Burbank Independent_6/26/2023

PG 02

Justice Samuel Alito took luxury fishing vacation with GOP billionaire who later had cases before the court

By Justin Elliott, Joshua Kaplan, Alex Mierjeski for ProPublica

Series: Friends of the Court

In early July 2008, Samuel

Alito stood on a riverbank in a remote corner of Alaska. The Supreme Court justice was on vacation at a luxury fishing lodge that charged more than $1,000 a day, and after catching a king salmon nearly the size of his leg, Alito posed for a picture. To his left, a man stood beaming: Paul Singer, a hedge fund billionaire who has repeatedly asked the Supreme Court to rule in his favor in high-stakes business disputes.

Singer was more than a fellow angler. He flew Alito to Alaska on a private jet. If the justice chartered the plane himself, the cost could have exceeded $100,000 one way.

In the years that followed, Singer’s hedge fund came before the court at least 10 times in cases where his role was often covered by the legal press and mainstream media. In 2014, the court agreed to resolve a key issue in a

decade-long battle between Singer’s hedge fund and the nation of Argentina. Alito did not recuse himself from the case and voted with the 7-1 majority in Singer’s favor. The hedge fund was ultimately paid $2.4 billion.

Alito did not report the 2008 fishing trip on his annual financial disclosures. By failing to disclose the private jet flight Singer provided, Alito appears to have violated a federal law that requires justices to disclose most gifts, according to ethics law experts.

Experts said they could not identify an instance of a justice ruling on a case after receiving an expensive gift paid for by one of the parties.

“If you were good friends, what were you doing ruling on his case?” said Charles Geyh, an Indiana University law professor and leading expert on recusals. “And if you weren’t good friends, what were you doing accepting this?” referring to the flight on the private jet.

Justices are almost

entirely left to police themselves on ethical issues, with few restrictions on what gifts they can accept. When a potential conflict arises, the sole arbiter of whether a justice should step away from a case is the justice him or herself.

ProPublica’s investigation sheds new light on how luxury travel has given prominent political donors — including one who has had cases before the Supreme Court — intimate access to the most powerful judges in the country. Another wealthy businessman provided expensive vacations to two members of the high court, ProPublica found. On his Alaska trip, Alito stayed at a commercial fishing lodge owned by this businessman, who was also a major conservative donor. Three years before, that same businessman flew Justice Antonin Scalia, who died in 2016, on a private jet to Alaska and paid the bill for his stay.

Such trips would be unheard of for the vast

majority of federal workers, who are generally barred from taking even modest gifts.

Leonard Leo, the longtime leader of the conservative Federalist Society, attended and helped organize the Alaska fishing vacation. Leo invited Singer to join, according to a person familiar with the trip, and asked Singer if he and Alito could fly on the billionaire’s jet. Leo had recently played an impor-

tant role in the justice’s confirmation to the court. Singer and the lodge owner were both major donors to Leo’s political groups.

ProPublica’s examination of Alito’s and Scalia’s travel drew on trip planning emails, Alaska fishing licenses, and interviews with dozens of people including private jet pilots, fishing guides, former high-level employees of both Singer and the lodge owner, and

other guests on the trips. ProPublica sent Alito a list of detailed questions last week, and on Tuesday, the Supreme Court’s head spokeswoman told ProPublica that Alito would not be commenting.

Several hours later, The Wall Street Journal published an op-ed by Alito responding to ProPublica’s questions

Metro recognizes leadership of Ara Najarian, elects Karen Bass as next chair

Metro’s Board of Directorson

Thursday expressed their gratitude toward Chair Ara Najarian for his leadership amid a year of challenges, recovery and expansion.

Najarian presided over his last board meeting Thursday as he rotated out of the position and passed along the gavel to Los

Angeles Mayor Karen Bass.

“So what a year it’s been — and with apologies to Charles Dickens — it was the shortest of years and the longest of years,” Najarian said. “All of you have made it incredible for me. I really want to express my heartfelt appreciation to each and every one of you.”

Najarian became chair in 2022 after LA County

By City News Service

Supervisor Hilda Solis’ term ended. During his term as chair, Najarian led the board as it faced numerous challenges from budget constraints, security, safety, homelessness, COVID-19 recovery,infrastructure improvements and changing travel patterns.

“But through it all, we have all maintained an unyielding determination to

meet these challenges head on,” Najarian said.

Under his leadership, Metro opened its K Line and, just recently, the Regional Connector.

“We’ve seen growth in our agency in the past year and we’re on an upward trend. We’ve got new service routes, state-of-the-art technologies, sustainability initiatives to maintain our ecolog-

ical footprint — to minimize it and keep it even lower,” he added.

Stephanie Wiggins, Metro CEO, said ridership continues to make gains.

In May, Metro averaged almost 900,000 rides per day on combined bus and rail systems — the “highest level” since before the pandemic.

“Ridership recovery on

the weekends continues to outpace recovery on the weekdays,” Wiggins added.

“We’re now recovered 88% of our pre-pandemic ridership on the weekends for both bus and rail to 74% on the weekdays.”

During Najarian’s term, Metro’s board led efforts

Downtown LA intersection dedicated in honor of LGBTQIA+ icons

PG 27

Watts metal salvage yard near school charged with illegal waste handling

This story was originally published by ProPublica. ProPublica is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative newsroom. Sign up for The Big Story newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox.

Justice Samuel Alito in 2013. | Photo by Italy in US (CC BY-ND 2.0)

See Samuel Alito Page 14

Independent truck operators protest to renew LA city contract

By City News Service

Truckersprotested at two locations in downtown Los Angeles Wednesday to urge city officials to renew contracts with them for the city’s As-Needed Haul Truck Program.

Members of the Los Angeles City Contract Truck Association rallied outside City Hall and the city’s Public Works building, and were expected to continue to protest outside City Hall from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. through last Friday.

“Everything is going to be focused on City Hall for the next two days,” LACCTA Secretary Kenyatta Cole told City News Service on Wednesday. “We’re going to have lined up about 100 trucks, and we’re going to make noise.”

According to Cole,

LACCTA members received letters on May 31 informing them the city would not be able to renew contracts with them for its As-Needed Haul Truck Program. The contracts are set to expire June 30.

The Bureau of Street Services program dates back to the 1890s. Officials said it was introduced during a period of growth when “additional trucking was required to assist city forces in the building, maintenance and resurfacing of the city’s roads.”

The Bureau of Street Services, or StreetsLA, has since retained a list of “qualified and ready-to-work independent owner-operators” for short-term and long-term hauling projects.

“It really was a shocker.

It really hurts, and it’s detrimental (to our) businesses,” Cole said. “People are scared. They’re fearful because they don’t know why something like that would happen.”

LACCTA members, like many other Angelenos, are still struggling from the negative impacts of the coronavirus pandemic, he said. Many of them also fear falling into homelessness.

Cole emphasized that many members of LACCTA, including himself, are successful business owners and their work sustains families.

City officials cited state legislation AB 5, which was passed in 2020 and changed the California Labor Code, classifying some workers as employees rather than

independent contractors.

“This is having wide ramifications across the state, and will cause the haul truck program to end when current contracts expire at the end of June,”

Elena Stern, senior public information director for the Department of Public Works, which houses StreetsLA, said in a statement.

“We care very much about the livelihoods of our partners and have been working aggressively at the direction of the mayor to ensure that our 93 contract truckers are given the opportunity to continue employment, and that paving operations continue seamlessly,” Stern added.

Some LACCTA members addressed the City Council

during Wednesday’s public comment period.

Representatives Victor Vasquez and Mike Hernandez urged council members to advocate on their behalf and renew the contracts with independent truckers.

“The difference with us and everyone else is that

we’re a unique program, minority-based that’s existed for more than 133 years,” Vasquez said. “We work in-house. We don’t work for a broker and we just want more time for the city to wake up and understand that this can be done.”

Watts metal salvage yard near school charged with illegal waste handling

By City News Service

Ametal salvage and recyclingyard adjacent to Jordan High School in Watts was charged with 24 criminal counts for alleged illegal disposal of hazardous waste, the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office announced Wednesday.

S&W Atlas Iron and Metal Corp. and its owners Gary and Matthew Weisenberg were charged with 21 felony counts of knowingly disposing hazardous waste at a site with no permit and one felony count of deposit of

hazardous waste, prosecutors said. They were also charged with single misdemeanor counts of public nuisance and failure to maintain or operate a facility to minimize the possibility of a fire.

Arraignment for the defendants was set for Monday in downtown Los Angeles.

Benjamin Gluck, an attorney for Atlas and the Weisenbergs, said in a statement they were “disappointed to see the charges.”

“Atlas is actively working with the many public

agencies involved and is actually moving close to a global resolution,” Gluck said. “The district attorney declined to engage with us and chose instead to file charges. We have not learned the details of those charges yet, but we will defend this case vigorously.”

The charges are the latest legal entanglement for the company, which was sued in 2020 by the Los Angeles Unified School District. The federal lawsuit alleges hazardous substances, waste and fumes from the salvage

yard were endangering students and faculty at Jordan High. The suit even contended that a pair of explosions in 2002 sent metal shrapnel raining onto the campus.

According to the District Attorney’s Office, soil samples taken at the high school adjacent to the Atlas facility “showed excessive concentrations of lead and zinc,” while samples taken at Atlas found excessive concentrations of seven metals.

Prosecutors also claim metal debris believed to have originated from the Atlas

facility was found on the school grounds.

“The charging of Atlas Metal for their environmental crimes is a step toward justice for the children of Jordan High School and the community of Watts,” District Attorney George Gascón said in a statement. “Children deserve a safe and healthy environment to learn and grow in, and we must hold companies accountable for their actions that put our children’s health at risk. This serves as a reminder that we must prioritize the well-

being of our communities and take action against those who prioritize profits over people.”

LAUSD Superintendent Alberto Carvalho said the filing of charges is an important step in efforts to address “dangerous environmental health and safety impacts to our schools that result from incompatible land uses.”

He said such concerns are exacerbated “in underserved communities who are often confronted by adverse industrial impacts that cause air, water and land pollution.”

LA voters to decide limits on healthcare executive compensation

By City News Service

Los Angeles voters in March will decide the fate of a proposed ordinance seeking to impose a $450,000 cap on annual compensation for health care executives.

The Los Angeles City Council voted 11-0 Wednesday to place the initiative on the March 5 ballot.

Councilman John Lee recused himself from the vote, saying he sits on a “board on health care facilities.” Councilwoman Monica Rodriguez and Councilman Curren Price were absent from Wednesday’s council meeting.

The initiative ordinance, proposed by the Service Employees International Union Healthcare Workers West, or SEIU-UHW, would

impose salary limits on health care executives, contending the compensation paid to them is “often excessive, unnecessary and inconsistent with the mission of providing highquality, affordable medical care for all.”

The ordinance, if enacted, would also impact health care administrative professionals with executive, managerial or administrative duties at privately owned health care facilities in the city of Los Angeles.

SEIU-UHW argued in the initiative that executives, managers, and administrators of hospitals and other health care facilities can be “reasonably compensated without receiving more than the president of the United

States of America, currently $450,000 per year.”

At that rate of compensation, L.A. hospital and health care facilities will be more than able to attract and retain “effective executive leadership,” according

to the proposed ordinance.

SEIU-UHW submitted the initiative petition in February, then collected the required number of signatures to put the measure before the City Council. Pursuant to the city charter

section 452, when a certified initiative petition is presented the council must take one of three actions within 20 days -- adopt the proposed ordinance outright, call for a special election or submit the proposed ordinance to a vote at the next regular city/ statewide election.

According to the clerk’s office, a special election would have been the most expensive option, costing the city approximately $28.7 million.

The Hospital Association of Southern California, which represents 176 member hospitals and 31 health systems, sent a letter to the council urging the council to place the proposed ordinance on the ballot for voters to decide

rather than adopting it without a public vote.

“We firmly believe this measure would create significant disadvantages for local communities and ultimately compromise the quality and affordability of health care in the city,” the letter read.

The letter further detailed a concern of the organization that the proposed ordinance would target some hospitals while exempting others and excluding hospitals in neighboring communities.

“This exclusionary approach will create an uneven environment and impede the ability of targeted hospitals to retain and recruit top talent in the city of Los Angeles,” the letter read.

Los Angeles General Medical Center. | Photo by jondoeforty1 (CC BY-SA 2.0)

| Photo courtesy of the Los Angeles Bureau of Street Services

Editorial editorial@beaconmedianews.com editor@hlrmedia.com

Graphics/Production production@beaconmedianews.com production@hlrmedia.com

Advertising advertising@beaconmedianews.com advertising@hlrmedia.com

Legal Advertising legals@beaconmedianews.com legals@hlrmedia.com

Business accounting@beaconmedianews.com accounting@hlrmedia.com

BEACON MEDIA ADDRESS: 125 E. Chestnut Ave., Monrovia, CA 91016

PHONE: (626) 301-1010 WEBSITE www.beaconmedianews.com

HLR MEDIA ADDRESS: 820 S. Myrtle Ave. Monrovia, CA 91016 PHONE: (626) 301-1010 www.HLRmedia.com

PRESS RELEASE SUBMISSIONS editor@beaconmedianews.com editor@hlrmedia.com

Southern California man sentenced for role in Jan. 6 US Capitol attack

By City News Service

The Arcadia Weeklyhas been adjudicated as a newspaper of general circulation in court case number GS 004333 for the City of Arcadia, County of Los Angeles, State of California.

The Monrovia Weeklyhas been adjudicated as a newspaper of General Circulation in Court Case GS 004759 City of Monrovia, County of Los Angeles, State of California.

The Temple City Tribunehas been adjudicated as a newspaper of general circulation in court case number GS 012440 City of Temple City, County of Los Angeles, State of California.

The El Monte Examinerhas been adjudicated as a newspaper of general circulation in court case number KS 015872 City of El Monte, County of Los Angeles, State of California.

The Azusa Beaconhas been adjudicated as a newspaper of general circulation in court case number KS 015970 City of Azusa, County of Los Angeles, State of California.

The San Gabriel Sunhas been adjudicated as a newspaper of general circulation in court case number GS 013808 City of San Gabriel, County of Los Angeles, State of California.

The Duarte Dispatchhas been adjudicated as a newspaper of general circulation in court case number GS 013893 City of Duarte, County of Los Angeles, State of California.

The Rosemead Readerhas been adjudicated as a newspaper of general circulation in court case number GS 048894 City of Rosemead, County of Los Angeles, State of California.

The Alhambra Press has been adjudicated as a newspaper of general circulation in court case number ES016581 City of Alhambra, County of Los Angeles, State of California.

The Baldwin Park Press has been adjudicated as a newspaper of general circulation in court case number KS017174 City of Baldwin Park, County of Los Angeles, State of California.

The Burbank Independent has been adjudicated as a newspaper of general circulation in court case number ES016728 City of Burbank, County of Los Angeles, State of California.

The Glendale Independent has been adjudicated as a newspaper of general circulation in court case number ES016579 City of Glendale, County of Los Angeles, State of California.

The Monterey Park Press has been adjudicated as a newspaper of general circulation in court case number ES016580 City of Monterey Park, County of Los Angeles, State of California.

The West Covina Press has been adjudicated as a newspaper of general circulation in court case number KS017304 City of West Covina, County of Los Angeles, State of California.

The San Bernardino Press has been adjudicated as a newspaper of general circulation in court case number CIVDS 1506881 City of San Bernardino, County of San Bernardino, State of California.

The Riverside Independent has been adjudicated as a newspaper of general circulation in court case number RIC1505351 City of Riverside, County of Riverside, State of California.

The Pasadena Press has been adjudicated as a newspaper of general circulation in court case number ES018815 City of Pasadena, County of Los Angeles, State of California.

The Belmont Beacon has been adjudicated as a newspaper of general circulation in court case number NSO30275 City of Long Beach, County of Los Angeles, State of California.

The Anaheim Press has been adjudicated as a newspaper of general circulation in court case number 30-2017-00942735-CU-PT-CJC City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California.

The Ontario News Press has been adjudicated as a newspaper of general circulation in court case number CIVDS 1506881 City of Ontario, County of San Bernardino, State of California. The Corona News

ACaliforniaman convicted of using a stun gun on Metropolitan Police Officer Michael Fanone during the Jan. 6 Capitol riot in 2021 has been sentenced to 12.5 years in federal prison, prosecutors announced.

Daniel Joseph “’DJ” Rodriguez, who has listed Panorama City and Fontana as his hometowns in court papers, pled guilty to several charges in February. He was officially sentenced Wednesday to “conspiracy and obstruction of an official proceeding, obstruction of justice, and assaulting a law enforcement officer with a deadly or dangerous

weapon,” the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia said in a statement.

U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson added another 36 months of supervised release in addition to the prison sentence and for Rodriguez to pay $2,000 in restitution to the Architect of the Capitol and $96,927 to the Metropolitan Police Department for damages to Fanone.

Rodriguez and members of the PATRIOTS45MAGA

Gang traveled from California to Washington, D.C., on Jan. 6, 2021, for a Stop the Steal rally on the National Mall, according to court records.

He entered the Capitol, and according to court documents, “video footage taken from the incident depicts Rodriguez at the first set of double doors of the Capitol building facing the police line and deploying a fire extinguisher at the line of officers present.”

Furthermore, Rodriguez was seen using a long wooden pole and shoving it toward officers in the line, court documents show.

“After Rodriguez returned to the lower west terrace tunnel, court documents state that video footage taken from the scene of the incident depicts one rioter, Albuquerque Head,

wrapping his arm around the neck of an MPD officer and dragging the officer out on to the steps of the lower west terrace,” the statement said. “Rodriguez is then seen making his way toward the officer and, with the electroshock weapon in hand, plunging it into the officer’s neck. As the officer attempted to escape, court records state that Rodriguez struck again, placing the electroshock weapon on the back of the officer’s neck.”

The officer was later identified as Fanone, who served on the Metropolitan Police Department for nearly 20 years before resigning nearly a year after the Jan. 6 attack.

House censures Burbank Democrat Rep. Adam Schiff

By City News Service

TheRepublicancontrolled House of Representatives officially censured Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Burbank, Wednesday, a rare move taken in retribution for his leading role in the first impeachment of then-President Donald Trump.

The House resolution, which passed along party lines, accused Schiff of “misleading the American public” during a congressional probe of alleged ties between Russia and Trump’s presidential campaign, and for his role in the impeachment.

Schiff defended himself on the House floor, almost taking pride in having raised the ire of Republicans and prompting such a “sham resolution.”

“You honor me with your

enmity. You flatter me with this falsehood,” Schiff said. “You, who are the authors of the ‘Big Lie’ about the last election must condemn the truth-tellers, and I stand proudly before you. Your words tell me that I have been effective in the defense of our democracy, and I am grateful.”

He took further aim at Republicans, saying it is they who should face censure for proliferating false claims about the last presidential election.

“Why are you not standing beside me, the subject of a similar rebuke for speaking the truth? Why did you not stand up to Donald Trump?” he asked. “Will it be said of you that you lacked the courage to stand up to the most immoral, unlawful and unethical president in

history, but consoled yourselves by attacking those who did?”

After the resolution passed, House Democrats repeatedly chanted “Shame” in unison.

The censure resolution was introduced by Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, R-Florida, who denied that the measure was a “partisan act,” but instead a “clear vote between right

and wrong.” Luna originally introduced the resolution last week, but it failed to gain traction. Her revised resolution Wednesday had some substantive changes, most notably eliminating a proposed $16 million fine. Schiff is now a candidate for the U.S. Senate seat being vacated by Sen. Dianne Feinstein.

Rioters storm the U.S. Capitol Building on Jan. 6, 2021. | Photo courtesy of TapTheForwardAssist/Wikimedia Commons (CC BY-SA 4.0)

Rep. Adam Schiff. | Photo by Terry Miller/HeySoCal.com

Former jiujitsu student tentatively settles suit with academy

By City News Service

Ateenage girl who sued a former jiujitsu trainer and his Agoura Hills business, alleging he sexually molested her when she was one of his students, has reached a tentative settlement with another academy where she sometimes trained.

The girl is identified only as Jane Doe in the Los Angeles Superior Court lawsuit filed on her behalf by her guardian in November 2020 against 32-year-old Nicollas Welker Araujo, owner of the Overall Brazilian Jiujitsu Academy which opened in 2016 and has since been closed. Overall also is a defendant in the suit, as is the second school, Cobrinha Brazilian Jil Jitsu Executive.

Attorneys for the plaintiff filed court papers on Thursday with Van Nuys Superior Court Judge Shirley K. Watkins notifying her of the tentative accord.

“The settlement agreement conditions dismissal of this matter on the satisfactory completion of specified terms,” the plaintiff’s attorneys’ court papers state, adding that a request for dismissal will be filed by Aug. 22. No settlement terms were revealed.

The judge was scheduled to hear Cobrinha’s motion to dismiss the part of the plaintiff’s case against the business on Friday. Cobrinha lawyers maintained in their court papers that although Cobrinha allowed Araujo the use of the Cobrinha logo and that a link to Overall was

on the Cobrinha website, Cobrinha “had no further arrangement with Overall and lacked any oversight or control over Overall.”

Doe went to Cobrinha once or twice weekly in order to train with better competitors and although Araujo arrived with her, he did not coach her and was instead himself a student there, according to the Cobrinha attorneys’ court papers.

“Despite Cobrinha’s deep sympathy for the pain and suffering that Araujo put plaintiff and her family through, there is no basis in law or facts to hang liability for these egregious attacks on an innocent third party,” the Cobrinha lawyers argued in their court papers. “The law is clear that the use of Cobrinha’s logo, without any control of Overall, does not transform Cobrinha and Overall into a single entity for liability purposes.”

Neither Araujo nor Overall have responded to the suit, according to the Cobrinha attorneys’ court papers.

But according to the plaintiff’s attorneys’ court papers, Araujo was “so emboldened by the platform that Cobrinha provided him with its utter lack of any supervision, Araujo would sexually abuse plaintiff in the parking lot serving Cobrinha within mere minutes of when plaintiff and Araujo were in Cobrinha’s gym.”

The plaintiff, then 13, began attending Overall

Brazilian for jiujitsu training in December 2016 and Araujo often coached the girl at Cobrinha, a jiujitsu studio affiliated with the academy, according to the suit.

That same month, Araujo began grooming Doe with the goal of “manipulating her emotions and taking advantage of her young age so that he could ultimately sexually abuse her,” the suit alleges.

Araujo began online adult-level conversations with Doe and gave her extra attention, the suit states. His first improper act was a kiss he gave the girl in February 2017 and that behavior progressed to unlawful sex acts that continued until October 2018, when Doe was 15 years old and for the first time had the mental strength to tell her family about the abuse, according to the suit.

Her relatives called law enforcement and Araujo was arrested in March 2019 and charged with felony counts that resulted in his being sentenced in September 2020 to three years in prison, according to the suit.

The suit alleges the academy “engaged in a concerted effort to hide evidence relating to childhood sexual assault, abuse and harassment perpetrated by Araujo against other minor children” before he allegedly abused the plaintiff.

“As a result of this coverup, plaintiff was sexually assaulted by Araujo,” the suit states.

| Photo courtesy of Wallpaper Flare (CC BY 2.0)

As California faces massive snowmelt, experts call for better flood management

By Suzanne Potter, Producer, Public News Service

Judge stays former Rep. Katie Hill’s revenge porn case against ex-husband

By City News Service

Snowmelt from this winter’s heavy storms threatens significant flooding - and conservation groups are calling for large-scale restoration of wetlands to help absorb excess water. In April, the Biden administration recommended more than $60-million go to projects in Northern California.

Janelle Kellman, founder of the nonprofit Center for Sea Rise Solutions, said the escalating climate crisis with its weather whiplash poses a serious threat.

“This funding could serve as a critical resource, enabling communities to construct resilient infrastructure that will safeguard today against rising sea levels, but also in the future around the increased storm intensity that we are now experiencing,” she said.

It’s estimated that 90% of the state’s wetlands have been lost - but efforts are underway to restore them, both along the coast and in traditional floodplains, like seasonally wet meadows in the Sierra foothills. Experts suggest, for example, that land managers could allow streams to flow in a braided fashion across meadows rather than channeling them into one place to facilitate grazing.

Conservation advocates also want the state to focus on recharging aquifers - instead of funneling floodwaters to the sea.

Letitia Grenier, senior scientist and resilient landscapes program director with the San Francisco Estuary Institute, said the state needs to take its cues from nature, and take a proactive approach - rather than reacting to extreme weather.

“The state needs to work with nature to restore the kinds of wetlands and floodplains within watersheds that can help people with flooding, that can help us with water supply and water quality, that can bring back places for wildlife to thrive and give us access to nature and the well-being that comes with that,” she contended.

Some state projects in the works include efforts to reintroduce beavers so their natural dams can divert water toward riverbank floodplains.

Support for this reporting was provided by The Pew Charitable Trusts.

Brad Pitt by 2016 had invested nearly $50 million more than had his former wife, Angelina Jolie, in the Chateau Miraval winery the former couple shared, according to an amended complaint Pitt filed that stems from a dispute over the sale by Jolie of her shares in the business.

Chateau Miraval is the 1,300-acre country estate the former couple bought in 2008 and where they married in 2014.

“This meant that Pitt had funded roughly 70% of the couple’s investment, while Jolie had funded the remaining 30%,” the revised complaint brought in Los Angeles Superior Court on Wednesday states. “These

Ajudge has put a hold on former Rep. Katie Hill’s revenge porn case against Hill’s former husband until the onetime politician is done with bankruptcy proceedings.

Hill sued her former spouse, Kenneth Heslep, and multiple media groups, in Los Angeles Superior Court in December 2020, alleging nude photos of her were published without her permission. Heslep is the only remaining defendant.

On Wednesday, Judge Serena R. Murillo put a stay on the case in light of the bankruptcy case and scheduled a status conference for Dec. 21. Although no one showed up on either side for the Wednesday hearing, the judge ordered that Anthony Friedman, an attorney for Hill, prepare a status report at least three days before the December session.

Another Hill lawyer, Carrie Goldberg, says in a sworn declaration that her client filed for bankruptcy in June 2022. The bankruptcy trustee is the only person authorized to pursue Hill’s claim against Heslep because the remaining claims belong to the debtor and are subject solely to the trustee’s administration, Goldberg says.

The media defendants were previously dismissed on free-speech grounds, and Hill was subsequently assessed thousands of dollars in attorneys’ fees.

Hill submitted a lengthy sworn declaration in oppo-

sition to one of the media defendants’ dismissal motion.

“My nude body is not a matter of public interest,” Hill said. “Moreover, even if my alleged relationship was a matter of public interest, that does not justify the illegal worldwide dissemination of my nude image. I was humiliated and traumatized by the circulation of the nude image.”

Hill alleged in her court papers that she lived in fear that if she ever tried to leave, Heslep would kill them both as well as their animals. She “suffered extreme emotional distress, attempted suicide and was forced to quit her job, which in this case was the representative of California’s 25th Congressional District, one of the most difficult-toget jobs in the universe,” her court papers state.

Hill, 35, and Heslep officially divorced in October 2020.

Hill, a Democrat,

Brad Pitt says he invested $50M more in winery than did Angelina Jolie

percentages and amounts were reflected in accounts that Jolie’s business manager would later send to Pitt.”

Russian billionaire Yuri Shefler; his longtime associate, Alexey Oliynik; and the firms, Tenute del Mondo B.V., and SPI Group Holding Ltd. remain defendants in the suits as well as Nouvel LLC, which Jolie formed as a vehicle for holding shares in Chateau Miraval. Before her alleged sale of Nouvel to the Stoli Group in 2021, Jolie was the sole member of the company and held 100% of its membership interest.

Pitt, 59, originally sued the 48-year-old Jolie in February 2022, alleging she wrongfully sold her

By City News Service

shares in the winery and estate to Shefler, who owns SPI Group, which produces Stolichnaya vodka.

In making his investments Pitt was assured, based on the former couple’s longtime relationship and marriage and their joint vision for Miraval as a family-owned and operated business, that they would hold Miraval together and that neither would dispose of his or her interest separately without the other’s consent, the amended complaint states.

“For many years, Jolie honored that commitment,” according to the revised suit, which further states Jolie continued to assure Pitt “while he continued to make these disproportion-

ate investments even after their separation.”

Pitt would not have made the expenditures “but for the rights Jolie owed him and these promises she made him,” according to the updated suit.

Jolie also never expressed any doubts about the value of Pitt’s contributions to the business or that Miraval reflected his vision, the amended suit states.

“Instead, she proposed compensating Pitt for his role in overseeing the investment,” the updated suit states.

Last Sept. 6, Nouvel LLC countersued Pitt, alleging claims including tortious interference with contractual relations and prospective economic advantage.

resigned in 2019 after the nude photos were published and news emerged that she had a three-way relationship with her husband and a campaign staffer. She was also accused of having an affair with a member of her congressional staff.

She publicly blamed her then-husband for the release of the photos.

Speaking in Congress in 2019, she decried a “misogynistic culture that gleefully consumed my naked pictures, capitalized on my sexuality and enabled my abusive ex to continue that abuse, this time with the entire country watching.”

The 25th Congressional District includes the Santa Clarita Valley and portions of the northern San Fernando and Antelope valleys and eastern Ventura County. The seat had long been held by Republicans until Hill’s 2018 victory over then-Rep. Steve Knight.

The seat is now held by Republican Mike Garcia.

Former U.S. Rep. Katie Hill. | Photo courtesy of Camilo Fernan/U.S. Navy

California’s flood control strategy includes reintroducing beavers to the state’s rivers, because their dams help flood meadows, which allows the water to percolate down to the aquifer. | Photo by K Schneider (CC BY-NC 2.0)

Judge approves settlement in case over jail system’s booking center

By City News Service

Afederal judge Thursday gave final approval to a settlement of a lawsuit between Los Angeles County and the American Civil Liberties Union over longstanding problems at the Twin Towers Correctional Facility in downtown Los Angeles.

The agreement includes a requirement that the county will create at least 1,925 new community beds as alternatives to jailing people with mental illness. Close to 1,700 of those new placements will be online within the next two years, according to the settlement.

L.A. County also agreed to increase mental health staffing in the Inmate Reception Center. These staffers will screen and prescribe medication for people while they are still in the IRC going through the intake process or within 24 hours of being moved out of the book center.

As part of the county’s efforts, Sheriff Robert Luna has created a new supervisory position in the IRC filled by a sergeant on each

of the three daily shifts to monitor compliance with the requirements set forth in the settlement 24/7, court papers show.

“This is a watershed moment for the ACLU’s jail and prison decarceration movement,” Corene Kendrick, deputy director of the ACLU National Prison Project, said in a statement.

“This is the first time in the country a jurisdiction that we or other advocates have sued agreed that the cornerstone to addressing abysmal jail conditions and overcrowding is to reduce the number of people coming to jail in the first place and to create alternatives to incarceration. A person cannot get well in a jail cell.”

ACLU attorneys alleged that mentally ill detainees were shackled to chairs for days at a time at the IRC and others were crammed together, sleeping head-tofoot on concrete floors. The suit also detailed delays in processing and moving incarcerated people to

permanent housing, and the provision of adequate medical and mental health care to people in the booking center awaiting permanent housing.

Under the settlement, the county agreed to a series of limits on how long those in custody may be held in various areas of the jail to ensure more humane treatment.

The case -- Rutherford v.Luna -- now has six new permanent orders, imposing certain timelines in the IRC and standards for cleanliness and medical and mental health care. As a result of the agreement, L.A. County is permanently prohibited from:

Holding an incarcerated person in the IRC for more than 24 hours;

Holding an incarcerated person on the IRC Clinic Front Bench, handcuffed, chained or tethered to a chair or any other object for more than four hours;

Holding an incarcerated person in an IRC holding cell

for more than 12 hours total, or holding more people in a holding cell than its rated capacity;

Holding an incarcerated person in the IRC Clinic cage, when locked, for more than eight hours total;

Holding an incarcerated person in the IRC Clinic area, cage or any cell in the IRC when that location is not in a clean and sanitary condition, with access to function-

ing toilets, potable drinking water, clean water to wash and sufficient garbage receptacles; or

Holding an incarcerated person in the IRC clinic area, cage or any cell in the IRC without providing ongoing access to adequate medical and mental health care, including but not limited to regular pill call.

If conditions in the IRC deteriorate again and the

county has not brought the promised beds on line, they will now answer to Pregerson. The county will have to provide quarterly reports to the court and to the ACLU on their progress in complying with the requirements of the stipulation, and the ACLU will continue to monitor if the county is staying on track with these reforms and raise it with the court if they falter, the agreement states.

Production companies face trial in suit involving final James Caan film

By City News Service

AjudgeThursday denied a motion by two production companies to dismiss a screenwriter’s lawsuit stemming from a dispute over film credits for the upcoming James CaanPierce Brosnan crime drama “Fast Charlie,” finding that the case did not infringe on the defendants’ First Amendment rights.

Plaintiff Lee Goldberg and his company, Adventures in Television, brought the lawsuit last July 15 in Los Angeles Superior Court against Boomtown Media Partners LLC and Fast Charlie Nola LLC, alleging breach of contract and seeking declaratory relief. The companies filed a motion for dismissal last September under the state’s anti-SLAPP — Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation — law, which is intended to prevent people from using courts, and potential threats of a lawsuit, to intimidate those who are exercising their First Amendment rights.

Judge Armen Tamzarian said that although the public may be interested in the movie or in the book on which it is based, that does not mean the film constitutes speech implicating a matter of public interest.

“Here, defendants do not

show the nature or content of their movie ... implicates or contributes to public discussion of any public issue,” the judge wrote. “It is an action movie. It tells a fictional story. One could accurately summarize the movie as being about which characters kill one another and how they do it.”

The judge scheduled the trial of the case for July 10, 2024.

Goldberg, who has written for such television shows as “Psych,” “Monk,” “Diagnosis Murder,” “Baywatch” and “Spenser: For Hire,” entered a written contract in March 2021 through his company with Boomtown Media to obtain the option to acquire the motion picture, television and ancillary rights to “Gun Monkeys,” a screenplay authored by Goldberg based on the Victor Gischler novel of the same title, the suit states.

The contract states that all monies due Goldberg’s company were to be paid to Goldberg if a film was made based on “Gun Monkeys” along with credits in the main titles, home video packaging and other areas, according to the suit.

Goldberg believes Boomtown assigned its rights to FCN, which in

April began shooting “Fast Charlie,” a movie based on “Gun Monkeys,” but the plaintiff was not paid the agreed-upon purchase price or provided through his company the first opportunity to make any required revisions to the “Gun Monkeys” screenplay, the suit states.

But according to the defense’s anti-SLAPP papers, both the book and the film are topics of widespread public interest.

“Therefore, there is a clear and direct connection between defendants’ alleged use of the Goldberg script and topics of widespread public interest, including the book, the film, the film’s screenwriter and Caan’s passing,” the defense lawyers argue in their court papers. “As such, defendants have satisfied their burden to show that plaintiffs’ claims arise from conduct in furtherance of the exercise of the constitutional right of ... free speech.”

Goldberg did not have the rights to make a derivative work of the book; rather the defendants had the rights to make a screenplay and motion picture based on the book, according to the defense’s court papers.

Dan Grodnick, producer

of “Fast Charlie,” said in a sworn statement in support of the dismissal motion that when presented with the Goldberg script, a number of prominent actors declined to participate in the film, including Viggo Mortenson, Alicia Vikander, Chris Pine, Gerard Butler, Jason Statham, Jude Law, Keanu Reeves, Mark Wahlberg, Matthew McConaughey, Samuel L. Jackson, Sylvester Stallone, Kurt Russell, Rene Russo and Michael Douglas.

Bryan Cranston “saw potential in the lead character, Charlie Swift, but was not interested in the Goldberg script as written,” Grodnick said.

“Without the commitment of a major talent like Mr. Cranston to the film, the film simply could not be financed,” according to Grodnick.

When a new and significantly different script was presented that included Cranston’s input, Brosnan agreed to come aboard and eventually Caan also was recruited, Grodnick says.

“Fast Charlie” finished production in New Orleans, but has not yet been released. Goldberg and his company want a preliminary injunction stopping the defendants from making

“Fast Charlie” available to the public until a determination is made regarding the plaintiffs’ rights to writing and co-producer credits, according to the suit, which also seeks compensatory damages.

“Fast Charlie” focuses on Brosnan’s character, Charlie Swift, who toiled

for mob figure Caan for two decades and seeks to avenge Caan’s death, which is brought about by a rival boss.

Caan died last July 6 at age 82 and was known for playing in films as varied as “The Godfather” and “Thief” as well as “Brian’s Song.”

James Caan. | Photo courtesy of Georges Biard/Wikimedia Commons (CC BY 3.0)

| Photo courtesy of Bob Jagendorf/Wikimedia Commons (CC BY 2.0)

Two election officials -- one from Arizona and the other from Pennsylvania -- testified during former Chapman University Law School Dean John Eastman’s disbarment hearing Thursday how their offices scrambled to debunk myriad bogus election fraud claims in the 2020 presidential election while Eastman worked as ex-President Donald Trump’s lawyer to overturn the results that led to President Joe Biden’s election.

Arizona’s Maricopa County Recorder Stephen Richer testified how his office combated conspiracy theories that alleged vote-flipping on Dominion voting devices and other tactics to sway the election. He referred to the so- called Cyber Ninjas group that attempted to review the election results as a “bunch of imbeciles, who we later learned had no clue what they were doing.”

Richer said the organization’s report on the election was “not worth the price of the paper it’s printed on.”

Richer was a witness in the Dominion lawsuit against the Fox News Channel, he said. He issued statements highly critical of the Cyber Ninjas report ahead of its release.

“I hoped that it would help some of my fellow Republicans see clearly written that the measures, securities, the evidence, lined up and that they could have confidence in the process and move on from their conversations that were fanciful and fictitious about the 2020 election and could

Arizona, Pennsylvania election officials testify in Eastman disbarment hearing

By City News Service

focus on future elections,” Richer said.

“I also wrote it because there was an interim report of sorts being planned by the Cyber Ninjas and we had every reason to believe it would contain numerous falsehoods, which it indeed did, and I wanted to offer anyone interested an accurate representation of what happened in 2020 and the procedures and the tests that were in place.”

Richer said that “throughout November and December (of 2020) I watched so many strange YouTube videos and fielded so many emails from members of my party, friends, people who heard stuff.”

Richer even described how a video of him addressing a Republican Club went viral online.

Richer said he was frustrated that there’s any question about the fairness and accuracy of the election, saying he knows it was not tainted by fraud the same way “that I know 911 happened, even though I wasn’t in New York, and that we landed on the moon even though I wasn’t born in 1969. All credible evidence points to, yes, it was a fair and accurate election.”

Eastman’s attorney, Randy Miller, asked Richer when he took office. Richer said because of the pandemic he wasn’t sworn in like usual, but signed his oath of office and took office Jan. 4, 2021. The Republican said his predecessor was “kind enough” to give him full access to the office to get a head start.

Richer said he was paying especially close attention to the election results because he was in a tight contest himself. He added he was initially “down and coming back,” so efforts to throw out any Democratic votes illegally cast or incorrectly tallied was “something I would welcome.”

Richer said he was certainly aware of Eastman because as a former conservative think-tank leader the Claremont Institute, which Eastman is associated with, is “a big deal to me.” The two both were University of Chicago law school students, he noted.

Eastman’s fellow Trump attorney, Kory Langhofer, was praised by Richer. “Korey acted incredibly responsibly,” Richer said. “He was backing it up with potential evidence, and when it didn’t manifest itself it was withdrawn voluntarily. He has my utmost respect. He wasn’t alleging widespread fraud because he knew that would be false and defamatory.”

Richer said there weren’t any “irregularities” in the election, but “concerns” about some voters pressing a green button to override an error and erasing “over votes.”

But Richer said, “That’s not an irregularity. It is a failure to communicate what the green button does... We were talking about 200 (votes) and when that became clear he voluntarily withdrew the complaint.”

Richer emphasized that the state retains “paper ballots,” which is a backup to

guard against manipulation of votes in electronic devices.

“Even if everything was hacked under the moon we still have the paper ballots,” Richer said. “The logs were checked and it didn’t show any signs of internet interconnectivity.”

Jonathan Marks, a deputy secretary of elections and commissions in Pennsylvania, discussed how proud he was that all of the state’s election officials managed a fair election during a pandemic. He said multiple statements were issued publicly to address “claims” from some congressional representatives alleging fraud.

“It seemed to be becoming apparent where certain individuals would rely on bad information or bad data or in some cases completely misrepresent data to try to support the narrative that there was some widespread error or fraud,” Marks said.

“We thought it was important as election officials at the state level to put out accurate information to respond to these claims.”

Marks characterized it at times as a “full-frontal assault on the truth.”

He said that despite the multiple challenges presented by the COVID-19 pandemic Pennsylvania was able to pull off a “free and fair election.”

When asked if he knew of any effort to rig votes to help Biden, Marks said, “No, absolutely not... I went out of my way and have throughout my career to not have any appearance of partisanship.”

He added he was “absolutely confident Pennsylvania had a free and fair election despite the challenges of 2020.”

He said it was a “tragedy” that the narrative veered away from what was “really a triumph of election officials coming together to conduct

an election in the middle of a pandemic. It was tragic it was recast as anything other than that... What it was were state, federal and local officials in both red and blue counties doing everything they could to ensure there was a free and fair election while doing everything they can to protect the health of their voters.”

Eastman’s attorney said in the opening statement of the hearing on Tuesday that the case was about whether his client’s legal theories were “tenable,” and whether he was protected by free speech rights federally and in California and whether he had the right to petition for redress of grievances.

State bar officials are seeking to have Eastman disbarred for touting “baseless legal theories” to prevent the certification of Biden’s election.

The hearing continued Friday.

LA City Council recognizes the 125th anniversary of Philippine independence

By City News Service

The Los Angeles City Council Friday recognized the 125th anniversary of Philippine Independence — welcoming city employees and community members to speak on the important role Filipinos have in the city.

Councilman Hugo Soto-Martínez, whose 13th District is home to the Historic Filipinotown, led Friday’s presentation. The councilman said independence days make him think about the sense of “self-reliance, liberation and pride that one feels about their country.”

Filipinos are the “largest

and fastest” growing Asian American and Pacific Islanders population in the state, Soto-Martínez said.

The city of Los Angeles is home to the largest number of Filipinos outside of the Philippines, he added.

The councilman welcomed and introduced Susana Reyes, who became the city’s first Filipino American LADWP deputy commissioner in 2019 and currently serves as a commissioner on the Board of Public Works.

Reyes said they gathered at City Hall to commemorate the Philippines’ “rich history, cultural heritage

and recognize the Filipino’s community’s profound impact in shaping the city’s diverse fabric.”

“Celebrating the 125th anniversary of Philippine Independence Day is a powerful reminder of the deep and enduring bonds between the Philippines and the city of Los Angeles,” Reyes said. “It provides an occasion to reaffirm our commitment to fostering bilateral relations, both economically and culturally.”

Los Angeles Controller Kenneth Mejia, who became the city’s first Filipino elected official and the first

Asian American to assume citywide office in 2022, joined Soto-Martínez during the morning celebration.

Mejia noted that this year’s Philippine Independence Day theme focuses on the “freedom that our ancestors fought, struggled and died for against colonial rule from Spain.”

“May this celebration catalyze greater intercultural understanding, collaboration and solidarity among all our communities residing in our city,” Reyes said. “Let us continue to celebrate that richness and diversity that tapestry, that connective tissue that connects us all.”

John Eastman. | Photo courtesy of ISCOTUS via Wikimedia Commons (CC BY 3.0)

San Gabriel City Notices

CITY OF SAN GABRIEL - SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. 690

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN GABRIEL, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING TITLE XV, CHAPTER 153 (ZONING) RELATING TO DENSITY BONUS

Density bonus programs are widespread approach used by jurisdictions in California to encourage affordable housing units. State law requires local jurisdictions to offer a density bonus to eligible projects consistent with Government Code Section 65915. Density bonus programs grant developers an increase in the maximum allowable residential density in a zoning district in exchange for building on-site affordable units. Density bonus programs also offer other incentives for providing affordable units such as concessions, waivers, and reductions to local development standards. The City is currently updating its density bonus provision to comply with recent State law amendments.

Ordinance No. 690 was approved for introduction and first reading at the City Council Regular Meeting of June 20, 2023, by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmember- Chan, Ding, Menchaca, Wu, Harrington NOES, ABSENT, ABSTAIN: Councilmember- None

The Ordinance will be considered for adoption by the City Council at its July 18, 2023, regular meeting. Anyone having questions may contact the City Clerk at (626) 308-2816 or cityclerk@sgch.org.

Julie Nguyen, City Clerk

Publish June 26, 2023

SAN GABRIEL SUN

El Monte City Notices

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING

APPROVAL OF ANNUAL LEVY OF FISCAL YEAR 2023-2024

CITYWIDE SEWER SERVICE CHARGE

TUESDAY, JULY 18, 2023

BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EL MONTE

TO: All Members of the Public and All Other Interested Parties

FROM: City Council of the City of El Monte

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN as required by Section 5473.1 of the Health & Safety Code and Section 6066 of the Government Code, the El Monte City Council hereby gives notice that a public hearing will be held on TUESDAY, JULY 18, 2023 at 7:00 P.M. to determine for the purpose of considering and taking action to approve the following:

APPROVAL SOUGHT:

Approval of the Fiscal Year 2023-2024 levy of the sewer service charge applicable to all parcels located within the City of El Monte. As part of the annual levy approval, the City Council will review and take action to approve a report setting forth the specific sums to be levied against each property subject to the Citywide sewer service charge. A copy of this report is maintained by the City Engineering Division located at El Monte City Hall – West, 11333 Valley Boulevard, El Monte, California and is available for inspection during City business hours.

Prior to the conduct of the June 20, 2023 hearing but in no event later than 15 days prior to the date of the hearing, a written report containing, among other things, a listing of each of the real property parcels subject to the levy/lien and the total sums to be charged against the parcel for the Fiscal Year in question will be available for inspection in the City Engineering Division webpage (https://www. ci.el-monte.ca.us/292/Engineering) or call Engineering Division at (626) 580-2058 to make arrangements for reviewing the said documents.

THE PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD AT: El Monte City Hall –East, City Council Chambers, 11333 Valley Boulevard, El Monte, California.

Members of the public wishing to observe the meeting may do so in one of the following ways:

(1) Turn your TV to Channel 3;

(2) City’s website at http://www.elmonteca.gov/378/Council-Meeting-Videos; or

(3) In person.

Members of the public wishing to make public comment may do so via the following ways:

(4) Call-in Conference Line – comments/questions can be submitted per the instructions at the beginning of the meeting; and

(5) Email – All interested parties can submit questions/comments in advance to the City Clerk’s general email address: CityClerk@ elmonteca.gov; or

(6) In person.

LEGALS

For further information regarding this matter please contact the El Monte Engineering Division at (626) 580-2058, Monday through Thursday (excluding legal holidays), between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:30 p.m.

Published:June 26, 2023 and July 3, 2023

Gabriel Ramirez, City Clerk

City of El Monte

EL MONTE EXAMINER

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING

APPROVAL OF ANNUAL LEVY OF FISCAL YEAR 2023-2024 MOUNTAIN VIEW COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT (CFD) 13-1 ASSESSMENT

TUESDAY, JULY 18, 2023

BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EL MONTE

TO: All Members of the Public and All Other Interested Parties

FROM: City Council of the City of El Monte

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN pursuant Section 6066 of the Government Code, the El Monte City Council hereby gives notice that a public hearing will be held on TUESDAY, JULY 18, 2023 at 7:00 P.M. to determine for the purpose of considering and taking action to approve the following:

APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of the Fiscal Year 2023-2024 CFD 13-1 was established as a mechanism to pay for ongoing public service costs created through the development and maintenance of the municipal sewer system, street pavement, lighting and operation charges included in the annual property tax bill for certain real property parcels located within Tract No. 71784 located within the City of El Monte – a tract commonly referred to as the Mountain View Community Facilities District 13-1. The amount of the special tax levy to be assessed in the 2023-2024 Fiscal Year in the CFD 13-1 has been calculated in accordance with the methodology set forth in Resolution of Formation No. 9390. The specific CFD public service costs are as follows: As part of the annual levy approval, the City Council will review and take action to approve a report setting forth the specific sums to be levied against each property subject to the charge. A copy of this report is maintained by the City Engineering Division located at El Monte City Hall – West, 11333 Valley Boulevard, El Monte, California and is available for inspection during City business hours.

Prior to the conduct of the June 20, 2023 hearing but in no event later than 15 days prior to the date of the hearing, a written report containing, among other things, a listing of each of the real property parcels subject to the levy/lien and the total sums to be charged against the parcel for the fiscal year in question will be available for inspection in the City Engineering Division webpage (https://www. ci.el-monte.ca.us/292/Engineering) or call Engineering Division at (626) 580-2058 to make arrangements for reviewing the said documents.

THE PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD AT:

El Monte City Hall – East, City Council Chambers, 11333 Valley Boulevard, El Monte, California.

Members of the public wishing to observe the meeting may do so in one of the following ways:

(1) Turn your TV to Channel 3;

(2) City’s website at http://www.elmonteca.gov/378/Council-Meeting-Videos; or

(3) In person.

Members of the public wishing to make public comment may do so via the following ways:

(1) Call-in Conference Line – comments/questions can be submitted per the instructions at the beginning of the meeting;

(2) Email – All interested parties can submit questions/comments in advance to the City Clerk’s general email address: CityClerk@ elmonteca.gov; or

(3) In person.

For further information regarding this matter please contact the El Monte Engineering Division at (626) 580-2058, Monday through Thursday (excluding legal holidays), between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:30 p.m.

Published: June 26, 2023 and July 3, 2023

Gabriel Ramirez, City Clerk City of El Monte EL MONTE EXAMINER

YEAR 2023-2024 TAX ROLL

TUESDAY, JULY 18, 2023

BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EL MONTE

TO: All Members of the Public and All Other Interested Parties

FROM: City Council of the City of El Monte

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN as required by Section 5473.1 of the Health & Safety Code and Section 6066 of the Government Code the El Monte City Council hereby gives notice that a public hearing will be held on TUESDAY, July 18, 2023 at 7:00 P.M. to determine for the purpose of considering and taking action to approve the following:

APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of the levy of the past due and delinquent charges for solid waste refuse disposal service on all applicable residential parcels delinquent between May 1, 2022 through April 30, 2023, located within the Valley Vista Services, Service Area. As part of the levy approval, the City Council will review and take action to approve a report setting forth the specific sums to be levied against each applicable property. A copy of this report is maintained by the City Engineering Division located at El Monte City Hall – West, 11333 Valley Boulevard, El Monte, California and is available for inspection during City business hours. Prior to the conduct of the June 20, 2023 hearing but in no event later than 15 days prior to the date of the hearing, a written report containing, among other things, a listing of each of the real property parcels subject to the levy/lien and the total sums to be charged against the parcel for the Fiscal Year in question will be available for inspection in the City Engineering Division.

THE PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD AT: El Monte City Hall East, City Council Chambers, 11333 Valley Boulevard, El Monte, California.

Members of the public wishing to observe the meeting may do so in one of the following ways:

(1) Turn your TV to Channel 3;

(2) City’s website at http://www.elmonteca.gov/378/Council-Meeting-Videos; or

(3) In person.

Members of the public wishing to make public comment may do so via the following ways:

(1) Call-in Conference Line Call-in (888) 204-5987; Code 8167975 – comments/questions can be submitted per the instructions at the beginning of the meeting;

(2) Email – All interested parties can submit questions/comments in advance to the City Clerk’s general email address: CityClerk@ elmonteca.gov; or

(3) In person.

For further information regarding this matter please contact the El Monte Engineering Division at (626) 580-2058, Monday through Thursday (excluding legal holidays), between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:30 p.m.

Published: June 26, 2023 and July 3, 2023

Gabriel Ramirez, City Clerk

City of El Monte EL MONTE EXAMINER

Probate Notices

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF:

DANIEL KRYWOKULSKI

CASE NO. 23STPB06552

To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the WILL or estate, or both of DANIEL KRYWOKULSKI.

A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by LYNN TRAN KRYWOKULSKI AKA LYNN KRYWOKULSKI in the Superior Court of California, County of LOS ANGELES.

THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that LYNN TRAN KRYWOKULSKI AKA LYNN KRYWOKULSKI be appointed as personal representative to administer the estate of the decedent.

THE PETITION requests the decedent’s WILL and codicils, if any, be admitted to probate. The WILL and any codicils are available for examination in the file kept by the court.

THE PETITION requests authority to administer the estate under the Independent Administration of Estates Act. (This authority will allow the personal representative to take many actions without obtaining court approval. Before taking certain very important actions, however, the personal representative will be required to give notice to interested persons unless they have waived notice or consented to the proposed action.)

The independent administration au-

thority will be granted unless an interested person files an objection to the petition and shows good cause why the court should not grant the authority.

A HEARING on the petition will be held in this court as follows: 07/21/23 at 8:30AM in Dept. 9 located at 111 N. HILL ST., LOS ANGELES, CA 90012

IF YOU OBJECT to the granting of the petition, you should appear at the hearing and state your objections or file written objections with the court before the hearing. Your appearance may be in person or by your attorney.

IF YOU ARE A CREDITOR or a contingent creditor of the decedent, you must file your claim with the court and mail a copy to the personal representative appointed by the court within the later of either (1) four months from the date of first issuance of letters to a general personal representative, as defined in section 58(b) of the California Probate Code, or (2) 60 days from the date of mailing or personal delivery to you of a notice under section 9052 of the California Probate Code. Other California statutes and legal authority may affect your rights as a creditor. You may want to consult with an attorney knowledgeable in California law.

YOU MAY EXAMINE the file kept by the court. If you are a person interested in the estate, you may file with the court a Request for Special Notice (form DE-154) of the filing of an inventory and appraisal of estate assets or of any petition or account as provided in Probate Code section 1250. A Request for Special Notice

about the trip.

Alito said that when Singer’s companies came before the court, the justice was unaware of the billionaire’s connection to the cases. He said he recalled speaking to Singer on “no more than a handful of occasions,” and they never discussed Singer’s business or issues before the court.

Alito said that he was invited to fly on Singer’s plane shortly before the trip and that the seat “ would have otherwise been vacant.” He defended his failure to report the trip to the public, writing that justices “commonly interpreted” the disclosure requirements to not include “accommodations and transportation for social events.”

In a statement, a spokesperson for Singer told ProPublica that Singer didn’t organize the trip and that he wasn’t aware Alito would be attending when he accepted the invitation. Singer “never discussed his business interests” with the justice, the spokesperson said, adding that at the time of trip, neither Singer nor his companies had “any pending matters before the Supreme Court, nor could Mr. Singer have anticipated in 2008 that a subsequent matter would arise that would merit Supreme Court review.”

Leo did not respond to questions about his organizing the trip but said in a statement that he “would never presume to tell” Alito and Scalia “what to do.”

This spring, ProPublica reported that Justice Clarence Thomas received decades of luxury travel from another Republican megadonor, Dallas real estate magnate Harlan Crow. In a statement, Thomas defended the undisclosed trips, saying unnamed colleagues advised him that he didn’t need to report such gifts to the public. Crow also gave Thomas money in an undisclosed real estate deal and paid private school tuition for his grandnephew, who Thomas was raising as a son. Thomas reported neither transaction on his disclosure forms.

The undisclosed gifts have prompted lawmakers to launch investigations and call for ethics reform. Recent bills would impose tighter rules for justices’ recusals, require the Supreme Court to adopt a binding code of conduct and create an ethics body,

which would investigate complaints. Neither a code nor an ethics office currently exists.

“We wouldn’t tolerate this from a city council member or an alderman,”

Sen. Dick Durbin, an Illinois Democrat and chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said of Thomas in a recent hearing. “And yet the Supreme Court won’t even acknowledge it’s a problem.”

So far, the court has chafed at the prospect of such reforms. Though the court recently laid out its ethics practices in a statement signed by all nine justices, Chief Justice John Roberts has not directly addressed the recent revelations. In fact, he has repeatedly suggested Congress might not have the power to regulate the court at all.

“We Take Good Care of Him Because He Makes All the Rules”

In the 1960s in his first year at Harvard Law School, Singer was listening to a lecture by a famed liberal professor when, he later recalled, he had an epiphany: “My goodness. They’re making it up as they go along.”

It was a common sentiment among conservative lawyers, who often accuse liberal judges of activist overreach. While Singer’s career as an attorney was short-lived, his convictions about the law stayed with him for decades. After starting a hedge fund that eventually made him one of the richest people in the country, he began directing huge sums to causes on the right. That included groups, like the Federalist Society, dedicated to fostering the conservative legal movement and putting its followers on the bench.

In the last decade, Singer has contributed over $80 million to Republican political groups. He has also given millions to the Manhattan Institute, a conservative think tank where he has served as chairman since 2008. The institute regularly files friend-of-the-court briefs with the Supreme Court — at least 15 this term, including one asking the court to block student loan relief.

Singer’s interest in the courts is more than ideological. His hedge fund, Elliott Management, is best known for making investments that promise handsome returns but could require bruising

legal battles. Singer has said he’s drawn to positions where you “control your own destiny, not just riding up and down with the waves of financial markets.” That can mean pressuring corporate boards to fire a CEO, brawling with creditors over the remains of a bankrupt company and suing opponents.

The fund now manages more than $50 billion in assets. “The investments are extremely shrewdly litigation-driven,” a person familiar with Singer’s fund told ProPublica. “That’s why he’s a billionaire.”

Singer’s most famous gamble eventually made its way to the Supreme Court.

In 2001, Argentina was in a devastating economic depression. Unemployment skyrocketed and deadly riots broke out in the street. The day after Christmas, the government finally went into default. For Singer, the crisis was an opportunity. As other investors fled, his fund purchased Argentine government debt at a steep discount.

Within several years, as the Argentine economy recovered, most creditors settled with the government and accepted a fraction of what the debt was originally worth. But Singer’s fund, an arm of Elliott called NML Capital, held out. Soon, they were at war: a midtown Manhattan-based hedge fund trying to impose its will on a sovereign nation thousands of miles away.

The fight played out on familiar turf for Singer: the U.S. courts. He launched an aggressive legal campaign to force Argentina to pay in full, and his personal involvement in the case attracted widespread media attention. Over 13 years of litigation, the arguments spanned what rights foreign governments have in the U.S. and whether Argentina could pay off debts to others before Singer settled his claim.

If Singer succeeded, he stood to make a fortune.

In 2007, for the first but not the last time, Singer’s fund asked the Supreme Court to intervene. A lower court had stopped Singer and another fund from seizing Argentine central bank funds held in the U.S. The investors appealed, but that October, the Supreme Court declined to take up the case.

On July 8 of the following year, Singer took Alito

to Alaska on the private jet, according to emails, flight data from the Federal Aviation Administration and people familiar with the trip.

The group flew across the country to the town of King Salmon on the Alaska peninsula. They returned to the East Coast three days later.

In Alaska, they stayed at the King Salmon Lodge, a luxury fishing resort that drew celebrities, wealthy businessmen and sports stars. On July 9, one of the lodge’s pilots flew Alito and other guests around 70 miles to the west to fish the Nushagak River, known for one of the best salmon runs in the world. Snapshots from the trip show Alito in waders and an Indianapolis Grand Prix hat, smiling broadly as he holds his catch.

“Sam Alito is in the red jacket there,” one lodge worker said, as he narrated an amateur video of the justice on the water. “We take good care of him because he makes all the rules.”

Other guests on the trip included Leo, the Federalist Society leader, and Judge A. Raymond Randolph, a prominent conservative appellate judge for whom Leo had clerked, according to fishing licenses and interviews with lodge staff.

On another day, the group flew on one of the lodge’s bush planes to a waterfall in Katmai National Park, where bears snatch salmon from the water with their teeth. At night, the lodge’s chefs served multicourse meals of Alaskan king crab legs or Kobe filet. On the last evening, a member of Alito’s group bragged that the wine they were drinking cost $1,000 a bottle, one of the lodge’s fishing guides told ProPublica.

In his op-ed, Alito described the lodge as a “comfortable but rustic facility.” The justice said he does not remember if he was served wine, but if he was, it didn’t cost $1,000 a bottle. (Alito also pointed readers to the lodge’s website. The lodge has been sold since 2008 and is now a more downscale accommodation.)

The justice’s stay was provided free of charge by another major donor to the conservative legal movement: Robin Arkley II, the owner of a mortgage company then based in California. Arkley had recently acquired the fishing lodge,

which catered to affluent tourists seeking a luxury experience in the Alaskan wilderness. A planning document prepared by lodge staff describes Alito as a guest of Arkley. Another guest on the trip told ProPublica the trip was a gift from Arkley, and two lodge employees said they were told that Alito wasn’t paying.

Arkley, who does not appear to have been involved in any cases before the court, did not respond to detailed questions for this story.

Alito did not disclose the flight or the stay at the fishing lodge in his annual financial disclosures. A federal law passed after Watergate requires federal officials including Supreme Court justices to publicly report most gifts. (The year before, Alito reported getting $500 of Italian food and wine from a friend, noting that his friend was unlikely to “appear before this Court.”)

The law has a “personal hospitality” exemption: If someone hosts a justice on their own property, free “food, lodging, or entertainment” don’t always have to be disclosed. But the law clearly requires disclosure for gifts of private jet flights, according to seven ethics law experts, and Alito appears to have violated it. The typical interpretation of the law required disclosure for his stay at the lodge too, experts said, since it was a commercial property rather than a vacation home. The judiciary’s regulations did not make that explicit until they were updated earlier this year.

In his op-ed, Alito said that justices “commonly interpreted” the law’s exception for hospitality “to mean that accommodations and transportation for social events were not reportable gifts.”

His op-ed pointed to language in the judiciary’s filing instructions and cited definitions from Black’s Law Dictionary and Webster’s. But he did not make reference to the judiciary’s regulations or the law itself, which experts said both clearly required disclosure for gifts of travel. ProPublica found at least six examples of other federal judges disclosing gifts of private jet travel in recent years.

“The exception only covers food, lodging and entertainment,” said Virginia Canter, a former

government ethics lawyer now at the watchdog group CREW. “He’s trying to move away from the plain language of the statute and the regulation.”

The Alaska vacation was the first time Singer and Alito met, according to a person familiar with the trip. After the trip, the two appeared together at public events. When Alito spoke at the annual dinner of the Federalist Society lawyers convention the following year, the billionaire introduced him. The justice told a story about having an encounter with bears during a fishing trip with Singer, according to the legal blog Above the Law. He recalled asking himself: “Do you really want to go down in history as the first Supreme Court justice to be devoured by a bear?”

The year after that, in 2010, Alito delivered the keynote speech at a dinner for donors to the Manhattan Institute. Once again, Singer delivered a flattering introduction. “He and his small band of like-minded justices are a critical and muchappreciated bulwark of our freedom,” Singer told the crowd. “Samuel Alito is a model Supreme Court justice.”

Meanwhile, Singer and Argentina kept asking the Supreme Court to intervene in their legal fight. His fund enlisted Ted Olson, the famed appellate lawyer who represented George W. Bush in the Bush v. Gore case during the 2000 presidential election.

In January 2010, a year and a half after the Alaska vacation, the fund once again asked the high court to take up an aspect of the dispute. The court declined. In total, parties asked the court to hear appeals in the litigation eight times in the six years after the trip. In most instances, it was Singer’s adversaries filing an appeal, with Singer’s fund successfully arguing for the justices to decline the case and let stand a lower court ruling.

The Supreme Court hears a tiny portion of the many cases it’s asked to rule on each year. Under the court’s rules, cases are only accepted when at least four of the nine justices vote to take it up. The deliberations on whether to take a case are shrouded in secrecy

See Samuel Alito Page 15

Samuel Alito

and happen at meetings attended only by the justices. These decisions are a fundamental way the court wields power. The justices’ votes are not typically made public, so it is unclear how Alito voted on the petitions involving Singer.

As Singer’s battle with Argentina intensified, his hedge fund launched an expansive public relations and lobbying campaign. In 2012, the hedge fund even attempted to seize an Argentine navy ship docked in Ghana to secure payment from the country. (The effort was thwarted by a ruling from the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea.) Argentina’s president labeled Singer and his fellow investors “vultures” attempting extortion; Singer complained the country was scapegoating him.

In 2014, the Supreme Court finally agreed to hear a case on the matter. It centered on an important issue: how much protection Argentina could claim as a sovereign nation against the hedge fund’s legal maneuvers in U.S. courts. The U.S. government filed a brief on Argentina’s side, warning that the case raised “extraordinarily sensitive foreign policy concerns.”

The case featured an unusual intervention by the Judicial Crisis Network, a group affiliated with Leo known for spending millions on judicial confirmation fights. The group filed a brief supporting Singer, which appears to be the only Supreme Court friend-of-the-court brief in the organization’s history.

The court ruled in Singer’s favor 7-1 with Alito joining the majority. The justice did not recuse himself from the case or from any of the other petitions involving Singer.

“The tide turned” thanks to that “decisive” ruling and another from the court, as Singer’s law firm described it. After the legal setbacks and the election of a new president in Argentina, the country finally capitulated in 2016. Singer’s fund walked away with a $2.4 billion payout, a spectacular return.

Abbe Smith, a law professor at Georgetown who co-wrote a textbook on legal and judicial ethics, said that Alito should have recused himself. If she were representing a client and learned the judge had taken a gift from the party

on the other side, Smith said, she would immediately move for recusal. “If I found out after the fact, I’d be outraged on behalf of my client,” she said. “And, frankly, I’d be outraged on behalf of the legal system.”

The law that governs when justices must recuse themselves from a case sets a high but subjective standard. It requires justices to withdraw from any case when their “impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” But the court allows individual justices to interpret that requirement for themselves. Historically, they’ve almost never explained why they are or are not recusing themselves, and unlike lower court judges, their decisions cannot be appealed.

Alito articulated his own standard during his Senate confirmation process, writing that he believed in stepping away from cases when “any possible question might arise.”

In his Wall Street Journal op-ed, Alito wrote of his failure to recuse himself from Singer’s cases at the court: “It was and is my judgment that these facts would not cause a reasonable and unbiased person to doubt my ability to decide the matters in question impartially.”

Critics have long assailed the Supreme Court’s practices on this issue as both opaque and inconsistent. “The idea ‘just trust us to do the right thing’ while remaining in

total secrecy is unworkable,” said Amanda Frost, a judicial ethics expert at the University of Virginia School of Law.

For Singer, appeals to the Supreme Court are an almost unavoidable result of his business model. Since the Argentina case, Singer’s funds were named parties in at least two other cases that were appealed to the court, both stemming from battles with Fortune 500 companies. One of the petitions is currently pending.

Grey Goose and Glacier Ice

The month after Singer got home from the 2008 fishing trip, he realized he had a problem. He was supposed to receive a shipment of frozen salmon from the Alaska lodge. But the fish hadn’t arrived. So the billionaire emailed an unlikely person to get to the bottom of it: Leo, the powerful Federalist Society executive.

“They’ve escaped!!” Singer wrote. Leo then sent an email to Arkley, the lodge owner, to track down the missing seafood.

The only clear thread connecting the prominent guests on the trip is that they all had a relationship with Leo. Leo is now a giant in judicial politics who helped handpick Donald Trump’s list of potential Supreme Court nominees and recently received a $1.6 billion donation to further his political interests. Leo’s network of political groups was in its early days, however, when he traveled with

Alito to Alaska. It had run an advertising campaign supporting Alito in his confirmation fight, and Leo was reportedly part of the team that prepared Alito for his Senate hearings.

Singer and Arkley, the businessmen who provided the trip to the justice, were both significant donors to Leo’s groups at the time, according to public records and reporting by The Daily Beast. Arkley also sometimes provided Leo with one of his private planes to travel to business meetings, according to a former pilot of Arkley’s.

In his statement, Leo did not address detailed questions about the trip, but he said “no objective and well-informed observer of the judiciary honestly could believe that they decide cases in order to cull favor with friends, or in return for a free plane seat or fishing trip.”

He added that the public should wonder whether ProPublica’s coverage is “bait for reeling in more dark money from woke billionaires who want to damage this Supreme Court and remake it into one that will disregard the law by rubber stamping their disordered and highly unpopular cultural preferences.”

Arkley is a fixture in local politics in his hometown of Eureka, California, known for lashing out at city officials and for once starting his own newspaper reportedly out of disdain for the local

had a pattern of disclosing trips to deliver lectures while not mentioning hunting excursions he took to nearby locales hosted by local attorneys and businessmen, according to a research paper published after his death.

Randolph, now a senior judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, did not disclose the trip. (Nor did he disclose the later trip with Alito.) Randolph told ProPublica that when he was preparing his form for 2005, he called the judiciary’s financial disclosure office to ask about disclosing the trip. He shared his notes from the call with a staffer, which say “don’t have to report trip to Alaska with Rob Arkley & others / private jet / lodge.”

press. By the early 2000s, he’d made a fortune buying and servicing distressed mortgages and also become a significant donor in national GOP politics.

As his political profile rose, Arkley bragged to friends that he’d gotten to know one-third of the sitting Supreme Court justices. He told friends he had a relationship with Clarence Thomas, according to two people who were close with Arkley. And the Alito trip was not Arkley’s first time covering a Supreme Court justice’s travel to Alaska.

In June 2005, Arkley flew Scalia on his private jet to Kodiak Island, Alaska, two of Arkley’s former pilots told ProPublica. Arkley had paid to rent out a remote fishing lodge that cost $3,200 a week per person, according to the lodge’s owner, Martha Sikes.

Snapshots from the trip, found in the justice’s papers at Harvard Law School, capture Scalia knee-deep in a river as he fights to reel in a fish. Randolph, the appellate judge who was also on the later trip, joined Scalia and Arkley on the vacation, flying on the businessman’s jet.

Scalia did not report the trip on his annual filing, another apparent violation of the law, according to ethics law experts. Scalia’s travels briefly drew scrutiny in 2016 after he died while staying at the hunting ranch of a Texas businessman. Scalia

Kathleen Clark, an ethics law expert at Washington University in St. Louis, said, “I don’t understand how the staff member came to that conclusion based on the language in the statute.”

On June 9, Arkley’s group chartered a boat, the Happy Hooker IV, to tour Yakutat Bay. On the way over, Scalia and Arkley discussed whether Senate Republicans, then in a contentious fight over judicial confirmations, should abolish the filibuster to move forward, according to a person traveling with them.

A photo captures Arkley and Scalia later that day gazing off the side of the boat at the famed Hubbard Glacier. At one point, a guide chiseled chunks off an iceberg and passed them to Scalia. The justice then mixed martinis from Grey Goose vodka and glacier ice. It remains unclear how Scalia ended up in Alaska with Arkley. But the justice’s archives at Harvard Law School offer a tantalizing clue. Immediately before the fishing trip, Scalia gave a speech for the Federalist Society in Napa, California. The next day, Arkley’s plane flew from Napa to Alaska. Scalia’s papers contain a folder labeled “Federalist Society, Napa and Alaska, 2005 June 3-10,” suggesting a possible connection between the conservative organization and the fishing trip.

The contents of that folder are currently sealed, however. They will be opened to the public in 2036.

Republished with Creative Commons License (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0).

Samuel Alito

Paul Singer. | Photo courtesy of World Economic Forum/Wikimedia Commons (CC BY-SA 2.0)

LEGALS

File your DBA with us at filedba.com

Pasadena City Notices

Notice of Public Hearing on the Central District Specific Plan Update

PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Central District Specific Plan is the fourth specific plan to be updated as part of the General Plan Implementation Program. The City has prepared a proposed plan for the Central District Specific Plan area that will update the existing 2004 Central District Specific Plan. The proposed plan will result in a refined plan vision, goals, policies, permitted uses, design, development, and public realm standards and guidelines that will shape the built environment for the Central District Specific Plan area and implement General Plan Land Use policies. The proposed plan will require the following approvals: General Plan Land Use Diagram Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment, and Zoning Map and Text Amendments. You may find documents related to the Central District Specific Plan update, including the draft proposed plan at https://www.ourpasadena.org/CDSP-PC-HR-062823.

PROJECT LOCATION: The Central District Specific Plan area is generally bounded by Corson Street and the I-210 Freeway to the north, Del Mar and California Boulevard to the south, Pasadena Avenue to the west, and Mentor and Wilson Avenue to the east. The proposed plan will refine the plan boundaries as shown on the attached map (Exhibit 1).

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: An addendum to the 2015 Pasadena General Plan Environmental Impact Report (GP EIR) (State Clearinghouse No. 2013091009) to address the potential site-specific environmental impacts associated with the update to the CDSP has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA) (Cal. Public Resources Code Section 21000, et. seq., as amended) and its implementing guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., Title 14, Section 15000 et. seq., 2016). This Addendum has been prepared and will be processed consistent with CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., Title 14, Section 15162 and Section 15164). The addendum found that the Proposed Plan will not result in any potentially significant impacts that were not already analyzed.

APPROVALS NEEDED: The Planning Commission will conduct a public hearing and consider the proposed amendments and addendum to the GP EIR. The Planning Commission recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council. The City Council will make a final decision at a separately-noticed public hearing.

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Commission will hold a public meeting to review the latest update to the Central District Specific Plan. The meeting is scheduled for:

Date: Wednesday, June 28, 2023

Time: 6:30 p.m.

Place: Council Chambers, Pasadena City Hall

100 North Garfield Avenue, Room S249. The meeting agenda will be posted by June 23, 2023 at https://www.cityofpasadena.net/commissions/planning-commission/.

PUBLIC INFORMATION: Any interested party or their representative may provide live public comment by following the instructions in the meeting agenda. Prior to the start of the meeting, written correspondence may be emailed to commentsPC@cityofpasadena.net or mailed to the address below (note that this email address will not be checked once the meeting starts)

Contact Person: Anita Cerna, Principal Planner

Phone: (626) 744-6767

E-mail: acerna@cityofpasadena.net

Website: www.cityofpasadena.net/planning

Mailing Address:

Planning & Community Development Department

Planning Division, Community Planning Section

175 North Garfield Avenue, Pasadena, CA 91101

ADA: To request a disability-related modification or accommodation necessary to facilitate meeting participation, please contact the Planning & Community Development Department as soon as possible at (626) 744-4009 or (626) 744-4371 (TDD) or acerna@cityofpasadena.net. Providing at least 72 hours advance notice will help ensure availability. Language translation services may also be requested with 72-hour advance notice by calling (626) 744-4009.

Exhibit 1: Proposed Boundary for the Central District Specific Plan

Exhibit 1: Proposed Boundary for the Central District Specific Plan

Monterey Park City Notices

LEGAL NOTICE

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK

ORDINANCE NO. 2230

ZONING CODE AMENDMENT NO. 23-01 (ZCA-2301) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING MONTEREY PARK MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 21.18, ENTITLED AFFORDABLE HOUSING INCENTIVES – DENSITY BONUS

The Monterey Park City Council introduced Ordinance No. 2230 at the June 07, 2023 regular City Council meeting.

The ordinance amends, in its entirety, Chapter 21.18 Affordable Housing Incentives – Density Bonus. This ordinance implements California’s density bonus requirements allowing an increase in residential dwelling unit density for residential projects that develop affordable housing.

Adoption of Ordinance No. 2230 took place at the June 21, 2023 regular City Council meeting at 6:30 p.m., in the City of Monterey Park, California.

For a copy of the Ordinance, please contact the City Clerk’s office at (626) 307-1359.

Approved as submitted above: Karl H. Berger, City Attorney

ATTEST: Maychelle Yee, City Clerk

Publish June 26, 2023 MONTEREY PARK PRESS

LEGAL NOTICE

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK

ORDINANCE NO. 2232

AN ORDINANCE APPROVING AN AMENDED AND RESTATED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (DA-2301) BETWEEN THE CITY OF MONTEREY PARK AND MONTEREY PARK RETAIL PARTNERS, LLC TO FACILITATE THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE MONTEREY PARK MARKET PLACE

The Monterey Park City Council introduced Ordinance No. 2232 at the June 7, 2023 regular City Council meeting.

The ordinance amends and restates the Development Agreement between the City of Monterey Park and the Monterey Park Retail Partners, LLC to facilitate the development of the Monterey Park Market Place, consistent with and pursuant to Government Code Section 65867.5.

Adoption of the Ordinance took place at the June 21, 2023 regular City Council meeting at 6:30 p.m., in the City of Monterey Park, California.

For a copy of the Ordinance, please contact the City Clerk’s office at (626) 307-1359.

Approved as submitted above: Karl H. Berger, City Attorney

ATTEST: Maychelle Yee, City Clerk

Publish June 26, 2023

MONTEREY PARK PRESS

LEGAL NOTICE

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK

ORDINANCE NO. 2231

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING MAP (ZA-23-01) TO CHANGE THE ZONING FROM THE REGIONAL SPECIALTY CENTER WITH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY (P-D) TO ALLOW THE TO THE MARKET PLACE SPECIFIC PLAN (MPSP) TO ALLOW CONSTURCTION OF THE FINAL PHASE OF MARKET PLACE DEVELOPMENT

The Monterey Park City Council introduced Ordinance No. 2231 at the June 7, 2023 regular City Council meeting.

The ordinance revised the Monterey Park Zoning Map to re-zone the properties collectively operating as the Monterey Park Market Place, located at 2000-5500 Market Place Drive, also identified by Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 5275-003-024, 025, 026, 027, 029, 030, 031, 037, 038, and 039 from the Regional Specialty (R-S) zone with the Planned Development Overlay (PD) zone to the Market Place Specific Plan (“MPSP”) zone and the adoption of the MPSP.

Adoption of the Ordinance took place at the June 21, 2023 regular City Council meeting at 6:30 p.m., in the City of Monterey Park, California.

For a copy of the Ordinance, please contact the City Clerk’s office at (626) 307-1359.

Approved as submitted above:

Karl H. Berger, City Attorney

ATTEST: Maychelle Yee, City Clerk

Publish June 26, 2023

MONTEREY PARK PRESS

Glendale City Notices

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN:

LOCATION: Downtown Specific Plan Area

APPLICANT: City of Glendale

PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

The project involves amendments to the Downtown Specific Plan (DSP) regarding hotel uses (General Plan Amendment Case No. PGPA-001238-2023), as directed by City Council on February 8, 2023.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

The proposed amendments to the Zoning Code are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines (Article 19, Section 15305 and Article 5, Section 15061(b)(3)), because the Project involves minor changes to land use regulations which do not result in any changes in land use or density, and because there is no possibility that the Project may have a significant effect on the environment.

CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING:

The City Council will conduct a public hearing in the City Council Chambers, 613 East Broadway, on Tuesday, July 11, 2023, at or after the hour of 6:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible.

The proposed amendments were reviewed by the Planning Commission at a regularly scheduled meeting on June 7, 2023, at which time the Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the amendments to City Council with comments.

Staff reports are accessible one week prior to the meeting through hyperlinks in the ‘Agendas and Minutes’ section. Website Internet Address: www.glendaleca.gov/agendas

The meeting can be viewed on Charter Cable Channel 6 or streamed online at: https://www.glendaleca.gov/government/departments/management-services/gtv6/live-video-stream

For public comments and questions during the meeting, call 818-937-8100. City staff will be submitting these questions and comments in real time to the appropriate person during the City Council public hearing.

If you desire more information on the proposal, please contact the Vilia Zemaitaitis, AICP, Principal Planner, in the Community Development Department at (818) 937-8154 or email: vzemaitaitis@glendaleca.gov

Any person having an interest in the subject project may participate in the hearing, in person or by phone as outlined above, and may be heard in support of his/her opinion. Any person protesting may file a duly signed and acknowledged written protest with the Director of Community Development not later than the hour set for public hearing before the Hearing Officer. “Acknowledged” shall mean a declaration of property ownership (or occupant if not owner) under penalty of perjury. If you challenge the decision of this project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Glendale, at or prior to the public hearing. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, please notify the Community Development Department at least 48 hours (or two business days) for requests regarding sign language translation and Braille transcription services.

The City Clerk of the City of Glendale

Publish June 26, 2023

GLENDALE INDEPENDENT

Probate Notices

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF:

MARIA RUFINA FITCHER DE RUIZ

CASE NO. 23STPB06413

To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the WILL or estate, or both of MARIA RUFINA FITCHER DE RUIZ.

A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by JORGE RUIZ, JR. in the Superior Court of California, County of LOS ANGELES.

THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that JORGE RUIZ, JR. be appointed as personal representative to administer the estate of the decedent.

THE PETITION requests authority to administer the estate under the Independent Administration of Estates Act with limited authority. (This authority will allow the personal representative to take many actions without obtaining court approval. Before taking certain very important actions, however, the personal representative will be required to give notice to interested persons unless they have waived notice or consented to the proposed action.) The independent administration authority will be granted unless an interested person files an objec-

tion to the petition and shows good cause why the court should not grant the authority.

A HEARING on the petition will be held in this court as follows: 09/01/23 at 8:30AM in Dept. 5 located at 111 N. HILL ST., LOS ANGELES, CA 90012

IF YOU OBJECT to the granting of the petition, you should appear at the hearing and state your objections or file written objections with the court before the hearing. Your appearance may be in person or by your attorney.

IF YOU ARE A CREDITOR or a contingent creditor of the decedent, you must file your claim with the court and mail a copy to the personal representative appointed by the court within the later of either (1) four months from the date of first issuance of letters to a general personal representative, as defined in section 58(b) of the California Probate Code, or (2) 60 days from the date of mailing or personal delivery to you of a notice under section 9052 of the California Probate Code.

Other California statutes and legal authority may affect your rights as a creditor. You may want to consult with an attorney knowledgeable in California law.

YOU MAY EXAMINE the file kept by the court. If you are a person interested in the estate, you may file with the court a Request for Special Notice (form DE-154) of the filing of an inventory and appraisal of estate

dent’s lost WILL and codicils, if any, be admitted to probate. The lost WILL and any codicils are available for examination in the file kept by the court.

THE PETITION requests authority to administer the estate under the Independent Administration of Estates Act. (This authority will allow the personal representative to take many actions without obtaining court approval. Before taking certain very important actions, however, the personal representative will be required to give notice to interested persons unless they have waived notice or consented to the proposed action.)

The independent administration authority will be granted unless an interested person files an objection to the petition and shows good cause why the court should not grant the authority.

A HEARING on the petition will be held in this court as follows: 07/19/23 at 8:30AM in Dept. 67 located at 111 N. HILL ST., LOS ANGELES, CA 90012

IF YOU OBJECT to the granting of the petition, you should appear at the hearing and state your objections or file written objections with the court before the hearing. Your appearance may be in person or by your attorney.

IF YOU ARE A CREDITOR or a contingent creditor of the decedent, you must file your claim with the court and mail a copy to the personal representative appointed by the court within the later of either (1) four months from the date of first issuance of letters to a general personal representative, as defined in section 58(b) of the California Probate Code, or (2) 60 days from the date of mailing or personal delivery to you of a notice under section 9052 of the California Probate Code. Other California statutes and legal authority may affect your rights as a creditor. You may want to consult with an attorney knowledgeable in California law.

YOU MAY EXAMINE the file kept by the court. If you are a person interested in the estate, you may file with the court a Request for Special Notice (form DE-154) of the filing of an inventory and appraisal of estate assets or of any petition or account as provided in Probate Code section 1250. A Request for Special Notice form is available from the court clerk.

Attorney for Petitioner ROBERT E. PERASON - SBN 059839, ROBERT E. PEARSON APLC 17782 E. 17TH ST., STE. 109 TUSTIN CA 92780 BSC 223533 6/19, 6/22, 6/26/23 CNS-3712309# PASADENA PRESS

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF ROBERT DODD aka ROBERT J. DODD

Case No. 23STPB06531

To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both, of ROBERT DODD aka ROBERT J. DODD

your attorney.

IF YOU ARE A CREDITOR or a contingent creditor of the decedent, you must file your claim with the court and mail a copy to the personal rep-resentative appointed by the court within the later of either (1) four months from the date of first issuance of letters to a general personal representative, as defined in section 58(b) of the California Probate Code, or (2) 60 days from the date of mailing or personal delivery to you of a notice under section 9052 of the California Probate Code.

Other California statutes and legal authority may affect your rights as a creditor. You may want to consult with an attorney knowledgeable in California law.

YOU MAY EXAMINE the file kept by the court. If you are a person interested in the estate, you may file with the court a Request for Special Notice (form DE-154) of the filing of an inventory and appraisal of estate assets or of any petition or account as provided in Probate Code section 1250. A Request for Special Notice form is available from the court clerk.

Attorney for petitioner:

JUDITH M HILLS ESQ SBN 279582 LAW OFFICES OF JAMES F MILLER PC 1275 EAST GREEN STREET PASADENA CA 91106 CN997704 DODD Jun 26,29, Jul 3, 2023 ALHAMBRA PRESS

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF:

FERNANDO RAMIREZ CASE NO. 23STPB06491

To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the WILL or estate, or both of FERNANDO RAMIREZ.

A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by EMILY PADILLA in the Superior Court of California, County of LOS ANGELES. THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that EMILY PADILLA be appointed as personal representative to administer the estate of the decedent.

THE PETITION requests authority to administer the estate under the Independent Administration of Estates Act. (This authority will allow the personal representative to take many actions without obtaining court approval. Before taking certain very important actions, however, the personal representative will be required to give notice to interested persons unless they have waived notice or consented to the proposed action.) The independent administration authority will be granted unless an interested person files an objection to the petition and shows good cause why the court should not grant the authority.

A HEARING on the petition will be held in this court as follows: 07/19/23 at 8:30AM in Dept. 2D located at 111 N. HILL ST., LOS ANGELES, CA 90012

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF: ARTHUR ARUTYUNYAN AKA ARTHUR DAVTYAN

CASE NO. 23STPB06606

To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the WILL or estate, or both of ARTHUR ARUTYUNYAN AKA ARTHUR DAVTYAN.

A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by SHAKÉ DAVTYAN in the Superior Court of California, County of LOS ANGELES.

THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that SHAKÉ DAVTYAN be appointed as personal representative to administer the estate of the decedent.

THE PETITION requests authority to administer the estate under the Independent Administration of Estates Act. (This authority will allow the personal representative to take many actions without obtaining court approval. Before taking certain very important actions, however, the personal representative will be required to give notice to interested persons unless they have waived notice or consented to the proposed action.) The independent administration authority will be granted unless an interested person files an objection to the petition and shows good cause why the court should not grant the authority.

A HEARING on the petition will be held in this court as follows: 07/21/23 at 8:30AM in Dept. 2D located at 111 N. HILL ST., LOS ANGELES, CA 90012

IF YOU OBJECT to the granting of the petition, you should appear at the hearing and state your objections or file written objections with the court before the hearing. Your appearance may be in person or by your attorney.

IF YOU ARE A CREDITOR or a contingent creditor of the decedent, you must file your claim with the court and mail a copy to the personal representative appointed by the court within the later of either (1) four months from the date of first issuance of letters to a general personal representative, as defined in section 58(b) of the California Probate Code, or (2) 60 days from the date of mailing or personal delivery to you of a notice under section 9052 of the California Probate Code. Other California statutes and legal authority may affect your rights as a creditor. You may want to consult with an attorney knowledgeable in California law.

assets or of any petition or account as provided in Probate Code section 1250. A Request for Special Notice form is available from the court clerk.

Attorney for Petitioner LINDA TOROSSIAN - SBN 238456

TAYLOR SUMMERS & TOROSSIAN, P.C. 301 E COLORADO BLVD., STE 450 PASADENA CA 91101 6/19, 6/22, 6/26/23 CNS-3711559# BALDWIN PARK PRESS

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF: REYNARD GORDON BROOKS AKA REYNARD BROOKS CASE NO. 23STPB06477

To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the lost WILL or estate, or both of REYNARD GORDON BROOKS AKA REYNARD BROOKS.

A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by MARY ANN BROOKS in the Superior Court of California, County of LOS ANGELES.

THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that MARY ANN BROOKS be appointed as personal representative to administer the estate of the decedent.

THE PETITION requests the dece-

A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by Cecilia A. Dodd in the Superior Court of California, County of LOS ANGELES.

THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that Cecilia A. Dodd be appointed as personal representative to administer the estate of the decedent.

THE PETITION requests the decedent’s will and codicils, if any, be admitted to probate. The will and any codicils are available for examination in the file kept by the court.

THE PETITION requests authority to administer the estate under the Independent Administration of Estates Act. (This authority will allow the personal representative to take many actions without obtaining court ap-proval. Before taking certain very important actions, however, the personal representative will be required to give notice to interested persons unless they have waived notice or consented to the proposed action.) The independent administration authority will be granted unless an interested person files an objection to the petition and shows good cause why the court should not grant the authority.

A HEARING on the petition will be held on July 19, 2023 at 8:30 AM in Dept. No. 29 located at 111 N. Hill St., Los Angeles, CA 90012.

IF YOU OBJECT to the granting of the petition, you should appear at the hearing and state your objections or file written objections with the court before the hearing. Your appearance may be in person or by

IF YOU OBJECT to the granting of the petition, you should appear at the hearing and state your objections or file written objections with the court before the hearing. Your appearance may be in person or by your attorney.

IF YOU ARE A CREDITOR or a contingent creditor of the decedent, you must file your claim with the court and mail a copy to the personal representative appointed by the court within the later of either (1) four months from the date of first issuance of letters to a general personal representative, as defined in section 58(b) of the California Probate Code, or (2) 60 days from the date of mailing or personal delivery to you of a notice under section 9052 of the California Probate Code.

Other California statutes and legal authority may affect your rights as a creditor. You may want to consult with an attorney knowledgeable in California law.

YOU MAY EXAMINE the file kept by the court. If you are a person interested in the estate, you may file with the court a Request for Special Notice (form DE-154) of the filing of an inventory and appraisal of estate assets or of any petition or account as provided in Probate Code section 1250. A Request for Special Notice form is available from the court clerk.

YOU MAY EXAMINE the file kept by the court. If you are a person interested in the estate, you may file with the court a Request for Special Notice (form DE-154) of the filing of an inventory and appraisal of estate assets or of any petition or account as provided in Probate Code section 1250. A Request for Special Notice form is available from the court clerk. Attorney for Petitioner HENRY T. RAU - SBN 274551, RAU LAW FIRM 1880 WILLAMETTE FALLS DRIVE, SUITE 250 WEST LINN OR 97068 6/22, 6/26, 6/29/23

CNS-3713035#

GLENDALE INDEPENDENT

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF:

KAY GREEN CASE NO. 23STPB06622

To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the WILL or estate, or both of KAY GREEN.

A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by KENNITH GREEN SR. in the Superior Court of California, County of LOS ANGELES.

THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that KENNITH GREEN SR. be appointed as personal representative to administer the estate of the decedent.

THE PETITION requests the decedent’s WILL and codicils, if any, be admitted to probate. The WILL and any codicils are available for examination in the file kept by the court.

THE PETITION requests authority to administer the estate under the Independent Administration of Estates Act. (This authority will allow the personal representative to take many actions without obtaining court approval. Before taking certain very important actions, however, the personal representative will be required to give notice to interested persons unless they have waived notice or consented to the proposed action.)

The independent administration authority will be granted unless an in-

Dr. Suzie Abajian

dition, or encumbrances, including fees, charges and expenses of the Trustee and of the trusts created by said Deed of Trust, to pay the remaining principal sums of the note(s) secured by said Deed of Trust. The total amount of the unpaid balance of the obligation secured by the property to be sold and reasonable estimated costs, expenses and advances at the time of the initial publication of the Notice of Sale is: $128,088.14 If the Trustee is unable to convey title for any reason, the successful bidder’s sole and exclusive remedy shall be the return of monies paid to the Trustee, and the successful bidder shall have no further recourse. The beneficiary under said Deed of Trust heretofore executed and delivered to the undersigned a written Declaration of Default and Demand for Sale, and a written Notice of Default and Election to Sell. The undersigned or its predecessor caused said Notice of Default and Election to Sell to be recorded in the county where the real property is located.

NOTICE TO POTENTIAL BIDDERS: If you are considering bidding on this property lien, you should understand that there are risks involved in bidding at a trustee auction. You will be bidding on a lien, not on the property itself. Placing the highest bid at a trustee auction does not automatically entitle you to free and clear ownership of the property. You should also be aware that the lien being auctioned off may be a junior lien. If you are the highest bidder at the auction, you are or may be responsible for paying off all liens senior to the lien being auctioned off, before you can receive clear title to the property. You are encouraged to investigate the existence, priority, and size of outstanding liens that may exist on this property by contacting the county recorder’s office or a title insurance company, either of which may charge you a fee for this information. If you consult either of these resources, you should be aware that the same lender may hold more than one mortgage or deed of trust on the property.

NOTICE TO PROPERTY OWNER: The sale date shown on this notice of sale may be postponed one or more times by the mortgagee, beneficiary, trustee, or a court, pursuant to Section 2924g of the California Civil Code. The law requires that information about trustee sale postponements be made available to you and to the public, as a courtesy to those not present at the sale.

If you wish to learn whether your sale date has been postponed, and, if applicable, the rescheduled time and date for the sale of this property, you may call (844) 477-7869 or visit this Internet Web site WWW.STOXPOSTING.COM, using the file number assigned to this case 101502-CA. Information about postponements that are very short in duration or that occur close in time to the scheduled sale may not immediately be reflected in the telephone information or on the Internet Web site. The best way to verify postponement information is to attend the scheduled sale. NOTICE TO TENANT:

Effective January 1, 2021, you may have a right to purchase this property after the trustee auction pursuant to Section 2924m of the California Civil Code. If you are an “eligible tenant buyer,” you can purchase the property if you match the last and highest bid placed at the trustee auction. If you are an “eligible bidder,” you may be able to purchase the property if you exceed the last and highest bid placed at the trustee auction. There are three steps to exercising this right of purchase. First, 48 hours after the date of the trustee sale, you can call (855) 313-3319, or visit this internet website www.clearreconcorp.com, using the file number assigned to this case 101502CA to find the date on which the trustee’s sale was held, the amount of the last and highest bid, and the address of the trustee. Second, you must send a written notice of intent to place a bid so that the trustee receives it no more than 15 days after the trustee’s sale. Third, you must submit a bid so that the trustee receives it no more than 45 days after the trustee’s sale. If you think you may qualify as an “eligible tenant buyer” or “eligible bidder,” you should consider contacting an attorney or appropriate real estate professional immediately for advice regarding this potential right to purchase.

FOR SALES INFORMATION: (844) 4777869 CLEAR RECON CORP 8880 Rio San Diego Drive, Suite 725 San Diego, California 92108. 938909 / 101502-CA, Glendale - Glendale Independent, 0612-2023,06-19-2023,06-26-2023 Glendale independent

Fictitious Business

Name Filings

The following person(s) is (are) doing business as Tucker Services 2680 Cottage Dr Corona, CA 92881 Riverside County

David Joseph Tucker, 2680 Cottage Dr., Corona, CA 92881 Riverside County

This business is conducted by: a individual. Registrant has not yet begun to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed herein. I declare that all the information in this statement is true and correct. (A registrant who declares as true any material matter pursuant to Section 17913 of the Business and Professions Code, that the registrant knows to be false, is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed one thousands dollars ($1000).)

s. David Joseph Tucker

Statement filed with the County of Riverside on June 1, 2023

NOTICE: In accordance with subdivision (a) of section 17920, a fictitious name statement generally expires at the end of the five years from the date on which it was filed in the office of

the county clerk, except, as provided in subdivision (b) of section 17920, where it expires 40 days after any changes in the facts set forth in the statement pursuant to section 17913 other than a change in the residence address of a registered owner. A new Fictitious Business Name Statement must be filed before the expiration. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14411 Et Seq., business and professions code). I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.

Peter Aldana, County, Clerk File# 202308456 Pub. 06/05/2023, 06/12/2023, 06/19/2023, 06/26/2023 Riverside Independent

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS

NAME STATEMENT File No. FBN20230005708

The following persons are doing business as: LAPIS ENTERPRISE, 12892 Elegance Dr, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91739. (1). ELLEN LEE, 12892 Elegance Dr, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91739 (2). TAI YEU CHAO, 12892 Elegance Dr, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91739 . County of Principal Place of Business: San Bernardino

This business is conducted by: a married couple. Registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed herein on June 1, 2023. By signing below, I declare that I have read and understand the reverse side of this form and that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true any material matter pursuant to Section 17913 of the Business and Professions Code that the registrant knows to be false is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000). I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing pursuant to the California Public Records Act (Government Code Sections 6250- 6277). /s/ ELLEN

LEE. This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on June 2, 2023 Notice- In accordance with subdivision (a) of Section 17920. A Fictitious Name Statement generally expires at the end of five years from the date on which it was filed in the office of the County Clerk, except, as provided in subdivision (b) of Section 17920, where it expires 40 days after any change in the facts set forth in the statement pursuant to Section 17913 other than a change in the residence address of a registered owner. A new Fictitious Business Name Statement must be filed before the expiration. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14411 et seq., Business and Professions Code) File#: FBN20230005708 Pub: 06/12/2023, 06/19/2023, 06/26/2023, 07/03/2023 San Bernardino Press

The following person(s) is (are) doing business as MR. YOU CHINESE FOOD 406 E 4th St Perris, CA 92570 Riverside County LUCKY WOK 1 INC (CA), 406 E 4th St, Perris, CA 92570 Riverside County

This business is conducted by: a corporation. Registrant commeanced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed herein on February 14, 2023. I declare that all the information in this statement is true and correct. (A registrant who declares as true any material matter pursuant to Section 17913 of the Business and Professions Code, that the registrant knows to be false, is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed one thousands dollars ($1000).)

s. ZHIHUA CHEN, PRESIDENT Statement filed with the County of Riverside on June 1, 2023

NOTICE: In accordance with subdivision (a) of section 17920, a fictitious name statement generally expires at the end of the five years from the date on which it was filed in the office of the county clerk, except, as provided in subdivision (b) of section 17920, where it expires 40 days after any changes in the facts set forth in the statement pursuant to section 17913 other than a change in the residence address of a registered owner. A new Fictitious Business Name Statement must be filed before the expiration. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14411 Et Seq., business and professions code). I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of

LEGALS

the original statement on file in my office.

Peter Aldana, County, Clerk

File# R-202308533 Pub. 06/12/2023, 06/19/2023, 06/26/2023, 07/03/2023

Riverside Independent

The following person(s) is (are) doing business as Perfectly Clean 24840 Elder Avenue Moreno Valley, CA 92557 Mailing Address, 1074 Eden Valley Way, San Jacinto, CA 92582.

Riverside County Heather Marie Duncan, 1074 Eden Valley Way, San Jacinto, CA 92582 Riverside County

This business is conducted by: a individual. Registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed herein on October 21, 2017. I declare that all the information in this statement is true and correct. (A registrant who declares as true any material matter pursuant to Section 17913 of the Business and Professions Code, that the registrant knows to be false, is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed one thousands dollars ($1000).)

s. Heather Marie Duncan Statement filed with the County of Riverside on June 2, 2023

NOTICE:

In accordance with subdivision (a) of section 17920, a fictitious name statement generally expires at the end of the five years from the date on which it was filed in the office of the county clerk, except, as provided in subdivision (b) of section 17920, where it expires 40 days after any changes in the facts set forth in the statement pursuant to section 17913 other than a change in the residence address of a registered owner. A new Fictitious Business Name Statement must be filed before the expiration. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14411 Et Seq., business and professions code). I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.

Peter Aldana, County, Clerk

File# R-202308572 Pub. 06/12/2023, 06/19/2023, 06/26/2023, 07/03/2023 Riverside Independent

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS

NAME STATEMENT

File No. FBN20230005648

The following persons are doing business as: (1). Catalyst – Fontana (2). Catalyst Cannabis – Fontana (3). Catalyst Fontana (4). Catalyst Cannabis Fontana (5). Catalyst Cannabis Co. – Fontana , 6810 -6830 Sierra Ave., Fontana, CA 92336. Mailing Address, 401 Pine Ave, Long Beach, CA 90802. Catalyst – Fontana LLC (CA), 401 Pine Ave, Long Beach, CA 90802; Elliot Lewis, Managing Member. County of Principal Place of Business: San Bernardino This business is conducted by: a limited liability company (llc). Registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed herein on April 28, 2023. By signing below, I declare that I have read and understand the reverse side of this form and that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true any material matter pursuant to Section 17913 of the Business and Professions Code that the registrant knows to be false is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000). I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing pursuant to the California Public Records Act (Government Code Sections 6250- 6277). /s/ Elliot Lewis, Managing Member. This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on June 1, 2023 Notice- In accordance with subdivision (a) of Section 17920. A Fictitious Name Statement generally expires at the end of five years from the date on which it was filed in the office of the County Clerk, except, as provided in subdivision (b) of Section 17920, where it expires 40 days after any change in the facts set forth in the statement pursuant to Section 17913 other than a change in the residence address of a registered owner. A new Fictitious Business Name Statement must be filed before the expiration. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14411 et seq., Business and Professions Code) File#: FBN20230005648 Pub: 06/12/2023, 06/19/2023, 06/26/2023, 07/03/2023 San Bernardino Press

lowing person(s) is (are) doing business as: CVT SALES AND EXPORT , 23502 COMMERCE CENTER DR # B, LAGUNA HILLS, CA 92653. Full Name of Registrant(s) TED VINCENT CALLIGORI, 289 DEL MAR AVE UNIT A , COSTA MESA, CA 92627. This business is conducted by a individual. Registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed herein on August 15, 2019. /S/ TED VINCENT CALLIGORI. This statement was filed with the County Clerk of Orange County on June 5, 2023. Publish: Monrovia Weekly 06/19/2023, 06/26/2023, 07/03/2023, 07/10/2023

SOCAL

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME STATEMENT 20236664715. The following person(s) is (are) doing business as: CVT SALES AND EXPORT , 23502 COMMERCE CENTER DR # B, LAGUNA HILLS, CA 92653. Full Name of Registrant(s) TED VINCENT CALLIGORI, 289 DEL MAR AVE UNIT A , COSTA MESA, CA 92627. This business is conducted by a individual. Registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed herein on August 15, 2019. /S/ TED VINCENT CALLIGORI. This statement was filed with the County Clerk of Orange County on June 5, 2023. Publish: Monrovia Weekly 06/19/2023, 06/26/2023, 07/03/2023, 07/10/2023

The following person(s) is (are) doing business as (1). REXERA AUTO GROUP (2). REXERA AUTO REGISTRATION SERVICES 41695 S Enterprise Cir Temecula, CA 92590 Riverside County RODEO AUTO INC (CA), 8504 Indiana Ave, Riverside, CA 92504 Riverside County

This business is conducted by: a corporation. Registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed herein on June 13, 2023. I declare that all the information in this statement is true and correct. (A registrant who declares as true any material matter pursuant to Section 17913 of the Business and Professions Code, that the registrant knows to be false, is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed one thousands dollars ($1000).)

s. RANIA ALKANJ, CEO Statement filed with the County of Riverside on June 15, 2023

NOTICE: In accordance with subdivision (a) of section 17920, a fictitious name statement generally expires at the end of the five years from the date on which it was filed in the office of the county clerk, except, as provided in subdivision (b) of section 17920, where it expires 40 days after any changes in the facts set forth in the statement pursuant to section 17913 other than a change in the residence address of a registered owner. A new Fictitious Business Name Statement must be filed before the expiration.

The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14411 Et Seq., business and professions code). I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.

Peter Aldana, County, Clerk File# 202309284 Pub. 06/19/2023, 06/26/2023, 07/03/2023, 07/10/2023 Riverside Independent

The following person(s) is (are) doing business as Win or Out Slots 6953 Stillbrook Way Eastvale, CA 92880 Riverside County Pristina Holmes, 6953 Stillbrook Way, Eastvale, CA 92880 Riverside County This business is conducted by: a individual. Registrant has not yet begun to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed herein. I declare that all the information in this statement is true and correct. (A registrant who declares as true any material matter pursuant to Section 17913 of the Business and Professions Code, that the registrant knows to be false, is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed one thousands dollars ($1000).)

s. Pristina Holmes Statement filed with the County of Riverside on May 22, 2023

must be filed before the expiration.

The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14411 Et Seq., business and professions code). I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.

Peter Aldana, County, Clerk

File# 202307888 Pub. 06/19/2023, 06/26/2023, 07/03/2023, 07/10/2023

Riverside Independent

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS

NAME STATEMENT

File No. 20230005750

The following persons are doing business as: RPM LLC, 1500 S Milliken Ave Unit D, Ontario, CA 91761. 6Blu Inc. (CA), 1500 S Milliken Ave Unit D, Ontario, CA 91761; Kunqi

Li, ceo. County of Principal Place of Business: San Bernardino This business is conducted by: a corporation. Registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed herein on June 5, 2023. By signing below, I declare that I have read and understand the reverse side of this form and that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true any material matter pursuant to Section 17913 of the Business and Professions Code that the registrant knows to be false is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000). I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing pursuant to the California Public Records Act (Government Code Sections 6250- 6277). /s/ Kunqi

Li, ceo. This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on June 5, 2023 Notice- In accordance with subdivision (a) of Section 17920. A Fictitious Name Statement generally expires at the end of five years from the date on which it was filed in the office of the County Clerk, except, as provided in subdivision (b) of Section 17920, where it expires 40 days after any change in the facts set forth in the statement pursuant to Section 17913 other than a change in the residence address of a registered owner. A new Fictitious Business

Name Statement must be filed before the expiration. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14411 et seq., Business and Professions Code)

File#: 20230005750 Pub: 06/19/2023, 06/26/2023, 07/03/2023, 07/10/2023 San Bernardino Press

The following person(s) is (are) doing business as SoCal Ritual Bodywork 40555 California Oaks Road suite 118 murrieta, CA 92562

Mailing Address, 35858 Octopus Ln, Wildomar, CA 92595. Riverside County Lauren Amy Tucker, 35858 Octopus Ln, Wildomar, CA 92595 Riverside County

This business is conducted by: a individual. Registrant has not yet begun to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed herein. I declare that all the information in this statement is true and correct. (A registrant who declares as true any material matter pursuant to Section 17913 of the Business and Professions Code, that the registrant knows to be false, is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed one thousands dollars ($1000).)

s. Lauren Amy Tucker

Statement filed with the County of Riverside on June 22, 2023

NOTICE: In accordance with subdivision (a) of section 17920, a fictitious name statement generally expires at the end of the five years from the date on which it was filed in the office of the county clerk, except, as provided in subdivision (b) of section 17920, where it expires 40 days after any changes in the facts set forth in the statement pursuant to section 17913 other than a change in the residence address of a registered owner. A new Fictitious Business Name Statement must be filed before the expiration.

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME STATEMENT 20236664715. The fol-

NOTICE: In accordance with subdivision (a) of section 17920, a fictitious name statement generally expires at the end of the five years from the date on which it was filed in the office of the county clerk, except, as provided in subdivision (b) of section 17920, where it expires 40 days after any changes in the facts set forth in the statement pursuant to section 17913 other than a change in the residence address of a registered owner. A new Fictitious Business Name Statement

The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14411 Et Seq., business and professions code). I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.

Peter Aldana, County, Clerk

File# 202309625 Pub. 06/29/2023, 07/06/2023, 07/13/2023, 07/17/2023

Riverside Independent

Downtown LA intersection dedicated in honor of LGBTQIA+ icons

By City News Service

An intersection in downtownLos Angeles was dedicated Thursday as Cooper Do-Nuts/NancyValverde Square in recognition of the establishment that played a pivotal role in the LGBTQIA+ community’s struggle for equality during the 1950s and the LGBTQIA+ activist.

The 9 a.m. ceremony at the intersection of Second and Main streets included an acknowledgement and apology from Cmdr. Ruby Flores for the Los Angeles Police Department’s harassment of Valverde and the LGBTQIA+ community during the 1950s.

Cooper Do-nuts, which was located at 215 S. Main St., distinguished itself as a safe space for the LGBTQIA+ community, according to the motion by City Councilman Kevin de León to name the intersection Cooper Do-nuts/Nancy Valverde Square.

Despite the neighboring businesses, a strip of bars known as “The Run” catering to gay men, gender nonconforming individuals were often excluded from these establishments for fear of the bars losing their liquor licenses as a result of Municipal Ordinance No. 5022, a citywide ban on cross dressing between 6 p.m. and 6 a.m.

Cooper Do-nuts, however, remained a safe haven for all members of the queer community regardless of gender presentation.

Many also claim Cooper Do-nuts was the site of the first LGBT uprising, occurring in May 1959 after LAPD officers attempted to arrest two drag queens and two gay men suspected of sex work and were met with a barrage of spoons, coffee cups, doughnuts and coffee thrown by Cooper Do-nuts patrons,

forcing the officers to leave without making the arrests.

News of the incident spread throughout “The Run,” prompting angry Angelenos to fill the streets to protest this particular injustice and the ongoing discrimination endured by the queer community in Los Angeles.

Valverde and her friends Audrey Black and Delores Newton were students at Moler’s Barber College at 265 S. Main St., a few doors south of Cooper Do-nuts which quickly became Valverde and her friends’ regular spot.

As a masculine presenting woman, Valverde was routinely arrested for violating Ordinance No. 5022 and thrown into the Lincoln Heights Jail in a section known derisively as the Daddy Tank, reserved for women suspected of

being lesbians.

Determined to address this discrimination, Valverde, with the help of a clerk at the Los Angeles County Law Library, found rulings that supported

her defense that wearing men’s clothing was not a crime. Valverde informed her lawyer Arthur Black of what she learned and he was able to use these findings in her defense.

Ontario Open Art Exhibition reception set for July 22

By Staff

Winners of the 12th Biennial Ontario Open Art Exhibition will be celebrated at a special reception on Saturday, July 22,

from 5-7 p.m. at the Ontario Museum of History & Art. The winners were announced earlier this month: First Place: Sharon Austin,

Painted Face, 2022, Pen and ink illustration Second Place: Hannah Raykhenberg, I Will Bury You in Flowers #2, 2023, Oil

painting, mixed media Third Place: Juan Varela, Our Lady of the Angels, 2023, Mixed media 2D City Council Liaison Award:

Dan Frembling, Running Free, 2021, Intarsia (special woodworking technique)

Steve Thomas Photography / Conservation

Valverde’s tenacity and perseverance led the way to ending laws targeting LGBTQIA+ individuals, particularly gender nonconforming persons, in Los Angeles.

Award: Leah Knecht, Double Exposure, 2022, Assemblage, photography For more information, visit OntarioMuseum.org.

Metro moves forward to create plan for an in-house public safety department

Metro’s Board of Directors Thursday approved a motion calling for development of an implementation plan for an in-house public safety department, with the goal of presenting the plan to the transit agency board in January 2024.

The motion instructs the CEO to prepare a comprehensive implementation plan for Board consideration. The plan will reflect the agency’s commitment to “building a new culture, public safety, centered on a robust multilayered approach,” Chair Ara Najarian said.

Prior to the vote, Gina Osborn, chief safety officer, provided a presentation on the feasibility of establishing an in-house public safety department within the transit agency.

With regard to strengths, Osborn said an in-house public safety department would result in engaged visibility; cultural alignment

with Metro’s values; increased transparency and response time to crimes or other crises; dedicated staffing and improved fiscal sustainability.

“Prior industry studies and assessments reflect that the cost of an in-house transit police department in the U.S. is typically 20% to 40% less than contract police services,” Osborn said.

The feasibility study indicated that the estimated budget for a safety department would be $135.4 million, 21.7% less than the $172.9 million that Metro currently has budgeted for policing contracts in the 2023-24 fiscal year.

“This approach will not only create a stronger and more efficient safety framework but also allow Metro to reallocate resources in a proactive and cost-effective manner that aligns with the agency’s safety priorities,” Osborn added.

Weaknesses in an in-house safety department include

By City News Service

liability, staffing shortages in law enforcement personnel, as well as training specialized units like SWAT, she added.

Osborn emphasized that the motion to develop an implementation plan for an in-house public safety department would outline an operating framework, create a strategic plan for the department’s goals and objectives, establish an organizational structure and more.

BOD members approved the motion in an-almost unanimous vote -- as Director and L.A. County Supervisor Janice Hahn abstained from the vote.

Hahn was critical of the motion, saying it was a “big shift” from talking about the “perception” of having public safety issues to implementing an in-house public safety department.

She noted that the agency’s law enforcement partners -- Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, Los Angeles Police Depart-

ment and the Long Beach Police Department -- would “probably be blindsided by this move.”

“I just wanted us to get there in a way that made me more comfortable about making this decision that I am pretty sure the will of this board is going to go ahead and implement this strategy,” Hahn said.

Director Karen Bass, mayor of Los Angeles, noted that Hahn was right in that in regards to law enforcement being unaware of the motion. Bass stated she would be meeting with LAPD Chief Michel Moore to discuss the implications of the motion.

“I know that with LAPD officers, Metro was an opportunity for overtime,” Bass said. “It’s going to be important to look at that and figure out how that is dealt with.”

Bass, who supported the motion, said she “never understood” how the agency contracted three different agencies and “three different

ways of policing.”

“So, it’s a real opportunity to take a very, very bold step,” Bass said. “But I agree with you Supervisor Hahn, we have to have community input. We have to talk about exactly how we go about this.”

Metro’s decision to move forward in developing an implementation plan for an in-house public safety department stems from financial concerns and challenges identified in a 2022 audit report from the Office of the Inspector General.

According to Metro, over a six-year period starting in 2017, law enforcement contracts cost the agency approximately $911.9 million. In addition, the audit report found that 54% of LAPD calls for service involving Metro were left unanswered by neighborhood patrol units, and not the LAPD officers assigned to Metro at the time of the call.

While the agency identified those challenges regarding deployment, Metro’s

directors voted in March to continue negotiations and extend contracts with the three law enforcement agencies. Staff noted that Metro made revisions to the statements of work to include a provision in which police agencies would fall in compliance with Metro’s bias-free policing policy and public safety analytics.

Metro staff during Thursday’s discussion said two of the three law enforcement agencies agreed to the revisions.

Lindsey Horvath, director and L.A. County supervisor, emphasized this motion only authorizes staff to develop a plan that will come back to the Board for approval.

“I know that through this process, we’ll be looking at national and international best practices, and what resources are required in terms of personnel, in terms of dollars and cents, and in terms of training and expertise,” Horvath said.

Cooper Do-Nuts in downtown LA in the 1950s. | Photo courtesy of LEGATO Choirs/Facebook

Trial begins for OC basketball coach accused of molesting 6 girls

By Paul Anderson, City News Service

A48-year-old former Orange County girls basketball coach accused of sexually assaulting six of his players over several years asked one girl to run around a court, holding a basketball aloft topless in a private session in Tustin before kissing her, the alleged victim testified Thursday.

Carlos Francisco Juarez is charged with 21 felony counts related to sexual assaults on four girls, but jurors will hear evidence related to two other alleged victims who will testify to bolster the prosecution’s claims of consistent patterns of targeting, grooming and attacking the girls.

Juarez’s ex-wife is expected to testify about how she grew suspicious in 2018 that her former husband was sexually abusing their daughter’s teammate on a team Juarez was coaching, Deputy District Attorney Raquel Cooper said.

The ex-wife “decided to reach out to the girls in the past and ask them, ‘Did anything happen to you?

Because it’s happening again,”’ Cooper said.

It was then that four victims came forward to law enforcement, Cooper said.

Some of the alleged victims lied to investigators

earlier about having sexual contact with the defendant, Cooper said. So Dr. Blake Carmichael will provide expert testimony on Child Sexual Abuse and Accommodation Syndrome, the prosecutor said.

“He’s going to tell us about the five different stages -- secrecy, helplessness, entrapment and accommodation, delayed disclosure and retraction,” Cooper said.

“He’s also going to speak about the power differential between coaches and athletes,” Cooper said.

The expert is expected to testify about the process of “grooming,” or readying victims for sexual abuse, Cooper said.

In some cases, some of the alleged victims would engage in text messaging with their coach that started out “innocent,” but grew more sexually charged, Cooper said.

Juarez’s attorney, Kenneth Reed, did not make an opening statement on Thursday.

One alleged victim told jurors she started taking private lessons with Juarez in 2005, when she was 11 years old, at a Salvation Army gym in Tustin. One of her teammates on a soccer team “recruited” her to join their

club basketball team because she was tall, she said.

The alleged victim played for Juarez’s club basketball team for about a year and a half, she said.

“I was excited to get better,” she said of the private practices.

The first few practices were normal and included the usual drills and work on positioning, she said.

“But then it got worse,” she said.

“He wanted to help me by giving me private lessons that were not related to basketball that would help me with future relationships,” she testified.

She felt it was “strange,” but she figured it could be a “benefit.”

Juarez asked her to take off her clothes and run around the court nude, she testified.

She was uncomfortable being nude, so, “I said could I just take off my top?” she testified.

“He said it would help me with my confidence, and I wasn’t very confident as a kid,” she said.

She took off her jersey and sports bra and would run around the court with a basketball held over her head during two of the practices, she testified.

Then at the end of another practice he asked her if she was ready for her next lesson, she testified.

“He kissed me on the mouth and it was a French kiss,” she testified. “It was my first time, so I definitely remember that.”

She said it made her “nervous” and she was “caught off guard.”

Juarez drove her home as usual, she said. Juarez kissed her the same way after a few of their practices, she testified.

“It felt awkward, but I thought it would benefit me, so I kept my mouth quiet,” she testified.

Then, after one practice while driving her home, he pulled into a parking lot near her home and told her he would “teach me how to have an orgasm and that would help me with future partners, how to get me off,” she testified.

He groped her groin area over her clothes, and the next time she removed her shorts so he could touch her again, and then another time he “penetrated” her with his fingers, she testified.

“I told him I was uncomfortable,” she said. “I told him I wanted him to stop. I felt it had gone too far.”

The alleged victim said she was “disgusted with myself that I let it get that far,” she said.

Juarez told her not to tell anyone and she complied. She continued going to practices after that but he did not touch her anymore, she said.

“I told my parents I wanted to quit the team, but I didn’t tell them why,” she said. “They didn’t understand my reasoning. They were encouraging me to stay because on the outside, he looked like a great coach.”

Juarez knew that the girl’s mother had been diagnosed with breast cancer and was ailing, she testified. He would give her envelopes of cash of between $300 to $400 after he allegedly assaulted her, she

testified.

She said she would spend the money on food and clothing because she did not want to ask her father for money, she said. The family was going through financial troubles at the time, she said.

“He told me I was lucky to be receiving private lessons and the other girls would be jealous” if she said anything about the private sessions, she said.

Juarez coached for club basketball teams as well as at Mater Dei, Aliso Niguel, Tustin and Costa Mesa high schools, Cooper said. The alleged victims ranged in age from 11 to 17, she said.

One alleged victim met Juarez in 2002, when she was 8 years old, Cooper said. Juarez kissed her when she was 12 while they were in an elevator at a basketball tournament in Reno, Nevada, Cooper said.

The two continued to flirtatiously text, and Juarez separated from his wife in September 2007, Cooper said. Juarez then moved in with the alleged victim’s family and he began having sex with her when she was 13 years old more than 100 times, Cooper alleged.

Juarez at one point gave the girl a “promise ring,” Cooper said.

In May 2008, the girl’s parents got separated and Juarez later moved in with the girl and her mother in Irvine, Cooper said.

In April 2009, the girl’s father told police he suspected Juarez was sexually abusing his daughter, Cooper said. But the two denied it and the case was closed while the two continued “dating,” Cooper said.

When the alleged victim turned 18 the two asked her father if they could go public with their relationship, and he “adamantly objected” and told his daughter he would cut her off financially if they did, Cooper said. The alleged victim then broke up with Juarez, Cooper said.

He met another alleged

Ara Najarian

victim in 2008, when she was 14 years old, and provided private training for her, Cooper said. While Juarez was having a sexual relationship with the girl he was living with, he brought the other girl over to their home and tried to have sex with her there, but she asked to stop and he drove her home, Cooper alleged.

Juarez allegedly told her that she had to keep it secret because he could lose his kids and go to jail, Cooper said. In April 2009, when the girl told a friend about the sexual abuse, she was pulled out of class one day and questioned by sheriff’s investigators, Cooper said.

The girl did a “covert call” to the defendant with sheriff’s investigators listening secretly, but he denied even knowing the other girl he was charged with sexually assaulting, Cooper said. Prosecutors declined to file charges, Cooper said.

Another alleged victim played on his club team and in 2007, when she was 13, she started getting private lessons that escalated from flirtatious messages to sexual molestation and kissing, Cooper alleged. On one occasion, when she was 14, he had her perform a sex act on him in a storage room at Mater Dei High School, Cooper alleged.

Juarez told her she would get more playing time and could become a starter in exchange for the sexual favors, Cooper alleged.

One accuser said she met Juarez in the fall of 2008, when she was on the girls’ varsity team at Aliso Viejo High School while he was coach, Cooper said. The girl was 17 when she received private lessons from the defendant, and after one practice, he took her to her mother’s apartment in Costa Mesa and sex with her, Cooper alleged.

When questioned by police about it in 2009, she denied it because, she later said, she was still “dating” him, Cooper alleged.

to increase ridership, such as introducing nearly 300 Metro Ambassadors and implementing Metro’s GoPass Program.

Director Jacquelyn Dupont-Walker, first vice chair, said Najarian distinguished himself as a person with “the longest history of Metro.” She also noted that Najarian had to lead the board virtually during the first part of the year and kept everyone together.

After congratulating Najarian the board elected

Bass as the new chair for 2023-24, LA County Supervisor Janice Hahn as the first vice chair and Director Fernando Dutra as second vice chair.

“I’ll be passing my torch soon to my successor, Mayor Bass, and I have full confidence that this agency will continue to thrive under her leadership,” Najarian said.

Bass said she is excited to lead Metro, and will focus on taking further steps to address public safety and homelessness.

Ara Najarian. | Photo courtesy of the city of Glendale