Law Enforcement

Brown's Statement on California Supreme Court Granting Petition for Review in Saleem Body Armor Case

March 10, 2010
Contact: (916) 210-6000, agpressoffice@doj.ca.gov

Los Angeles--Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. announced today that the California Supreme Court has granted the state's petition to review the Second Appellate District Court of Appeal’s ruling in the Saleem case, a decision last year that threw out a law banning convicted felons from possessing body armor. For more than ten years, the law served as a deterrent and arguably saved many lives. The Attorney General urges the Supreme Court to override the lower court’s ruling and restore this vital tool to the men and women who bravely protect our communities.

"This is a clear victory for police officers everywhere. Allowing criminals and gang members to arm themselves with body armor makes no sense, and I'm confident the Supreme Court will reverse this wrong-headed decision,' Brown said.

Brown filed a petition to the California Supreme Court on January 22, 2010 after the Second Appellate District Court of Appeal struck down the statute, ruling that the law was too vague.

Brown’s petition argued that the Court of Appeal’s Opinion:

• Failed to follow the test for determining whether a statute is vague;
• Contradicted the Legislature’s intent in enacting a body armor statute; and
• Needlessly abrogated the entire body armor statute.

In 1998, the California Legislature enacted the James Guelff Body Armor Act to prohibit felons convicted of a violent crime from possessing body armor.

AttachmentSize
PDF icon n1871_saleem_petition.pdf171.64 KB

Brown Demanda a un Contratista de Trabajo Agrícola por la Seguridad de Trabajadores y Violaciones a la Ley de Salarios

March 10, 2010
Contact: (916) 210-6000, agpressoffice@doj.ca.gov
Los Ángeles-El Procurador General Edmund G. Brown Jr., presentó hoy una demanda contra el contratista de trabajo agrícola Juan Muñoz del Valle Imperial por no pagar el salario mínimo y horas de tiempo extra, y también por cometer violaciones 'potencialmente mortal' de seguridad hacia los trabajadores por negligentemente omitir tiempo de descanso y agua potable o sombra para los trabajadores de campo.

Juan Muñoz suministró trabajadores de campo a plantaciones de cebolla en el condado de Kern y en el Valle de Coachella y el Desierto de Mojave.

"En los meses ardientes del verano, el trabajo agrícola puede ser peligroso si los trabajadores no se les da descanso, sombra y agua potable', dijo Brown. 'No tenemos ninguna tolerancia para los contratistas como Muñoz, que niegan a sus trabajadores un salario justo y los someten a condiciones de trabajo potencialmente mortal'.

En el 2009, la oficina de Brown realizó una visita de campo rutinario a una plantación de cebolla del sur de California. Durante la visita, la oficina de Brown entrevisto a más de diez trabajadores contratados por Muñoz.

Según los trabajadores, Muñoz reunía a trabajadores por todo el sur de California y los llevaba a una plantación de cebolla que frecuentemente estaba lejos de sus hogares. Una vez en la plantación, los trabajadores se dividían los turnos durante todo el día y la noche, dormían en los campos y se bañaban en un depósito de agua cercano.

Los trabajadores no recibían descanso o agua potable, y los empleados no recibieron entrenamiento en cómo reconocer y prevenir el agotamiento por el calor.

Productores pagaban a Muñoz un precio fijo por unidad, como un saco de cebolla de cuatro galones, y Muñoz determinaba la tarifa de pago para los trabajadores del campo. A los trabajadores generalmente se les pagaba $1.23 por cada galón de cuatro sacos de cebollas que cosechaban.

Los empleados trabajaban una jornada de trabajo dividida en dos turnos aproximadamente 70 horas a la semana, pero no se les pagaba pago de prima. Bajo la ley estatal, los trabajadores tienen derecho a una hora adicional de salario si tienen menos de ocho horas de descanso entre cada turno. A los trabajadores también se les negó pago por tiempo extra. La ley estatal exige a los empleadores a pagar las horas extras (tiempo y medio) a los empleados que trabajan más de diez horas al día.

Además, a muchos de los trabajadores se les pagaba en efectivo por debajo del salario mínimo, sin una declaración escrita de las horas trabajadas, la tarifa de pago o deducciones hechas, también una violación de las leyes laborales del estado. Después de trabajar largas horas en los campos, los trabajadores frecuentemente eran obligados a esperar hasta dos horas para recibir sus honorarios.

Historias de los trabajadores del campo

Feliciano Sepúlveda y su esposa Sonia trabajaban entre 14 y 16 horas al día e, igual que los demás trabajadores, dormían en los campos. Él y su esposa trabajaban regularmente una jornada de trabajo dividida en dos turnos sin recibir pago de prima o tiempo extra, a pesar de los días largos. Cuando los Sepúlveda cobraban sus honorarios al fin del día, Muñoz redondeaba a la cantidad más baja del dólar. Durante la temporada de cosecha del 2009, ninguno de los Sepúlveda recibió entrenamiento sobre las señales de agotamiento por el calor y frecuentemente encontraban los botes de agua vacíos durante las horas más calurosas del día.

Mario Gómez y su esposa, Araceli Ramos, trabajaban bajo el mismo salario, una violación de las leyes laborales de California, que requiere que el trabajo realizado por dos individuos se reporte separado para cada trabajador. Ambos trabajaban aproximadamente 15 horas al día, pero ninguno de ellos recibió pago por tiempo extra o pago de prima por la jornada de trabajo dividida en dos turnos. Cuando se calculaba, los ingresos de Gómez y de Ramos eran menos de $8 la hora, sin deducciones o impuestos retenidos de sus salarios.

Nicolás Salinas trabajaba entre 12 y 14 horas al día, 7 días a la semana, pero nunca fue pagado tiempo extra o el pago de prima. Al final del día, Salinas esperaba más de dos horas para recibir sus honorarios y con frecuencia sólo recibía entre $4 y $7.50 por hora. En el talón del cheque de Salinas, sus horas de trabajo frecuentemente eran incorrectas, y las deducciones para los impuestos no fueron retenidos.

El salario mínimo federal es de $7.25/la hora, y el salario estatal mínimo es de $8.00/la hora.

La demanda de hoy alega que Muñoz violo las leyes de competencia desleal de California. La demanda busca:

• Un mandato judicial permanente;
• Sanciones civiles;
• Restitución de los trabajadores del campo, y,
• Otros gastos legales.

Una copia de la denuncia se adjunta (disponible solo en ingles).

AttachmentSize
PDF icon n1873_munoz_complaint.pdf186.38 KB

Brown Announces Heroin Trafficking Ring Shut Down

March 5, 2010
Contact: (916) 210-6000, agpressoffice@doj.ca.gov

Yuba County, Calif.–Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. today announced that agents from the Bureau of Narcotic Enforcement Task Force, Yuba-Sutter Narcotic Enforcement Team (NET-5) arrested three men for heroin trafficking in the Yuba-Sutter area and seized 3.5 pounds of heroin, $32,887 in cash and six weapons.

Agents also arrested three other people who were sub-dealers or otherwise involved in the area’s heroin trade. All six suspects are Mexican nationals and have been placed on immigration hold.

"This is the largest heroin seizure ever made in this community,' Attorney General Brown said. 'Yesterday’s arrests will significantly impact the availability of hard drugs in the Yuba-Sutter area.'

Bureau of Narcotic Enforcement Task Force agents began the investigation in January 2010 and served three separate search warrants over a three-month period. The warrants were served in the 600 block of North Township Road, Yuba City and the 600 block of King Avenue, Yuba City.

The investigation revealed that Juan Carlos Lopez, Joseph Valdez and Hugo Roberto Rios Martinez were “full time” heroin dealers. Seven days a week from morning to night, the three traffickers sold the heroin, which was produced in either Mexico or South America and delivered to the area through Stockton.

From Lopez’s residence, agents seized 6.64 grams of heroin, 1.5 grams of cocaine, adulterant, packaging material, scales, a .38-caliber handgun, a 12-gauge shotgun, a rifle, and $6,199.00 in drug proceeds. From the Valdez residence, agents seized 34.27 grams of heroin, packaging material, 35 Hydrocodone pills, and $1,311.00 in drug proceeds. From the Martinez residence, agents seized 1,554.55 grams of heroin, adulterant, packaging material, scales, 2 handguns, a rifle, and $24,377 in drug proceeds.

The Valdez’s 16 year-old daughter, who was at school during the service of the search warrant, was taken into protective custody by Sutter County Child Protective Services. A 10 year-old child was removed from the Martinez home and taken into protective custody.

The Bureau of Narcotic Enforcement Task Force determined the street value of the heroin to be $250,000.

All individuals were booked into the Sutter County Jail for possession for sale of heroin. Martinez and the Valdezes were also charged with child endangerment. None of the six suspects have any known prior criminal record in California.

Located in the Attorney General's office, the Bureau of Narcotic Enforcement is the oldest narcotic enforcement bureau in the United States.

Questions regarding this investigation can be directed to Special Agent Supervisor Mike Hudson at (530) 674-2725. Photographs of the seizure and four individuals arrested are attached.

Brown Secures Agreement with American Spirit Cigarettes Maker over Alleged Misleading Marketing of Organic Tobacco Products

March 1, 2010
Contact: (916) 210-6000, agpressoffice@doj.ca.gov

Los Angeles—Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. today announced that his office has secured an agreement with Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc., the manufacturer of American Spirit tobacco products, that requires the company to clearly disclose that its organic tobacco is “no safer or healthier” than other tobacco products.

Attorneys general from 32 other states and the District of Columbia signed onto today’s agreement.

“Stamping an organic label on tobacco products is ultimately a distinction without a difference—organic or not, cigarettes are bad for your health,” Brown said. “Today’s settlement with Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company ensures that all future advertisements make it clear that organic tobacco is no safer or healthier.”

Today’s agreement follows Brown’s contention that Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company may have misled consumers in advertising its “organic” or “100% organic” Natural American Spirit cigarettes and roll-your-own tobacco and pouches, leading consumers to believe these products were less harmful than other tobacco products. There is currently no competent or reliable scientific evidence to support this conclusion.

Under the terms of the agreement, all advertisements will clearly and prominently feature the following warnings:

• For Natural American Spirit organic cigarettes: “Organic tobacco does NOT mean safer cigarettes.”
• For Natural American Spirit organic roll-your-own or pouch tobacco: “Organic tobacco does NOT mean safer tobacco.”

Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company has until April 1, 2010 to meet these requirements in the placement of future advertising. All tobacco retailers selling these products must be contacted and instructed to dispose of old advertisements that do not feature these disclosures once updated advertisements and point of sale materials are received.

Organic tobacco is certified under the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Organic Program. To receive organic certification, tobacco farmers have to follow a strict, labor-intensive growing regimen. Certified organic tobacco is grown without the use of pesticides and fertilizers prohibited under the program.

Thirty-two other attorneys general signed onto Brown’s agreement today from the following states: Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, South Dakota, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin. Additionally, the attorney general of the District of Columbia signed onto the agreement.

Brown’s agreement with Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc. is attached.

Brown Calls for Prospective Enforcement of Early-Release Law

February 16, 2010
Contact: (916) 210-6000, agpressoffice@doj.ca.gov

Sacramento—Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. today sent a law-enforcement bulletin to California’s district attorneys and sheriffs in which he asserted his position that California Penal Code Section 4019, the new law that reduces jail time for prisoners in local facilities, applies prospectively.

The Attorney General has begun filing briefs in a series of court cases advancing his position that Penal Code 4019 provides enhanced good-time and work credits to prisoners during the time spent in prison after January 25, but not before.

“In response to numerous inquiries, this bulletin states the position of the Department of Justice,” Brown said. “After analyzing the code section, it seems reasonably clear that the law should apply prospectively.”

The bulletin, distributed today throughout the state, is below:

BULLETIN TO ALL CALIFORNIA LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES

Re: CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE SECTION 4019

Effective January 25, 2010, Penal Code section 4019 was amended to change the calculation of good-time and work credits earned by prisoners not guilty of sex or violent crimes while they are confined in local facilities. The amendment states that these prisoners will earn one day credit for every day they are confined so long as they comply with applicable rules and do not refuse to perform labor. Before this section was amended, these prisoners generally earned one day credit for two days they were confined.

District Attorneys and county counsel have differing views on whether the amendment is retroactive (i.e., applies to the time prisoners were confined before January 25) or prospective (i.e., applies only to the time prisoners are confined after January 25). These differences are understandable since the Legislature was silent on the issue when it enacted the amendment.

Ultimately, the courts will have to decide whether the amendment is retroactive or prospective, and it is not normally the role of the Attorney General to resolve differences in possible interpretations of criminal statutes affecting local law-enforcement matters. But in light of numerous questions that have arisen, this Law Enforcement Bulletin summarizes the position that the Attorney General set forth in a brief filed last week, and will continue to advance in briefs that will be filed today and in subsequent weeks, in cases before the state courts of appeal. That position is that Penal Code section 4019 should be deemed prospective because there is no clear evidence that the Legislature intended it to be retroactive.

“[I]n the absence of an express retroactivity provision, a statute will not be applied retroactively unless it is very clear from extrinsic sources that the Legislature . . . intended a retroactive application.” (Evangelatos v. Superior Court (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1188, 1209) (citing Penal Code section 3).) Here, there are no clear extrinsic sources demonstrating that the Legislature intended a retroactive application.
Rather than simply reducing sentences, the amendment is designed to encourage good behavior on the part of prisoners by increasing the amount of work and good-time credits that they can earn. In concluding that a similar amendment was prospective, the appellate court in In re Stinnette noted that the public purpose behind such laws “is the desirable and legitimate purpose of motivating good conduct among prisoners so as to maintain discipline and minimize threats to prison security. Reason dictates that it is impossible to influence behavior after it has occurred.” (In re Stinnette (1979) 94 Cal.App.3d 800, 806.) Although People v. Doganiere (1978) 86 Cal.App.3d 237, found that an amendment to the calculation of conduct credits could be imposed retroactively, the holding is unpersuasive because the court failed to address the point that conduct credits are intended by their nature to influence future behavior.

If the Legislature had intended to lower incarceration costs by reducing prison sentences retroactively, it could easily have done so through a more direct means, such as increasing credits in a manner unrelated to prisoner conduct. The fact that it declined to do so, combined with its failure to expressly address retroactivity, supports our position that the amendment should be applied prospectively.

Brown and Arizona AG Goddard Announce $94 Million Agreement with Western Union to Fight Money Laundering by Mexican Cartels

February 11, 2010
Contact: (916) 210-6000, agpressoffice@doj.ca.gov

Los Angeles – Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. today announced a $94 million settlement with Western Union Financial Services, Inc., that resolves a decade-long investigation into illicit money transfers that “have flowed freely” in the Southwest border region.

The settlement includes $50 million in funding for the “Southwest Border Anti-Money Laundering Alliance,” a four-state coalition against money laundering that includes the attorneys general of Arizona, California, New Mexico and Texas.

“For years, billions of dollars in smuggling profits have flowed freely between the United States and Mexico,” Brown said. “Today’s agreement with Western Union gives our region the resources and cooperation we need to stem the flow of illicit cash across our borders.”

The settlement follows a decade-long investigation by the Office of the Arizona Attorney General into illegal money-laundering activity in the Southwest border region. The investigation found that hundreds of millions of dollars are being channeled to drug, weapon and human traffickers through Western Union money transfers.

To resolve Arizona’s investigation and more effectively address illegal money laundering, Western Union has agreed to:

• Provide $50 million to establish and fund the Southwest Border Anti-Money Laundering Alliance;
• Invest $19 million over the next several years into upgrades to its anti-money-laundering program;
• Provide $4 million to support an independent monitoring program established to ensure anti-money-laundering measures are implemented; and
• Pay $21 million to the State of Arizona to cover investigation and litigation expenses.

Additionally, today’s settlement requires Western Union to provide California with access to transaction data so investigators can track trends in the flow of illicit money, identify money-laundering points and target drug, weapon and human traffickers.

The Southwest Border Anti-Money Laundering Alliance will support and fund training, information sharing and other initiatives in member states and Mexico and will work to enhance and better coordinate money-laundering investigations and prosecutions. Under the agreement, law enforcement organizations in Arizona, California, New Mexico and Texas will each be guaranteed grants totaling a minimum of $7 million to bolster efforts to combat money laundering.

The U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency estimates that $18 billion to $39 billion is being smuggled from the United States to Mexico every year.

Today’s agreement with Western Union and the Southwest Border Anti-Money Laundering Alliance’s governing agreement are attached.

Brown Files Bribery Charges Against Public Officials in $102 Million Corruption Case

February 10, 2010
Contact: (916) 210-6000, agpressoffice@doj.ca.gov

San Bernardino, Calif.—Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. and San Bernardino County District Attorney Michael A. Ramos today announced the filing of criminal charges against former Chairman of the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors William Postmus and James Erwin, former Chief of Staff to Supervisor Neil Derry, on “conspiracy, corruption and bribery” charges related to a $102 million land-development settlement paid by San Bernardino County.

The complaint alleges that Erwin took $100,000 for inducing the Board of Supervisors to pay $102 million of taxpayer’s money to Colonies, a development company, in a fraudulent settlement and that Postmus took a $100,000 bribe for his vote to approve it. If convicted of all charges, Erwin faces a maximum of twelve years in state prison, and Postmus faces a maximum of eight years in state prison.

“These individuals engaged in conspiracy, corruption and bribery that cost San Bernardino taxpayers more than $100 million,” Brown said. “This is one of the most appalling corruption cases ever seen in California, and we will aggressively pursue this conspiracy until all of the facts are exposed.”

In January 2007, Erwin was appointed Assistant Assessor of San Bernardino County, a job he held until he resigned in November that year. In September 2008, he was named Chief of Staff to San Bernardino County Supervisor Neil Derry.

Postmus served as a member of the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors from 2000 until January 2007, when he took office as San Bernardino County Assessor. He resigned in February 2009.

In 2002, Colonies filed a lawsuit against the County seeking to recover $23.5 million it had spent on flood-control improvements and challenging the County’s easement rights that it claimed deprived Colonies of the ability to develop its property.

On November 28, 2006, the San Bernardino Board of Supervisors voted 3 to 2 to approve a settlement of $102 million with the Colonies, an amount based on an unsubstantiated demand and against the advice of County Counsel and private attorneys.

The complaint alleges those votes were obtained as part of a broad conspiracy which involved extortion and bribery, culminating in acts of public corruption that cost San Bernardino taxpayers tens of millions of dollars. The investigation uncovered four bribes totalling $400,000 paid by the Colonies to secure the settlement.

Colonies gave Erwin $100,000, which was deposited into the Committee for Effective Government PAC he controlled, for his role as an intermediary between Colonies and the supervisors to achieve the settlement. The complaint alleges that Erwin created political mailers depicting Postmus as a drug addict and homosexual in order to blackmail him into voting for the settlement. Erwin also created negative mailers against another supervisor prior to the vote.

In addition to the $100,000 bribe, Erwin accepted other gifts for his role as intermediary, including a private jet trip to New York, meals, lodging, entertainment, prostitutes and a watch. Erwin is facing charges of perjury in connection with failing to report those gifts after he became a county officer.

At the time of the vote to approve the settlement, Postmus was the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors and led the effort to approve the settlement. The complaint alleges that he received $100,000 from Colonies, which he funneled into two Political Action Committees (PACs) that Postmus set up specifically to receive the money. Postmus controlled both PACs, the Inland Empire PAC and “Conservatives for a Republican Majority,” but attempted to conceal his connection to them.

Postmus then transferred $50,000 from the Inland Empire PAC into his campaign account and used some of the funds for personal meals and entertainment.

The Chief of Staff for Supervisor Ovitt secretly controlled the Alliance for Ethical Government PAC, which received $100,000 from Colonies. The Chief of Staff received payments for campaign consulting from the PAC.

Colonies also gave $100,000 to the San Bernardino County Young Republicans PAC that was secretly controlled by a member of the board of supervisors who voted in favor of the settlement, and whom Erwin had threatened with the exposure of damaging information. Funds from the PAC were used to pay the supervisor’s campaign expenses and fund his campaign account.

The investigation is ongoing and may lead to additional arrests.

San Bernardino County District Attorney Michael A. Ramos stated, “The assistance of the Attorney General’s Office has been, and will continue to be, invaluable in our investigation. I would like to thank Attorney General Brown for providing the excellent assistance of Deputy Attorney General Melissa Mandel who has been working directly with our team and Senior Assistant Attorney General Gary Schons for his advice and direction over the past months. It is critical that confidence in their government be restored to the residents of San Bernardino County. This is just one more step in achieving that goal.”

In the Attorney General’s complaint filed today, Erwin was charged with nine felony counts, including:

• Conspiracy to Commit a Crime (Penal Code Section 182)
• Two counts of Corrupt Influencing (Penal Code Section 85)
• Two counts of Offering a Bribe to a Supervisor (Penal Code Section 165)
• Two counts of Extortion to Obtain an Official Act (Penal Code Section 518)
• Misappropriation of Public Funds (Penal Code Section 424)
• Forgery (Penal Code Section 470)

Postmus was charged with five felony counts, including:

• Conspiracy to Commit a Crime (Penal Code Section 182)
• Accepting a Bribe (Penal Code Section 86)
• Supervisor Accepting a Bribe (Penal Code Section 165)
• Conflict of Interest (Government Code Section 1090)
• Misappropriation of Public Funds (Penal Code Section 424)

The complaint is attached.

AttachmentSize
PDF icon n1859_colonies_complaint.pdf79.71 KB

Brown Sends Arsonist to Prison for Attempted Murder of San Diego County Nursing Home Residents

February 8, 2010
Contact: (916) 210-6000, agpressoffice@doj.ca.gov

San Diego—Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. today announced that Mary Louise Wilson, 54, of San Diego, has been sentenced to 19 years and 4 months in prison for attempting to “kill or seriously injure” nursing home residents by setting fires in the homes.

Today’s sentence marks the longest prison term that anyone convicted by the Attorney General’s Office has received in an elder abuse case.

“These fires were no accident. This woman meant to kill or seriously injure dozens of disabled people,” Brown said. “Residents of nursing homes are particularly vulnerable, so today’s sentence is an important victory in our fight against elder abuse in California communities.”

Brown’s Bureau of Medi-Cal Fraud and Elder Abuse (BMFEA) was created in 1978 to uncover Medi-Cal fraud and to combat the abuse and neglect of patients in nursing homes and other long-term care facilities. Since Brown took office, BMFEA has secured 217 criminal convictions and has collected more than $1.1 million in restitution and reimbursement.

In August 2009, Brown’s office, along with the National City Fire Department and the El Cajon Police Department, began an investigation into a series of fires set in nursing homes in the San Diego area.

The first incident occurred in January 2009 at El Dorado Care Center in El Cajon. Wilson, a resident of the facility, had been placed in a room with two other women. Neither of her two roommates was able to get in or out of bed without nursing assistance, and one of the women was attached to an oxygen tank.

In the middle of the night, Wilson set fire to the bed of one of her roommates while she was sleeping. A nurse heard the smoke alarm and used a fire extinguisher to put out the fire before anyone was hurt.

Four months later, Wilson, who was able to manage in a more independent environment, was transferred to Golden Paradise Senior Living, an assisted living center in National City.

Soon after being transferred, Wilson set fires in the second-floor trash chute, the first-floor dumpster and the second-floor library. She also threw burning materials down the trash chute. National City Fire Department firefighters and the building’s sprinkler system put out the fires before anyone was hurt.

Investigators from Brown’s office identified Wilson as a suspect by linking the fires at the two facilities. In October, she was charged with the crimes and pled guilty on January 5, 2010 to:

• Two counts of attempted murder;
• Three counts of arson;
• Two counts of attempted arson;
• One count of assault with a deadly weapon for threatening a resident with a knife; and
• One count of making a criminal threat with a deadly or dangerous weapon.

In addition to today’s court victory, BMFEA has investigated and prosecuted several other notable elder abuse cases in the past year. Late last year in Sacramento, Maria Elna Flora pleaded guilty to 12 counts of grand theft and burglary for stealing $435,100 from retirees to fund a daily gambling habit.

In September 2009, Brown filed charges against Pamela Ott, a Kern Valley Hospital administrator, for allowing staff to forcibly administer psychotropic medications to patients to sedate them for the staff’s convenience. The case is pending in Kern County Superior Court.

Wilson’s booking photo and a copy of the complaint are attached.

Brown Announces Former State Bar Employee Will Spend 2 Years, 8 Months in Prison for Embezzlement and Tax Fraud

February 5, 2010
Contact: (916) 210-6000, agpressoffice@doj.ca.gov

Oakland—Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. announced today that Sharon Elyce Pearl, 52, of Oakland, the former Director of Real Property for the State Bar of California, has been sentenced to two years and eight months in prison after she “methodically embezzled” more than $600,000 from her employer to spend on spa treatments, designer clothes and other luxury items.

“As the State Bar’s Director of Real Property, Pearl methodically embezzled more than $600,000 to bankroll a lavish lifestyle,” Brown said. “Under today’s sentence, Pearl will spend the next two years and eight months in prison and will be required to repay the State Bar and the State of California in full.”

In April 2009, Brown filed seven criminal charges against Pearl in Alameda County Superior Court, including:

• One criminal count of embezzlement for violating section 504 of the state Penal Code.
• Six counts of filing false tax returns for violating section 19706 of the state Revenue and Taxation Code.

Pearl pleaded no contest to all charges in December 2009.

As part of today’s sentence, Pearl was ordered to pay:

• $615,790 in restitution to the State Bar;
• $167,422 in staff, audit and attorney costs to the State Bar; and
• $116,652 in taxes, penalties, interest and investigation costs to the Franchise Tax Board.

Pearl has already paid $393,212 of the $615,790 owed to the State Bar in restitution.

In 1999, the State Bar purchased an office building at 180 Howard Street in San Francisco for its headquarters. The State Bar inherited tenants who leased retail space in the building. As the Director of Real Property, Pearl handled building management and collected rent from the building’s tenants.

As early as 2002, Pearl began to embezzle a portion of the rental funds she collected. As part of her scheme, Pearl directed some tenants to make their rent checks payable to “PLOT—The State Bar of California.” Unknown to the renters, “PLOT” stood for the Piedmont Light Opera Theatre.

Pearl deposited the checks into accounts held by the Piedmont Light Opera Theatre. Because she was a signatory on the theater's accounts, she could then transfer funds from the theater accounts to her personal bank account.

Pearl used the embezzled funds to pay for spa treatments, designer clothes, lavish meals and fancy hotel rooms. Because the State Bar did not track its rent payments, Pearl was able to continue her scheme for several years.

In 2008, the State Bar finally uncovered Pearl’s scheme when she requested a check for what she claimed was a tenant’s security deposit refund. Because there were no records that the tenant had ever paid a security deposit, the State Bar launched an internal investigation into the financial discrepancies.

The State Bar ultimately discovered that Pearl was maintaining two sets of books, and the investigation was referred to Brown’s Special Crimes Unit for prosecution.

The State Bar was created by the Legislature in 1927 and is a public corporation within the judicial branch of government, serving as an arm of the California Supreme Court. It admits attorneys for practice in the state, provides continuing education classes and conducts disciplinary hearings.

Copies of the original complaint and arrest warrant declaration are attached.

Brown Wins Fifth Suit Against Port Trucking Companies that Violated Workers' Rights

February 4, 2010
Contact: (916) 210-6000, agpressoffice@doj.ca.gov

Los Angeles—In an ongoing investigation of the state’s underground economy, Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. today announced a fifth legal judgment against trucking companies operating at California ports that deny workers “the Social Security, Medicare and workers’ compensation benefits to which they are entitled under state law.”

Last month, the Los Angeles Superior Court found that Pacifica Trucks, a Southern California fleet operator, misclassified its drivers as independent contractors. The company failed to pay state employment-related taxes, contribute to Social Security and Medicare and provide W-2 forms to its employees.

“We’re sending a clear message that if you cheat your workers, we’re coming after you,” Brown said. “Pacifica Trucks claimed that its workers were independent contractors in order to avoid paying the Social Security, Medicare and workers’ compensation benefits to which they are entitled under state law. This judgment validates our continuing effort to ensure that all employees are protected.”

In 2008, Brown filed a lawsuit against Pacifica Trucks for unlawfully classifying its workers as 'independent contractors,' circumventing state employment taxes and ignoring labor laws that guarantee workers’ compensation and disability benefits.

In the lawsuit, Brown argued that Pacifica Trucks had exclusive authority over its drivers and provided all of the trucks, equipment, gas, repairs, and other business-related expenses used by employees. Under these conditions, the drivers should have been classified as employees with legally mandated protections and benefits.

Brown also argued that, in violation of California Business and Professions Code 17200, Pacifica Trucks had an unfair advantage over its competitors through the cost savings achieved by misclassifying its workers.

The judgment requires Pacifica Trucks to permanently refrain from misclassifying truck drivers as independent contractors and to pay a penalty.

Brown previously won lawsuits against the following trucking companies for similar violations:

• Guasimal Trucking
• Jose Maria Lira Trucking
• Esdmundo Lira Trucking
• Noel and Emma Moreno Trucking

Brown’s office has pursued several other companies suspected of operating underground economy schemes and violating worker’s rights. Recently, Brown filed a lawsuit against Auto Spa Express Car Wash in Los Angeles for forcing its employees to work nearly 60-hour weeks without overtime, ignoring minimum-wage laws and denying workers' compensation benefits to injured employees.

Last year, Brown also filed a lawsuit against Charles Evleth Construction in Bakersfield to recover $4.3 million in lost wages and benefits for the company’s employees.

Copies of the complaint and judgment against Pacifica Trucks are attached.