UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA IRVINE FOUNDATION: Richard Blum — Regent of the University of California and husband of United States Senator from California Dianne Feinstein, Joseph Dunn, Erwin Chemerinsky

VOICE OF OC: Richard Blum — Regent of the University of California and husband of United States Senator from California Dianne Feinstein, Kinde Durkee, Joseph Dunn, Erwin Chemerinsky, Thomas Giradi, James Brosnahan.  See relevant stories HERE and HERE

J STREET PAC: Richard Blum — Regent of the University of California and husband of United States Senator from California Dianne Feinstein, Controversial Indian gambling attorney Howard Dickstein — member of both J Street PAC and J Street Gang of Greed, alongside Jerry Brown – and Dickstein’s wife, State Bar of California Board of Governors Public Member Jeannine English of AARP

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA’s SCRIPPS INSTITUTION OF OCEANOGRAPHY: Richard Blum — Regent of the University of California and husband of United States Senator from California Dianne Feinstein, operative Donna Lucas, Marty Africa (alleged paramour of James Brosnahan – self proclaimed “mastermind behind the Democratic Party” / mastermind-legal counsel to CaliforniaALL / Voice of OC Director ) and University of California Scripps Institution of Oceanography’s deposed marine researcher turned financier — Tony Haymet of CleanTECH / Pegasus Capital / Phillips & Associates

UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX: Richard Blum — Regent of the University of California and husband of United States Senator from California Dianne Feinstein and California Democratic Party Chairman, Former Cocaine Addict, “Sordid Sexual-Harasser” — John Burton

UC BERKELEY FOUNDATION/CaliforniaALL: Richard Blum — Regent of the University of California and husband of United States Senator from California Dianne Feinstein, Freada Klein Kapor of OBAMA FOR AMERICA/THE KAPOR CENTER, and Gibor Basri (both Kapor and Basri directors of CaliforniaALL — Basri,surreptitiously so)

The Mary Robinson Foundation: Richard Blum — Regent of the University of California and husband of United States Senator from California Dianne Feinstein and husband of Freada Klein Kapor — OBAMA FOR AMERICA’s tech-guru Mitch Kapor

UC / HAAS/ GOLDMAN / ZELLERBACH CONNECTION : Richard Blum — Regent of the University of California and husband of United States Senator from California Dianne Feinstein and CaliforniaALL Director Carry Zellerbach

Related stories, please see HERE and HERE and HERE

The Leslie Brodie is now reporting that a document titled ” Resume-CV-of-University-of-New-Hampshire-School-of-Law-Professor-Sarah-E-Redfield” has been sabotaged.

Said document is located @:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/48772426/10-Resume-CV-of-University-of-New-Hampshir…

Relevancy of said document relate to false and misleading information found on Redfield’s resume.

Additionally, it is also relevant to the inquiry surrounding University of Phoenix, John Burton, and Richard Blum.

As shown below, Sarah Redfield claims (falsely) that she had launched SALUCI with grants from Verizon and University of Phoenix.

——————————-

Originally posted on The Leslie Brodie Report ” The Make Belief Launching of SAL”, below:

RIVERSIDE, Calif. (www.ucr.edu) — Retired Judge and University of California, Riverside graduate Ronald Stovitz was selected Nov. 15 by the Board of Directors of the UC Riverside Alumni Association to serve as alumni representative to the UC Board of Regents.

His two-year appointment will begin July 1, 2008. Stovitz, a 1964 graduate of UCR, served as president of the UCR Alumni Association from 2004 to 2006.

“This year’s pool of candidates was the largest and most competitive ever,” said Kyle Hoffman, Assistant Vice Chancellor Alumni and Constituent Relations, and Executive Director of the UCR Alumni Association. “After significant effort it was narrowed to five finalists who were interviewed. Ron Stovitz, who has contributed his time serving the university for almost two decades, is one of the most dedicated volunteers we have seen.”

Stovitz, who was presiding judge for the State Bar Court in San Francisco, first volunteered to help his alma mater with scholarships and student recruitment. In 1993 he became a member of the UCR Alumni Association Board of Directors.

He also has been a trustee of the UCR Foundation since 1998 and a member of the Board of Visitors of the College of Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences, from 2003 to present. In June of this year he was awarded the UCR Medallion for distinguished service to the campus.

In the summer of 2008 he will begin his term as Regent-designate and Secretary of the Alumni Associations of the University of California until 2009 when he rises to president of the organization and will have voting powers as a Regent. His primary responsibility in his new position will be to serve on the Board of Regents as an alumni representative where he will help facilitate system-wide concerns of the alumni.

“There are numerous challenges facing the university,” Stovitz said. “Perhaps the lead issue is access to the university for all eligible students, and making tuition affordable. Also, will the university reflect diversity that is California in the 21st Century? I’m very honored and humbled to serve as the newest Alumni Regent and look forward to the challenges and the opportunities.”

Stovitz also acknowledged the UC System as the driving engine through all of the state’s growth, whether it is in medical research, the citrus industry, the multi-billion dollar wine industry or technology of the Silicon Valley.

“It’s all fostered and driven by the University of California System,” he said.

Source:

http://newsroom.ucr.edu/1717

——————————————–

In a stunning new development and a victory for Leslie Brodie and TLR, Ronald Stovitz, the former presiding judge of the State Bar Court is no longer a judge.

This development resulted from the recent exposure and the filing of an ethics complaint for misconduct by Brodie and TLR, which brought about an abrupt end to the career of this controversial judge.

Ronald Stovitz, known to many State Bar insiders as “Judge Ron,” listed himself as an “active attorney,” rather than an “inactive, serving as judge,” on the State Bar website this month, ipso facto acknowledging that he is no longer a judge with the State Bar Court.

Stovitz, who served as the presiding judge of the State Bar court, retired in November of 2006 and was replaced by Judge JoAnn Remke. Stovitz indicated then that he would like to serve as a part-time, volunteer judge after his retirement. In March 2008, the Supreme Court of California, which is solely authorized to appoint judges to the Review Department, appointed Stovitz as a judge pro tem for a period of eight months, until newly-appointed Judge Purcell was to take office in November 2008.

Mr. Ronald Stovitz (Photo:courtesy of Cal Bar Journal)

Nonetheless, from November 2008 until recently, Stovitz acted as a Review Department Judge, despite the fact that the Supreme Court never authorized him to do so and never extended his appointment as a judge pro tem.

Brodie, who discovered these improprieties while investigating Stovitz and Remke in connection with allegations of misconduct relating to different cases, immediately informed Presiding Judge Remke and State Bar Deputy Executive Director Mr. Robert Hawley of these facts.

Additionally, Brodie filed an ethics complaint against Stovitz, and intends to soon file additional complaints with the Office on Judicial Performance concerning this matter.

Speaking on condition of anonymity, a State Bar insider who is familiar with the scandal opined, “The latest development is certainly a minor step in the right direction. However, this is only the tip of the iceberg as the State Bar Court is a creature of statutes and rules …. the Court is not a place where any one can volunteer.” The insider further stated, “There are still many unanswered questions which I hope Brodie will explore. I, for example, ask myself why this was not discovered by the members of the Association of Discipline Defense Counsel.” “It would certainly be better if David Cameron, Diane Karpman, Ephraim Margolin, or one of the Margolises who have both the clout and the knowledge to take on such an undertaking would be more proactive in exposing this and other State Bar scandals.”

Additionally the insider questioned Stovitz’s motives in wishing to delay his departure from the court. “He certainly overstayed his welcome, and he needs to let JoAnn Remke and the rest of them develop their own independent style and fly on their own. I am very suspicious of his motives.”

The latest revelations concerning Stovitz come in the aftermath of revelations of numerous scandals involving the integrity of several judges and executives of the State Bar of California. Most notable among these are the bribery of Judge Patrice McElroy and the forced departure of Executive Director Johnson, which came on the heels of a crisis of confidence in State Bar leadership.

As previously mentioned in this column, Brodie does not intend to speculate whether the many rulings, decisions, and recommendations made after November 1, 2008 by any panel which included Stovitz are void, voidable, or valid. However, any developments relating to this and related issues will be covered by TLB.

Source:

http://lesliebrodie.blog.co.uk/2010/06/20/no-longer-judge-ron-as-the-former-p…

RIVERSIDE, Calif. (www.ucr.edu) — Retired Judge and University of California, Riverside graduate Ronald Stovitz was selected Nov. 15 by the Board of Directors of the UC Riverside Alumni Association to serve as alumni representative to the UC Board of Regents.

His two-year appointment will begin July 1, 2008. Stovitz, a 1964 graduate of UCR, served as president of the UCR Alumni Association from 2004 to 2006.

“This year’s pool of candidates was the largest and most competitive ever,” said Kyle Hoffman, Assistant Vice Chancellor Alumni and Constituent Relations, and Executive Director of the UCR Alumni Association. “After significant effort it was narrowed to five finalists who were interviewed. Ron Stovitz, who has contributed his time serving the university for almost two decades, is one of the most dedicated volunteers we have seen.”

Stovitz, who was presiding judge for the State Bar Court in San Francisco, first volunteered to help his alma mater with scholarships and student recruitment. In 1993 he became a member of the UCR Alumni Association Board of Directors.

He also has been a trustee of the UCR Foundation since 1998 and a member of the Board of Visitors of the College of Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences, from 2003 to present. In June of this year he was awarded the UCR Medallion for distinguished service to the campus.

In the summer of 2008 he will begin his term as Regent-designate and Secretary of the Alumni Associations of the University of California until 2009 when he rises to president of the organization and will have voting powers as a Regent. His primary responsibility in his new position will be to serve on the Board of Regents as an alumni representative where he will help facilitate system-wide concerns of the alumni.

“There are numerous challenges facing the university,” Stovitz said. “Perhaps the lead issue is access to the university for all eligible students, and making tuition affordable. Also, will the university reflect diversity that is California in the 21st Century? I’m very honored and humbled to serve as the newest Alumni Regent and look forward to the challenges and the opportunities.”

Stovitz also acknowledged the UC System as the driving engine through all of the state’s growth, whether it is in medical research, the citrus industry, the multi-billion dollar wine industry or technology of the Silicon Valley.

“It’s all fostered and driven by the University of California System,” he said.

Source:

http://newsroom.ucr.edu/1717

——————————————–

In a stunning new development and a victory for Leslie Brodie and TLR, Ronald Stovitz, the former presiding judge of the State Bar Court is no longer a judge.

This development resulted from the recent exposure and the filing of an ethics complaint for misconduct by Brodie and TLR, which brought about an abrupt end to the career of this controversial judge.

Ronald Stovitz, known to many State Bar insiders as “Judge Ron,” listed himself as an “active attorney,” rather than an “inactive, serving as judge,” on the State Bar website this month, ipso facto acknowledging that he is no longer a judge with the State Bar Court.

Stovitz, who served as the presiding judge of the State Bar court, retired in November of 2006 and was replaced by Judge JoAnn Remke. Stovitz indicated then that he would like to serve as a part-time, volunteer judge after his retirement. In March 2008, the Supreme Court of California, which is solely authorized to appoint judges to the Review Department, appointed Stovitz as a judge pro tem for a period of eight months, until newly-appointed Judge Purcell was to take office in November 2008.

Mr. Ronald Stovitz (Photo:courtesy of Cal Bar Journal)

Nonetheless, from November 2008 until recently, Stovitz acted as a Review Department Judge, despite the fact that the Supreme Court never authorized him to do so and never extended his appointment as a judge pro tem.

Brodie, who discovered these improprieties while investigating Stovitz and Remke in connection with allegations of misconduct relating to different cases, immediately informed Presiding Judge Remke and State Bar Deputy Executive Director Mr. Robert Hawley of these facts.

Additionally, Brodie filed an ethics complaint against Stovitz, and intends to soon file additional complaints with the Office on Judicial Performance concerning this matter.

Speaking on condition of anonymity, a State Bar insider who is familiar with the scandal opined, “The latest development is certainly a minor step in the right direction. However, this is only the tip of the iceberg as the State Bar Court is a creature of statutes and rules …. the Court is not a place where any one can volunteer.” The insider further stated, “There are still many unanswered questions which I hope Brodie will explore. I, for example, ask myself why this was not discovered by the members of the Association of Discipline Defense Counsel.” “It would certainly be better if David Cameron, Diane Karpman, Ephraim Margolin, or one of the Margolises who have both the clout and the knowledge to take on such an undertaking would be more proactive in exposing this and other State Bar scandals.”

Additionally the insider questioned Stovitz’s motives in wishing to delay his departure from the court. “He certainly overstayed his welcome, and he needs to let JoAnn Remke and the rest of them develop their own independent style and fly on their own. I am very suspicious of his motives.”

The latest revelations concerning Stovitz come in the aftermath of revelations of numerous scandals involving the integrity of several judges and executives of the State Bar of California. Most notable among these are the bribery of Judge Patrice McElroy and the forced departure of Executive Director Johnson, which came on the heels of a crisis of confidence in State Bar leadership.

As previously mentioned in this column, Brodie does not intend to speculate whether the many rulings, decisions, and recommendations made after November 1, 2008 by any panel which included Stovitz are void, voidable, or valid. However, any developments relating to this and related issues will be covered by TLB.

Source:

http://lesliebrodie.blog.co.uk/2010/06/20/no-longer-judge-ron-as-the-former-p…

The University of Phoenix (UOPX) is an American for-profit institution of higher learning, headquartered in Phoenix, Arizona. It is a wholly owned subsidiary of Apollo Group Inc., a publicly traded (NASDAQ: APOL) S&P 500 Phoenix-based corporation that owns several for-profit educational institutions.

The university has more than 200 campuses worldwide and confers degrees in over 100 degree programs at the associate, bachelor’s, master’s and doctoral levels.^[3]

It is one of the largest higher-education providers in North America. Although the university attained a peak enrollment of almost 600,000 students in 2010, a 30-percent enrollment drop in 2011 was attributed to operational changes amid criticism of high debt loads and low job prospects for university students.^[4] These changes included allowing students to try classes before officially enrolling and recruiter training programs that are designed to improve student retention and completion rates.^[5]

The university has an open-enrollment admission policy, requiring a high-school diploma, GED, or its equivalent as its criteria for admissions.^[6] It also provides associate or bachelor’s degree applicants opportunity for advanced placement through its prior-learning assessment, which, aside from previous coursework, college credit can come from experiential learning essays, corporate training, and certificates or licenses.^[7]

History

Early years

The university was founded by John Sperling, who felt that “working adult students were often invisible on traditional campuses and treated as second-class citizens.”^[8] Started in 1976 in the Phoenix metropolitan area,^[8] the first class consisted of eight students.^[9] In 1980, the school expanded to San Jose, California, and in 1989, the university launched its online program.^[10]

Governmental lawsuits and investigations

The university has paid several government fines and settled whistle-blower lawsuits concerning its admissions practices and education programs.^[11]

In 2000, the federal government fined the university $6 million for failing to include study-group meetings as instructional hours. In 2002, the Department of Education relaxed requirements on instructional hours.^[12][13][14]

In a 2003 lawsuit filed by two former university recruiters alleged that the university improperly obtained hundreds of millions of dollars in financial aid by paying its admission counselors based on the number of students they enrolled, a violation of the Higher Education Act.^{[12][13][15][16][17]} The university’s parent company settled by paying the government $67.5 million, plus $11 million in legal fees, without admitting any wrongdoing.^[18][19]

In 2004 the Department of Education alleged that UOPX again violated Higher Education Act provisions that prohibit offering financial incentives to admission representatives and pressured its recruiters to enroll students.^[20] UOPX disputed the findings but paid a $9.8 million fine as part of a settlement where it admitted no wrongdoing and was not required to return any financial aid funds.^{[21][22][23][24]} UOPX’s president stated that though recruiters were paid a commission based on the number of students enrolled, their compensation is not based solely on that criteria.^[25] The university also paid $3.5 million to the Department of Labor to settle a violation of overtime compensation regarding hours worked by UOPX’s recruiters.^[26][27] The University of Phoenix settled a false claims suit for $78.5 million in 2009 over its recruiter-pay practices.^[28]

In 2008, the university was the top recipient of student financial aid funds, receiving nearly $2.48 billion.^[29] In 2009, the Department of Education produced a report that claimed the untimely return of unearned Title IV funds for more than 10 percent of sampled students. The report also expressed concern that some students register and begin attending classes before completely understanding the implications of enrollment, including their eligibility for student financial aid. In January 2010, the parent company Apollo Group was required to post a letter of credit for $125 million by January 30 of the same year.^[30] In 2010, UOPX came under government scrutiny after its Phoenix and Philadelphia campuses were found to have been engaging in deceptive enrollment practices and fraudulent solicitation of FAFSA funds.^[31][32]

Campuses

The reception desk at Phoenix’s Hawaii Campus, displaying a Service of Process placard

The university has campuses and learning centers in 40 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Canada, Mexico, Chile, and the Netherlands.^[33]

While the school specializes in online programs, the campuses offer additional programs and services.^[34] Online students are also able to use tutoring and social centers, which can also be used for social and student meetings. The first center opened in 2007 in Plano, Texas.^[35]

Students have access to class-specific online resources, which include an electronic library, textbooks, and other ancillary material required for a course. The university says that the electronic textbooks include search features and hyperlinks to glossary terms that make the books easier to use for research.^[36]

In October 2012 Apollo announced it would close 115 University of Phoenix locations.^[37]

Academics

The university offers degree programs through seven colleges and two schools.^[38] These are named the School of Advanced Studies, School of Business, College of Criminal Justice and Security, College of Education, College of Humanities, College of Information Systems and Technology, College of Natural Sciences, College of Nursing, and the College of Social Sciences. In addition to its traditional education programs, the school offers continuing education courses for teachers and practitioners, professional development courses for companies, and specialized courses of study for military personnel.^[39]

Students spend 20 to 24 hours with an instructor during each course, compared with about 40 hours at a traditional university. The university also requires students to collaborate by working on learning team projects, wherein the class will be divided into learning teams of four to five students. Each learning team is assigned a team forum where team members will discuss the project and submit their agreed upon portions of the learning team assignment for compilation by the nominated learning team leader. The concept of learning teams is somewhat uncommon in traditional academia; however, the University of Phoenix believes that collaborating on projects and having individuals rely on each other reflects the real working conditions of the corporate world.^[40]

Some academics and former students feel the abbreviated courses and the use of learning teams result in an inferior education.^[12][13][25] The University of Phoenix has been criticized for lack of academic rigor. Henry M. Levin, a professor of higher education at Teachers College at Columbia University, called its business degree an “MBA Lite,” saying “I’ve looked at [its] course materials. It’s a very low level of instruction.”^[13] In May 2008, the university announced the formation of the University of Phoenix National Research Center, designed to study which teaching methods work best for nontraditional students.^[41] The research center no longer exists.

Admissions and financial aid

The University of Phoenix has an open admissions policy.^[42] In response to complaints about the use of financial aid by for-profit colleges in 2010 the university began an orientation program designed to lower dropout and default rates.^[43] Students must successfully complete a three-week orientation workshop in order to be eligible to start their first credit/cost bearing course.^[44] Students who do not complete the workshop after two attempts must wait six months before attempting again.

Phoenix students are recruited using high pressure sales tactics^[45] by admissions counselors who are paid, in part, based on their success in recruiting students.^[25] The university heavily recruits students in order to obtain financial aid on their behalf,^[45] such as the Academic Competitiveness Grant, Federal Pell Grant, National Science & Mathematics Access to Retain Talent Grant (National SMART Grant), Federal Direct Student Loan Program, Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant, Federal Direct PLUS Loans, Federal Perkins Loan, and the Wounded Warrior Project.^[46] For the 2008-2009 fiscal year, the University of Phoenix student body received more Pell Grants ($656.9 million) than that of any other university.^[47][48]

eCampus

Through its online portal, eCampus, University of Phoenix students also have access to software required for coursework. Available, for example, are virtual companies created by the university to provide students with assignments, which Adam Honea, UOPX’s dean and provost, claims are more realistic than those available with case studies.^[49]

In August 2011, Apollo group announced it would buy 100% of Carnegie Learning to accelerate its efforts to incorporate adaptive learning into its academic platform.^[50]

Accreditation

The University of Phoenix has been regionally accredited since 1978 by The Higher Learning Commission (HLC) as a member of the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools (NCA).

Some individual colleges within the University of Phoenix hold specialty accreditation or are pre-accredited by accrediting agencies that are recognized by the Council for Higher Education Accreditation.

• School of Business – accreditation through the Association of Collegiate Business Schools and Programs (ACBSP).^[51] Because Phoenix’s business programs are not accredited by the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB), some companies will not provide tuition reimbursement for employees attending Phoenix.^{[13][52][53][54]}
• College of Education – Master of Education is pre-accredited by the Teacher Education Accreditation Council (TEAC) for a period of five years, from December 20, 2007, to December 20, 2012.^[55]
• College of Nursing – B.S. and M.S. degree programs are accredited by the Commission on Collegiate Nursing Education (CCNE),^[56]
• College of Social Sciences – Master of Science in Counseling degree programs in Community Counseling and Mental Health Counseling are accredited by the Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs (CACREP).^[57]

Organization and administration

University of Phoenix Stadium, a municipal sports arena for which the corporation paid for naming rights.

University of Phoenix is a wholly owned subsidiary of Apollo Group, a S&P 500 corporation based in Phoenix, Arizona.

Marketing and advertising

The university paid $154.5 million for 20-year naming rights for advertising purposes of the University of Phoenix Stadium in Glendale, Arizona, a municipal sports arena, home of the NFL‘s Arizona Cardinals, and the site of the NCAA‘s Tostitos Fiesta Bowl. The university does not participate in intercollegiate sports.^[58]

People

Students

The average age of a University of Phoenix student is between 33 (undergraduate) and 36 (graduate), and most students have work-related commitments.^[59] The University states that nearly two-thirds of its students are women and that a plurality of students attending the school study business (undergraduate students representing 29.9% and graduate students 12.9%), followed closely by those enrolled in Axia College for Associate’s degrees (28.1%).^[60][61]

The student population is approximately 25% African-American and almost 13% Latino.^[62] The university graduates the largest number of underrepresented students with Master’s degrees in business, health care, and education than any other U.S. school.^[63][64] The University of Phoenix was also named one of the nation’s top 20 institutions of higher education favorable to military personnel, according to the December 2008 issue of Military Advanced Education. Nearly 29,000 active-duty military, their spouses, and veterans were enrolled in University of Phoenix degree programs at that time with more than 7,200 military members or veterans graduated from the university during that year.^[65][66] In 2012, University of Phoenix was ranked 30th in Guide to Online School’s ‘Online Military-Friendly College Rankings^[67] ‘

When calculated using the standards set by the Department of Education, the university’s overall graduation rate is 16 percent, which, when compared to the national average of 55 percent, is among the nation’s lowest. The federal standard measures graduation rates as the percentage of first-time undergraduates who obtain a degree within six years. The number is significantly lower at the university’s Southern California campus (six percent) and its online programs (four percent). This measurement does not take into consideration the typical University of Phoenix student who comes to the University as a dropout from another institution, so is not a first-time college student.^[13] The university acknowledges the 16-percent graduation rate but takes exception to the standard used by the Department of Education to calculate the rate, saying that the rate is based upon criteria that apply to only seven percent of the university’s student population.^[25] The university publishes a self-calculated graduation rate of 59 percent to account for its large population of non-traditional students.^[13]

Please continue @: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Phoenix

Richard Blum (image:courtesy)

Richard C. Blum, then the chairman of the regents of the University of California, spoke at the Milken Institute’s Global Conference 2009, held at the Beverly Hilton in Los Angeles. The corporate confab was hosted by Michael Milken, the “junk bond king” who went to prison in the aftermath of the savings and loan fiasco in the 1980s. Milken, who is barred from securities trading for life by federal regulators, has since recreated himself as a proponent of investing in for-profit educational corporations, an industry which regularly comes under government and media scrutiny in response to allegations of fraud made by dis-satisfied students. 

At the conference, Blum, who is a professionalWall Street speculator, sat on a panel called “The New University and Its Role in the Economy,” alongside the presidents of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Arizona State University. The panel focused on how universities can best serve the corporate jones for tech-savvy employees by recruiting smart freshmen with scientific talent. One panel member urged treating universities as “laboratories of business ideas and products.” 

As someone who oversees investment policy decisions for the University of California’s $63 billion portfolio, and as the largest shareholder in two for-profit corporate-run universities (in which UC invests), Blum had a unique perspective to share at the conference. He advised public universities to attract business-oriented students with clever advertisements (as vocational schools do). 

“It’s like anything else,” he said. “It’s how you market it.” 

Marketing strategy aside, Blum has taken on two seemingly disparate roles — one as an advocate for a nonprofit university, and the other as an owner of two for-profit educational corporations. However, as a regent, Blum has taken actions that (intentionally or not) have enhanced the value of his vocational schools. Are his loyalties conflicted? 

For several years, Blum’s firm, Blum Capital Partners, has been the dominant shareholder in two of the nation’s largest for-profit universities, Career Education Corporation and ITT Educational Services, Inc. The San Francisco-based firm’s combined holdings in the two chain schools is currently $923 million — nearly a billion dollars. As Blum’s ownership stake enlarged, UC investment managers shadowed him, ultimately investing $53 million of public funds into the two educational corporations. 

The regents’ conflict-of-interest policy requires them to “avoid the potential for and the appearance of conflicts of interest with respect to the selection of individual investments … public officials shall not make, participate in making, or influence a governmental decision in which the official has a conflict of interest.” And the California Political Reform Act of 1974 provides civil and criminal penalties for officials who ignore conflicts of interest — as UC makes clear in ethics training presentations specifically created for university officials. The Board of Regents, however, is self-policing and it tolerates situations that cause others concern. 

John M. Simpson of Consumer Watchdog, a nonprofit education and advocacy organization in Santa Monica, California, comments: “It is hugely inappropriate for the University of California to invest in for-profit colleges when it should be promoting public education. And something stinks when university investments end up in companies largely controlled by a regent. To the average fellow on the street, this would seem to be a conflict of interest. It is up to Mr. Blum and the UC treasurer to explain how it could not be a conflict of interest.” 

Disaster capitalism  

Due to serial tuition hikes by the UC regents, and their gutting of many classes and educational programs, and the imposition of a 15 percent reduction of in-state admissions to the university, the gateway to higher learning in California has seriously narrowed. As a UC regent, Blum voted in favor of all of these measures — and such actions have indirectly benefited his corporate colleges. But his schools are not the only ones profiting from the financial disaster that besets many public universities. 

On March 13, The New York Times summed up the situation, reporting that many chain schools, including ITT Educational Services and Career Education Corporation, “have exploited the recession as a lucrative recruiting device while tapping a larger pool of federal aid … selling young people on dreams of middle-class wages while setting them up for default on untenable debts, low-wage work and a struggle to avoid poverty.” 

The Times noted that for-profit schools are directly benefiting from cuts in education, especially in California where state-funded universities and community colleges have been “forced to cut classes just when demand is greatest.” 

Indeed, ITT Educational Services recently reported to its shareholders that due in large part to “higher unemployment rates among unskilled workers,” company revenue increased by $300 million, to $1.3 billion (double its take in 2005). Responding to a recession-induced increase in demand for vocational training, ITT increased its tuition by 5 percent, (70 percent of ITT’s revenue comes from federal tuition aid programs).And ITT’s profits rocketed in tandem with new enrollments, even as UC and other public universities were turning away students for lack of programs. 

Chain schools get the third degree 

Nationwide, vocational school students are paying billions of dollars in tuition to stockholder-owned education corporations, primarily using federal grants and loans guaranteed by taxpayers. In the United States, the dominant vocational education corporations are the University of Phoenix, Corinthian Colleges, Strayer University, Kaplan (owned by The Washington Post Company), Career Education Corporation and ITT Educational Services. Collectively, these companies operate hundreds of schools and teach hundreds of thousands of students, most of them eligible for public and private financial aid. The chains offer training for such technical professions as radiological technician, beautician, automotive mechanic, medical billing clerk, Web designer and massage therapist. But they also offer degrees in engineering, computer science and business. Increasingly, they are promoting online education, which limits their operational costs, even though virtual courses are often not suitable for teaching nursing, cooking, or car repair. As a result of delivering substandard education, some for profit schools suffer from accreditation problems, according to recent news reports. 

On a fairly regular basis government regulators, including the U.S. Department of Justice, have accused many chain schools of preying upon low-income individuals and active military service members. Typically, state and federal agencies report, chain school recruiters have loaded students down with high-interest rate loan packages that, on average, amount to $30,000. As a result, fewer than 70 percent of enrollees graduate. Such a high dropout rate requires the corporations to continuously wage television, radio, Internet and print media marketing campaigns aimed at enticing students who want to better themselves — and who are, not incidentally, eligible for state-guaranteed loans. 

Unfortunately, those who do graduate with two-year associates degrees often find out that the curriculum did not prepare them for the technical requirements of the jobs they seek. And often, when they do find work, their wages do not match the inflated salaries promised by school recruiters, government reports note. And when dropouts and underpaid graduates default on their student loans, the taxpayers remain on the hook. 

Every few years, the corporate media discovers the so-called “diploma mill” scandal anew and publishes reams of investigative stories showing that despite marketing materials touting their educational and career benefits, the chain schools are primarily focused on cashing in on taxpayer-backed grants and loans. In the last six months alone, The New York Times, Washington Monthly, ProPublica, Bloomberg, Frontline and The Associated Press published exposés of the $26 billion vocational college industry. 

Blum’s schools have been prime targets of these investigations, although the reports do not mention him by name, nor do they reveal that the UC invests in his for-profit schools while cutting back on public education. 

 Students as cash machines 

 Blum’s investment bank entered the for-profit education business in 1987, when he purchased a large block of shares in National Education Corporation, an Irvine-based vocational school that specialized in awarding mail-order diplomas. He joined the company’s board of directors, sitting alongside former U.S. Senator Barry Goldwater and David C. Jones, a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. 

Two years later, according to a report in the Los Angeles Times, Blum got in hot water when angry shareholders filed a lawsuit contending that “the company issued rosy financial statements while Blum and other directors were selling their shares.” The shareholders claimed in court documents that Blum sold $2.7 million worth of shares at about $24 per share after he learned, a day before the public announcement, that the company president planned to resign. When the share price bottomed out at $3.50 a share after the announcement, Blum reinvested in the troubled company, booking a profit. 

By the late ’80s and early ’90s, National Education Corporation was “battered by accusations that its vocational schools were riddled with fraud,” The New York Times reported in March 1997. A new president was hired in 1994 to reform the school and to bring it into the age of computerized learning. By 1995, Blum had gained control of 11.5 percent of National Education Corporation stock after combining his firm’s holdings with that of a nonprofit investment fund, Commonfund, for which Blum worked as an investment advisor. (Commonfund manages investments for more than 1,400 universities, including UC.) In 1997, Harcourt, the textbook publisher, boughtNational Education Corporation for about $750 million, or $21 a share. Blum and his private partners profited handsomely — there was money to be made in education. 

After he became a regent in 2002, Blum greatly increased his investment in for-profit education. In June 2005, Blum Capital Partners bought 5 percent of the stock (worth $24 million) in Lincoln Education Services Corp., a $300 million operation with 32 campuses. Blum also acquired large blocks of shares in ITT Educational Services, and Career Education Corporation. These two purchases followed dips in the companies’ stock prices brought about by allegations of corrupt practices made against them by government agencies. 

In the case of ITT Educational Services, federal and state regulators investigated the company in 2004 after shareholders and students alleged that it was falsifying student attendance, grades and job placement records in order to keep federal financial aid flowing. When the news broke, the price of ITT shares halved. 

Blum Capital Partners pounced, purchasing reams of devalued ITT stock. It soon owned the largest block of stock in the company — a 10 percent ownership stake in 2006. Not long afterwards, the investigations were closed, with no findings of wrongdoing. By May 2010, ITT’s revenue exceeded $1.3 billion, and Blum Capital Partners’ stake was valued at $415 million. 

Similarly, Blum Capital Partners bought shares of Career Education Corporation, a $1.8 billion operation that serves 90,000 students, following a corruption controversy. In 2004, Career Education Corporation was investigated by multiple federal agencies after whistleblower lawsuits alleged that the school had allowed failing students to remain enrolled in order to keep its pipeline to federal grants and loans tapped. In 2005, after “60 Minutes” televised an unfavorable story about the chain school, the value of its stock dropped by more than half. Blum Capital Partners bought in for $33 million. By May 2010, its stake had grown to $508 million, making Blum’s firm by far the largest and most powerful shareholder of the chain school. A partner with Blum Capital Partners, Greg L. Jackson, sits on the board of Career Education Corporation. 

UC is an investor in both educational corporations. 

 The UC connection 

 Even as Blum was buying stock in Career Education and ITT Educational Services, UC financial records show that the university’s investment managers were actively buying and selling these same stocks — to the tune of $53 million. The university was not just holding onto these stocks to accrue value over time (as a prudent manager would do), it was day trading them in large amounts, as much as $2 million a trade, thereby affecting the daily price of these stocks. And these two companies were largely owned by a regent, a Wall Street speculator who sat on the university’s investment committee, which oversaw the management of the university’s stock portfolio. Does not this situation pose at least the appearance of a conflict? 

Not to UC officials. When UC Treasurer Marie Berggren was questioned about the propriety of UC investing in Blum’s for-profit college chains her spokesman, Steve Montiel, replied by email, “The Treasurer’s Office doesn’t track Regents’ holdings in making decisions about security selections, though Regents’ holdings are disclosed as a matter of policy.”  

In other words, the treasurer does not review the regents’ financial disclosure statements, which are public records, for potential conflicts. Of course, UC’s investments are also public records available to the regents, so a regent could easily avoid conflicts, should he or she choose to do so, by not taking controlling positions in companies in which the university invests. 

Blum did not respond to repeated requests for comment. UC spokeswoman Lynn Tierney called on his behalf, saying that the university recruits its students from the intellectual elite of applicants. Only those with very high grade averages and SAT scores get in, she said. Therefore, “UC is not losing students to Blum’s vocational schools, and there is no conflict of interest,” she claimed, declining to present evidence that thwarted UC students were not attending for-profit colleges. 

Regardless, the bottom line is that UC is investing tens of millions of public dollars in two for-profit school chains largely controlled by a regent (a Wall Street arbitrager) who sit on UC’s investment committee. Noah Stern, president of Associated Students at the University of California, says, “Student trust in the regents was already shaky. In light of the Spot.us revelations of investment abuse, we need a structural overhaul of the university governance system.” 

Note: CalPERS, the state pension fund, also had, as of the end of 2009, $6 million invested in Career Education Corporation, and $10 million invested in ITT Educational Services through its public equities investment program. And CalPERS held more than $100 million in shares of both companies as part of a $500 million investment with Blum Capital Partners, which is an investment adviser to CalPERS. Details about CalPERS connections to Blum and other regents, and related stories, may be found in the 10-part investigative series on the regents’ conflicts of interest sponsored by Spot.us and a consortium of six Bay Area newsweeklies.

Source: http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/issue/2010-06-22/article/35661

The chairman of the California Democratic Party reportedly compared Paul Ryan and the Republicans today to Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels.

According to the San Francisco Chronicle, John Burton made these remarks about the GOP vice presidential nominee before the California delegation met for breakfast this morning at the Democratic National Convention:

“They lie and they don’t care if people think they lie. …Joseph Goebbels it’s the big lie, you keep repeating it,” Burton said Monday before the Blake Hotel breakfast. He said Ryan told “a bold-faced lie and he doesn’t care that it was a lie. That was Goebbels, the big lie.”

 

Please continue @:

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2012/09/democrat-john-bu…

Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP, the national law and consulting firm, announced today that California State Senator Martha M. Escutia will join the firm’s California Government & Regulatory Division as a partner. Senator Escutia, known as an innovative leader and consensus builder, will be based in Los Angeles, and plans to serve clients in Manatt’s offices in California, Washington, D.C., New York and Mexico.

Representing California’s 30th Senate District, Senator Escutia has served in the California State Senate since 1998, and has served as Chair of the Senate Committee on Energy, Utilities and Telecommunications, and Chair of the Senate Select Committee on Global Environment. A leading Democrat, Senator Escutia worked closely with California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger on a number of key legislative initiatives. Senator Escutia previously served as Chair of the Senate Committee on Health and Human Services and as Chair of the Senate Committee on Judiciary.

Senator Escutia’s leadership as Chair of the Judiciary Committee has been widely recognized. “The entire California judiciary is deeply indebted to Senator Martha Escutia for her great contributions to improving the administration of justice in our state,” said Ronald M. George, Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court. “Martha is a real lawyer, whereas I’m just licensed to practice law. She was an impressive Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and her meticulous work product set the bar high for future Senators,” said John Burton, former President Pro Tempore of the California State Senate.

Senator Escutia has been actively involved in matters relating to Latin America, participating in major conferences in Mexico, and leading a California trade and business delegation to Argentina. She has served as an Advisory Board Member of the U.S.-Mexico Binational Education Initiative, and as a Board member of the California Latino Caucus Institute.

From 1992 to 1998, Senator Escutia served as a member of the California State Assembly from the 50th Assembly District. As a member of the Assembly, she served as Chair of the Assembly Judiciary Committee, and Chair of the Assembly Committee on the Alameda Corridor.

Senator Escutia received her B.S., magna cum laude, from the University of Southern California in 1979, and her J.D. from Georgetown University in 1982. She did graduate work in foreign trade and investment, receiving a certificate from Universidad Panamericana, Mexico City in 1981, and a certificate from The World Court at The Hague in 1986.

In addition to previous experience in private law practice, Senator Escutia served as Vice President and Counsel of United Way of Los Angeles, and as Supervising Research Attorney for the Los Angeles County Superior Court. She has served as a lecturer and faculty member of the University of Southern California School of Policy Planning & Development, and East Los Angeles Community College.

A prolific writer and speaker, Senator Escutia has been counted among the top 100 lawyers in Los Angeles County and in the State of California by The Daily Journal, and has received numerous awards and commendations from organizations ranging from The California League of Conservation Voters to The Sierra Club to Good Housekeeping Magazine.

“No one better understands California’s unique political balance or has a better appreciation of what it takes to get things done in this state,” said George D. Kieffer, Manatt’s California Government & Regulatory Chair. “She’s an exceptional lawyer, as well as an exceptional person. We are fortunate to have her join us.”

“Martha Escutia is a strategic thinker and problem solver,” said Paul H. Irving, Manatt’s Chief Executive and Managing Partner. “She will become an important resource for clients throughout California, across the country and internationally who seek to build bridges, enhance relationships and expand their businesses.”

“I am grateful for my experiences in public service, and I’m excited to be moving to the next chapter in my career,” Senator Escutia added. “Manatt is focused on the intersection of business and public policy, and it is known for its emphasis on excellence, and for extraordinary client service. I look forward to contributing to the firm’s continuing growth and prosperity.”

About Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP

Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP, provides legal and consulting services to a global client base from offices in Los Angeles, Orange County, Palo Alto and Sacramento, California; New York City and Albany, New York; and Washington, D.C. Manatt includes Manatt Health Solutions, a healthcare policy and strategic business advisory group, and ManattJones Global Strategies, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary that develops and implements strategies to expand client businesses and facilitate their effective competition in global markets. For more information, visit www.manatt.com, www.manatthealthsolutions.com and www.manattjones.com.

Source @:

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/California+Senator+Martha+Escutia+Joins+Manatt….

President Obama swept intoCalifornia Wednesday to further enrich his re-election war chest amid hopes that the shakeup from this week’s stateprimary will help Democrats win back control the House of Representatives.

Democratic party leaders are hoping they can gain five more seats — a fifth of what they need nationally to recapture the House majority.

Latino voters now make up about of a fourth of California’s electorate, but their impact in bolstering a congressional overhaul is limited because they are a majority in only one of the 20 House districts controlled by Republicans.

California Democratic Party Chairman John Burton said that the campaign hopes Obama’s visits translate to a higher turnout in November and allow Democrats in the state to pick up the congressional seats they need to regain control of the House.

Please see complete story @:

http://www.newstaco.com/2012/06/07/president-obama-in-california-after-semina…

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.

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

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.

2.1 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.

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.