Monday, October 13, 2025
spot_img
spot_img
Home Blog Page 543

Governor Newsom Appoints 19 Superior Court Judges

SACRAMENTO – Governor Gavin Newsom Nov. 13, announced the appointment of 19 California superior court judges, which include one in Butte County, 10 in Los Angeles County, one in Orange County, two in Riverside County, two in San Bernardino County, two in San Francisco County and one in Ventura County.

Los Angeles County Superior Court 

Rita L. Badhan, 43, of Los Angeles, has been appointed to serve as a Judge in the Los Angeles County Superior Court. Badhan has served as a Deputy Public Defender at the Los Angeles County Public Defender’s Office since 2007. She served as an Assistant Public Defender at the Sacramento County Public Defender’s Office from 2006 to 2007 and as a Deputy Public Defender at the Santa Clara County Public Defender’s Office from 2004 to 2006. Badhan was a Sole Practitioner in 2004. She earned a Juris Doctor degree from the Santa Clara University School of Law. She fills the vacancy created by the retirement of Judge Abraham Khan. Badhan is a Democrat.

Alicia Y. Blanco, 54, of Burbank, has been appointed to serve as a Judge in the Los Angeles County Superior Court. Blanco has served as a Commissioner at the Los Angeles County Superior Court since 2015. She was a Sole Practitioner from 2014 to 2015. Blanco served as a Supervising Deputy Federal Public Defender at the Office of the Federal Public Defender, Central District of California from 2003 to 2014 and as a Deputy Federal Defender there from 1991 to 2003. She earned a Juris Doctor degree from the Southwestern University School of Law. She fills the vacancy created by the retirement of Judge Leslie A. Swain. Blanco is a Democrat.

Robert E. Sanchez DuFour, 41, of Los Angeles, has been appointed to serve as a Judge in the Los Angeles County Superior Court. Sanchez DuFour has served as a Deputy District Attorney at the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office since 2005. He earned a Juris Doctor degree from Vanderbilt University Law School. He fills the vacancy created by the retirement of Judge Steven P. Sanora. Sanchez DuFour is a Democrat.

Ronald O. Kaye, 59, of Los Angeles, has been appointed to serve as a Judge in the Los Angeles County Superior Court. Kaye has been a Partner and Co-Founder at Kaye, McLane, Bednarski & Litt LLP since 2003. He served as a Deputy Federal Public Defender at the Office of the Federal Public Defender, Central District of California from 1995 to 2003 and was an Attorney at the Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles from 1992 to 1995. Kaye was an Associate at Heller, Ehrman, White & McAuliffe from 1991 to 1992 and the Staff Attorney at the Central American Refugee Center, Los Angeles from 1990 to 1991. He earned a Juris Doctor degree and a Master of Arts degree in urban planning from a joint program of the University of California, Los Angeles School of Law and the Graduate School of Architecture and Urban Planning. He fills the vacancy created by the retirement of Judge Richard E. Rico. Kaye is a Democrat.

Elizabeth Potter Scully, 48, of Culver City, has been appointed to serve as a Judge in the Los Angeles County Superior Court. Scully has been a Founding Partner at Jacobson Scully LLP since 2018. She was a Founding Partner at Jacobson Scully Shebby LLP from 2010 to 2018 and a Sole Practitioner from 2007 to 2010. Scully was a Partner at Kaufman Young Spiegel Robinson & Kenerson LLP from 2001 to 2007 and Senior Associate at Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps LLP from 1996 to 2001. She earned a Juris Doctor degree from the University of California, Hastings College of the Law. She fills the vacancy created by the retirement of Judge Michael A. Cowell. Scully is a Democrat.

David W. Swift, 41, of Los Angeles, has been appointed to serve as a Judge in the Los Angeles County Superior Court. Swift has been a Partner at Kinsella Weitzman Iser Kump & Aldisert LLP since 2014, where he was an Associate from 2008 to 2013. He was an Associate at Strange & Carpenter in 2008 and at Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP from 2005 to 2008. Swift served as a Law Clerk for the Honorable Cynthia Holcomb Hall at the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit from 2004 to 2005. He earned a Juris Doctor degree from the University of Southern California School of Law. He fills the vacancy created by the retirement of Judge Elizabeth A. White. Swift is a Democrat.

Hernan D. Vera, 50, of Los Angeles, has been appointed to serve as a Judge in the Los Angeles County Superior Court. Vera has been a Principal at Bird Marella since 2015. He was President and Chief Executive Officer at Public Counsel from 2008 to 2014, where he was Director of the Consumer Law Project from 2002 to 2008. He was an Associate and Counsel at O’Melveny & Myers LLP from 1997 to 2002. Vera was an Education Staff Attorney at the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund from 1996 to 1997, a Law Clerk for the Honorable Consuelo B. Marshall at the U.S. District Court, Central District of California from 1995 to 1996 and an Associate at O’Melveny & Myers LLP from 1994 to 1995. He earned a Juris Doctor degree from the University of California, Los Angeles School of Law. He fills the vacancy created by the retirement of Judge Elizabeth R. Feffer. Vera is a Democrat.

Wendy L. Wilcox, 50, of Los Angeles, has been appointed to serve as a Judge in the Los Angeles County Superior Court. Wilcox has been a Partner and Owner at Skane Wilcox LLP since 2010. She was a Partner and Owner at Jampol Zimet Skane & Wilcox LLP from 2005 to 2010 and at Jampol Zimet & Wilcox LLP from 2004 to 2005. Wilcox was an Associate at Sedgwick LLP from 2002 to 2004, at Tressler LLP from 2000 to 2002 and at Ward, Kroll & Jampol from 1997 to 2000. She earned a Juris Doctor degree from Southwestern Law School. She fills the vacancy created by the retirement of Judge Stan Blumenfeld. Wilcox is registered without party preference.

Bryant Y. Yang, 38, of Arcadia, has been appointed to serve as a Judge in the Los Angeles County Superior Court. Yang has served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney at the U.S. Attorney’s Office, Central District of California since 2016. He was an Associate at Irell & Manella LLP from 2012 to 2016 and was a Lecturer and Adjunct Professor at Harvey Mudd College in 2009, 2015 and 2020. Yang was Deputy Director of Voter Protection at Organizing for America – Nevada in 2012. He served as a Law Clerk at the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit from 2011 to 2012 and at the U.S. District Court, Central District of California from 2010 to 2011.Yang served as Special Prosecutor at the Burbank City Attorney’s Office and as Special Counsel at the Glendale City Attorney’s Office in 2010. He was an Associate at Morrison & Foerster LLP from 2007 to 2010. Yang earned a Juris Doctor degree from the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law. He fills the vacancy created by the retirement of Judge Yvonne T. Sanchez. Yang is a Democrat.

Former Torrance Police Officer Agrees to Plead Guilty to Illegally Acting as Firearms Dealer and Being ‘Straw Buyer’ of ‘Off Roster’ Gun

LOS ANGELES —  A former officer with the Torrance Police Department or TPD has been charged with being an unlicensed firearms dealer who sold dozens of guns. The officer also certified he was the actual purchaser of a handgun, when, in fact, he was buying the gun for another person, the Justice Department announced Nov. 10.

Lindley Alan Hupp, 32, of Long Beach, was named in two-counts filed Friday in United States District Court. Federal prosecutors also filed a plea agreement in which Hupp agreed to plead guilty to the two felony offenses – engaging in the business of dealing in firearms without a license, and making a false statement in a federal firearm licensee’s records during purchase of a firearm.

According to the court documents, Hupp sold at least 48 firearms during an 8½-year period while employed by the TPD. Hupp sold another two guns in 2011 while serving as an auxiliary police officer with the Pasadena Police Department.

“In violation of federal law, Hupp sold firearms without a federal firearms license,” Hupp admitted in his plea agreement. “Hupp made a business of dealing firearms, in part, by abusing exemptions made available to him under California law as a sworn peace officer. Of the forty-eight (48) firearms the defendant sold while employed at the TPD, thirty-six (36) firearms were ‘off roster’ firearms; that is, firearms that Hupp’s non-law enforcement customers could not have purchased directly from a licensed firearms dealer.”

While off roster firearms – which also are described in California statutes as “non-roster” or “unsafe” handguns – may be purchased by sworn law enforcement officers, who then may sell the firearms on the secondary market, Hupp admitted “repeatedly exploiting the privilege” by reselling off roster weapons soon after acquiring them. Hupp resold nearly half of the 36 off roster guns within 30 days of having initially purchased them.

In relation to the false statement count, Hupp admitted making a material false statement on a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives recertification form (Form 4473) when he purchased a Glock 9mm handgun in November 2015. After offering to sell two Glocks for sale on an online marketplace, Hupp purchased one Glock handgun from a Brea firearms dealer. When Hupp went to pick up the gun after the 10-day waiting period, he signed a Form 4473 in which he falsely certified he was “the actual transferee/buyer of the firearm” knowing that he was the “straw buyer” of the firearm on behalf on another individual who purchased the handgun from Hupp a few days later.

In exchange for Hupp’s acceptance of responsibility, cooperation with the investigation, and agreement to abandon to local law enforcement 42 firearms currently in his possession, the government has agreed to recommend a prison sentence of not more than 18 months. This recommendation, however, will not be binding on the sentencing judge, who could impose a sentence of up to 15 years in prison after Hupp pleads guilty to the two charges.

Hupp has agreed to make his initial appearance in United States District Court on December 3.

SP Man Charged With Threatening Activist Group

Last month, a San Pedro man who threatened a group of protestors calling themselves the “Good Trouble Brigade,” was charged with criminal threats by the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office. 

Timothy James Carroll, known around town as “Yo” faces six felony counts of criminal threats alleged to be hate crimes as well as one felony count each of possession of a firearm by a felon: .357 Magnum, unlawful possession of ammunition and possession of a leaded cane.

Deputy District Attorney Paul Kim of the Hate Crimes Section said Carroll also faces one misdemeanor count of possessing a controlled substance, hydrocodone.

The defendant pleaded not guilty to the charges last week and is scheduled to return on Nov. 13.

Carroll allegedly threatened the small group of peaceful protestors holding a memorial on a public San Pedro sidewalk this past Sept. 4 and 11, the prosecutor said.

Bail is set at $190,000. If convicted as charged, the defendant faces a possible maximum sentence of more than 12 years in state prison.

Three Killed in Three Days in LA Harbor

The Los Angeles Police Department Harbor Division responded to three homicide reports within three days. This makes for a total of 14 homicides in Harbor Division in 2020 so far. In 2029 at this time, there were 16.

On the evening of Oct. 24, a man was fatally shot in the head when he stepped onto a dirt road outside his home near Quay Avenue and East Anaheim Street in Wilmington, said Capt. Jay Mastick of the LAPD Harbor Division. The incident took place after the victim had an argument with his mother, whom he lived with in an RV. Mastick said the shooter might have been his mother or one of the neighbors, or someone else entirely.

On Oct. 25, a 23-year-old woman was stabbed multiple times near the San Pedro Overlook Community Center on the 3600 block of South Gaffey Street, after she and the man she’d come with had a confrontation with another group. She was rushed to Harbor UCLA Medical Center, where she died. Mastick said the suspects might be gang members, but he did not believe her stabbing was related to gang activity.

On Oct. 26, two members of the Rancho San Pedro gang were shot on the 200 block of West 1st Street in downtown San Pedro. One man died and the other is recovering. Mastick said that this shooting was definitely gang-related.

Mastick said that three homicides in three days were unusual in such a small amount of time for the Harbor Division. He said the three homicides are not connected and that he is confident the division would solve them.

These homicides came on the tail of six shootings in San Pedro that took place from Sept. 20 to Oct. 17, said Officer Maligi Nua Jr. at the Oct. 20 meeting of the Central San Pedro Neighborhood Council. Mastick said that the three homicides from Oct. 24 to 26 are not related to them.

The first shooting Nua mentioned was an officer involved shooting at Harbor Division Station on Sept. 29, which means an officer fired his or her weapon. In this case, the gun was fired by Sgt. Robin Aguire, who was the on-duty assistant watch commander. Aguire fired at a suspect named Jose Guzman, but did not hit him. Guzman had just allegedly assaulted Officer Anthony Freeman. Guzman punched and tackled Freeman, then stole Freeman’s gun and hit him in the head with it repeatedly, officials said. Guzman fled the station but was caught that night by other officers at Pacific Avenue and 17th Street.

The second shooting took place at 1001 S. Palos Verdes St., where an unknown suspect tried to shoot one car, but instead hit another car with two people in it, Nua said. No one was hit.

The third shooting was at 441 N. Centre St. Two suspects came from an alley and fired into a group, hitting two victims.

The fourth was a shooting in the back parking lot of the Vagabond Motel at 215 S. Gaffey St. on Oct. 1. There were multiple suspects, but they did not hit anyone. Harbor Division’s gang investigative unit is still working on this case, Nua said.

The fifth was at a housing development at 207 W. Santa Cruz St., where one person was shot. Nua said that while the suspects have not been identified, the police have information that could lead to their identification. The gang investigative unit is working on this case.

The sixth was in the 400 block of West O’Farrell Street. A 16-year-old was shot while on his bike going westbound on O’Farrell from Mesa Street.

“I spoke to that victim, he was doing fine,” Nua said.

In addition, there was an incident of domestic violence at Oliver and Centre streets, where the suspect brandished a handgun, Nua said. However, no shots were fired.

Nua said he expected three of the six shootings were gang-related, but stressed that this was just his opinion after speaking to gang investigators. He said that it could be related to the Rancho San Pedro gang, and some of the groups within it.

Based on information from gang investigators, the department does not believe any of these shootings are related to recent shootings in Wilmington.

“That’s just an ongoing suspicion when it comes down to gang crime in both areas,” Nua said. Nua said that Wilmington recently had four shootings, and from the investigations of these shootings, the police have recovered six handguns. However, there have not been any arrests or recovered guns from any of the mentioned shootings, except for Guzman, who was arrested.

Despite the recent crimes, San Pedro is actually down by 12.7% in Part 1 crimes in general for 2020 when compared to the previous year. Part 1 crimes include homicide, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny and vehicle theft. Burglaries are down by 50%, burglaries and thefts from vehicles were down by 25%, and grand theft autos increased slightly.

In the area within the boundaries of the Central San Pedro Neighborhood Council, the numbers look even better. Part 1 crimes are down by 30%, violent crimes are down by 40%, and property crime is down by 24%, Nua said.

Nua said that within the council’s boundaries there were 25 incidents of aggravated assaults during September 2020. These do not always involve weapons.

“When we speak of assaults, we’re not talking solely about shootings. We’re talking about domestic violence and just simple assaults that are out on the streets,” Nua said.

In addition, property crimes within the council’s boundaries were down 45% in September 2020, compared to September 2019, Nua said. Grand theft auto was down by 20%, and burglaries and thefts from vehicles were down by 22%.

A National Sigh of Relief

The counting may be over but…

On Saturday, Nov. 7, they were celebrating in Philadelphia, as well they should. It is perhaps there that the Joe Biden/Kamala Harris ticket got the number of votes needed to push them over the line to win the last of the Electoral College votes needed to win the 2020 election. Has the republic been saved? Temporarily perhaps.

The nation really did need to take a much-needed break from the Trump reality TV presidency — so take a long deep breath. What is Dr. Anthony Fauci going to prescribe to this nation now? Perhaps it is some Post-Trump-Stress therapy and mental deconditioning for all those gaslighted true believers who still think the “election was stolen.”

The damage that Trump has inflicted upon our republic is going to take a long time to cure, heal and then inoculate us from future infections, much like the COVID-19 pandemic and yet no one is working on the political vaccination.  Is Joe Biden the cure for what ails America or just a placebo? Whatever he is, he seems undaunted by Trump’s refusal to admit defeat.

While the celebrations are breaking out all across this nation,  it’s far too early to be singing “Ding dong the witch is dead” as he and many of his Republican allies have not conceded, nor do I expect him to any time soon.  Trump may just burn down the White House before being dragged out by his heels.

And yet the slim majority

Trump’s unfitness for office would seem readily apparent to all across America. While the coronavirus daily infection rates are spiking — surpassing 100,000 per day —Trump goes golfing while President-Elect Joe Biden organizes the pandemic response team. Trump is replacing career staff at the Pentagon with loyalists, while Biden moves ahead with a transition plan.

Yet some 47.5 % of the voters still believe Trump rather than Biden is the answer to the needs of this nation. This, after all of his lies, deceptions, impeachment and outright corruptions have been exposed. These true believers just couldn’t vote against this con man. It really makes me wonder about the intelligence of nearly half of the country and the media they are consuming. Of course, we all know what Trump thinks of “the media.” All of the mainstream media outlets, including his favorite — Fox News — have  called the election for Biden/Harris. This is the reality even as Trump launches 100 lawsuits to challenge the popular vote.

Even here in the working class, union sympathizing neighborhoods in the San Pedro harbor area, where one would think that Democrats and progressives have a huge advantage, some 8,658 out of 27,750 of our neighbors quietly voted for this idiot-in-chief. While these voters are in the minority — a minority that exists all across this southern region of Los Angeles County —it’s a revelation that still comes as a stunning surprise.

You see, Trump didn’t receive a majority of votes in any precinct from Manhattan Beach to Palos Verdes, and from San Pedro to Long Beach except for one — the City of Rolling Hills — where he won by only 106 votes. Even Rancho Palos Verdes and Rolling Hills Estates each gave Biden 57%.  This of course challenges the common misconception that The Hill is a bastion of conservatism. The political demographics may be shifting.

What annoys me most, however, is that more than 31% of San Pedro voters voted orange and that the only robust debate about the candidates and the issues took place on few Facebook pages like All Politics San Pedro. The page is administered by Scott Carter, a local insurance broker. This page is sort of like the Alamo of Republican Trumpian xenophobia. I had the honor to be attacked by several of their members before the election and then summarily banned from their page when I accused them of slandering me. They often were ranting about censorship by social media and then they banned me — go figure.

On Nov. 5, Mr. Carter writes:

Hi Guys and Gals — Facebook is threatening to take down our site or severely restrict it for the following reasons:

Please check to see if your information is questionable before posting. Facebook Warning, FYI:

“To fight false news, Facebook pushes misleading content farther down in News Feed and provides additional articles on the same topic.

If a group repeatedly shares false news, Facebook may push all of that group’s content down in News Feed, which may mean fewer people visit the group. Facebook may also stop suggesting that people join the group.”

We will be locating to another non-restrictive social media site in the future and do both places. I will advise you when.

I find it curious that Carter feels no regret at censoring his neighbors like me and others, yet objects when it’s done to him for the very reasons that even Fox News and other more mainstream media are censoring Trump’s misinformation.  Treating outright lies and false information as equal to fact checked reporting is just wrong. This false equivalency offered in various media between facts and lies is what has given Trump’s true believers the ammunition to defend the lunacy of the last four years. I’m afraid that it’s not going to end with the election of Joe Biden as a more normal president any time soon.

Trump Loses But Trumpism Lives

Donald Trump has been defeated at the ballot box by more than 5 million votes. But, with more than 48% of the vote, despite a raging deadly pandemic, Trumpism is alive and well. Along with that is the larger host of maladies that birthed it — severe economic inequality, systemic racism, dysfunctional government along with a decaying public sphere, and selfish, unaccountable elites at war with each other.

There are glimmers of hope. Executive action can produce swift, significant change. The American Prospect has identified 277 policies Joe Biden can enact through executive action contained in the Biden-Bernie Sanders unity task force document. The weekend after Election Day, Biden’s top priorities were revealed: rejoining the Paris climate accords and the World Health Organization, repealing the travel ban on Muslim-majority countries and reinstating Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, the program allowing “dreamers,” who were brought to the United States undocumented as children, to remain in the country. Work on other executive actions has reportedly also begun. But legislative action remains less certain, as social divisions may only deepen with continued Republican opposition.

Most notably, in Maine Republican Sen. Susan Collins won 50.6% of the vote, well ahead of Trump’s 43.4%, even though she had repeatedly betrayed her long-time moderate, pro-choice brand with lock-step support for Trump whenever the chips were down, and had trailed Maine House Speaker Rep. Sara Gideon consistently in polls since February.

Democrats only chance to control the Senate — just barely — rests on winning two run-off elections in Georgia in January. Democrats also lost seats in the House, rather than gaining another dozen or so, as most forecasters had predicted. Centrist Democrats have been quick to blame progressives for these losses — whether it’s Black Lives Matter protests calling to defund the police, or the four progressive female representatives known as “The Squad” whom Trump has repeatedly vilified. But it’s a deflection of responsibility that doesn’t stand up to close scrutiny.

Black Lives Matter protests helped drive surges in voter registration, and activism, which helped drive turnout in three urban centers — Milwaukee, Detroit and Philadelphia — that were crucial to taking back the rust belt states Trump won in 2016. Even after months of demonization by Trump, they retain majority support — which has always eluded Trump.

“Progressive policies do not hurt candidates,” Squad member Rep. Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez told The New York Times the weekend after Election Day. “Every single candidate that co-sponsored Medicare for All in a swing district kept their seat. We also know that co-sponsoring the Green New Deal was not a sinker. Rep. Mike Levin was an original co-sponsor of the legislation, and he kept his seat.”

Levin was one of four Democrats to win GOP seats in Orange County in 2018. Another, Katie Porter, gained fame for her devastating questioning of corporate bigwigs and Trump administration lackeys. She was re-elected handily, leading by 7 points, 53.5-46.5, with 96% reporting as we go to press. Meanwhile, the other two—Harvey Rouda and Gil Cisneros—are trailing in their races, despite heavy TV ad spending touting their bipartisan approach.

Blaming the Squad is even more ridiculous, as Squad member Rep. Ilhan Omar pointed out on MSNBC Nov. 8.

“The president isn’t a symptom of me,” Omar said. “He has been in office longer than I have been in Congress. He is a symptom of something larger and you know we have to figure out what the process is to heal the divides in our nation. How do we get over the cultural wars that we are in? How do we get in the process of speaking to people?”

These are not mere platitudes for Omar.

“I asked for leniency for a person who’s currently incarcerated for threatening to kill me,” she noted. “Hate is too big of a burden to carry. I work and lead my life with love and compassion and empathy.”

Perhaps it’s because she knows the cost so well, as a refuge of Somalia’s civil war.

“I was uprooted from my home country at the age of 8 because of violence because of divisions, because of what happens when people don’t see each other as neighbors as friends, as family and turn on one another,” she said. “So, my mission in life has been to work towards creating solidarity between people.”

The parallel with countries like Somalia is an apt one according to Jack Goldstone, author of the 1991 book Revolution and Rebellion in the Early Modern World. His book appeared in the midst of post-Cold War euphoria, when the supposed “end of history” was being celebrated, on the mistaken assumption that Western liberal democratic capitalism was about to become the final universal model, putting an end to all but minor political skirmishes.

Instead, Goldstone argued that revolutions were born from demographic factors which societies failed to respond to properly, and that hadn’t changed. Societies don’t just need to work for a moment in time; they need to reproduce themselves for successive generations; they need to be understood in terms of resource flows — which is where things periodically break down.

“The causes of revolutions were organizational failures,” Goldstone said. “When things are bad enough for a large portion of the population, they are much more easily recruited to movements that say, ‘We gotta get rid of everything.’” In this situation, “Donald Trump has followed the typical dictators playbook.”

 He didn’t create the situation, but he has made things significantly worse. The maladies mentioned above — severe economic inequality, systemic racism, dysfunctional government, a decaying public sphere, and selfish, unaccountable elites at war with each other — have only intensified.

“The most important person for the future of America has been and will be Mitch McConnell,” Goldstone said. “If Mitch McConnell is willing to say. ‘Hey, I want to keep America safe. I want the moderate center of American politics to flourish and be rebuilt.’ If he is willing to work with the Democrats to pull us back from the edge of a cliff, we can start to move away from the danger spot we’re in.”

But there’s nothing in McConnell’s record as GOP Senate leader to suggest that he’ll do this. Indeed, he’s still pushing ahead to confirm more Trump judges.

“We’re going to run through the tape,” McConnell told conservative talk radio host Hugh Hewitt. “We’re going to fill the 7th Circuit, and I’m hoping we have time to fill the 1st Circuit as well.”

“We’re going to end up having an election in 2024 that makes 2020 look relatively united,” warned Gladstone, if McConnell continues in this vein.

Goldstone sees McConnell and Biden working together as strengthening the centrist wings on both sides.

“If the middle left and the middle right can work together, they keep the extremes marginalized,” he said.

This might be true of political systems generally, but America has long been an anomaly in one crucial respect. Economically progressive policies have popular support across the spectrum, creating an “almost schizoid” split between conservative free-market ideology and progressive big government policy attitudes, in the words of a 1967 book, The Political Beliefs of Americans, that first identified the phenomena. Thus, economic extremes can have broader, stronger support than more “centrist” alternatives, regardless of what elite leaders may think.

That’s why, for example, Trump appealed to the GOP base in 2016 by saying he’d never cut Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid, unlike his establishment opponents. It’s also why his supporters believe he’ll preserve coverage for pre-existing conditions, despite the fact he’s arguing to end Obamacare completely in the Supreme Court this week, with no plans at all for restoring that protection.

While some progressive policies are not so widely popular — or even well-known — many of the most significant ones are, which is why California Rep. Ro Kahana told Democracy Now!

“We have to take the fight to the Senate. We have to have bold policies that are popular, and make it very clear that Mitch McConnell either has to do what the American people want or he is the person standing in the way.”

It’s also the case that trusting the middle coalition is what got us into this mess in the first place. The idea for the North American Free Trade Agreement came from Ronald Reagan and was negotiated under George H.W. Bush, but it was Bill Clinton who rammed it through Congress in 1993, with Democrats opposing it 156-102 in the House. That vote was a major reason that Democrats lost control of the House the next year, for the first time in 40 years — and did not regain control again until 12 years later.

Most notably, in the 3 rust belt states Trump won in 2016, but lost this time — Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin — Democrats voted against NAFTA 25-0, while Republicans voted for it by 17-2. It was precisely Clinton’s widely heralded “move to the center” that fueled Donald Trump’s eventual election 23 years later and Democrats have yet to recover from that fatal error. It’s hard to imagine that repeating it can bring about anything good.

There is one final possibility to consider: that Democrats win both Georgia Senate run-off elections on Jan. 5. The Senate would then be split 50-50, with Vice President Kamala Harris casting the tie-breaking vote to give Democrats control and make Chuck Schumer majority leader. And, Schumer has already said that, “if we don’t do bold change, we could end up with someone worse than Donald Trump in four years.”

Election Results: The Local Breakdown of the Numbers

It’s no surprise that California, with the exception of large, sparsely-populated swaths of Central and Northern California, went to President-elect Joe Biden. The surprises were instead reserved for the ballot initiatives and perhaps to a lesser extent, the Carson mayoral election and Los Angeles Unified School District’s board races.

Of 51,382 registered voters in San Pedro, 27,750 voted in the 2020 Nov. 3 General Election. Of those, 18,098 voted for former Vice President Joe Biden to become the 46th president to President Donald J. Trump’s 8,658. There was a 54.01% voter turnout. Biden garnered 65.22% to Trump’s 31.20%. 

Of 20,208 registered voters in Wilmington, 8,175 voted. Of those, 6,133 voted for Biden to Trump’s 1,739. Voter turnout was 40% and Biden garnered 75% of the vote.

In Carson, 25,418 out of 50,153 registered voters, voted. Of those, 18,880 voted for Biden to Trump’s 5,822. Voter turnout was 50% and Biden garnered 74%.

In Torrance, 60,179 out of 92,750 registered voters voted. Of those, 36,129 went for Biden, while 21,836 went for Trump. Voter turnout was 65% and Biden garnered 60% of the vote.

In Lomita, 7,411 out of 13,141 registered voters voted. Of those, 4,251 went for Biden, while 2,893 went for Trump. Voter turnout was 56 % and Biden garnered 57% of the vote.

Carson’s first mayoral and city council election since converting to a district based electoral system resulted in City Councilwoman Lula Davis Holmes and City Councilman Jim Dear being the top two vote-getters with neither crossing the 50% threshold to avoid a runoff.

Davis-Holmes received 10,476 votes to Dear’s 9,675 (or Davis-Holmes 32% to Dear’s 30%). Mayor Albert Robles placed third with only 22% of the vote.

In the Los Angeles Unified school board race, Tanya Ortiz-Franklin won handily with 49% of the vote. Ortiz-Franklin won Carson (54% to 31%), Lomita (48.01% to 28%), Rancho Palos Verdes (44 %to 32%) and San Pedro (43.73% to 38.14%) by wide-margins, while Patricia Castellanos won Wilmington (44.60% to 45.54%) by the slimmest of margins.

Prop. 14

Authorizes bonds to continue funding stem cell and other medical research.

A “yes” vote supports issuing $5.5 billion general obligation bonds for the state’s stem cell research institute and making changes to the institute’s governance structure and programs.

San Pedro, Torrance and Lomita voted no on Prop. 14, opposing the  issuance of $5.5 billion general obligation bonds for the state’s stem cell research institute. But San Pedro’s vote was the closest with 46.11% voting yes and 46.90% voting no. Wilmington, the City of Carson and Long Beach voted “yes” in support of Prop. 14. 

Prop. 15

San Pedro (51.57% to 43.11%), Torrance (55.25% to 40.24%) and Lomita (56.16% to 38.66%) voted together to say no to Proposition 15 which would have amended the state constitution to require commercial and industrial properties to be taxed based on their market value, rather than their purchase price.

Prop. 16

San Pedro (52.36% to 41.39%), Torrance (58.30% to 35.84%) and Lomita (57.63% to 35.76%) voted together to say no to Prop. 16, which asked California voters to amend the Constitution of California to repeal 1996’s Proposition 209, which banned the use of affirmative action in California’s public sector. Wilmington, Carson and Long Beach voted in favor of Prop. 16.

Prop. 17

Allows parolees to vote.

Strong majorities in San Pedro, Wilmington, Carson, Torrance, Lomita and Long Beach voted yes on Prop 17, the ballot measure would amend the state constitution to allow people with felonies who are on parole to vote.

Prop. 18

San Pedro, Wilmington, Carson and Long Beach voted in favor of allowing 17-year-olds to vote in primary and special elections if they will turn 18 by the subsequent general election. Torrance and Lomita voted no.

Prop. 19

Protection for the elderly and the disabled after wildfires.

San Pedro (47.53% to 45.97%) sided with Torrance (52.67% to 40.50%) and Lomita (49.97% to 42.85%), albeit by comparatively slim margins, said no to Prop. 19, which would have permitted homeowners who are 55, severely disabled, or whose homes were destroyed by wildfire or disaster, to transfer their primary residence’s property tax base value to a replacement residence of any value, anywhere in the state. Wilmington, Carson and Long Beach voted yes.

Prop. 20

Strong majorities in San Pedro, Wilmington, Carson, Torrance, Lomita and Long Beach voted no on Prop. 20, which would have restricted parole for certain felonies. Prop. 20 would have added crimes to the list of violent felonies for which early parole is restricted; recategorize certain types of theft and fraud crimes as wobblers (chargeable as misdemeanors or felonies); and require DNA collection for certain misdemeanors.

Inconsistency Muddies Transparency Regarding LBPD Use-of-Force Complaints

How many use-of-force complaints were filed against Long Beach Police Department officers in 2017?

The answer: 31 … or 35 … or 39 … or 104.

Why so many possibilities? Because in the City of Long Beach there is no consistent definition of what constitutes “force” or a “complaint,” so tracking such incidents from the outside is highly convoluted, if not impossible.

A bit of background on my numbers: Each year, the Citizen Police Complaint Commission, or CPCC, a chartered commission which “investigates allegations of police misconduct” in order to “provide feedback and input to the City Manager, Mayor, and City Council,” is required to issue a report generally documenting their investigations and recommendations. Although the CPCC failed to meet this requirement within the past four years, in July 2020 they finally issued the missing reports, along with 2019’s. For 2017, under “Allegation Breakdown for Cases Opened,” we find “Use of Force – 104.” (An additional number, 39, also emanates from the CPCC, but we’ll get to that.)

While the LBPD does not issue annual reports on such items, I obtained their number, 31, via a Public Records Act Request for “the total number of use-of-force complaints filed against LBPD officers between Jan. 1, 2017 and Dec. 31, 2019.” However, a portion of an LBPD document published by The Long Beach Post in August lists the number of “Complaints Alleging Force” as 35.

The year 2017 is no fluke: the same variety of numbers exists every year. Why? From conversations with CPCC Manager Patrick Weithers and four members of the LBPD (Commander Dina Zapalski, Lt. Darren Lance of Internal Affairs, and Public Information Officers Allison Gallagher and Arantxa Chavarria), I came away with a sense that inconsistent bureaucracy is muddying the transparency that the city and its police force promise in the post-George Floyd era.

A snippet of my conversation with the LBPD as I questioned the difference between the numbers they gave me and those printed by The Post:

Me: I’m looking at a row [in The Post article] that says “Complaints Alleging Force.”

Lance: Right. What does that mean?

Me: I think that’s a use-of-force complaint.

Lance: No.

To illustrate, he explains that an officer using “improper handcuffing technique […] would result in an allegation of force, because it’s related to our force policy — but it is not an excessive-force complaint. […] You’re asking [in the PRA Request] about ‘use-of-force complaints,’ so, a complaint about a use of force. That could mean a lot of things. For us, it means: somebody has alleged excessive force.”

Lance himself sees problems with the terminology. “An excessive-force complaint is not a ‘Complaint Alleging Force,’” he repeated. “That term we are not going to use anymore, I hope, because it’s confusing people.”

“It’s very convoluted,” added Zapalski of the LBPD reporting methodology in general. “It took me 10 months to understand it.”

Linguistic ambiguity aside, to some degree this explains why The Post’s numbers are higher than the ones the LBPD gave me. But then why are the CPCC numbers so much higher than both, even though (as the CPCC notes) “two, independent, concurrent investigations […] take place with every complaint filed[:] the CPCC investigation and the LBPD Internal Affairs (IA) investigation”?

It’s because the LBPD and the CPCC use conflicting, counterintuitive methods for tallying complaints. To illustrate, let’s say I am pulled over for suspicion of DUI, and despite my compliance Officer Krupke tases me, while Officer Mayberry clubs me over the head with his flashlight and then shoots me in the leg. When I file my complaint, the LBPD will count this as a single complaint despite the fact that I’m complaining about the actions of two officers, while the CPCC will count this as three complaints, since I’m complaining about three separate actions (use of taser, flashlight, and gun).

During my initial conversation with the LBPD, both Lance and Chavarria stated that the LBPD’s methodology is state mandated. However, in response to my request for supporting documentation, the LBPD provided me with the State of California’s Civilians’ Complaints Against Peace Officers guidelines, wherein the only instruction for counting methodology is as follows:

The primary unit of count should be the actual event. An event is defined as an occurrence of alleged misbehavior which has unity of time, place, and behavior. In some circumstances where there are multiple alleged victims, consideration should be given to modifying the counting procedure to account for the number of victims.

In response to my suggesting that this could also be interpreted to mean that during a given incident each officer’s action is “an occurrence of alleged misbehavior” (in my example, Krupke’s tase would be one such occurrence, while Mayberry’s clubbing and shooting would be either one or two more) and asking whether the LBPD could provide me with its rationale for believing and acting otherwise (for example, an opinion from the city attorney), Gallagher replied only that the LBPD’s methodology is employed “[in order] to remain consistent to the greatest extent possible and to remain objective in how we count the numbers.”

Convoluted as all of this may be, considering that both the LBPD and CPCC generate their numbers from the same set of complaint narratives, by boiling the CPCC number down LBPD-style — that is to say, every complaint filed counts as one incident, regardless of how many uses-of-force or officers are named therein — in theory we should still be able to arrive at a consensus for how many complaints are filed during a given calendar year. At least that’s what the CPCC’s Patrick Weithers told me when we first spoke. Weithers is the person who clued me in to the differences between the LBPD’s and CPCC’s tabulation methods, and he was willing to take a deep dive into the CPCC numbers in an effort to retabulate them in the LBPD style, saying that once he did so, “Overall, they should be pretty similar.”

But they’re not. For 2017, he found the CPCC’s number (104) came from 39 total incidents — eight more than the LBPD list. For 2018, he found 54 incidents — 12 more than the LBPD. And for 2019 (data set incomplete for reasons I still don’t understand), 23 — six more than the LBPD.

“Unfortunately, I am not sure if the LBPD numbers are accurate or not, as I am unsure how they track their numbers,” Weithers stated when shown that the numbers still didn’t add up. “Looking at the chart [supplied to the Post by the LBPD] that mentions ‘Excessive Force,’ that could possibly be one of various categories of force that are tracked by them. Again, I am not sure if they may track uses of force in different ways.”

The CPCC’s methodology has its own problems. For example, Weithers says “case opened” is basically synonymous with “complaint filed,” both of which refer to “allegations” as per the CPCC method — and so my Krupke/Mayberry example would generate three “cases opened”/“complaints filed”/“allegations.” However, elsewhere in the CPCC annual reports “case” is synonymous with “incident” à la the LBPD methodology — in which case my Krupke/Mayberry example counts as one “case” with three “allegations.”

“They [i.e., the CPCC] classify their complaints, and we classify our complaints,” Lance said. “It’s very subjective. […] If a citizen says it’s excessive force or if they’re complaining about the force that was used, we categorize it as an excessive-force complaint. […] The CPCC gets the same complaint, and they categorize it how they categorize it. We don’t get their category, they don’t get our category; all we get is the narrative, ‘The complainant says this and that,’ and a phone number to call them.”

While both the LBPD and CPCC say they recognize the convolutions in their methodologies and agree that consistency across investigative bodies would aid transparency, neither seems poised to change. Chavarria says that although she agrees “100 percent” that consistency would be beneficial, “that is not up to us. […] We follow the [state] mandate. If [the CPCC is] not, that’s something you would need to explore with them, not us.”

Weithers offers a more mixed answer: “Without understanding our processes … I think [the inconsistency] causes a lot of confusion for people. [But] I don’t see anything wrong with us tracking things in different ways. We are supposed to be independent from the LBPD and therefore have our own processes when it comes to doing things, including tracking.”

For now, at least, the answer to the question of how often citizens complain about the LBPD’s use of force wholly depends on who you ask and the verbiage you choose. Perhaps this is not the best path to increased transparency.

State Files to Join China Shipping Lawsuit

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra and the California Air Resources Board filed a motion on Nov. 4 to intervene in the most recent China Shipping Terminal lawsuit, to protect the local communities from air pollution. That lawsuit, filed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District on Sept. 16, asked for the Port of LA’s newly approved environmental impact report to be set aside, citing a long litany of failures to meet the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. Becerra’s press release cited two in particular: the failure to include all feasible mitigation measures to reduce environmental impacts, and the failure to provide an enforcement mechanism to implementation—such as incorporating the measures into China Shipping’s lease agreement.

“Far too often, modest income and minority communities bear the brunt of environmental pollution and the resulting health risks,” said Becerra. “That’s why we have laws like CEQA that require companies to do everything they can to mitigate the environmental impacts of their projects. But without enforceability, these mitigation measures are just words on paper. If we’re going to secure a clean, healthy, and safe environment for all Californians, we need more than words. We need accountability. Today’s action aims to hold China Shipping and the Port of Los Angeles accountable.”

“The City and Port of Los Angeles have allowed China Shipping to tear up the environmental mitigation promises that got them their permits to expand, while doing nothing to stop the company from pumping excessive amounts of pollution into nearby communities,” said CARB Chair Mary D. Nichols. “This must stop.”

AQMD was pleased to have two new parties join their lawsuit. “China Shipping has refused to implement actions that were previously required in a 2008 EIR to reduce their impacts from air pollution on nearby environmental justice communities,” spokesperson Bradley Whitaker told Random Lengths. “The city’s recent decision to certify a Supplemental EIR not only removed many of those stronger mitigation measures, but again failed to include an enforcement mechanism to hold China Shipping accountable for meeting the mitigation obligations,” he added. “The motion to intervene underscores the significance of our concerns.”

“We are disappointed that the California Attorney General and CARB have joined the lawsuit,” Port of LA spokesperson Phillip Sanfield told Random Lengths. “More litigation likely means more delays in our efforts to usher in one of the cleanest non-automated container facilities in the world — one that clears the way to introduce cleaner equipment while preserving good-paying jobs.”

However, a note accompanying the motion said it “will not impair or impede the prompt resolution of the issues presented in this action.”

LA County notes alarming COVID-19 surge in more than a dozen communities

0

LOS ANGELES — Again warning of a “real and alarming'” surge in COVID-19 cases, Los Angeles County’s public health director said nov. 9, the county is vastly expanding its community outreach efforts to educate residents about slowing transmission of the virus, particularly in hard-hit areas.

Barbara Ferrer noted that some individual communities within the county are seeing disturbingly high case rates.

Pacoima topped the list of most-impacted communities, with an adjusted rate over two weeks of 506 cases per 100,000 residents. That’s more than double the countywide rate of 188 cases per 100,000 residents.

Other communities on the list were Sun Valley, Palmdale, East Los Angeles, Van Nuys, El Monte, Downey, Pomona, North Hollywood, Glendale, Santa Clarita, South Gate, Florence-Firestone, Canoga Park and Panorama City.

Ferrer said no specific reasons have been identified in the hard-hit communities to explain why they have such higher case rates. But the county is expanding its Community Health Worker Outreach Initiative, which sends health workers to interact with residents and provide them with virus information or connect them with resources.

The county had roughly 60 people assigned to that effort, but last week it trained another 170 staffers who will begin fanning out this week, “to amplify our messaging and provide general education to everybody who lives in communities experiencing a disproportionately high burden of disease,” Ferrer said.

A large part of that messaging will be warnings against gatherings that public health officials are blaming for fueling the surge that has seen the county reporting more than 2,000 virus cases daily since late last week, including 4,600 over the weekend.

“These numbers are demonstrating real and alarming increases, and the next two weeks will be crucial,” she said. 

The county reported a relatively low 1,413 new cases on Monday, but Monday case numbers are typically low due to lags in test-result reporting from the weekend. The new cases lifted the county’s cumulative total to 323,625 since the pandemic began.

Another five coronavirus-related deaths were reported by the county Monday, lifting the overall death toll to 7,177. There were 855 people hospitalized with the virus as of Monday.

Ferrer made another public plea for residents to adhere to health restrictions and avoid gatherings.

“This isn’t a blip any longer,” she said. “This is now a surge in our cases and if it continues it will be quite alarming to go into our coldest months seeing this level of increase of cases.”

She said the county doesn’t want to be in a position of having to shut down more businesses, saying if residents take infection-control measures seriously, it will slow the spread of the virus. But if they don’t, action could be taken.

“Otherwise, we’re really looking at very troubling times for the winter ahead, times that could in fact threaten our healthcare system again. And that’s something that we would not be able to tolerate.”

Ferrer said the county is at a “pivotal point.”

“There is no real path forward until we get back to slowing the spread,” she said. “We don’t have the luxury of ignoring our individual and collective responsibilities if we want to see more children go to school and our businesses remain open. Recovery just doesn’t continue when you have thousands of new cases each day, and many of these cases stem from people taking risks that are frankly not appropriate. It isn’t that hard to play by the rules, especially since these rules are what keep some people alive and allow our economy to improve.”