help him maintain and build his own public interest foundation to help homeless children.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
SEXUAL HARASSMENT
FEHA – CAL. GOVT. CODE § 12940 et seq.
AGAINST DEFENDANTS BURTON AND DOES 1-50

15. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the factual allegations of paragraphs 1 through 14 above.

16. The above conduct was unwelcome, directed towards Plaintiff, and was part of an ongoing and continuing pattern of conduct.

17. The above conduct caused Plaintiff to perceive her work environment as intimidating, hostile, abusive or offensive.
18. Complaints and/or information about much of the harassing conduct were made to Defendants, but the harassment continued. After the complaints, the harassment continued.

19. Plaintiff filed timely complaints against the Defendants with the DFEH alleging sexual harassment, retaliation, and failure to prevent sexual harassment. Thereafter, Plaintiff received from the DFEH notification of her right to sue in the Courts of the State of California, the Defendants for which complaints had been filed.

20. Defendants’ acts were malicious, oppressive or fraudulent with intent to vex, injure, annoy, humiliate and embarrass Plaintiff, and in conscious disregard of the rights or safety of Plaintiff and other employees of Defendants, and in furtherance of Defendants’ ratification of the wrongful conduct of the employees and managers of Defendants. Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to recover punitive damages from Defendants.

21. By reason of the conduct of Defendants and each of them as alleged herein, Plaintiff has necessarily retained attorneys to prosecute the within action. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees and litigation expenses, including expert witness fees and costs, incurred in bringing the within action.

22. As a result of Defendants and each of their actions, Plaintiff sus¬tained economic damages to be proven at trial. As a further result of Defendants’ and each of their actions, Plaintiff suffered emotional distress; resulting in damages to be proven at trial.

23. The above harassing conduct violates Government Code §§ 12940 et seq. and California public policy and entitles Plaintiff to all categories of damages, including exemplary or punitive damages.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

FAILURE TO PREVENT HARASSMENT
FEHA – CAL. GOVT. CODE § 12940(j) & (k)
AGAINST DEFENDANTS BURTON AND DOES 1-50

24. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the factual allegations of paragraphs 1 through 23 above.

25. In violation of California Government Code § 12940 et seq., Defendants, and each of them, failed to take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent sexual harassment and retaliation against employees for opposing forbidden practices.

26. In perpetrating the above-described conduct, Defendants, and each of them, engaged in a pattern, practice, policy and custom of sexual harassment. Said conduct on the part of Defendants, and each of them, constituted a policy, practice, tradition, custom and usage which denied Plaintiff protection of California Government Code § 12940 et seq.

27. At all relevant time periods, Defendants, and each of them, failed to make an adequate response and investigation into the conduct of Defendants and the aforesaid pattern and practice, and thereby established a policy, custom, practice or usage within the organization of Defendants, which condoned, encouraged, tolerated, sanctioned, ratified, approved of, and/or acquiesced in sexual harassment towards Plaintiff.

28. At all relevant time periods there existed within the organization of Defendants, and each of them, a pattern and practice of conduct by their personnel which resulted in sexual harassment, and/or retaliation, including but not necessarily limited to, conduct directed at Plaintiff.

29. At all relevant time periods there existed within the organization of Defendants, and each of them, a pattern and practice of conduct by personnel which resulted in retaliation toward anyone, including but not limited to Plaintiff, who complained of sexual harassment toward employees.

30. Defendants did not have an adequate sexual harassment policy and did not provide adequate sexual harassment training with respect to its employees and managers.

31. Defendants, and each of them, knew or reasonably should have known that the failure to provide adequate education, training, and information as to their personnel policies and practices regarding sexual harassment, and retaliation for complaining or resisting sexual harassment, would result in sexual harassment and retaliation against employees including but not limited to Plaintiff, for complaining or resisting the same.

32. The failure of Defendants, and each of them, to provide any or adequate education, training, and information to personnel concerning policies and practices regarding sexual harassment, and retaliation for complaining of or resisting the same, constituted deliberate indifference to the rights of employees, including but not limited to those of Plaintiff, under California Government Code § 12940 et seq.

33. By reason of the conduct of Defendants and each of them as alleged herein, Plaintiff has necessarily retained attorneys to prosecute the within action. Plaintiff therefore is entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees and litigation expenses, including expert witness fees and costs, incurred in bringing the within action. As a result of Defendants and each of their actions, Plaintiff sus¬tained economic damages to be proven at trial. As a further result of Defendants’ and each of their actions, Plaintiff suffered emotional distress; resulting in damages to be proven at trial.

34. The conduct of Defendants and/or their agents/employees as described herein was malicious, and/or oppressive, and done with a willful and conscious disregard for Plaintiff’s rights and for the deleterious consequences of Defendants’ actions. Defendants and/or their agents/employees or supervisors authorized, condoned and ratified the unlawful conduct of the remaining Defendants. Consequently, Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages against Defendants.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
AGAINST DEFENDANTS BURTON AND DOES 1 THROUGH 50

35. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the factual allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 34 herein.

36. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendants, by and through its principals, agents and employees conducted themselves unlawfully in violation of public policy and applicable law as described above with conscious disregard of the result or outcome of such act. The unlawful harassment, retaliation, conduct towards and termination of Plaintiff, due to its improper motivations and surrounding circumstances constitute extreme and outrageous conduct by the Defendants, and each of them.

37. Through the outrageous conduct described above, Defendants acted with the intent to cause, and with reckless disregard for the probability of causing Plaintiff to suffer severe emotional distress.

38. At all relevant times, Defendants had actual or constructive knowledge of extreme and outrageous conduct described herein, and condoned, ratified and participated in such extreme and outrageous acts.

39. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ willful, knowing and intentional acts, and Defendants’ failure to act, Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer mental distress and anguish. Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer a loss of earnings, stock options, and other employment benefits and job opportunities. Plaintiff is thereby entitled to general and compensatory damages in amount to be proven at trial.

40. The acts of Defendants, as alleged herein, were done with fraud, oppression and malice, with a conscious disregard for Plaintiff’s rights; and with the intent, design and purpose of injuring Plaintiff, with an improper and evil motive amounting to malice, in conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s rights. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to recover punitive damages against

Defendants, and each of them.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFF prays for relief as follows:
1. For general damages according to proof, however, no less than the jurisdictional limit of this court;
2. For special damages in amounts according to proof;
3. For punitive damages in amounts according to proof;
4. For attorneys’ fees as provided by law;
5. For prejudgment, post-judgment and other interest as provided by law;
6. For cost of suit incurred herein; and
7. For such other and further relief as the Court deems fair and just.
Dated: January 23, 2008 THE ARMSTRONG LAW FIRM

____________________________
KELLY H. ARMSTRONG
Attorney for Plaintiff
KATHLEEN DRISCOLL

Developing story…. Details soon….

Please see @:

http://lesliebrodie.posterous.com/yucaipas-ron-burkle-hereby-asked-to-disclose

The Leslie Brodie Report hereby asks sordid John Burton to disclose motives behind funneling of funds from the Ron Burkle Foundation to the John Burton Foundation

Please observe that, rather than contacting Burton directly, the query is being delivered publicly, here and now.

Any reply, if any, can be deliverered to lesliebrodie@gmx.com

Related links, please see @:

http://lesliebrodie.posterous.com/ron-burkle-foundation-grant-recipients-tlr-no

And @:

http://lesliebrodie.blog.co.uk/2010/07/24/amid-sordid-revelations-concerning-…

 

The Leslie Brodie Report hereby asks Mr Ron Burkle of London-based Yucaipa to disclose motives behind funneling of funds from the Ron Burkle Foundation to the foundations of sordid John Burton and Clown Willie Brown.

Please observe that, rather than contacting Mr Burkle directly, the query is being delivered publicly, here and now.

Any reply, if any, can be deliverered to lesliebrodie@gmx.com

Related link, please see @:

http://lesliebrodie.posterous.com/ron-burkle-foundation-grant-recipients-tlr-no

Original post @:

http://lesliebrodie.posterous.com/thomas-girardi-and-david-lira-of-girardi-kees

 

Related post @:

http://lesliebrodie.blog.co.uk/2011/09/21/state-bar-of-california-california-…

 

 

On 11/11/11, California Democratic Party Chairman John Burton, a longtime mentor of Ma’s, married the couple in a private ceremony at Ma’s home. The couple repeated their vows before co-officiants Bruce Macrae and Assembly Speaker Pérez, the bride’s parents, William and Sophia Ma; the groom’s parents, Hawk Hodge of Oxnard and Linda Millstad of Tennessee; and 350 friends at a Western-themed party at Long Branch Farms in Half Moon Bay. Ma has served for the past three years on the state’s Agriculture Committee and rides horses on range tours.

 

See full story @:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/11/17/LVIK1LS55M.DTL

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

THIS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT is made and entered into as of January 4, 2006, by and among, on the one hand, Sempra Energy, a California corporation (“SE”), Southern California Gas Company, a California corporation (“SoCalGas”), San Diego Gas & Electric Company, a California corporation (“SDG&E”), Sempra Generation (f/k/a Sempra Energy Resources), a California corporation (“Sempra Generation”), Sempra Energy Trading Corp., a Delaware corporation (“SET”), Sempra Energy Solutions, a California corporation (“SES”), Sempra Energy Power I, a California corporation (“SEP I”), and Sempra Energy Sales, L.L.C., a California limited liability company (“Sempra Energy Sales” and, collectively with SE, SoCalGas, SDG&E, Sempra Generation, SET, SES and SEP I, the “Sempra Parties”), and, on the other hand, Continental Forge Company, on its own behalf and on behalf of the plaintiff class for which it acts as a representative, Frank & Kathleen Stella, individually on their own behalf and on behalf of the plaintiff class for which they act as representatives, Douglas & Valerie Welch, individually on their own behalf and on behalf of the plaintiff class for which they act as representatives, Andrew & Andrea Berg, individually on their own behalf, doing business as Wavelength Hair Productions, and on behalf of the plaintiff class for which they act as representatives, Gerald J. Marcil, individually on his own behalf and on behalf of the plaintiff class for which he acts as a representative, John Clement Molony, individually on his own behalf and on behalf of the plaintiff class for which he acts as a representative, SierraPine, Limited, on its own behalf and on behalf of the plaintiff class for which it acts as a representative, City of Los Angeles, City of Long Beach, the City Attorney of Los Angeles and the City Attorney of Long Beach, each on behalf of the people of the State of California, United Church Retirement Homes of Long Beach, Inc., doing business as Plymouth West, on its own behalf and on behalf of the plaintiff class for which it acts as a representative, Long Beach Brethren Manor, on its own behalf and on behalf of the plaintiff class for which it acts as a representative, Robert Lamond, individually on his own behalf and on behalf of the plaintiff class for which he acts as a representative, THUMS Long Beach Company, on its own behalf, Mark & Susan Benscheidt, individually on their own behalf, doing business as Madera Wash Depot Countrywood Laundromat and on behalf of the plaintiff class which they act as representatives, Celina Martinez, individually on her own behalf and on behalf of the plaintiff class for which she acts as a representative, H & M Roses, Inc., on its own behalf and on behalf of the plaintiff class for which it acts as representative, Laurence Uyeda, individually on his own behalf and on behalf of the plaintiff class for which he acts as a representative, and Dan L. Older, individually on his own behalf and on behalf of the plaintiff class for which he acts as a representative (collectively the “Settling Claimants”).

1. Definitions.

The following terms, whether appearing with initial capital letters or not, which are in addition to other terms with initial capital letters defined in the body of this Agreement or by the context in which they appear in this Agreement, have the following meanings when used in this Agreement:

1.1 “Actions” or “Civil Actions” means, collectively, the civil actions and class actions (the “Class Actions”) described in Attachment C of this Agreement.

1.2 “Affiliate” means, with respect to a specified Person, any other Person that (a) directly or indirectly through one or more intermediaries Controls, is Controlled by or is under common Control with the specified Person or (b) is a predecessor, successor or assign (including by merger or otherwise by operation of law) of such specified Person.

1.3 “Agreement” means this Settlement Agreement, its Attachments A through D, and any written amendments or modifications to this Settlement Agreement that are approved in writing in accordance with the terms of Paragraph 12.2 hereof.

1.4 “Allocation Agreement” means that certain agreement or agreements, by and among the Settling Claimants, pursuant to which the Settling Claimants, among other things, allocate the Consideration among the Settling Claimants.

1.5 “Bankruptcy Code” means Title 11 of the United States Code, 11 U.S.C. Section 101, et seq., as now in effect and as hereafter amended.

1.6 “Business Day” means any day other than a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday in the State of California in which state government is not generally open for business to the public.

1.7 “Business Entity” means a partnership, limited partnership, limited liability partnership, corporation (including a business trust), limited liability company, joint stock company, trust, unincorporated association, joint venture, business association, firm, governmental agency or authority or other entity or organization of any type, including, without limitation, the Settlement Fund.

1.8 “CDWR” means the State of California Department of Water Resources, including, without limitation, the California Energy Resources Scheduling Division, and its successors and/or assigns.

1.9 “Claim” means any (a) right to payment or value, whether or not such right is reduced to judgment, liquidated, unliquidated, fixed, contingent, matured, unmatured, disputed, undisputed, legal, equitable, secured or unsecured, (b) right to a legal or equitable remedy for breach of performance, whether or not such right to a legal or equitable remedy is reduced to judgment, fixed, contingent, matured, unmatured, disputed, undisputed, secured or unsecured, and/or (c) right granted by statute, regulation, common law or order of any agency or court not otherwise covered by clauses (a) or (b) above.

1.10 “Class” or “Classes” collectively means the classes certified (either previously by the Class Action Court or for settlement purposes only) and the new classes contemplated to be certified by this Agreement. Without limiting the foregoing, the “Classes” will in any event include any class previously certified by the Class Action Court, plus all individuals and entities in California who purchased Gas and/or Electric Power for their own use and not for resale or generation of Electric Power at any time from September 1996 to the date of this Agreement.

1.11 “Class Action Court” means the California Superior Court for the County of San Diego.

1.12 “Class Counsel” means the law firms of Astrella & Rice, P.C.; Baker, Burton & Lundy, P.C.; Engstrom, Lipscomb & Lack, P.C.; Girardi & Keese; M. Brian McMahon; O’Donnell, Shaeffer & Mortimer LLP; Michael J. Ponce; J. Tynan Kelly; Douglas A. Stacey; Zelle, Hofmann, Voelbel, Mason & Gette LLP; the Law Offices of Francis O. Scarpulla; Cooper & Kirkham, P.C.; the Furth Firm LLP; Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP; Krause & Kalfayan; the Mogin Law Firm P.C.; the Law Offices of Hoyt E. Hart; Finkelstein, Thompson & Loughran; and each of them.

1.13 “Class Plaintiffs” means the named plaintiffs in the Actions listed in Attachment C and the Class members and putative Class members they represent.

1.14 “Consideration” means, collectively, the consideration agreed to be given by the Sempra Parties pursuant to the terms of Paragraph 4 of this Agreement.

1.15 “Control” means the possession, directly or indirectly through one or more intermediaries, of the power to direct or cause the direction of the management or policies of a Person, whether through the ability to exercise voting power, by contract or otherwise. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, for purposes of this Agreement, a specified Person shall be deemed to be Controlled by another Person if such other Person possesses, directly or indirectly through one or more intermediaries, (a) the power to elect, designate or otherwise cause the designation of a majority of the members of the board of directors or the equivalent governing body of such specified Person, or (b) legal or beneficial ownership of at least fifty-one percent (51%) of the Equity Interests of such Person. “Controlling” and “Controlled” have meanings correlative thereto. For purposes of this Agreement “beneficial ownership” shall have the meaning set forth in Rule 13d-3(a) as currently promulgated by the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

1.16 “CPUC” means the California Public Utilities Commission, or its successor and/or assigns.

1.17 “Custodian” means any receiver, trustee, assignee, liquidator or similar official or Person under the Bankruptcy Code.

1.18 “Designated Representative” means, collectively, (a) the Settling Claimants, and each of them, or any other person selected by the Settling Claimants to act in such capacity, and (b) in the event of a monetization of Deferred Payments, as defined in Paragraph 4.1(g), or any future payments or Consideration of any kind under the Agreement, any assignee(s) of the Settlement Fund’s rights in and to the Consideration, but only with respect to the rights, duties and obligations relating thereto.

1.19 “Electric Power” means electric energy and related products, including, without limitation, generation, capacity, transmission, trading, sale, and ancillary services such as regulation, spinning reserve, non-spinning reserve and replacement reserve.

1.20 “Equity Interest(s)” means (a) any capital stock, partnership interest, joint venture ownership interest, limited liability company membership interest, beneficial interest in a trust or similar Person, or any other equity, beneficial or ownership interest in another Person of whatever type or nature and (b) any securities, shares or rights representing, convertible into or exercisable for any of the foregoing described in clause (a) above, including, without limitation, any preemptive, subscription, acquisition or other outstanding right, option, warrant, conversion right, exercise right, stock appreciation right, redemption right, repurchase right, or similar right related to any of the foregoing described in clause (a) above.

1.21 “FERC” means the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, or an agency or authority of the United States from time to time succeeding to its authority.

1.22 “Gas” means any natural gas or natural gas-related product or service.

1.23 “Investment Grade” means, with respect to a Person’s non-credit enhanced, senior unsecured long-term debt, an investment grade credit rating by both Moody’s Investor Services (i.e., Baa3 or higher) and Standard & Poor’s Investment Advisor Services (i.e., BBB-or higher).

1.24 “Letter of Credit” means one or more irrevocable, standby letters of credit, each substantially in the form appended hereto as Attachment D, presentable at an office of the issuer located in the State of California and otherwise in form and content mutually acceptable to the Sempra Parties and Class Counsel, issued by a bank organized and operating under the laws of the United States or the State of California, a “foreign (other state) bank” (as defined in Section 139.5(a) of the California Financial Code), or a duly licensed branch of a “foreign (other nation) bank” (as defined in Section 139.4(b) of the California Financial Code) authorized to conduct banking operations in the State of California, whose non-credit enhanced, senior unsecured long-term debt, after giving effect to the issuance of the Letter of Credit, has a credit rating of at least A- from Standard & Poor’s Investment Advisor Services or A3 from Moody’s Investor Services.

1.25 “Liabilities” means any and all direct or indirect costs, expenses, actions, causes of actions, suits, judgments, controversies, damages, claims, indebtedness, obligations, commitments, deficiencies, guarantees, liabilities or demands of any nature, whether known or unknown, foreseen or unforeseen, existing or hereafter arising, liquidated or unliquidated, matured or unmatured, contingent or direct, whether arising at common law, in equity, or under any statute, regulation or order, based in whole or in part upon any act or omission or other occurrence taking place on or prior to the date of this Agreement.

1.26 “Nevada Settlement Agreement” means that certain Settlement Agreement, dated as of January 4, 2006, by and among the Sempra Parties and the settling claimants named therein, its Attachment A, and any written amendments or modifications to such agreement that are approved in writing in accordance with its terms.

1.27 “Paragraph” means a numbered paragraph of this Agreement, unless otherwise noted, and all references to a Paragraph shall include all subparts or subparagraphs of that Paragraph.

1.28 “Parties” means the Sempra Parties and the Settling Claimants, individually and collectively, and their successors and assigns. Each of the Parties may be individually referred to herein as a “Party.”

1.29 “Person” or “Persons” means an individual, trustee or Business Entity.

1.30 “Private Parties” means, collectively, the named plaintiffs in the Civil Actions, the named plaintiffs in their respective representative capacities in each of the Class Actions, and the members of the Classes.

1.31 “Released Claims” means any and all of the Claims released or waived pursuant to the terms of Paragraph 5 of this Agreement.

1.32 “Responsible Officer” means, with respect to any Person, the chief executive officer, the president, or the chief financial officer of such Person, or any other senior officer of such Person having substantially the same authority and responsibility.

1.33 “Settlement Fund” means and refers to the settlement fund described in Paragraph

8.4 and elsewhere within this Agreement into which Consideration shall be deposited by the Sempra Parties from time to time as provided in Paragraph 4.1 of this Agreement.

1.34 “Subsidiary” means, as to any specified Person, (a) any Person the accounts of which are, or are required to be, consolidated with those of the specified Person’s consolidated financial statements or (b) any Person that is Controlled by such specified Person.

2. RECITALS.

2.1 On September 25, 2000, class representative Continental Forge Company filed a class action complaint against the Sempra Parties, and other defendants, in the California Superior Court for Los Angeles County (Case No. BC 237336), alleging that the Sempra Parties and others had committed antitrust violations and engaged in unfair competition in the California Gas markets (the “Continental Forge Action”). The Continental Forge Action seeks (a) monetary damages, (b) injunctive relief, and (c) restitution and disgorgement by the Sempra Parties to the Class and the general public.

2.2 On December 13, 2000, class representative John Phillip filed a class action complaint against the Sempra Parties, and other defendants, in the California Superior Court for San Diego County (Case No. GIC 759425), alleging that the Sempra Parties and others had committed antitrust violations and engaged in unfair competition in the California Electric Power markets (the “John Phillip Action”). The John Phillip Action seeks (a) monetary damages, (b) injunctive relief, and (c) restitution and disgorgement by the Sempra Parties to the Class and the general public.

Related story see @: http://lesliebrodie.blog.co.uk/2010/07/24/amid-sordid-revelations-concerning-…

Maria Lucy Armendariz — who goes by the name of Lucy Armendariz — is a 41 years old single mother. Armendariz was born in East Los Angeles. She attended UCLA and later graduated with a law degree from Hastings College of the Law in 1997. After a short stint in private practice, she assumed a government position in Sacramento.

Ms Lucy Armendariz. In 2007, Ms. Armendariz was appointed State Bar Court Judge. At that time, the California Bar Journal reported that she was the single mother of a 7 year old daughter. (Image: courtesy photo)

ANTONIO VILLARAIGOSA

Unlike the former cocaine addict philanderer who has “platonic sex with friends, lesbians and straight, whatever” who appointed State Bar Court Judge JoAnn Remke to the bench, Antonio Villaraigosa is in a league of his own — a serial seducer who has been perpetually involved in scandals, sexual and otherwise.

For example, while carrying on an affair with Mirthala Salinas, a Telemundo reporter, she assumptively reported that the mayor was having an affair, neglecting to mention that the affair was with her. The latest and most recent scandal the Mayor is involved in relates to free tickets to various events, for which his friends friends in Sacramento help foot the legal bill.

At the age of 21, Villaraigosa fathered the first of his first four children, after having been involved with the mother for only six weeks. At age 25, his second daughter was born to another woman. In 1987, at age 34, Villaraigosa married Corina Raigosa, who formally ended their relationship in 2009. Villaraigosa is is pictured above with his most recent partner, Lu Parker. (photo:courtesy hollywoodcelebgossips.com)

Villaraigosa Goes to Sacramento, Alone.

In 1994, Villaraigosa ran for California State Assembly. After celebrating his victory, Villaraigosa skipped town for a few days, accompanied by the wife of his closest friend, a Los Angeles County Superior Court judge. Villaraigosa defended his actions, saying, “It is a matter of the heart.” Despite this turn of events, Villaraigosa and his wife reconcile.

Accrding to Tony Castro, a Los Angeles-based author and journalist, “in the subsequent years, after their reconciliation, friends recall that she was the reluctant political wife, rarely with Villaraigosa in Sacramento while he was in the State Assembly and usually only seen in public with him during local campaign appearances…often overlooked, say friends, is the extent of Corina Villaraigosa’s heartbreak, her sense of personal humiliation among friends in the traditionally conservative, Catholic enclave of the Latino Eastside and the emotional journey she went through to accept her husband back amid gossip and rumors of continuing womanizing.”

Lucy in Sacramento with Antonio

In 1998, Villaraigosa was chosen by his colleagues to be the first Speaker of the Assembly. From late 1998 to the year 2000, a soon to become a single mother by the name of Maria Lucy Armendariz served on his staff.

Maria Lucy Armendariz — who goes by the name of Lucy Armendariz — is a 41 years old single mother. Armendariz was born in East Los Angeles. She attended UCLA and later graduated with a law degree from Hastings College of the Law in 1997. After a short stint in private practice, she assumed a government position in Sacramento.

Ms Lucy Armendariz. In 2007, Ms. Armendariz was appointed State Bar Court Judge. At that time, the California Bar Journal reported that she was the single mother of a 7 year old daughter. (Image: courtesy photo)

ANTONIO VILLARAIGOSA

Unlike the former cocaine addict philanderer who has “platonic sex with friends, lesbians and straight, whatever” who appointed State Bar Court Judge JoAnn Remke to the bench, Antonio Villaraigosa is in a league of his own — a serial seducer who has been perpetually involved in scandals, sexual and otherwise.

For example, while carrying on an affair with Mirthala Salinas, a Telemundo reporter, she assumptively reported that the mayor was having an affair, neglecting to mention that the affair was with her. The latest and most recent scandal the Mayor is involved in relates to free tickets to various events, for which his friends friends in Sacramento help foot the legal bill.

At the age of 21, Villaraigosa fathered the first of his first four children, after having been involved with the mother for only six weeks. At age 25, his second daughter was born to another woman. In 1987, at age 34, Villaraigosa married Corina Raigosa, who formally ended their relationship in 2009. Villaraigosa is is pictured above with his most recent partner, Lu Parker. (photo:courtesy hollywoodcelebgossips.com)

Villaraigosa Goes to Sacramento, Alone.

In 1994, Villaraigosa ran for California State Assembly. After celebrating his victory, Villaraigosa skipped town for a few days, accompanied by the wife of his closest friend, a Los Angeles County Superior Court judge. Villaraigosa defended his actions, saying, “It is a matter of the heart.” Despite this turn of events, Villaraigosa and his wife reconcile.

Accrding to Tony Castro, a Los Angeles-based author and journalist, “in the subsequent years, after their reconciliation, friends recall that she was the reluctant political wife, rarely with Villaraigosa in Sacramento while he was in the State Assembly and usually only seen in public with him during local campaign appearances…often overlooked, say friends, is the extent of Corina Villaraigosa’s heartbreak, her sense of personal humiliation among friends in the traditionally conservative, Catholic enclave of the Latino Eastside and the emotional journey she went through to accept her husband back amid gossip and rumors of continuing womanizing.”

Lucy in Sacramento with Antonio

In 1998, Villaraigosa was chosen by his colleagues to be the first Speaker of the Assembly. From late 1998 to the year 2000, a soon to become a single mother by the name of Maria Lucy Armendariz served on his staff.

As the involvement of State Bar Court presiding judge JoAnn Remke in the
grave misconduct surrounding the “60 Days Suspension Scandal” appears
certain, new revelations point to concerns expressed already during the
time the former cocaine-addict and sordid sexual-harasser John Burton
appointed her to the bench.

State Bar Court Presiding Judge JoAnn Remke, who was appointed to the
bench by John Burton

As TLR previously reported, legislation introduced by John Burton which
changed the appointment process for the hearing judges, and in order to
remove Kenneth Norian from the bench led to concerns about the
politicization of the court.

John Burton, a former cocaine-addict and sordid-sexual-harasser is known
to have a penchant for petite blonds; he would have “platonic sex with
friends, lesbians and straight, whatever.” Former presiding judge James O’Brein, in an interview with Nancy
McCarthy of the Bar Journal stated, “we must always be concerned whether
the legislature will again intrude into the operations of the court.”

O’Brien was concerned that “the appointing authorities may either
reappoint or withhold reappointment based upon the nature of the
rulings.” In response to concerns that the newly-passed legislation from which she
benefited would politicize the bench, Judge JoAnn Remke ironically
stated, “I don’t think it’s a legitimate worry.” Remke added, “I’m not
concerned I would be swayed by outside forces.”

The “60 Days Suspension Scandal” involves the attorney/son of John
Burton’s friend and political ally who terrorized a synagogue in San
Francisco by beating some of the congregates and the Rabbi. Shockingly, despite the fact that the attorney had prior criminal record
and was previously disciplined by the State Bar, he was only suspended
for 60 days from the practice of law after both the facts and
established legal precedents and principles were heavily manipulated.

The 60 day suspension was imposed by Judge JoAnn Remke.

As avaricious and bizarre discoveries concerning the former cocaine
addict, sexual harasser, and California Democratic Party Chairman John
Burton continue to be unraveled by TLR, speculations over the potential
past harassment of Remke by Burton continue to percolate within the
State Bar establishment. In connection with the above, TLR continues with the investigation of
the “60 Days Suspension” scandal involving the pogrom in San
Francisco and a subsequent cover-up by the State Bar of California. The investigation focuses on the former crack/cocaine addict Mike
Nisperos, Jeff Dal Cerro, former PJ Stovitz, as well as Judge JoAnn
Remke and the former cocaine addict John Burton.

John Burton, a former cocaine-addict and a sordid-sexual-harasser
boasted about engaging in “platonic sex with friends, lesbians and
straight, whatever”

Previously, Burton was accused by a staff member, KATHLEEN DRISCOLL, of
sexually harassing her. Kathleen alleged that beginning in 2006 Burton begun to call for
immediate meeting during the weekend to go over routine matters, and
insisted that they go to the movies first.

Kathleen also alleged that during her employment Burton communicated the
following to her: Telling KATHLEEN you are “probably wild sexually like all
Catholic girls”

Informing KATHLEEN on approximately three occasions that he often had
“platonic sex with friends, lesbians and straight,
whatever”

Making hand gestures mimicking masturbation on approximately 10
occasions;

“When you drop stuff off, stop in will ya? I mean I’m not getting laid under the fuckin’ table.”

Informing KATHLEEN on approximately 20 occasions throughout her
employment, “Oh, I had a dream about you last night,”
while raising his eyebrows in a sexually suggestive manner;

Making comments regarding KATHLEEN wearing a thong on
approximately 20 occasions during her employment;

Commenting on KATHLEEN ’S body, particularly her breasts and her
buttocks. On one occasion BURTON commented, “Your nipples aren’t showing
and its cold outside.” Handing KATHLEEN an insurance form with a prescription for a male
performance enhancing drug similar to Viagra and saying, “This
stuff really works;”

On one occasion, as KATHLEEN walked past him, BURTON raised both his
hands and made a gesture as though he were squeezing KATHLEEN ’S
breasts;

Hitting KATHLEEN on the buttocks with a newspaper and saying, “You do
work out, you have a tight ass”

Telling KATHLEEN that her t-shirt turned him on because it was made
from silk and silk turned him on;

Judge JoAnn Remke, Presiding Judge of the State Bar Court who was
appointed to the position of State Bar Court judge by John Burton.

As was previously reported here, JoAnn Remke was appointed to the
position of State Bar Court judge by John Burton after he introduced
special legislation which granted him the power to do so, transferring
the appointing authority from the Supreme Court to himself and
eliminating the position of one non-lawyer judge.

At the time, Remke was working for the California legislature, and for
Burton himself. Additionally, John Burton was a political ally and
friend of the father of the attorney who committed the pogrom in San
Francisco. As also previously reported here, JoAnn Remke was the
State Bar Court judge who imposed, while committing grave misconduct,
the mere 60 day suspension on the attorney/son of John Burton’s friend.

Asked to comment on this matter, a State Bar Insider and a legal counsel
to TLR, speaking on condition of anonymity, stated “Obviously, we are
talking about a very sick and filthy man who knows no boundaries, a
sexual predator,” The Insider Stated. “I would not rule out the
possibility that in the past he also sexually harassed Judge Remke–
either verbally, physically or in the form of a quid pro-quo, or at
least he tried,” the Insider speculated.

“Burton’s M.O. very much reminds me of the M.O. of various Hollywood
executives or operatives in the Democratic Party, such as Bill Clinton. They operate under the assumption that the females on the staff are
there to provide sexual favors–a quick blow-job here and a quickie
there–they see nothing wrong with it; in fact they expect it.
Especially from females who are recent arrivals from the Midwest, who
desperately try to make a name for themselves,” the insider stated. “Seeing Willie Brown with his Russian girlfriend also makes one wonders
if there is any exploitation going on there,” the Insider opined.

Willie Brown’s girlfriend, Sonya Molodetskaya.
Pressed by TLR as to his impression of Remke, and her reputation within
the State Bar establishment, the Insider stated “Of course it was
beneficial for the career of JoAnn Remke to know and work around John
Burton. If not for him, she would not be where she is today, especially
considering her young age when she was first appointed as a judge with
the Hearing Department. She had very little life and very little legal
experience. I don’t think she ever litigated a case, nor did she ever
run a law-firm to know what the average practitioner has to deal with. However, having said that, if her appointment to the bench was a result
of any form of sexual harassment, or even perhaps a relationship based
on mutual consent, is not for me to say. Only she and him know that,” the Insider stated.

Willie Brown

Pressed by TLR as to the fact that many appointments are politically
motivated , such as the short-lived appointment of Kimiko Burton by
Willie Brown to head the Public Defender’s Office in San Francisco, the
insider stated “I do not think she is politically connected, at least
not based on my knowledge. I would not rule out the fact that Burton
was impressed with her skills. The few trials I had before her while
she was a hearing judge, she appeared to have a very good control of the
court room, and she will not hesitate to raise her voice and yell at
counsel, either a man or women. She is smart, tough when need be, and
overall a sharp cookie. Hopefully, if Burton did try to impose his
filth on her, I hope she managed to resist him.” the insider concluded.

A copy of the suit filed against Burton can be found at the documents
archive of TLR by visiting:

http://lesliebrodiedocs.blog.co.uk/

This latest scandal concerning John Burton and Judge Remke comes in the
aftermath of revelations of numerous scandals exposed and reported by
TLR involving the integrity of judges, prosecutors, and executives of
the State Bar of California. Most notable among these is the forced
departure of Executive Director Judy Johnson, the forced departure of
the former PJ Ronald Stovitz, the bribery of Judge McElroy, the
“English-Only Scandal”, the “Wittenberg Scandal”, the “Howard Miller
Scandal”, the “Sixty Day Suspension Scandal” and many others which came
on the heels of a crisis of confidence in State Bar leadership.

As the involvement of State Bar Court presiding judge JoAnn Remke in the
grave misconduct surrounding the “60 Days Suspension Scandal” appears
certain, new revelations point to concerns expressed already during the
time the former cocaine-addict and sordid sexual-harasser John Burton
appointed her to the bench.

State Bar Court Presiding Judge JoAnn Remke, who was appointed to the
bench by John Burton

As TLR previously reported, legislation introduced by John Burton which
changed the appointment process for the hearing judges, and in order to
remove Kenneth Norian from the bench led to concerns about the
politicization of the court.

John Burton, a former cocaine-addict and sordid-sexual-harasser is known
to have a penchant for petite blonds; he would have “platonic sex with
friends, lesbians and straight, whatever.” Former presiding judge James O’Brein, in an interview with Nancy
McCarthy of the Bar Journal stated, “we must always be concerned whether
the legislature will again intrude into the operations of the court.”

O’Brien was concerned that “the appointing authorities may either
reappoint or withhold reappointment based upon the nature of the
rulings.” In response to concerns that the newly-passed legislation from which she
benefited would politicize the bench, Judge JoAnn Remke ironically
stated, “I don’t think it’s a legitimate worry.” Remke added, “I’m not
concerned I would be swayed by outside forces.”

The “60 Days Suspension Scandal” involves the attorney/son of John
Burton’s friend and political ally who terrorized a synagogue in San
Francisco by beating some of the congregates and the Rabbi. Shockingly, despite the fact that the attorney had prior criminal record
and was previously disciplined by the State Bar, he was only suspended
for 60 days from the practice of law after both the facts and
established legal precedents and principles were heavily manipulated.

The 60 day suspension was imposed by Judge JoAnn Remke.

As avaricious and bizarre discoveries concerning the former cocaine
addict, sexual harasser, and California Democratic Party Chairman John
Burton continue to be unraveled by TLR, speculations over the potential
past harassment of Remke by Burton continue to percolate within the
State Bar establishment. In connection with the above, TLR continues with the investigation of
the “60 Days Suspension” scandal involving the pogrom in San
Francisco and a subsequent cover-up by the State Bar of California. The investigation focuses on the former crack/cocaine addict Mike
Nisperos, Jeff Dal Cerro, former PJ Stovitz, as well as Judge JoAnn
Remke and the former cocaine addict John Burton.

John Burton, a former cocaine-addict and a sordid-sexual-harasser
boasted about engaging in “platonic sex with friends, lesbians and
straight, whatever”

Previously, Burton was accused by a staff member, KATHLEEN DRISCOLL, of
sexually harassing her. Kathleen alleged that beginning in 2006 Burton begun to call for
immediate meeting during the weekend to go over routine matters, and
insisted that they go to the movies first.

Kathleen also alleged that during her employment Burton communicated the
following to her: Telling KATHLEEN you are “probably wild sexually like all
Catholic girls”

Informing KATHLEEN on approximately three occasions that he often had
“platonic sex with friends, lesbians and straight,
whatever”

Making hand gestures mimicking masturbation on approximately 10
occasions;

“When you drop stuff off, stop in will ya? I mean I’m not getting laid under the fuckin’ table.”

Informing KATHLEEN on approximately 20 occasions throughout her
employment, “Oh, I had a dream about you last night,”
while raising his eyebrows in a sexually suggestive manner;

Making comments regarding KATHLEEN wearing a thong on
approximately 20 occasions during her employment;

Commenting on KATHLEEN ’S body, particularly her breasts and her
buttocks. On one occasion BURTON commented, “Your nipples aren’t showing
and its cold outside.” Handing KATHLEEN an insurance form with a prescription for a male
performance enhancing drug similar to Viagra and saying, “This
stuff really works;”

On one occasion, as KATHLEEN walked past him, BURTON raised both his
hands and made a gesture as though he were squeezing KATHLEEN ’S
breasts;

Hitting KATHLEEN on the buttocks with a newspaper and saying, “You do
work out, you have a tight ass”

Telling KATHLEEN that her t-shirt turned him on because it was made
from silk and silk turned him on;

Judge JoAnn Remke, Presiding Judge of the State Bar Court who was
appointed to the position of State Bar Court judge by John Burton.

As was previously reported here, JoAnn Remke was appointed to the
position of State Bar Court judge by John Burton after he introduced
special legislation which granted him the power to do so, transferring
the appointing authority from the Supreme Court to himself and
eliminating the position of one non-lawyer judge.

At the time, Remke was working for the California legislature, and for
Burton himself. Additionally, John Burton was a political ally and
friend of the father of the attorney who committed the pogrom in San
Francisco. As also previously reported here, JoAnn Remke was the
State Bar Court judge who imposed, while committing grave misconduct,
the mere 60 day suspension on the attorney/son of John Burton’s friend.

Asked to comment on this matter, a State Bar Insider and a legal counsel
to TLR, speaking on condition of anonymity, stated “Obviously, we are
talking about a very sick and filthy man who knows no boundaries, a
sexual predator,” The Insider Stated. “I would not rule out the
possibility that in the past he also sexually harassed Judge Remke–
either verbally, physically or in the form of a quid pro-quo, or at
least he tried,” the Insider speculated.

“Burton’s M.O. very much reminds me of the M.O. of various Hollywood
executives or operatives in the Democratic Party, such as Bill Clinton. They operate under the assumption that the females on the staff are
there to provide sexual favors–a quick blow-job here and a quickie
there–they see nothing wrong with it; in fact they expect it.
Especially from females who are recent arrivals from the Midwest, who
desperately try to make a name for themselves,” the insider stated. “Seeing Willie Brown with his Russian girlfriend also makes one wonders
if there is any exploitation going on there,” the Insider opined.

Willie Brown’s girlfriend, Sonya Molodetskaya.
Pressed by TLR as to his impression of Remke, and her reputation within
the State Bar establishment, the Insider stated “Of course it was
beneficial for the career of JoAnn Remke to know and work around John
Burton. If not for him, she would not be where she is today, especially
considering her young age when she was first appointed as a judge with
the Hearing Department. She had very little life and very little legal
experience. I don’t think she ever litigated a case, nor did she ever
run a law-firm to know what the average practitioner has to deal with. However, having said that, if her appointment to the bench was a result
of any form of sexual harassment, or even perhaps a relationship based
on mutual consent, is not for me to say. Only she and him know that,” the Insider stated.

Willie Brown

Pressed by TLR as to the fact that many appointments are politically
motivated , such as the short-lived appointment of Kimiko Burton by
Willie Brown to head the Public Defender’s Office in San Francisco, the
insider stated “I do not think she is politically connected, at least
not based on my knowledge. I would not rule out the fact that Burton
was impressed with her skills. The few trials I had before her while
she was a hearing judge, she appeared to have a very good control of the
court room, and she will not hesitate to raise her voice and yell at
counsel, either a man or women. She is smart, tough when need be, and
overall a sharp cookie. Hopefully, if Burton did try to impose his
filth on her, I hope she managed to resist him.” the insider concluded.

A copy of the suit filed against Burton can be found at the documents
archive of TLR by visiting:

http://lesliebrodiedocs.blog.co.uk/

This latest scandal concerning John Burton and Judge Remke comes in the
aftermath of revelations of numerous scandals exposed and reported by
TLR involving the integrity of judges, prosecutors, and executives of
the State Bar of California. Most notable among these is the forced
departure of Executive Director Judy Johnson, the forced departure of
the former PJ Ronald Stovitz, the bribery of Judge McElroy, the
“English-Only Scandal”, the “Wittenberg Scandal”, the “Howard Miller
Scandal”, the “Sixty Day Suspension Scandal” and many others which came
on the heels of a crisis of confidence in State Bar leadership.

As members of the “Association of Discipline Defense Counsel”, along
with other lawyers such as Doron Weinberg, Ephraim Margolin, Howard
Miller, “Micha Star Liberty”, Allen Blumenthal, Esther Rodgers,and
Gerald Ulemen continue to remain silent by ignoring undisputed evidence
of State Bar corruption and anti-Jewish attitudes in favor of a selfish
motive, shocking discoveries were made today by TLR concerning the “60
Days Suspension Scandal.”

TLR has learned that John Burton – a sexual harasser, a former cocaine
addict, and the Chairman of the California Democratic Party – was a
close associate and political ally of the father of the “Rabbi Beater”
and attorney who was suspended for only 60 days after committing a
pogrom in a San Francisco synagogue.

The 60 day suspension was handed down by Judge JoAnn Remke of the State
Bar Court. TLR has learned that it was John Burton himself who appointed Judge
Remke to the position of a judge with the State Bar Court. D e v e l o p i n g ….

In another interesting twist, TLR has also learned that it was also John
Burton who introduced legislation which “politicized” the State Bar
Court. See archive.calbar.ca.gov/calbar/2cbj/00dec/page7-1.htm

Prior to the enactment of this legislation, all State Bar Court judges,
including both Hearing and Review judges, were appointed by the
California Supreme Court. However, John Burton grew unhappy with this arrangement after he served
as a character witness before the State Bar Court on behalf of a man who
killed his sister. Consequently, the appointment process was modified
as a result of legislation introduced by Burton.

Specifically, in a hearing that took place before Judge Nancy Roberts
Lonsdale concerning the admission of Eben Gossage, Burton testified that
Gossage was rehabilitated and should be admitted despite his numerous
criminal convictions, including one for killing his sister. Judge
Lonsdale, who was no doubt under enormous pressure to admit Gossage and
wanted to preserve her own judicial career, decided to admit Gossage.

The Committee of Bar Examiners filed an appeal with the Review
Department, seeking to reverse Judge Lonsdale’s decision. The Review
Department also voted to admit Gossage. However, it was a split
decision, with Judges O’Brien and Stovitz voting to admit Gossage. The
third judge, Mr. Kenneth Norian, a non-attorney who served on the court
as member of the public, voted against admission. In a rare dissent,
Judge Norian’s decision assailed the reasoning of his two colleagues. The Supreme Court of California was asked to intervene, and issued a
decision denying Gossage’s admission.

Upset over the fact that Gossage was not admitted, John Burton looked
for someone to blame and designate a scapegoat. He decided to blame
Judge Norian. As such, Burton quickly introduced legislation
eliminating the non-attorney judicial position which also, ipso facto,
removed Norian himself from the court. Additionally, the new legislation provided that the California Supreme
Court would no longer be the sole appointee of judges to the State Bar
Court. This was Burton’s little revenge. Burton also arranged for his
“own people” to serve as judges. One of Burton’s own people was JoAnn
Remke, who at the time, was known as Jodi Remke. It was Judge Remke who, while intentionally and knowingly committed
grave misconduct, imposed a mere sixty day suspension on the son of
Burton’s friend and political ally for terrorizing a synagogue.

In the meantime, Judge Lonsdale’s reputation suffered. State Bar
insiders speculated that she would not be re-appointed because of her
poor judging abilities, as reflected in the Gossage case. Lonsdale,
desperate to save her career, filed a lawsuit with the California
Supreme Court seeking to declare Burton’s legislation unconstitutional. Additionally, and also in an attempt to save face and her career, and to
show the world that she is a tough judge, Lonsdale began to impose
unusually harsh and unreasonable punishments upon respondents who
appeared before her. A State Bar insider, speaking to TLR on condition of anonymity, opined
that one of the unusually harsh, unreasonable, and capricious decisions
issued by Judge Nancy Roberts Lonsdale was to disbar Phil Stimac. “When you are nice to the cruel, you end up being cruel to the nice” the insider stated. “I bet John Burton would be unhappy if a lawyer, who has a prior criminal record, would only be suspended for 60 days after spitting in the mongoloid faces of his wife and daughter due to their racial background. Such a lawyer should be immediately disbarred, not suspended for sixty days; and I am not even mentioning the beating that the Rabbi and the congregates were subjected to.” The insider added. In addition, the State Bar insider opined that “the State Bar Court and
the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel are under pressure to show
results, so when they give preferential treatment to some respondents,
such as the “Rabbi Beater”, Malcolm Wittenberg, Tommy Girardi, Walter
Lack, Howard Miller and many others, they have to make it up somewhere
else, and they do so by going hard after the weak, unconnected, and
unrepresented, people like Phil Stimac and Ronald Gottschalk.” The
insider concluded.

TLR will continue to monitor events in connection with the above, and
report accordingly. TLR is also in the process of preparing an ethics complaint against John
Burton for various acts of misconduct, including but not limited to,
acts of sexual harassment.