Federal Civil Rights Lawsuit - Civil RICO-Public-Private Conspiracy - Color of Law Civil Rights Violations - CC Upland v. City of Upland - California Supreme Court Justice Tani G Cantil Sakauye - Justice Kathryn M Werdegar - Justice Ming W Chin - Justice Carol A Corrigan - Justice Leondra R Kruger - Justice Mariano-Florentino Cuellar - Justice Goowin Liu Supreme Court of California

08:23
00/00/2011
FIRST LEGAL SUPPORT
FAX %1-779-0100
ORIGINAL
I
CALLAHAN & BLAINE

A Professional Law Corporation
2
I
3
4
Daniel J. Callahan (CSBN 91490)

daniel@.callahan-law.com
Brian J. McCormack (CSBN 167547)
David E. Hayen (CSBN 68991)

3 Hutton Centre Drive, Ninth Floor
Santa Ana, California 92707
714-241-4444
714-241-4445 Fax
6
7
Attorneys for Plaintiff CC UPLAND LLC

8
9
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

10
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO

11
12
CC UPLAND LLC dba CHRONIC CANTINA

Plaintiff,
13
14
v.
15
CITY OF UPLAND, JOHN VICTOR

POMIERSKI, JOHN EDWARD HENNES, J. H.
BUILDERS, a business entity form unknown,
STEVE ADAMS, and DOES I through 100,
inclusive,
16
17
Defendants.
18
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
19
20
21
22
CASE NO.
Assigned For Al Purposes To:
Judge:
Dept.:
COMPLAINT FOR:
1. VIOLATION OF U.S.C. 1962(C) AND
(D) - CIVIL RICO CLAIMS
2. COMMON LAW EXTORTION
3. ECONOMIC DURESS
4. ABUSE OF PROCESS
5. INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE
WITH ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE
6. NEGLIGENT INTERFERENCE WITH
ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE
7. INTERFERENCE WITH
PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC
ADVANTAGE
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
23
Complaint Filed: April 11, 2011

Trial Date: None
24
25
26
27
28
COMPLAINT
00/0012011
I.
3
4
5
FIRST LEGAL SUPPORT
FAX %1-779.0100
PAJRTIES
I.
08:23
PlaintiffCC UPLAA'D LLC dba Chronic Cantina ("Cantina") formerly did business as
a restaurant and bar in the City of Upland, California at 220 N. Central Avenue.
'I
6i
2.
Defendant, City of Upland, California ("Upland") is
a municipal corporation in the
State of California, County of San Bernardino.
3.
At al times material to this Complaint, Defendant John Victor Pomierski
("Pomierski") is an individual who acted under color of state law for City of Upland in the capacity of
Mayor of Upland and as a member of the City Council. Pomierski resides and does business in the
County of San Bernardino.

4.
11
12
13
]4
At all times material to this Complaint, Defendant John Edward Hennes ("Hennes")
was an individual who acted under color of state law for City of Upland in the capacity of a member
of the Building Appeals Board of Upland. Hennes resides and does business in the County of San
Bernardino.
5.
At all times material to this Complaint, Defendant J. H. Builders ("J.H."), is a business
15
entity, form unknown, doing business in the City of Upland, California. J.H. specialized in
16
residential construction and was wholly owned, operated and controlled by Defendant Hennes.
17
18
19
20
21
6.
At a! times material to this Complaint, Defendant Steve Adams ("Adams") was the
Police Chief of the City of Upland, who acted under color of state law for City of Upland in the
I capacity of Police Chief. Adams was a co-conspirator with Pomierski, Hennes and J.H. in that
Adams carried out and assisted in the execution of the conspiracy.
7.
Plaintiffis ignorant of the true names or capacities of the Defendants sued under the
22
fictitious named DOES I through I 00, inclusive and therefore sues these Defendants by these
23
fictitious names. Plaintiff will amend this complaint to allege their true names and capacities when
24 I ascertained. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that each of the fictitiously named
25
Defendants is responsible in some manner for the occurrences alleged, and that its damages as alleged
were proximately caused by those Defendants.
8.
P1aintiffis informed and believes and based thereon alleges that certain of the
Defendants and Doe Defendants 1-1 00 have improperly attempted to utilize various corporate and
COMPLAINT
00/0012011
08:23
FIRST LEGAL SUPPORT
FAX '1'51-779-0100
trust entity forms in an attempt to shield their personal or ultra vires corporate actions behind this veil
of protection and avoid personal or other corporate liability. These Defendants have managed,
supervised or worked for these entities as officers, directors, shareholders, employees and failed to
respect the formalities and requirements in such a manner that these entity forms may be disregarded
and pierced to reach these Defendants' personal or other corporate assets. Fur'.her, a fraud or injustice
would occur if these Defendants were allowed to escape personal or other corporate liability.
9.
Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that at all times material to this
complaint, each of the Defendants and each of the Defendants fictitiously named in this Complaint, in
addition to acting for himself, herself, or itself and on his, her, or its own behalf individually, is and
was acting as the agent, servant, employee and representative of, and with the knowledge, consent
11
and permission of, and in conspiracy with, each and all of the Defendants and within the course,
12
scope and authority of that agency, service, employment, representation, and conspiracy. Plaintiff
13
further alleges on information and belief that the acts of each of the Defendants were fully ratified by
14
each and all of the Defendants. Specifically, and without limitation, Plaintiff alleges on information
15
and belief that the actions, failures to act, breaches, conspiracy, and misrepresentations alleged and
16
attributed to one or more of the specific defendants were approved, ratified, and done with the
17
cooperation and knowledge of each and all of the Defendants.
18
II.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE

10.
19
Venue is proper in San Bernardino Superior Court pursuant to Cal. Code of Civ. Proc.
20
Section 3 94 because the Defendants both live and do business or is employed in San Bernardino
21
County and the location where Cantina did business located within the County of San Bernardino.
11.
22
Jurisdiction may be asserted over each and every one of the Defendants because each
23
lives and does business or is employed in County of San Bernardino and each has sufficient contacts
24
with California and each purposefully availed themselves to the State of California so as not to offend
25
traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
26
III.
27
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
12.
In or about June 2007, the Cantina closed for remodeling. On or about July
18, 2007,
28 1 the City of Upland issued a stop work notice pending issuance of certain approvals and permits.
COMPLAINT
08:23
00/0012011
13.
FIRST LEGAL SUPPORT
FAX 951-779-0100
The Cantina re-opened in January 2008, after various tenant improvements had been
made pursuant to a Building Permit issued by City of Upland. The Cantina opened under
Conditional Use Permit ("CUP") No.
operated its restaurant and bar until Defendants did not allow Plaintiff to operate its business in the
City of Upland, eventually putting Plaintiff completely out of business.
14.
April
10
The Upland City Council revoked the Cantina's conditional use permit on or about
13, 2009.
15.
8
9
07-07 (granted in 1997). Thereafter, the Cantina successfully
On February 22, 2011, Mayor Pomiersk:i abruptly resigned amid a federal corruption
probe. John Pomierski stepped down as the FBI investigated allegations of bribery, extortion and
money laundering. FBI agents seized documents from Upland City Hall and Pomiersk:i' s home.
11
16.
On April
11, 2011, the Cantina filed a claim with the City of Upland for damages
12
resulting from the conduct of Defendants Pomierski, Hennes, and Adams. The Cantina did not file its
13
claim prior because of the delayed discovery of the conspiracy of Defendants Pomiersk:i and Hennes,
14
which facts were not known to Plaintiff until the Grand Jury Indictment of Defendants on or about
15
March
16
into the conduct of Defendants Pomiersk:i and Hennes and did not file its Claim and Complaint until
17
shortly after the Indictment
2, 2011. In addition, the owners of the Cantina fully cooperated with the FBI's investigation
I7.
18
On March 2,
was
filed in U.S. District against Defendants.
2011, the Grand Jury indited Defendants Pomiersk:i and Hennes for
18. U.S.C. section 1951: Conspiracy to Commit Extortion Under Color of Official
19
violations of
20
Right; 18 U.S. C. section
21
Programs Receiving Federal Funds; and
22
only).
23
Pomierski and Hennes
24
18.
371: Conspiracy; 18 U.S.C. section 666(a)(l)(B): Bribery Concerning

18 U.S.C. section 1001(a)(2): False Statement (Hennes
From the Cantina
To Extort
As alleged herein, Defendants Pomiersk:i, Hennes, and Adams conspired to extort
25
money from the owners of certain businesses operating in Upland (the "Extortion Scheme").
26
Defendants would demand money from business owners and business establishments such as the
27
Cantina in exchange for the performance of official acts in connection with the Upland City
28
government business and transactions.

COMPLAINT
00/0012011
1 1
08:23
FIRST LEGAL SUPPORT
FAX %1-779-0100
On information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants conducted their Extortion
19.
Scheme from July
20.
2007 through June 28, 2010.
With respect to the Cantina, Defendants Pomierski, Hennes, and Adams insisted that
the Cantina pay money to Defendants in order to allow the Cantina to continue to do business in the
City of Upland. The Defendants demanded payment under the color of law given their positions and
influence with respect to the affairs and procedures of the City of Upland. In the event that the money
demanded was not paid in full to Defendants, the Defendants threatened that the Cantina would lose
its right to operate its business. Plaintiff was forced to pay Defendants
payment of
$15,000, Defendants demanded that Plaintiff pay an additional $25,000.00. When
I0
Defendants did not receive the additional
11
conditional use permit was revoked on or about April
12
Means
Which the
13
21.
14
following:
15
$ 15,000. Notwithstanding the
of the
$25,000.00, true to their threats and extortion, the Cantina's

13, 2009.
Was
Defendants' conspiracy was accomplished by the following steps, included the
a.
Defendant Pomierski would demand money from the owners of businesses
16
located in the city of Upland i n exchange for the performance of official acts in connection with
17
Upland city government business and transactions.
18
b.
19
Defendant Hennes, J.H. and other Doe co-conspirators would communicate
Defendant Pomierski' s demands to the business owners.

C.
20
Defendant Hennes, J.H. and other co-conspirators would sometimes enter into
2I
consulting agreements and contracts with the business owners to disguise and conceal the payments
22
from the business owners to Defendant Pomierski. Sometimes the agreements and contract would be
23
with J.H.
24
d.
25
the business owners.
26
e.
27
28
Defendant Hennes, J.H.and other co-conspirators would collect money from
Defendant Hennes, J.H. and other co-conspirators would give money received
from the business owners to Defendant Pomierski.
22.
The Defendants Pomierski, Hennes, J.H. and Adams acted to extort money from the
COMPLAI'T
00/0012011
08:23
FIRST LEGAL SUPPORT
FAY 951-779-0100
Cantina as alleged directly above.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

DAMAGES PURSUANT TO RACKETEER INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT
ORGANIZATIONS ACT [RICO] AS AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS- VIOLATION OF 18
U.S.C $ 1962 to ( CIVIL RICO) and (d) (RICO CONSPIRACY)
(Against Ail Defendants and Does 1-100)
23.
paragraphs.
24.
.Plaintiff alleges and incorporates by reference as though fully set forth the preceding
Plaintiff alleges damages pursuant to the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
10
Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C, sections 1 961 et seq. State Courts have jurisdiction over cases
12
statute does not state or suggest that jurisdiction is to be exclusive and therefore concurrent
11
13
14
15
arising under federal laws unless Congress has made express provision to the contrary. TheRlCO
jurisdiction is applicable for the claims herein.

25.
Defendants' actions violate theRacketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
("RJCO"), 18 U.S.C. 1 961 -1968, and specifically, 1 8 U.S.C. 1 962(c) and (d) (RlCO
16
Conspiracy).
18
18 U.S.C. 1 961 (3) and 1 962 (c)-(d).
20
U.S.C. 1 961(3) and 1 96 2 (c)-(d).
22
U.S.C. 1 961(3) and 1962 (c)-(d).
24
U.S.C. 1 961(3) and 1 962 (c)-(d).
26
1 8 U.S.C. 1 961(3) and 1 962(c)-(d).
17
19
21
23
25
27
28 1
26.
At all relevant times, Pomierski was and is a "person" within the meaning ofRJCO,
27.
At all relevant times, Hennes was and is a "person" within the meaning ofRJCO, 1 8
28.
At all relevant times, Adams was and is a "person" within the meaning ofRJCO, 18
29.
At all relevant times, J. H. was and is a "person" within the meaning ofRJCO, 1 8
30.
At all relevant times, Does 1 50 were and are "persons" within the meaning ofRJCO,
31.
At least since July 2007, if not before, Defendants have been engaged in their
COMPLATh"T
00/001201,
08:23
FIRST LEGAL SUPPORT
FAX 951 779-0100
Extortion Scheme, as alleged herein. Defendants, therefore, were a group of persons associated
together for a common purpose of engaging in a course of conduct. This association-in-fact was
"enterprise" within the meaning of RICO, 18 U.S.C. 1961(4). At al relevant times, Defendants'
enterprise was used to carry out the illegal and fraudulent activities set forth herein.
an
At all relevant times, Defendants' enterprise was engaged in, a.11d its activities affected,
interstate commerce within the meaning of RICO, 18 U.S.C. 1962(c). As described herein,
perpetrated their fraudulent Extortion Scheme through the use of wire affecting interstate and foreign
commerce.
33.
At all relevant times, Defendants conducted
or
participated, directly or indirectly, in
the conduct of the enterprise's affairs through a "pattern of racketeering activity" within the meaning
of RICO, 18U.S.C. 1962(c). The pattern of racketeering engaged in by Defendants involved a
scheme whereby Defendants used extortion and artifice to, among other things, systematically
sabotage Plaintiff's business and to intentionally interfere with Plaintiff's business relationships, with
the intended to bring about the conditions and circumstances that would force Plaintiff to either pay
15
,'.,i
16
Defendants or cease its business operations.

34.
Plaintif alleges that each Defendant sent emails and text messages in furtherance of
17
the Extortion Scheme, a scheme that was for Defendants' direct pecuniary benefit, and therefore each
18
such email and text message constitutes a separate violation of 18 U.S.C. 1343, which prohibits the
19
use of wire in interstate or foreign commerce to further any scheme
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
35.
or
artifice to defraud.
Defendants' acts in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1343 and 18 U.S.C. 2315 constitute a
pattern of"racketeering activity" within the meaning of RICO, 18U.S.C. 1961(5).

36.
Such racketeering activity included, but is not limited to, the extortion of money
from Plaintiff.
37.
Defendants, and each of them, committed mail and wire fraud by the continuous use of
the mail, the internet, emails and texts to accomplish their purpose of extorting money from Plaintiff.
38.
As a result of Defendants' violation of RICO, 18 U.S.C. 1962(c) and (d), Plaintiff
27
has suffered damages in an amount to be determined at trial, including, but not limited to, out of
28
pocket costs, lost profits, loss of future profits, Plaintiffs monetary payment to Defendants and the
COMPLAINT
OO/OOQ011
08:23
FIRST LEGAL SUPPORT
FAX 951 779 0100
I I damages resulting from the closure of the Cantina, including the loss of business, and the damage to
I
2 ! Plaintiff's name, goodwill and reputation in the marketplace.

3
4
39.
Pursuant to RICO, 18 U.S.C. 1964(c)-(d), Plaintiff is entitled to recover treble
I damages plus costs and attorneys' fees from Defendants.
40.
Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants acted willfuly, maliciously and fraudulently in
coercing Plaintif to pay Defendants under threat and coercion and duress, and intentionally depriving
Plaintiff of not only the money paid to Defendants, but the right to lawfully operate its business in the
City of Upland, thereby justifying an award of punitive damages.
9
10
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
11
COMMON LAW EXTORTION
12
(Against All Defendants, and Does 1-100)
13
j
41.
14
15
Plaintif alleges and incorporates by reference as though fully set forth the preceding
paragraphs.
'
16
42.
Common law extortion is the obtaining of property from another induced by a
wrongful use of force or fear, or under color of official right.
17
43.
As alleged herein, Defendants Pomierski, Hennes, and Adams, acting under color of
18
official right from their positions of authority with the City of Upland, demanded and received
19
payment from Plaintiff.
20
44.
The Cantina successfully operated its restaurant and bar until Defendants did not allow
21
Plaintiff to operate its business in the City of Upland, eventually putting Plaintiff completely out of
22
business. Plaintiff paid the Defendants in order to continue to keep its business open and free
23 , from interference from the City of Upland. Notwithstanding the initial payment of$15,000, the
24
25
Defendants, when further payments were not made, closed down the Cantina as alleged herein.
45.
As a result of Defendants' conduct and actions, Plaintiff has suffered damages in an
26
amount to be determined at trial, including, but not limited to, out of pocket costs, lost profits, loss of
27
future profits, Plaintiffs monetary payment to Defendants and the damages resulting from the
28
COMPLAINT
00/0012011
I
2
08:23
FIRST LEGAL SUPPORT
FAY f"l51-779-0100
closure of the Cantina, including the loss of business, and the damage to Plaintiffs name, goodwill
and reputation in tbe marketplace.
46.
Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants acted willfully, maliciously and fraudulently in
coercing Plaintiff to pay Defendants under threat and coercion and duress, and intentionally depriving
Plaintiff of not only tbe money paid to Defendants, but the right to lawfully operate its business in the
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

9
1
ECONOMIC DURESS
10 I

47.
11
12
Plaintiff alleges and incorporates by reference as though fully set forth the preceding
paragraphs.
48.
13
14
Plaintif to operate its business in the City of Upland, eventually putting Plaintif completely out of
15
business. As alleged herein, Defendants demanded that Cantina pay them money to perform
16
certain official actions. Defendants threatened Plaintiff that if Plaintiff refused to pay, Defendants
17
would prevent Plaintiff from operating its business in the City of Upland, including, but not limited
18
to, having the City of Upland revoke Plaintiffs conditional use permit.
49.
19
As a result of the threats and coercion by Defendants as alleged herein, Plaintiff was
forced into paying Defendants not less than $1 5,000.00.
20
50.
21
Defendants were aware that under the circumstances, Plaintiff had no other reasonable
22
alternative or choice other than to give into Defendants' demands for payment if Plaintiff wanted to
23
continue to operate its restaurant and bar.

5 1.
24
Plaintiff acted as a reasonably prudent person in the face of Defendants' coercive
25
I tactics and did so only under the economic duress placed on it by Defendants.
26
52.
As a result of Defendants' conduct and actions, Plaintiff has suffered damages in an
27
28
future profits, Plaintiffs monetary payment to Defendants and the damages resulting from the
COMPLA!NT
08:23
00/00/2011
FIRST LEGAL SUPPORT
FAX 951779-0100
closure of the Cantina, including the Joss of business, and the damage to Plaintiffs name, goodwill
and reputation in the marketplace.
53.
Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants acted willfuly, maliciously and fraudulently in
Plaintif of not only the money paid to Defendants, but the right to lawfully operate its business in the
City of Upland, thereby justifYing an award of punitive damages.
7
8
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
ABUSE OF PROCESS
(Against Al Defendants, and Does 1-100)
10
11
54.
12 i paragraphs.
13
14
15
55.
business. As alleged herein, Defendants, and each of them, threatened to institute legal
16
proceedings to prevent Plaintiff from operating its business in the City of Upland, including, but not
17
limited to, to revoke Plaintiff's conditional use permit.
18
56.
Plaintiff's conditional use permit was in fact revoked on or about Aprill3, 2009.
19
57.
Defendants misused the legal process to prevent Plaintif from operating its business
20
in the City of Upland, including, but not limited to, to revoke Plaintiff's conditional use permit was
21
improper. Defendants failed t o disclose to the City Council that such proceedings were instituted
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
because of the failure of Plaintiff to pay additional extortion money to Defendants.

58.
At all times Defendants acted willfully with the wrongful intention of harming
Plaintiff.
59.
The ulterior purpose and motivation of Defendants in misusing the legal procedures
was to cause harm to Plaintiff and to put Plaintiff out of business since it refuse to make additional
payments to Defendants.
60.
As a result of Defendants' conduct and actions, Plaintiff has suffered damages in
an
COMPLAJNT
10
00/001201 1
08:23
FIRST LEGAL SUPPORT
FAY %1-779--01 00
future profits, Plaintifs monetary payment to Defendants and the damages resulting from the
closure of the Cantina, including the loss of business, and the damage to Plaintiffs name, goodwill
and reputation in the marketplace.
6 1.
9'
FIFTH CAUSE OF
10
II
INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH EXISTING ECONOMIC RELATIONS
12
13
14
15
16
17
ACTION
(Against AU Defendants, and Does 1-100)

62.
paragraphs.
63.
Prior to the revocation of Plaintiffs conditional use permit, Plaintif had successfully
operated a restaurant and bar at 220 N. Central Avenue in the City of Upland.
64.
The building occupancy load for the Cantina was 221 persons in the interior of the
18
building and 40 persons on the outdoor patio. The Cantina was open from Tuesday through Saturday
19
from 1 1:00 a.m. to closing and
20
service ended on I :20 a.m. Food service ended at 1:00 a.m.
21
65.
on
Sunday 9:00 a.m. to closing, and closed on Mondays. Alcohol
The Cantina offered free parking to its patrons. There is a reciprocal parking
22
agreement at the site of the Cantina, with 64 existing parking spaces on the property, and 32 additional
23
parking spaces a vailable on the adjoining office property located at 1947 W. 9'h Street and 60
24
additional parking spaces available after 5:00 p.m. from the adjoining shopping center to the north.
25
66.
As a result of the operation of its restaurant and bar, Plaintiff had created a large
26
amount of good will toward the Cantina from its patrons, many of whom were loyal and repeat
27
customers. Consequently, Plaintiff stood to benefit from the continued operation of its business.
28\
67.
Defendants knew of the good will that had been created by Plaintiff with respect to the
COMPLAJNT
11
00/00{201 1
1i
2
08:23
FIRST LEGAL SUPPORT
FAY %1-779--0100
operation of its restaurant and bar and the relationships that Plaintif had developed with its laval and
repeat customer base.
3
41
business. Defendants in instituting proceedings to prevent Plaintiff from operating its business
in the City of Upland, including, but not limited to, to revoke Plaintiffs conditional use permit
and repeat customer base and put Plaintiff out of business.

69.
9
10
11
1 1
13
14 .
1sl
2
17
intentionally took actions that were designed to disrupt the relationship between Plaintiff and its loyal
16
68.
As a result of Defendants' conduct and actions, Plaintif has suffered damages in an
future profits, Plaintiffs monetary payment to Defendants and the damages resulting from the closure
of the Cantina, including the loss of business, and the damage to Plaintiffs name, goodwill and
reputation in the marketplace.
70.
18
19
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
20
NEGLIGENT INTERFERENCE WITH EXISTING ECONOMIC RELATIONS

71.
22
23
paragraphs.
25
26
business. As alleged herein, Plaintiff had prospective advantage because of its business
27 i
relationship with its customers that constituted a loyal and repeat customer base.
24 I
28
72.
73.
Defendants, as public officials of the City of Upland, owed a duty of care and fairness
COMPLAJNT
12
08:23
00/0012011
FIRST LEGAL SUPPORT
FAY %1+779-.0100
to Plaintiff. The Defendants' conduct could not be performed without a direct effect on Plaintiff's
business. The adverse effect on Plaintifs business was clearly foreseeable. Public policy condemns
the criminal conduct of Defendants in extorting money from legitimate business in the City of Upland.
74.
As alleged herein, Defendants breached their duty of care to Plaintif. Defendants
unreasonably and wrongfully interfered with the relationship between Plaintiff and its loyal and repeat
customer base.
75.
Defendants' conduct was negligent and the direct and proximate cause of Plaintiff's
damages.
76.
an
I0
11
future profits, Plaintiff's monetary payment t o Defendants and th e damages resulting from the closure
12
of the Cantina, including the loss of business, and the damage to Plaintiff's name, goodwill and
13
reputation in the marketplace.
14
15
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
16
INTERFERENCE WITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE
17
18
19
77.
paragraphs.
20
78.
21
Prior to the revocation of Plaintiff's conditional use permit, Plaintiff had successfully
operated a restaurant and bar at 220 N. Central Avenue in the City of Upland.
22
79.
The building occupancy load for the Cantina was 221 persons in the interior of the
23
building and 40 persons on the outdoor patio. The Cantina was open from Tuesday through Saturday
24
from 1 1:00 a.m. to closing and on Sunday 9 :00 a.m. to closing, and closed on Mondays. Alcohol
25
service ended on 1:20 a.m. Food service ended at 1:00 a.m.

80.
26
The Cantina offered free parking to its patrons. There is
reciprocal parking
27
2s
COMPLAINT
13
00!0012011
08:23
FIRST LEGAL SUPPORT
FAX Q51-779-0100
agreement at the site of the Cantina, with 64 existing parking spaces on the property, and 32 additional
2
parking spaces available on the adjoining office property located at 1947 W. 9th Street and 60
additional parking spaces available after 5:00 p.m. from the adjoining shopping center to the north.
81.
As a result of the operation of its restaurant and bar, Plaintif had created a large
amount of good will toward the Cantina from its patrons, many of whom were loyal and repeat
customers. Consequently, Plaintif stood to benefit from the continued operation of its business.
82.
Defendants lmew of the good will that had been created by Plaintiff with respect to the
operation of its restaurant and bar and the relationships that Plaintif had developed with its loyal and
repeat customer base.
10
11
12
83.
In addition to its existing customer base, Plaintiff had a reasonable expectation of
developing new relationships with new customers.

84.
13
Plaintif to operate its business in the City of Upland, eventually putting Plaintiff completely out of
14
business. Defendants in instituting proceedings to prevent Plaintiff from operating its business
15
in the City of Upland, including, but not limited to, to revoke Plaintiffs conditional use permit
16
intentionally took actions that were designed to disrupt the relationship not only between Plaintiff and
17
its loyal and repeat customer base, but to prevent the development of new and additional customers,
18
since Defendants intended to put Plaintiff out of business altogether.
19
85.
Defendants' successful extortion of money from Plaintiff and attempted extortion of
20
additional sums were wrongful acts separate and apart from Defendants' retaliation and revocation of
21
its conditional use permit and interference with Plaintiff's loyal and repeat customer base.
22
86.
an
23
24
future profits, Plaintiffs monetary payment to Defendants and the damages resulting from the closure
25
of the Cantina, including the loss of business, and the damage to Plaintiff's name, goodwill and
26 I reputation in the marketplace.

27
87.
28
COMPLAINT
14
0010012011
oe:23
FIRST LEGAL SUPPORT
FAY Q51-779-0100
PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants, and Doe Defendants 1
7
8
9
10
through 100, and each of them, as set forth below:
1
'
11
12
13
14
First Cause of Action:

I.
2.
3.
4.
For general damages in an amount to be proven at trial;
For treble damages pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1964(c);

For attorneys fees and costs
to 18 U.S.C. 1964(c);
For punitive damages
15
Second Cause of Action:
17
2.
191
Third Cause of Action:
21
2.
16
18
20
22
1.
I.
as
as
allowed by law and in an amount to be proven at trial Pursuant
allowed by law and in a sum to be proven at trial;
For damages, according to proof; and,
For exemplary damages in an amount to deter future conduct, to make an example of the
named Defendants and to punish them.
Fourth Cause of Action:

24
I.
. For exemplary damages in an amount to deter future conduct, to make an example of the
25
2.
27
Fifth Cause of Action:
26
28
I.
For damages, according to proof.
COMPLAfu'T
15
00/00/2011
2.
08:23
FIRST LEGAL SUPPORT
FAY '"'"i1-779--0100
Sixth Cause of Action:
I.
Seventh Cause of Action:
I.
2.
For All Causes of Action:
10
I.
For interest on damages according to proof at the maximum legal rate;
II
2.
For costs of suit incurred;
12
3.
Attorneys' fees
13
4.
For such other and further relief
as
allowed by law; and

as
the Court may deem proper.
14
15
Dated: April
11,2011
CALLAHAN & BLAINE, APLC
16
17
Bnan J. McCormack
David E. Hayen
Attorneys for CC UPLAND LLC
18
19
20
21
22
23
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff demands a trial by jury on all triable issues of fact.
Dated: April!!,
2011
CALLAHAN & BLAINE, APLC
24
25
David E. Hayen
Attorneys for CC UPLAND LLC
26
27
28
G:\Users\BJM\CC.Cantina.Complaint- Final Version.wpd

COMPLAINT
16
Our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy have changed.

By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to the new Privacy Policy and Terms of Service.
News
Video
TV
Opinions
More...
Coverage of funeral for NYPD Detective Wenjian Liu. Watch live now on
CNNgo.
SIGN UP
49
VIEWS
COMMENTS
SHARES
About this iReport
LOG IN
Sacramento Superior Court

Conflict of Interest Disclosure
Violations Continue
Not verified by CNN
By LegalNews | Posted July 27, 2014

| Sacramento, California
Posted July 27, 2014
by
Follow
LegalNews
Location
Sacramento, California
Assignment
This iReport is part of an assignment:

Breaking news
More from LegalNews
Family Court Judges Continuing Failure To

Disclose Judge Pro Tem Conflicts Violates
Supreme Court Committee on Judicial Ethics
Opinions Directive
California Appellate Court Judge Vance Raye

Implicated in Alleged Federal Racketeering Scheme
Sacramento Superior Court Designated Most Corrupt
in U.S. by Documentary Film
Sacramento Superior Court Judge Misconduct
Results in Landmark "Civil Gideon" Appeal
California Supreme Court Chief Justice Caught Using
Highway Patrol for Personal Limo and Security
Service
An attorney and Sacramento Family Court News reader provided the

California Supreme Court Committee on Judicial Ethics Opinions
Formal Opinion at this link. The opinion provides yet another legal reference
specifying that family court judges must disclose potential conflicts of
interest on the record. At court hearings where no court reporter is present,
the disclosure must be in writing, according to the CJEO.
In our original May, 2013 investigative report, we provided the legal
authority, including Judicial Ethics Updates and Ethics Opinions from the
California Judges Association requiring judges to disclose to opposing
parties and attorneys when a judge pro tem attorney represents a client in
court. As we reported at that time, in violation of state law family court judges
were failing to make the required disclosure.
The violations remain ongoing, and hundreds of cases are tainted by the error.
More iReports you should see
Red Rocks Amphitheater in

winter
ByRasarag
Sacramento County Superior Court Presiding Judge Robert Hight is

responsible for the oversight of temporary judges, according to the CJA, the
Code of Judicial Ethics and other authority. Click here to view our 2013
report.
Cesky Krumlov
ByRocioZ
SoCal Snow
Byhappyholly
Source: Sacramento Family Court News. Reprinted with permission.

Family Court Judge Pro Tem Conflict of Interest Disclosure Law - California Supreme Court
Committee on Judi... by Sacramento Family Court News
Annual New Year's Day Coney

Island Polar Bear
ByBQueen1
THE MISSING CHIBOK

SCHOOLGIRLS
TAGS:
courts, law, sacramento, judges, corruption, breaking_news, family, conflict
GROUPS:
CNN International, News
ByAlashock
What do you think of this story?

Select one of the options below. Your feedback will help tell CNN producers what to do with this
iReport. If you'd like, you can explain your choice in the comments below.
More from this assignment - Breaking news
AirAsia emergency landing in
Sony Hack - My Story and
Australians Do Not Fear
Philippines
Advice
Cowards
See all 16,855 iReports
Our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy have changed.

By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to the new Privacy Policy and Terms of Service.
News
Video
TV
Opinions
More...
Coverage of funeral for NYPD Detective Wenjian Liu. Watch live now on
CNNgo.
SIGN UP
106
VIEWS
COMMENTS
SHARES
About this iReport
LOG IN
Sacramento Superior Court

Designated Most Corrupt in U.S.
by Documentary Film
Not verified by CNN
By LegalNews | Posted July 27, 2014

| Sacramento, California
Posted July 27, 2014
by
Follow
LegalNews
Location
Sacramento, California
Assignment
This iReport is part of an assignment:

Sound off
More from LegalNews
It is now difficult to dispute that the Sacramento County Family Court

system - rebuilt more than 20 years ago to the specifications of local judge
pro tem family law attorneys by controversial and criminally convicted
Judge Peter McBrien, then-Judge Vance Raye, divorce attorney Robert
O'Hair, and others - has become the most corrupt family court in the
nation.
California Appellate Court Judge Vance Raye

Implicated in Alleged Federal Racketeering Scheme
Sacramento Superior Court Conflict of Interest
Disclosure Violations Continue
Sacramento Superior Court Judge Misconduct
Results in Landmark "Civil Gideon" Appeal
California Supreme Court Chief Justice Caught Using
Highway Patrol for Personal Limo and Security
Service
The proof is now available to anyone for $20: the cost of the documentary film
Divorce Corp, recently released on DVD, and also available by download
at the iTunes store. In his first, full-length documentary film, director Joe
Sorge meticulously documents the epidemic of corruption and collusion in
family courts throughout the United States. And the Sacramento County
system rises to the top of the toxic slurry pond.
A parade of litigants from Indiana, Tennessee, Ohio, California and other
locales recount their nightmare experiences in child custody and other
divorce-related court disputes. Retired judges, active attorneys, child custody
evaluators and court reform advocates are interviewed over the one hour, 33
minute run time of the film.
In one compelling segment, Nevada County Superior Court whistleblower
More iReports you should see
Red Rocks Amphitheater in

winter
Emily Gallup reveals that state-level oversight and accountability of

California family courts is effectively nonexistent. In a tacit admission, the
Judicial Council and Administrative Office of the Courts declined Sorge's
request to be interviewed and respond to Gallup's documented accusations.
ByRasarag
Cesky Krumlov
ByRocioZ
SoCal Snow
Byhappyholly
Annual New Year's Day Coney

Island Polar Bear
But the locally well-known Ulf Carlsson case takes center stage and is woven
throughout the movie, overshadowing the horror stories of other litigants.
Judge Peter McBrien's clinically sociopathic, personal vendetta against
Carlsson - which in 2012 6th District Court of Appeal Presiding Justice
Conrad Rushing called a "judicial reign of terror" - is chronicled in all its
perverse glory.
ByBQueen1
THE MISSING CHIBOK

SCHOOLGIRLS
ByAlashock
In the Divorce Corp clip above, Carlsson tells his harrowing story of personal
and financial ruin at the hands of McBrien, who ruthlessly punished Carlsson
for filing an appeal of orders issued by the judge. Sacramento family court
litigants Andrew Karres, Mike Newdow and Robert Saunders, and Nevada
County pro per Elena Haskins also make appearances in the movie
criticizing virtually every aspect of local court operations.
Judges, attorneys, custody evaluators, the family law facilitator, and even the
"child's best interest" legal standard are all held under the microscope and
come away nakedly exposed and tarnished. Sometimes, only a clich will do:
Divorce Corp must be seen to be believed.
Source: Sacramento Family Court News. Used with permission.
TAGS:
corrupion, carlsson, family, divorcecorp, sound_off, sacramento, judges, courts, comment,
mcbrien
GROUPS:
My life, Sound off
217
More

Next Blog
Create Blog
Sign In
Sacramento Family Court News

Investigative Reporting, News, Analysis, Opinion & Satire
HOME
JUDGE PRO TEM RACKETEERING
RoadDog SATIRE
Privacy Policy
3rd DISTRICT COURT of APPEAL SACRAMENTO
ABOUT FAMILY COURT NEWS

ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT
CONTACT FAMILY COURT NEWS
Terms & Conditions
DOCUMENT LIBRARY
SHORTCUTS TO POPULAR
SUBJECTS AND POSTS
JUDGE PRO TEM RACKETEERING
Sacramento Superior Court Temporary Judge

Program Controversy
JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT
(67)
JUDGE PRO TEM
(50)
ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT
(35)
Judge Pro Tem Attorney "Cartel" Controls Court

Operations, Charge Whistleblowers
MATTHEW J. GARY
(33)
FLEC
(28)
ARTS & CULTURE
(23)
Sacramento Family Court News Exclusive Investigative Report

This investigative report is ongoing and was last updated in April, 2015.
CHILD CUSTODY
(22)
PETER J. McBRIEN
(22)
As many of the articles on our main page reflect,

Sacramento Family Law Court whistleblowers
and watchdogs contendthat a "cartel" of local
family lawattorneys receive kickbacks and other
forms ofpreferential treatment from family
courtjudges, administrators and
employeesbecause the lawyers are members
of the Sacramento County Bar Association
Family Law Section, hold the Office of
Temporary Judge,and run the family court
settlement conference program on behalf of
the court.
SCBA
(22)
ROBERT SAUNDERS
(21)
WATCHDOGS
(20)
EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT
(19)
CHARLOTTE KEELEY
(18)
CJP
(18)
PRO PERS
(18)
The kickbacks usually consist of "rubberstamped" court orders which are contrary to
established law, and cannot be attributed to the
exercise of judicial discretion.For a detailed
overview of the alleged collusion between judge
pro tem attorneys and family court employees
and judges, we recommend our specialColor of
Law series of investigative reports.
The Color of Law series reports catalog some of

the preferential treatment provided by family
court employees and judges to SCBA Family
Law Section judge pro tem lawyers. Click here
to view the Color of Law series. For a list of our
reports about family court temporary judges and
controversies, click here.
DOCUMENTS
(16)
DIVORCE CORP
(15)
JAMES M. MIZE
(15)
COLOR OF LAW SERIES
(11)
Sacramento Family Court reform advocates assert that collusion

between judges and local attorneysdeprives financially disadvantaged,
unrepresented pro per court users of their parental rights, community
assets, and due process and access to the court constitutional rights.
The current day Sacramento County Family Court system andattorney operated settlement conference program
was set up in 1991 by and for the lawyers of theSacramento County Bar Association Family Law Section,
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
(11)
RAPTON-KARRES
(11)
SATIRE
(11)
WHISTLEBLOWERS
(11)
WOODRUFF O'HAIR
POSNER and SALINGER
according to the sworn testimony of controversial family court Judge Peter J. McBrien at his
2009Commission on Judicial Performance disciplinary proceedings. Click here to read Judge McBrien's
testimony.
In his own testimony during the same proceedings, local veteran family law attorney and judge pro tem Robert J.
O'Hair corroborated McBrien's testimony and attested to McBrien's character and value to Sacramento County
Bar Association Family Law Section members. Click here to view this excerpt of O'Hair's testimony. To view
O'Hair's complete testimony, click here.
Court watchdogs assert that the settlement conference kickback arrangement between the public court and private
sector attorneys constitutes a racketeering enterprise which deprives the public of the federally protected right
to honest government services.
Court reform and accountability advocates assert that the local family law bar- through the Family Law
ExecutiveCommitteeor FLEC - continues to control for the financial gain of members virtually all aspects of court
operations, and have catalogued documented examples of judge pro tem attorney preferential treatment and
bias against unrepresented litigants and"outsider" attorneys,including:
Divorce Corp, a documentary film that "exposes the corrupt and collusive industry of family law in
the United States" was released in major U.S. cities on January 10, 2014. After a nationwide search for
the most egregious examples of family court corruption, the movie's production team ultimately included
fourcases from Sacramento County in the film, more than any other jurisdiction.Judge pro tem
attorneys Charlotte Keeley, Richard Sokol, Elaine Van Beveren and Dianne Fetzer are each
accused of unethical conduct in the problem cases included in the movie. The infamous Carlsson case,
featuring judge pro tem attorney Charlotte Keeley and Judge Peter McBrien is the central case
profiled in the documentary, with Sacramento County portrayed as theGround Zeroof family court
corruption and collusion in the U.S. Click here for our complete coverage of Divorce Corp.
Judge Thadd Blizzard issued a rubber-stamped, kickback order in November, 2013 for judge pro tem
attorney Richard Sokol authorizing an illegal out-of-state move away and child abduction by Sokol's
client, April Berger. The opposing counsel is an "outsider" attorney from San Francisco who was
dumbfounded by the order. Click here for our exclusive report, which includes the complete court
reporter transcript from the hearing. Click here for our earlier report on the unethical practice of
"hometowning" and the prejudicial treatment of outsider attorneys.
Whistleblower leaked court records indicate that Sacramento Bar Association Family Law
Executive Committee officer and judge pro tem attorney Paula Salinger engaged in obstruction of
justice crimes against an indigent, unrepresented domestic violence victim. The victim was a witness in
a criminal contempt case against a Salinger client. The circumstances surrounding the obstruction of
justice incident also infer collusion between Salinger and controversial Judge Matthew J. Gary. For
our complete investigative report,click here.
(11)
CARLSSON CASE
(10)
JAIME R. ROMAN
(10)
LAURIE M. EARL
(10)
NO CONTACT ORDERS
(10)
SHARON A. LUERAS
(10)
CHRISTINA VOLKERS
(8)
FERRIS CASE
(8)
JESSICA HERNANDEZ
(8)
JULIE SETZER
(7)
YOUTUBE
(7)
3rd DISTRICT COA
(6)
CIVIL RIGHTS
(6)
CANTIL-SAKAUYE
(5)
CHRISTINA ARCURI
(5)
CONTEMPT
(5)
THADD BLIZZARD
(5)
FAMILY LAW FACILITATOR
(4)
LUAN CASE
(4)
MIKE NEWDOW
(4)
WE SUPPORT
Two "standing orders" still in effect after being issued by Judge Roland Candee in 2006 override a
California Rule of Court prohibiting temporary judges from serving in family law cases where one party
is self-represented and the other party is represented by an attorney or is an attorney. The orders were
renewed by Presiding Judge Laurie M. Earl in February, 2013.Click here for details.
Electronic Frontier
Foundation
Sacramento Family Court judges ignore state conflict of interest laws requiring them to disclose to
opposing parties when a judge pro tem working as a private attorney represents a client in family
court. Click here for our exclusive investigative report. Click here for a list of other conflict of interest
posts.
Californians Aware
Family court policies and procedures, including local court rules, are dictated by the SCBA Family Law
Executive Committeefor the financial benefit of private sector attorneys, and often disadvantage the
70 percent of court users without lawyers, according to family court watchdogs and whistleblowers.
For example, in sworn testimony by Judge Peter McBrien before the Commission on Judicial
Performance,McBrien described seeking and obtaining permission from FLEC to change a local rule.
Click here and here.
In November, 2012 Sacramento Family Court Judge Jaime R. Romanissued a rubber-stamped,
kickback orderdeclaring a family court party a vexatious litigant and ordering him to pay $2,500 to
the opposing attorney, both without holding the court hearing required by law. The opposing attorney
who requested the orders is Judge Pro Tem Charlotte Keeley. The blatantly illegal orders resulted in
both an unnecessary state court appeal and federal litigation, wasting scarce judicial resources and
costing taxpayers significant sums.Click here for our exclusive coverage of the case.
Judge Matthew Gary used an unlawful fee waiver hearing to both obstruct an appeal of his own orders
and help a client of judgepro tem attorney Paula Salinger avoid paying spousal support. Click here for
our investigative report.
An unrepresented, disabled 52-year-old single mother was made homeless by an illegal child support
order issued by Judge Matthew Gary for SCBA Family Law Section attorney Tim Zeff, the partner of
First Amendment Coalition
LAW BLOGS WE LIKE

Family Law Professor Blog
Law Librarian Blog
Law Professor Blogs
Thurman Arnold Family
Law Blog
Kafkaesq
Above the Law
The Divorce Artist
LEGAL NEWS &

INFORMATION
temporary judge Scott Buchanan. The rubber-stamped, kickback child supportorder, and other
proceedings in the case were so outrageous that the pro per is now represented on appeal by a team
of attorneys led by legendary trial attorney James Brosnahan of global law firm Morrison & Foerster.
For our exclusive, ongoing reports on the case, click here.
Judge pro tem attorneys Richard Sokol and Elaine Van Beverenhelped conceal judge misconduct
and failed to comply with Canon 3D(1) of the Code of Judicial Ethics when they were eyewitnesses to
an unlawful contempt of court and resisting arrest incident in Department 121. Both Sokol and Van
Beveren failed to report the misconduct of Judge Matthew Gary as required by state law.Van
Beveren isan officer of the SCBA Family Law Executive Committee.Click here for our exclusive
report...
...Four years later, Sokol and Van Beveren in open court disseminated demonstrably false and
misleading information about the unlawful contempt of court and resisting arrest incident. The
apparent objective of the judge pro tem attorneys was to discredit the victim of Gary's misconduct,
trivialize the incident, and cover up their own misconduct in failing to report the judge. For our follow-up
reports, click here. In 2014, a video of the illegal arrest and assault was leaked by a government
whistleblower. Click here for details.
California Lawyer Magazine

Courthouse News Service
Metropolitan News
Enterprise
California Official Case Law
Google Scholar-Includes
Unpublished Case Law
California Statutes
CALIFORNIA JUDICIAL
BRANCH
California Courts
Homepage
California Courts YouTube
Page
Judicial Council
Commission on Judicial
Performance
Sacramento County Family
Court
3rd District Court of Appeal
State Bar of California
State Bar Court
Sacramento County Bar
Association
In 2008controversial family courtJudge Peter J. McBriendeprived a family court litigant of a fair trial
in a case where the winning party was represented by judge protemattorney Charlotte Keeley. In a
scathing, published opinion, the 3rd District Court of Appealreversed in full and ordered a new
trial. 6th District Court of Appeal Presiding Justice Conrad Rushing characterized McBrien's
conduct in thecase as a "judicial reign of terror."McBrien subsequently was disciplined by the
Commission on Judicial Performance for multiple acts of misconduct in 2009.Click here to read the
court of appeal decision. Click here to read the disciplinary decision issued by the CJP.
Judge pro tem attorneysCamille Hemmer,Robert O'Hair,Jerry GuthrieandRussell Carlsoneach
testified in support ofJudge Peter J. McBrienwhen thecontroversialjudge was facing removal from
the bench by theCommission on Judicial Performancein 2009.As a sworn temporary judges aware
of McBrien's misconduct, each wasrequired byCanon 3D(1)of theCode of Judicial Ethicsto take or
initiate appropriate corrective action to address McBrien's misconduct. Instead, each testified as a
character witnessin supportof the judge. In theCJP'sfinal disciplinary decision allowing McBrien to
remain on the bench, theCJPreferred specifically to the testimony as a mitigating factor that reduced
McBrien's punishment.Click here. Court records indicate thatJudge McBrienhas not disclosed the
potentialconflict of interestto opposing attorneys and litigants in subsequent appearances by the
attorneys in cases before the judge.Click hereforSFCNcoverage of conflict issues.
Judge pro temattorneysTerri Newman,CamilleHemmer,Diane WasznickyandDonna
Local & National Family CourtFamily Law Sites & Blogs (may
be gender-specific)
ABA Family Law Blawg
Directory
California Coalition for
Families and Children
California Protective
Parents Association
Center for Judicial
Excellence
Courageous Kids Network
Divorce & Family Law News
Divorce Corp
Reedwereinvolved in a proposedscheme to rig a recall electionofcontroversialJudgePeter J.

McBrienin 2008. The plan involved helping McBrien defeat the recall by electing him "Judge of the
Year" before the November election.Click herefor theSacramento News and Reviewreport.
Judge pro tem attorney Robert J. O'Hair testified as a character witness for controversial Judge Peter
J. McBrien at the judge's second CJP disciplinary proceeding in 2009.Paula Salinger, an attorney
at O'Hair's firm,Woodruff, O'Hair Posner & Salingerwas later granted a waiver of the requirements to
become ajudge pro tem. A family court watchdog asserts the waiver was payback for O'Hair's
testimony for McBrien.Click hereto read our exclusive investigative report.
Divorced Girl Smiling

Family Law Case Law from
FindLaw
Family Law Courts.com
Family Law Updates at
JDSupra Law News
In cases where one party is unrepresented, family court clerks and judges permit judge pro tem
attorneys to file declarations which violate mandatory state court rule formatting requirements. The
declarations- on blank paper and without line numbers - make it impossible for the pro per to make
lawful written evidentiary objections to false and inadmissible evidence. Click here for our report
documenting multiple state court rule violations in a motion filed bySCBA Family Law Section officer
and temporary judgePaula Salinger. To view the pro per responsive declaration objecting to the illegal
filing click here, and click here for the pro per points & authorities.
Family court clerks and judges allow judge pro tem attorneys to file a fabricated "Notice of Entry of
Findings and Order After Hearing" in place of a mandatory Judicial Council Notice of Entry of
Judgment FL-190 form. The fake form omits critical appeal rights notifications and other information
included in the mandatory form. Click here for our exclusive report.
Sacramento Family Court temporaryjudgeandfamily law lawyerGary Appelblatt was charged with
13-criminal counts including sexual battery and penetration with a foreign object. The victims were
clients and potential clients of the attorney.The judge pro tem ultimately pleaded no contest to fourof
the original 13-counts, including sexual battery, and was sentenced to 18-months in prison. Court
administrators concealed from the public that Appelblatt held the Office of Temporary Judge.Click
hereto read our report.
Fathers 4 Justice
HuffPost Divorce
Leon Koziol.Com
Moving Past Divorce
News and Views Riverside
Superior Court
Weightier Matter
CONTRIBUTORS
Cathy Cohen
ST Thomas
Judge pro tem and SCBA Family Law Section attorneyScott Kendall was disbarred from the practice
of law on Nov. 24, 2011. Kendall was disbarred for acts of moral turpitude, advising a client to violate
the law, failing to perform legal services competently, and failing to keep clients informed, including not
telling a client about a wage garnishment order and then withdrawing from the same case without
notifying the client or obtaining court permission. Court administrators concealed from the public that
Kendall held the Office of Temporary Judge.Click here to view our report.
PR Brown
PelicanBriefed
FCAC News
Judge pro tem attorneys Nancy Perkovich and Jacqueline Estonin 2008 helped Donna Gary - the
wife of Judge Matthew J. Gary - promote and market ClientTickler, a client management software
program for attorneys. The judge reportedly has never disclosed the conflict of interest as required by
the Code of Judicial Ethics. Click here for our exclusive report on the controversy.
In February, 2013 the website of family law firm Bartholomew & Wasznicky cut off the public from the
only online access to The Family Law Counselor, a monthly newsletter published by the Sacramento
Bar Association Family Law Section. Lawyers at the firm include judge pro tem attorneys Hal
Bartholomew, Diane Wasznicky and Mary Molinaro. As SFCN has reported, articles in the
newsletter often reflect an unusual, collusive relationship between SCBA attorneys and court
administrators and judges.Click here for our report.
Family court reform advocates assert that judge pro tem attorneys obtain favorable court rulings on
disputed issues at a statistically improbable rate. The collusion between full-time judges and judge pro
tem attorneys constitutes unfair, fraudulent, and unlawful business practices, all of which are
prohibited under California unfair competition laws, including Business and Professions Code
17200, reform advocates claim.
RoadDog
Total Pageviews
155121
163
Google+ Badge
Unfair competition and the collusion between judges and judge pro tem attorneys ultimately results in
unnecessary appeals burdening the appellate court system, and other, related litigation that wastes
public funds, exposes taxpayers to civil liability, and squanders scarce court resources.
Watchdogs point out that the court operates what amounts to a two-track system of justice. One for
judge pro tem attorneys and another for unrepresented, financially disadvantaged litigants and
"outsider attorneys." Two-track systems are prohibited by the Code of Judicial Ethics, according to
the Commission on Judicial Performance and the California Judicial Conduct Handbook, the gold
standard reference on judge misconduct.Click here for articles about the preferential treatment given
judge pro tem attorneys. Click here for examples of how pro pers are treated.
After representing a client in Sacramento Family Court, San Francisco attorney Stephen R. Gianelli
wrote "this is a 'juice court' in which outside counsel have little chance of prevailing...[the] court has now
abandoned even a pretense of being fair to outside counsel." Click here to read Gianelli's complete,
scathing account.
The Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law Section is led by an "Executive Committee"
("FLEC") of judge pro tem attorneys composed ofChair Russell Carlson, Vice Chair Elaine Van
Beveren, Treasurer Fredrick Cohen and Secretary Paula Salinger. Three of the four have been
involved in legal malpractice litigation, violations of the Code of Judicial Ethics, or as a defendant in
federal civil rights litigation. Click here to read SFCN profiles of the Executive Committee members.
Click here for otherarticles about FLEC.
Judge pro tem attorneys are by law required to take or initiate corrective action if they learn that
another judge has violated any provision of the Code of Judicial Ethics, or if a lawyer has violated any
provision of the California Rules of Professional Conduct. Family court watchdogs assert that
temporary judges regularly observe unethical and unlawful conduct by family court judges and attorneys
but have never taken or initiated appropriate corrective action, a violation of the judge pro tem oath of
PR Brown
Follow
Labels
2011 SACRAMENTO/MARIN
AUDITS
(2)
3rd DISTRICT
COA
(6)
AB
(1)
1102
(1)
AB 590
ABA
JOURNAL
ADMINISTRATORS
(1)
(4)
AGGREGATED NEWS
(14)
AL SALMEN
(1)
AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION

(1)
ANALYSIS
(36)
FURILLO
(2)
ANDY
AOC
(1)
APPEALS
(10)
ARCHIBALD
CUNNINGHAM
(1)
ARTHUR G.
SCOTLAND
(5)
ARTS &
CULTURE
(23)
ATTORNEY
(4)
ATTORNEY
DISCIPLINE
(4)
ATTORNEY
ETHICS
(2)
ATTORNEY
office. To view the applicable Code of Judicial Ethics Canons,Click here. For a Judicial Council
directive about the obligation to address judicial misconduct, a critical self-policing component of the
Code of Judicial Ethics, click here.
For information about the role of temporary judges in

family court,click here.For officialSacramento County
Superior Courtinformation about theTemporary Judge
Program click here.
Using public records law, Sacramento Family Court

News obtained the list of private practice attorneys
who also act as judge pro tems in Sacramento Family
Law Court. Each lawyer on the list below is currently a
temporary judge, or was a temporary judge in 2009,
2010, 2011, 2012 or 2013.SFCN cross-checked each
name on the Sacramento Countyjudge pro tem list
withCalifornia State Bar Data. The first name in each
listing is the name that appears on the Sacramento
County judge pro tem list, the second name, the State
Bar Number (SBN), and business address are derived
from the officialState Bar data for each attorney. The
State Bar data was obtained using thesearch function
at the State Bar website.
MISCONDUCT
(35)
ATTORNEYS
(11)
BAR
ASSOCIATION
(11)
BARACK
OBAMA
(1)
BARTHOLOMEW
and WASZNICKY
(3)
BUNMI
AWONIYI
(1)
CALIFORNIA
JUDICIAL CONDUCT HANDBOOK
(1)
CALIFORNIA
LAWYER
(1)
CALIFORNIANS AWARE
(2)
CAMILLE HEMMER
(3)
CANTIL-SAKAUYE
(5)
CARLSSON CASE
(10)
CECIL and CIANCI

(2)
CEO
(4)
CHARLOTTE
KEELEY
(18)
CHILD
CUSTODY
(22)
CHILD
SUPPORT
(4)
CHRISTINA
ARCURI
(5)
CHRISTINA
VOLKERS
(8)
CIVICS
(1)
CIVIL LIABILITY
(1)
CIVIL
RIGHTS
(6)
CJA
(3)
CJP
(18)
ClientTickler
(2)
CNN
CODE OF JUDICIAL
ETHICS
(12)
CODE OF
(1)
SILENCE
(2)
COLLEEN
MCDONAGH
(3)
COLOR OF
A number of family court whistleblowers have leaked court

recordsindicating that judge pro tem attorneys receive from
judges kickbacks and otherpreferential treatment in exchange
for operating the familycourt settlement conference program.
For-profit, private sector

lawyers who also hold the
Office of Temporary Judge:
Sandy
LAW
SERIES
(11)
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
(11)
CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHTS
(3)
CONTEMPT
(5)
COURT CONDITIONS
(2)
COURT EMPLOYEE
(1)
COURT
EMPLOYEE CODE OF ETHICS
(1)
COURT POLICIES
(1)
COURT
RULES
(4)
COURTS
(1)
CPG
FAMILY LAW
(1)
CRIMINAL
CONDUCT
(11)
CRIMINAL
Amara, Sandra Rose Amara, SBN 166933, Law Office of Sandra Amara,1 California
LAW
(3)
CRONYISM
(2)
Street,Auburn, CA95603.
DAVID KAZZIE
(4)
DEMOTION
Mark
Ambrose, Mark Anthony Ambrose, SBN 141222, Law Offices of Mark A. Ambrose, 8801
Folsom Blvd. Ste. 170, Sacramento, CA 95826. Ambrose unethically advertises himself as a temporary judge.
Kathleen Amos, Kathleen Swalla Amos, SBN 112395, Attorney at Law & Mediator,206 5th
Street, Ste. 2B Galt, CA 95632.
Gary Appelblatt, Gary Michael Appelblatt, SBN 144158, 3610 American River Drive #112,
Sacramento, CA 95864. Appelblatt was disbarred by the State Bar on Sept. 24, 2010 afterbeing convicted of
sexual battery against clients. Click here for our exclusive report. Appelblatt is a graduate of McGeorge School of
Law.
Beth
(1)
DENISE
GARY
(2)
DSM-301.7
(1)
EDITORIAL
(1)
EDWARD
FREIDBERG
(2)
EFF
(2)
EFFICIENCY
IN
GOVERNMENT
ELAINE VAN
BEVEREN
(13)
ELECTIONS
(1)
AWARD
(1)
Appelsmith, Beth Marie Appelsmith, SBN 124135,1430 Alhambra Blvd. Sacramento CA
95816.
RICHARDS
(1)
DIANE WASZNICKY
(2)
DISQUALIFICATION
(2)
DIVORCE
(7)
DIVORCE
ATTORNEY
(5)
DIVORCE
CORP
(15)
DIVORCE
LAWYER
(5)
DOCUMENTS
(16)
DONALD TENN
(3)
DONNA
EMILY
GALLUP
(3)
EMPLOYEE CODE OF ETHICS
Bunmi Awoniyi, Olubunmi Olaide Awoniyi, SBN 154183, Law Office of Bunmi Awoniyi a
PC,1610 Executive Ct. Sacramento, CA 95864. Awoniyi unethically advertises herself as a temporary judge.
Awoniyi was appointed a Superior Court Judge in December 2012 and holds court in Department 120 of
Sacramento Family Court.
Alexandre C. Barbera, C. Alexandre Barbera, SBN 70071,915 Highland Point Drive, Ste. 250
(4)
EMPLOYEE
MISCONDUCT
(19)
EQUAL PROTECTION
(2)
EUGENE L. BALONON
(1)
EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS
(2)
EX PARTE
(1)
F4J
(4)
FAMILY COURT
(9)
FAMILY
COURT
Roseville, CA 95678.
COURT
AUDITS
(1)
FAMILY
CONDITIONS
(2)
FAMILY COURT
MEDIA COVERAGE
(1)
FAMILY COURT PROCEDURE
(1)
FAMILY
COURT
SACRAMENTO
(2)
FAMILY

Elk Grove
Home

Find Your Patch
38
Partly Cloudy
All Topics
Opinion
Judge James Mize Misconduct: Criminal

Acts by Judge Pro Tem Condoned by
Supervising Family Court Judge
Family Court Whistleblowers Charge Oversight and Accountability of Attorney
Misconduct Nonexistent Under Leadership of Judge James Mize
By
Cathy Cohen (Open Post)
July 11, 2014 at 2:10pm
Sacramento Family Court Supervising Judge James Mize Fails

to Effectively Train, Supervise and Discipline Temporary
Judges, according to an Unsettling New Report from

Sacramento Family Court News
Whistleblower leaked records from aSacramento Family
Courtcase indicate that

criminal actswere
committed by
family law attorney and temporary judge
Paula
Salingeragainst
an indigent, unrepresented, pro per family
court party. The pro per was a
victim and witness in a family
court criminal contempt case filed against a
Salinger client, and
the pro per also is a domestic violence victim,
according to
court records.
Family court
reform advocatessay
the case is another example
of the complete lack of
oversight and accountabilityof
attorneys who engage in

egregious misconductagainst
disadvantaged,
pro per litigantswho
can't afford legal
representation.
AsSacramento Family Court Newspreviously reported,
Salinger
has been caught in several scandals including
filing
counterfeit documentsin
court, violating
state lawsand
court rules,
illegally
attempting to obtain a final divorce
judgmentwhile
an appeal in the same case was pending, and
obtaining a questionable waiverof

the requirements to
become a temporary judge.
Attorney Collusion with

Judge Matthew J. Gary Documented
by Court Records
Salinger also obtained from

controversialJudge
Matthew
Garyan
illegal order for more than
$10,000 in attorney fee
sanctionsagainst
the same
contemptand domestic violence
victim.
To benefit Salinger, Gary also illegally attempted to use
fee waiver law
to
obstruct an appealof
several orders he
issued for Salinger in the same case. Salinger's firm,
Woodruff,
O'Hair, Posner &
Salinger Inc., previously was
sued for legal
malpracticein
a case alleging more than $1 million in damages.
The new, criminal allegations first surfaced last month on
social
media, including
Facebookand
Twitter,where
several posts
linked to supporting documents
posted at Docstocand
Calameo. Due to the serious nature of the

claims,SFCNdid not
report on the assertions pending
authentication of the
records.SFCNhas now verified the
accuracy of the documents
and posted the complete set
at our Scribd account.
The Scribd
document setalso is embedded with the original articleat
Sacramento Family Court News.
Obstruction of Justice
Crimes
The records indicate thatPaula Salinger, aSacramento

County
Superior Court
sworn temporary judgeand
officer of the
Sacramento BarAssociation
Family Law Executive
CommitteeviolatedCaliforniaPenal
Code sections
prohibiting
witness intimidationand
deceit of a witness.
Under California law, both offenses are designated as

obstruction of justice
crimes.
The circumstances also reveal new collusion between Salinger
andJudge
Matthew Gary. As
reflected by page one of the
document set posted at Scribd and SFCN, at an
unrelated court
hearing held three weeks before the date calendared for the

contempt case, in open court Gary disclosed to Salinger that
hewould deny
the contempt claims, even though Salinger had
yet to file a response to the
contempt pleading.Salinger then
used the unlawful disclosure in a threatening letter to
the
unrepresented opposing party:
"As the court indicated at the hearing on October 27, 2010,
your
Order to Show Case (sic) Re: Contempt does not contain
sufficient factual
basis to sustain the contempt. At the hearing
on November 17, 2010, I intend to
request the court dismiss the
matter and order sanctions pursuant to Family
Code section
271 for proceeding with the contempt...
...Should you provide written proof (a copy of a confirming
letter to the court) by Monday, November 1, 2010 at 5:00 p.m.

that the above
matters have been dropped, I shall withdraw
my requests for sanctions pursuant
to FC 271,"Salinger wrote
in a
letter to the contempt victim and witness. Page one of the
document set
posted at Sacramento Family Court Newsis
an
authenticated copy of the threatening letter.
Contempt Filing Against

Salinger Client Triggers Criminal
Acts
The alleged criminal acts were committed after the indigent,
unrepresented pro per filed a criminal contempt of court

allegation against a
Salinger client. The contempt filing charged
several violations of the Standard
Family Law Restraining
Orders, which are issued in all divorce proceedings.SFLRO's are
automatically ordered against both parties when a
dissolution of
marriage is initiated in family court.
As page one of the document set posted at SFCNreflects,

Salinger illegally threatened the victim and witness with financial
harm in the
form of attorney fee sanctions if they did not drop
the criminal contempt case.
As page three and four reflect,
Salinger concurrently filed an illegal
responsive declaration in
the contempt case with a demand for $1,000 in
attorney fee
sanctions against the contempt victim and witness.
As the page two legal reference reflects, under California law
the
response to a contempt allegation may only be used to answer
the contempt
charge, or move to discharge the contempt on
appropriate grounds. Requesting
"affirmative relief," including
attorney fee sanctions, in response
to a contempt allegation is
prohibited by law. As page five of the document set
indicates,
Salinger's threat coerced the victim and witness to drop the
contempt matter.
Witness Intimidation -
Influencing a Witness by Fraud
As reflected by pages 6-16 of the document set posted at SFCN

and Scribd,
Penal Code 133makes
it a crime to use fraud or
deceit to affect the testimony of a victim
orwitness.
Penal Code
136.1(a) & (b)make
it a crime to maliciously prevent or
discourage a witness or victimfrom
giving testimony at a judicial
proceeding.
Salinger has not been charged with either crime, disciplined by
the
State Bar,
Supreme Courtor
Judicial Council, or
otherwise held accountable for the misconduct. Pro per

advocates call the
absence of accountability more proof that
attorneys are effectively immune from
punishment for
egregious misconductagainst
unrepresented pro perswho
can't afford a lawyer, and make up 70 percent of family court
litigants.
Civil law statutes, including
wrongful use of civil proceedings,
and
abuse of processmay
also apply to Salinger's lawbreaking
acts.SFCNis completing
an in-depth investigative report on the
criminal contempt incident and other
troubling proceedings and
documents from the same case.The report will be
published by
SFCNin the near future.
Family court
reform advocatessay
the latest revelations are
additional proof that the court operates effectively
as a
racketeering enterprisethat
deprives the public of the
federally protected right to
honest government services.
Court watchdogs assert and have documented that judge pro

tem attorneys
receive kickbacksin
the form of
rubberstamped ordersand
other
preferential treatmentfrom
family
court
judgesand
employees.
The divorce lawyers who also hold the
Office of Temporary
Judgeoperate
the family court settlement conference program
in exchange for the kickbacks
and
emoluments,watchdogs
charge.
California Penal Code 94makes
receipt of an
emolument by a judicial officer a crime, and several
federal
criminal statutesprohibit
similar conduct. The 2014
documentary film
Divorce
CorpdesignatesSacramento Family
Courtas
the
most corrupt in the United States.For
our
complete coverage of the movie,
click here.
Click here to
view the original article at Sacramento Family
Court News. SFCN is a nonprofit journalism
organization
publishing investigative reporting, news analysis,
opinion and
satire about the local family court system.

Fair Oaks-Carmichael
Home

Find Your Patch
69
Partly Cloudy
All Topics
Health & Fitness
Judge James Mize Apologist Shifts Blame

for Court Corruption to Judicial Council
Forms
Professor John E.B. Myers, a family law instructor at University of the Pacific McGeorge
School of Law, pens an intellectually dishonest defense of Sacramento Family Court
corruption and Supervising Judge James Mize.
By
CATHY COHEN
(Open Post)
July 23, 2014
Share

1
Comments
Sacramento Bee Editorial

Reveals Family
CourtCronyism ReachesLaw SchoolAcademic
Community
In a laughably inaccurate editorialpublished by the
Sacramento Bee, McGeorge School

of Law family law
professor John E.B. Myers redefined the meaning of the
out-oftouch, ivory tower academic.
Among other clueless assertions,
Myers made the bizarre, demonstrably falseclaim that:
Sacramentos family court, under the wise leadership of Judge

James Mize, serves the community well.
Family court watchdogs have collected and catalogued

overwhelming
evidence that Judge Mize provides anything but
wise
leadership, and that the court which operates essentially
as an organized, criminal enterprise serves only a select,
exclusive group of judge pro tem lawyers.

The community at large, and especially those financially
disadvantagedfamily court users without an attorney,
are
subjected to second-class statusunder an illegal two-track
system of justice.
Rationalization FAIL: "Unworkable Form-Driven

System" Responsible forInjustice
Myers went on to attribute what in fact is incompetence and

corruptionby family court judges and
employees to
incomprehensible Judicial Council family court forms:

Today, there are more than 200 family-law forms, making the
law
incomprehensible to anyone but an expertThe amazing
thing is that so many
lawyerless litigants somehow navigate
the labyrinth of financial and other
forms to accomplish their
goals in family court. Countless others simply give
up. Many try
their best but do not receive justice. Not because the people at
family court dont care, but because our form-driven family law
system is
unworkable, Myers wrote.
News Flash Professor Myers: Real world, lawyerless
family
court users will be happy to explain to you that the people at
family
court not only dont care, the people at family
court
knowingly and routinely collude with a secretive, insular
groupof for-profit, private sector judge pro tem divorce

lawyersto deprive lawyerless litigants of their children, income
and assets, and civil and constitutional rights.
Click here to
view a list of the divorce lawyers who also act as
judge pro tems and run the
family court settlement conference
program in exchange for favorable treatment by judges and
court employees.
The number of family law forms is not why
lawyerless litigants do
not receive justice, and the claim that there are 200
family-law
forms is a misleading red herring. But, nice try, professor.
Few, if any, uncontested divorce cases require more than 6-8
forms in total to complete a divorce, and a typical family court

law and motion
hearing requires just 1-3 forms.
As the recently released documentary film Divorce Corp makes
clear, lawyerless litigants do not receive justice because of

rampant, garden
variety corruption and collusion between
attorneys and judges.
University of the Pacific

McGeorge School of
LawAlumni Discredit the Legal Profession
And, in an ironic coincidence, many of the most corrupt,
unethical attorneys in
the group of attorneys from the cases
chronicled in Divorce Corp are
graduates of McGeorge School
of Law where Myers has taught family law and other courses
since
1984.
In addition, two McGeorge alumni not included in the movie
have been disbarred by the State Bar of California: divorce

lawyer Scott Kendall (for multiple
acts of misconduct), and
divorce lawyer Gary Appelblatt (for

sexual battery against
clients).
The Sacramento County judge pro tem group accurately is
called a cartel by family court reform advocates.

The cartel is
led by the Sacramento County Bar Association
Family Law
Executive Committee,
known among cartel attorneys by the
acronym FLEC.
Click here to read a

laundry list of documented examples of
collusion and corruption between cartel
attorneys and family
court judges and employees.
Family law attorney and Sacramento Bar Association
Family
Law Executive Committee officer Paula Salinger is an
esteemedMcGeorge Law Schoolclass of 2002
alumna.Salinger, alsoaSacramento Superior Court sworn
temporary judge, was recently accused of committing
obstruction of justice crimes against an indigent,

unrepresented family court domestic violence victim.
Salinger alsohas been caught inother scandals, including
filing
counterfeit documentsin court, violating
state lawsand
court rules, illegally

attempting to obtain a final divorce
judgmentwhile an appeal in the same case was pending, and
obtaining a questionable waiverof the requirements to

become a temporary judge.
In addition, corrupt and controversial family
court Judge
Matthew J. Garyis a McGeorge SOL graduate. Gary has been
involved in a string of misconduct allegationsdating back to
when he became a full-time judge in 2007, and reportedly is
currently under investigation by the Commission on Judicial

Performance,
the state agency responsible for oversight and
discipline of California judges.

Judge Sharon Lueras,
another proud McGeorge graduate, has
been blamed in the family
court-relateddeaths of 8-month-old
Ryder Salmen, and

9-year-old Matthew Hernanez. The
cases
have been covered by localand
national news outlets, including
Nancy Grace at Headline News.
Divorce Corp Documentary Film ExposCompels

Damage Control & Blame Shifting
Apparently coordinated with Judge James Mize and

Sacramento
Family Court administrators and employees,
Professor Myers editorial is nothing more than strategically

timed damage
control and blame shifting. The
nationwide
release of the documentary film Divorce Corp has put
the local
court system under intense, national scrutiny.
Featuring four cases from Sacramento
County more than
from any other court jurisdiction covered in the film
the
documentary portrays the family court system as the most
corrupt in the nation.
The Sacramento Family Law Court
cases of litigants Andrew Karres, Mike
Newdow, Robert
Saunders and Ulf Carlsson all get
screen time in the movie.
The details of the Carlsson case, involving criminally
convictedand twice CJP disciplined Judge
Peter McBrien and
judge
pro tem attorney and McGeorge graduate - Charlotte
Keeley, are
the most disturbing, and Ulf Carlsson himself
rightfully receives a
starring role.
The Divorce Corp video clip above provides the unsettling
details of the Carlsson case. For more on the film, visit the
Divorce
Corp website or the Divorce Corp YouTube Channel.
Sacramento
Family Court News is the only California news
source accurately reporting

on family court corruption. Click
here to visit the SFCN home page.
Share
FROM THE WEB
Tweet
Sponsored Links by Taboola

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

08:23

FIRST LEGAL SUPPORT

CALLAHAN & BLAINE

Daniel J. Callahan (CSBN 91490)

David E. Hayen (CSBN 68991)

Attorneys for Plaintiff CC UPLAND LLC

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO

CC UPLAND LLC dba CHRONIC CANTINA

CITY OF UPLAND, JOHN VICTOR

Complaint Filed: April 11, 2011

FIRST LEGAL SUPPORT

Defendant, City of Upland, California ("Upland") is

a municipal corporation in the

State of California, County of San Bernardino.

At al times material to this Complaint, Defendant John Victor Pomierski

County of San Bernardino.

At all times material to this Complaint, Defendant J. H. Builders ("J.H."), is a business

FIRST LEGAL SUPPORT

cooperation and knowledge of each and all of the Defendants.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.

FIRST LEGAL SUPPORT

Conditional Use Permit ("CUP") No.

City of Upland, eventually putting Plaintiff completely out of business.

07-07 (granted in 1997). Thereafter, the Cantina successfully

shortly after the Indictment

filed in U.S. District against Defendants.

Right; 18 U.S. C. section

Programs Receiving Federal Funds; and

Pomierski and Hennes

371: Conspiracy; 18 U.S.C. section 666(a)(l)(B): Bribery Concerning

From the Cantina

As alleged herein, Defendants Pomiersk:i, Hennes, and Adams conspired to extort

government business and transactions.

FIRST LEGAL SUPPORT

Scheme from July

2007 through June 28, 2010.

$15,000, Defendants demanded that Plaintiff pay an additional $25,000.00. When

Defendants did not receive the additional

conditional use permit was revoked on or about April

$ 15,000. Notwithstanding the

$25,000.00, true to their threats and extortion, the Cantina's

Defendants' conspiracy was accomplished by the following steps, included the

Defendant Pomierski would demand money from the owners of businesses

Upland city government business and transactions.

Defendant Hennes, J.H. and other Doe co-conspirators would communicate

Defendant Pomierski' s demands to the business owners.

the business owners.

Defendant Hennes, J.H.and other co-conspirators would collect money from

from the business owners to Defendant Pomierski.

FIRST LEGAL SUPPORT

Cantina as alleged directly above.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

U.S.C $ 1962 to ( CIVIL RICO) and (d) (RICO CONSPIRACY)

(Against Ail Defendants and Does 1-100)

jurisdiction is applicable for the claims herein.

Defendants' actions violate theRacketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act

18 U.S.C. 1 961 (3) and 1 962 (c)-(d).

U.S.C. 1 961(3) and 1 96 2 (c)-(d).

U.S.C. 1 961(3) and 1962 (c)-(d).

U.S.C. 1 961(3) and 1 962 (c)-(d).

1 8 U.S.C. 1 961(3) and 1 962(c)-(d).

FIRST LEGAL SUPPORT

FAX 951 779-0100

At all relevant times, Defendants conducted