Tag Archives: First Street Federal Courthouse

Will Salao Pleads Guilty To Bribery And Corruption Charges — His Plea Deal Was Evidently Signed In September 2018 And Filed Under Seal — It Is Still Under Seal — Evidently This Makes It Likely That He Snitched Out His Codefendant Scott Seo — Who Also Pled Guilty Today — And Whose Plea Deal Was Signed On November 20 — Not Under Seal — Photography Is Forbidden In Federal Court — But MK.Org’s Own Courtroom Artist Takes Care Of Business!

November 29, 2018 Mike Leave a comment

Will Salao, corrupt and discredited and federally indicted former ABC agent, this morning in federal court before judge John Kronstadt changed his plea to guilty as he was scheduled to do. During the procedure it came out that Salao’s plea agreement with the government was filed under seal on September 19, 2018. This is big news because the indictment, also under seal at first, wasn’t filed until September 21, 2018. It sure looks like the indictment must have been based on Salao’s cooperation, does it not?

This theory is consistent with the fact that Salao changed his plea to guilty directly after his coconspirator Scott Seo, who also pled guilty this morning, signed a plea agreement on November 20, 2018. This agreement is not under seal and you can get a copy here if you are interested. Even though Salao’s plea agreement is still sealed, some facts about it came out in the hearing. For instance, he will be ordered to pay no more than $23,400 in restitution. By contrast Seo agreed to pay approximately $88,400.
Continue reading Will Salao Pleads Guilty To Bribery And Corruption Charges — His Plea Deal Was Evidently Signed In September 2018 And Filed Under Seal — It Is Still Under Seal — Evidently This Makes It Likely That He Snitched Out His Codefendant Scott Seo — Who Also Pled Guilty Today — And Whose Plea Deal Was Signed On November 20 — Not Under Seal — Photography Is Forbidden In Federal Court — But MK.Org’s Own Courtroom Artist Takes Care Of Business! →

Hypocrisy, Miscellaneous

Is Will Salao Planning To Change His Plea To “Guilty”? — Something Is Happening But We Don’t Know What It Is — Hearing Scheduled For Thursday, November 29, At 8:30 A.M.

November 16, 2018 Mike Leave a comment

This is just a very short note to announce that mere moments ago a text-only scheduling notice hit PACER which suggests the possibility that ultra-corrupt former ABC agent Will Salao may be changing his plea. You will recall that he was indicted under seal in September and possibly also that he pled not guilty to all charges last month. But as I said, just after 7 p.m. this evening, the following note showed up on PACER:

(IN CHAMBERS) ORDER SETTING CHANGE OF PLEA HEARING RE DEFENDANT WILBUR M. SALAO (2) by Judge John A. Kronstadt: Pursuant to the request of the parties, the Court sets a hearing regarding Defendant’s change of plea for November 29, 2018 at 8:30 a.m. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (ake) TEXT ONLY ENTRY

I don’t know what it means, but doubtless it means something. Turn the page for courtroom information.
Continue reading Is Will Salao Planning To Change His Plea To “Guilty”? — Something Is Happening But We Don’t Know What It Is — Hearing Scheduled For Thursday, November 29, At 8:30 A.M. →

Lawsuits

Discussions On City Of LA’s Motion For Clarification Of Otero’s Preliminary Injunction Forbidding Confiscation Of Homeless Property In Skid Row Finally Break Down, Leading Plaintiffs’ Attorneys To File Scathing Opposition — Hearing Set For September 11 At 10 a.m.

August 22, 2017 Mike Leave a comment

See Gale Holland’s excellent story in the Times on Mitchell v. LA as well as our other stories on the subject for the background to this post. See here to download most of the papers filed in the case.

It’s been over a year since anything tangible happened in Mitchell v. City of LA, which is the most recent lawsuit against the City of Los Angeles challenging the City’s abhorrent enforcement of the abhorrent LAMC 56.11 as an abhorrent justification for the illegal and immoral confiscation of the personal property of homeless people in Los Angeles. Here’s a brief timeline of what’s been going on:

April 2016 — Judge Otero issues a preliminary injunction severely limiting the City’s enforcement of LAMC 56.11 in Skid Row.
May 2016 — The City of Los Angeles asks Otero to clarify his injunction. In particular, the City wanted to know the boundaries within which the injunction applies and also how the community caretaking exception to the Fourth Amendment is to be exercised in relation to homeless people’s property.
Subsequently the City and the plaintiffs spent over a year trying to come to an agreement on the motion for clarification.

Well, yesterday Carol Sobel filed this opposition announcing that, while the parties were able to agree on the boundaries within which the injunction applies and some other matters, they most certainly were not able to agree on the community caretaking matter and neither were they able to agree on the City’s proposal for what constitutes a removable “bulky item.” The agreed-upon boundaries, by the way, are:

Second Street to the north, Eighth Street to the South, Alameda Street to the east and Spring Street to the west.

According to the American Bar Association Journal,

The idea behind community caretaking is that police do not always function as law enforcement officials investigating and ferreting out wrongdoing, but sometimes may act as community caretakers designed to prevent harm in emergency situations.

When they’re functioning in that role, the theory goes, they can seize cars without due process, or search houses without a warrant, and so on, as long as they’re “caring for the community” rather than investigating. Thus the community caretaking function justifies some specific exceptions to the Fourth Amendment prohibition on warrantless searches and seizures of property.

And I’m sure you can imagine just what kinds of mischief the City of Los Angeles is capable of getting up to with a tool like that. In particular they’re arguing that they ought to be able to confiscate people’s property when they’re arrested even if the arrestee has someone at the scene who can take custody of the property. The City says yes, sane people say no.

This matter is scheduled for a hearing at 10 a.m. on Monday, September 11, in Otero’s Courtroom 10C in the First Street Federal Courthouse. Anyway, turn the page for some excerpts from the filing which explain things better than I’m capable of doing.
Continue reading Discussions On City Of LA’s Motion For Clarification Of Otero’s Preliminary Injunction Forbidding Confiscation Of Homeless Property In Skid Row Finally Break Down, Leading Plaintiffs’ Attorneys To File Scathing Opposition — Hearing Set For September 11 At 10 a.m. →

Cory Spencer v. Lunada Bay Boys

Judge Otero Extends All Lunada Bay Boys Case Deadlines, Moves Hearing To September 5 From August 21

July 26, 2017 Mike Leave a comment

For background take a look at this excellent article from the Times on this lawsuit. Also see here to download all pleadings in this case.

Remember two days ago when the plaintiffs in the Lunada Bay Boys zillionaire surf-thuggery case asked for extra time to respond to all the defense motions for summary judgment? Well today Judge Otero issued an order extending all the response deadlines, including defendants’ deadlines to reply to the responses, and continuing the hearing, formerly scheduled for August 21, until September 5, 2017 at 10 a.m. in James Otero’s courtroom 10C in the First Street Federal Courthouse. Transcription of the order after the break.
Continue reading Judge Otero Extends All Lunada Bay Boys Case Deadlines, Moves Hearing To September 5 From August 21 →

Cory Spencer v. Lunada Bay Boys

Lunada Bay Boys OMFG More Motions For Summary Judgment: Charlie And Frank Ferrara Now — Perhaps This Is The Last Of Them?

July 25, 2017 Mike Leave a comment

For background take a look at this excellent article from the Times on this lawsuit. Also see here to download all pleadings in this case.

The last ten days have seen defendant after defendant file motions for summary judgment saying that they themselves didn’t personally do anything to the plaintiffs so the case against them should be dropped. I wonder if this is related to the fact that the case wasn’t certified as a class action? Like maybe the defendants did stuff to other people who just don’t happen to be the plaintiffs?

In any case, yesterday night late Charlie and Frank Ferrara filed their motions and a bunch of supporting paper. It all looks really interesting but I don’t have time to do more than provide links to the documents in the Archive.Org collection of pleadings in the case. They are after the break, and here is a list of all of my posts on these motions for summary judgment so far:

Oh, one little thing more. In this Declaration of Tiffany Bacon in support of Charlie Ferrara’s motion, which has tons of excerpts from depositions, we find this stunning bit of lawyer humor when they’re asking Charlie Ferrara if he heard Jalian Johnston sexually harassing Diana Reed. Samantha Wolff is asking questions, Ms. Hurley is representing Charlie Ferrara:

Q. Do you recall whether or not Mr. Johnston was acting in a sexually suggestive manner at the time?

MS. HURLEY: Objection, calls for speculation, calls for expert opinion testimony, lacks foundation.

Calls for expert opinion testimony indeed, friends!

Also, don’t forget that the hearing for all of these defense motions for summary judgment is scheduled for August 21, 2017, at 10:00 a.m in James Otero’s courtroom 10C in the First Street Federal Courthouse.
Continue reading Lunada Bay Boys OMFG More Motions For Summary Judgment: Charlie And Frank Ferrara Now — Perhaps This Is The Last Of Them? →

Cory Spencer v. Lunada Bay Boys

Lunada Bay Boys Defendants Angelo Ferrara, Jalian Johnston, and Brant Blakeman File Motions For Summary Judgment, Blakeman Makes Highly Rapey Argument That Johnston Couldn’t Have Assaulted Diana Reed By Spraying Beer On Her Cause She Was Smiling The Whole Time, Plaintiffs Ask For Extra Time To Respond To Barrage Of Motions

July 24, 2017 Mike Leave a comment

Jalian Johnston spraying beer on Diana Reed next to the Lunada Bay Boys fort. Brant Blakeman: They taught me at the Palos Verdes School Of Bro-fessional Surf Thuggery that smiles equal consent…”

For background take a look at this excellent article from the Times on this lawsuit. Also see here to download all pleadings in this case.

Earlier today I wrote about a bunch of filings in the Lunada Bay Boys case, but clearly I wrote too soon. Quite soon after I published that post, a bunch more paper hit PACER. This includes motions for summary judgment from defendants Angelo Ferrara, Jalian Johnston, and Brant Blakeman. There’s also a request from the plaintiffs for a time extension to respond to all these zillions of defense motions for summary judgment. A major argument therein is, as promised, the fact that Jalian Johnston won’t be deposed until July 28 and the unextended deadline for the plaintiffs to respond is July 31.

If there’s an award for rapiest pleading filed in federal court, Blakeman’s motion is gonna be a strong contender. He actually claims that even though Jalian Johnston did spray beer on Diana Reed, she was smiling the whole time so it can’t be assault:

Plaintiffs’ case against moving party Brant Blakeman consist solely of Spencer’s claim that Blakeman surfed too close to him on one occasion at Lunada Bay and Reed’s claim that Blakeman videotaped her at the patio structure at the Bay when defendant Alan Johnston opened a can of beer that sprayed some drops on her arm.

These factual claims fall far short of establishing a violation of the Bane Act by Blakeman, which requires violent acts, physical threats, coercion, or intimidation resulting in fear of injury or harm and, thereby, prevents them from exercising a constitutional right. With respect to the incident in which Blakeman did nothing more than videotape Reed, who, by the way, was photographing Blakeman and others with her own camera and invited a photographer from the LA Times, Reed can be seen throughout the video smiling, smirking, and in no apparent distress. Indeed, she spent over 60 minutes at the bay and made no attempt to leave the patio structure

Anyway, turn the page for links to the new filings. I’m super-busy with another project, to be announced soonest,¹ so no time for more than that. Also, don’t forget that the hearing for all of these defense motions for summary judgment is scheduled for August 21, 2017, at 10:00 a.m in James Otero’s courtroom 10C in the First Street Federal Courthouse.
Continue reading Lunada Bay Boys Defendants Angelo Ferrara, Jalian Johnston, and Brant Blakeman File Motions For Summary Judgment, Blakeman Makes Highly Rapey Argument That Johnston Couldn’t Have Assaulted Diana Reed By Spraying Beer On Her Cause She Was Smiling The Whole Time, Plaintiffs Ask For Extra Time To Respond To Barrage Of Motions →

Cory Spencer v. Lunada Bay Boys

City Of PVE Argues That They Put Many Cops On Anti-Bay-Boy Patrol, Tying Up Resources And Allowing Criminals From South Central LA To Commence Unprecedented “Burglary Spree” — Residents Complained But Kepley Kept Cops On Bay Anyway, Which Is How Seriously He Took It. Therefore, Your Honor, Please Dismiss The Damn Case! Also 9th Circuit Won’t Hear Interlocutory Appeal On Class Action Certification

July 14, 2017 Mike Leave a comment

For background take a look at this excellent article from the Times on this lawsuit. Also see here to download all pleadings in this case.

Today the City of Palos Verdes Estates and its police chief, Jeff Kepley who, along with the Lunada Bay Boys themselves, are defendants in the monumental anti-localism case brought by Cory Spencer and his co-plaintiffs, filed a massive slew of papers with the court. The main item is this motion for summary judgment, asking the judge to obliterate the case against PVE and Kepley.

The rest of the paper filed consists of various exhibits and proposed orders in support of this motion, and is extremely interesting as it contains huge selections from the depositions of Cory Spencer and Diana Reed. There are links to all the new stuff after the break along with brief descriptions. There is presently a hearing on this motion scheduled for August 21, 2017, at 10:00 a.m in James Otero’s courtroom 10C in the First Street Federal Courthouse.

The merits of the motion are beyond my amateurish capacity to discuss, although they make interesting reading if you’re so inclined. The main argument seems to be that the plaintiffs didn’t really suffer any harm, and the City didn’t have a duty to do anything more than what they did to protect them. Also, the following freakish little argument did catch my eye. My general feeling is that the appearance of “gang-affiliated criminal groups from south Los Angeles” in government-generated discourse is irrefutable evidence that they’re lying. But judge for yourself:

A number of the above-described events (as well as Plaintiff Spencer and Reed’s alleged incidents discussed under the factual background above) took place during a time the City was experiencing a substantial increase in residential burglaries by organized gangs or gang-affiliated criminal group from south Los Angeles. It is typical for the City to have zero to three burglaries per month, but in December 2015 the City experienced 20 to 25 burglaries. In fact, a number of residents complained about the amount of law enforcement resources allocated toward patrolling Lunada Bay, as well as the tough stance Chief Kepley took against local surfers harassing or intimidating other surfers. Nonetheless, the City directed law enforcement resources to ensuring access to Lunada Bay and preventing harassment. Chief Kepley opined that given so few incidents at Lunada Bay and the burglary spree in the City that the Police Department efforts were appropriate and reasonable in scope and size.

Also, you may recall that in March the plaintiffs asked the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for permission to file a motion asking them to overturn Judge Otero’s decision to deny certification as a class action. I didn’t hear about it at the time, but one of the exhibits filed today is the Ninth Circuit’s denial of the request for permission to appeal. Anyway, turn the page for links to and brief descriptions of all the new paper filed today.
Continue reading City Of PVE Argues That They Put Many Cops On Anti-Bay-Boy Patrol, Tying Up Resources And Allowing Criminals From South Central LA To Commence Unprecedented “Burglary Spree” — Residents Complained But Kepley Kept Cops On Bay Anyway, Which Is How Seriously He Took It. Therefore, Your Honor, Please Dismiss The Damn Case! Also 9th Circuit Won’t Hear Interlocutory Appeal On Class Action Certification →

Business Improvement Districts, Cory Spencer v. Lunada Bay Boys, Municipal Ethics

Almost 200 Emails Between the City Of LA And the East Hollywood BID. Also, Lunada Bay Boys Hearing Tomorrow And Also Ethics Commission Meeting!

February 20, 2017 Mike Leave a comment

Dwarf bottlebrush plant from some plans that the East Hollywood BID exchanged with a bunch of lackeys at the City of LA in preparation for planting them along Vermont Avenue, most likely to thwart the homeless in some manner.

Tonight I had the pleasure of receiving from self-proclaimed active member of the revitalized Hollywood community¹ Jeffrey Charles Briggs almost 200 emails between the East Hollywood Business Improvement District and various far-too-friendly folks at the City of Los Angeles. For now these are available here on Archive.Org. They’re PDFs, but they’re that super-PDF-format that one can make with genuine Adobe software that embeds attachments right in there with clickable links.² I have only been able to give these a cursory look-over, but I can already see a few crucial items. I’ll be writing on these matters as soon as I possibly can, but if you want a preview of one of them take a look at this juicy little number.

And tomorrow is a huge day at the Civic Center. ~~In the morning there is a hearing in the Lunada Bay Boys case, featuring Palos Verdes Peninsula zillionaire surf-localism-thuggery at its most flamboyantly weird.~~ In the afternoon there is an essential meeting of the Ethics Commission. Turn the page for times, locations, and brief descriptions. Perhaps I’ll see you there!
Continue reading Almost 200 Emails Between the City Of LA And the East Hollywood BID. Also, ~~Lunada Bay Boys Hearing Tomorrow~~ And Also Ethics Commission Meeting! →

Cory Spencer v. Lunada Bay Boys

Lunada Bay Boys Defendant Brant Blakeman Raises Questions About Proposed Class Representative Diana Reed’s “credibility and interest in litigating the case” On Basis Of Default Judgment Against Her For Fraud Involving, Inter Alia, Aerosmith Concert in Mexico City

January 25, 2017 Mike Leave a comment

If you want to know what Aerosmith has to do with anything you have to read the blog post!

Oh dear. Hitting PACER just now is Defendant Brant Blakeman’s Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification. It seems that plaintiff Diana Reed was sued in LA County Superior Court for breach of contract, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and a few other such torts, arising out of a music promotion business run by Reed and her husband Gabe. Blakeman is arguing that these allegations, along with the fact that Reed didn’t defend the suit, make her unfit to represent the class of people harmed in the Lunada Bay Boys case.

According to the complaint in the fraud suit,¹ the Reeds accepted tens of thousands of dollars from the business manager of some band in exchange for the band being allowed to open for an Aerosmith concert in Mexico City and to go on some rock tour that the Reeds were promoting. None of this ever happened, the band didn’t get its money back, they sued, the Reeds didn’t defend the case, and the court entered a default judgment for more than $440,000.

Bay Boys defendant Blakeman is asking the court to take judicial notice of the complaint and the default judgment against Reed as part of his argument that she’s not moral enough to represent the class of people harmed by the actions of the Bay Boys. The reasoning runs like this:²
Continue reading Lunada Bay Boys Defendant Brant Blakeman Raises Questions About Proposed Class Representative Diana Reed’s “credibility and interest in litigating the case” On Basis Of Default Judgment Against Her For Fraud Involving, Inter Alia, Aerosmith Concert in Mexico City →

Cory Spencer v. Lunada Bay Boys

City Of Palos Verdes Estates Tells Federal Court That One Of The Plaintiffs’ Experts Ain’t Expert Enough, Other Documents Filed Including Many Responses To Interrogatories

January 21, 2017 Mike Leave a comment

A really pretty archetypally Californian road in the really pretty archetypally Californian City of Palos Verdes Estates, which is a really pretty archetypally Californian example of the kind of hell on earth that gets created around here when zillionaires are allowed to own entire cities and operate them according to customary zillionaire practices.

This is just a short note to memorialize the fact that a bunch of paperwork was filed in the case of Cory Spencer v. Lunada Bay Boys. I have added the new material to the Archive.Org page (look for docket numbers 204 through 207). There are links to and brief descriptions of the new material after the break. Don’t forget to look at the plaintiffs’ responses to the defendants’ interrogatories, which aren’t always available to the public via PACER. In this case they were put on the record as part of a lawyer’s declaration. And also don’t forget that there’s an upcoming hearing on the plaintiffs’ motion to certify the case as a class action, scheduled for Tuesday, February 21 at 10 a.m. in Judge Otero’s courtroom 10C in the First Street Courthouse downtown.
Continue reading →