UPDATE: SEARCHABLE PDF OF THE REPORT
The JL Report does not generally (and so far as I’ve noticed so far, not at all) match actions they have identified to specific crimes. That is a job for prosecutors, not investigators. But they have helpfully identified a good number of crimes — federal, state, and city-charter-related — that might apply to various of the actions that they describe. So, in the interest of getting this into the permanent record (in case some future Anaheim City Council might remove it from the city’s website, or something), as well as making the report easier to use, I’ve ported over the entire “matrix of potentially applicable crimes” that they identified. DA Spitzer, AG Bonta, FBI, and OC Grand Jury — here’s your head start!
(We’re not sure what AI gave us here, but it may be Curt Pringle and Harry Sidhu trying to make it rain.)
As it will surely come up in comments, the argument will be made that the statements made in the report were not made under oath and penalty of perjury. Right: at this early point, it could hardly be otherwise. Does that allow us to dismiss all of the information covered in the report? Not hardly: it just means that witnesses would have to agree to make statements under penalty of perjury at a future time. If someone wants to assert that people will have a totally different story once they’re under oath — and for the most part the report deals with facts that are independently supportable, such as the gas station dramas — then the burden is on them to say why they think that’s so. But frankly, those self-interested critics seem like they’re just squirting ink in the water. Don’t let it blind you.
ADDENDUM 2 – MATRIX OF POTENTIALLY APPLICABLE CRIMES
| Primary Code | Add’l Code(s) | Crime | Quick Summary | Elements |
| 18 USC § 1001 | False Statements | Defendant made a false statement or used a writing that contained a false statement The statement or writing was made in a matter within the jurisdiction of a federal/US government agency or department. Defendant acted willfully, i.e. deliberately and with knowledge both that the statement was untrue and that his or her conduct was unlawful. The statement or writing was material to the activities or decisions of the particular federal/US government agency or department (it had a natural tendency to influence, or was capable of influencing, the agency’s decisions or activities) | ||
| 18 USC § 1341 | Mail Fraud | Wire fraud and mail fraud require essentially the same elements, with the only difference being the means of the interstate communication (e.g., through the mails or through interstate wire (i.e., other electronic means)) | Defendant knowingly participated in a scheme or plan for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, promises, or omitted facts (deceitful statements or half-truths may constitute false or fraudulent representations) The statements made or facts omitted as part of the scheme were material (they had a natural tendency to influence, or were capable of influencing, a person to part with money or property) Defendant acted with the intent to defraud Defendant used, or caused to be used, the mails to carry out or attempt to carry out an essential part of the scheme NOTE: to convict of mail fraud based on omissions of fact, there must have been a duty to disclose the omitted facts arising out of a relationship of trust. A mailing is caused when one knows that the mails will be used in the ordinary course of business or when one can reasonably foresee it. | |
| 18 USC § 1343 | Wire Fraud | Wire fraud and mail fraud require essentially the same elements, with the only difference being the means of the interstate communication (e.g., through the mails or through interstate wire (i.e., other electronic means)) | Defendant knowingly participated in a scheme or plan for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, promises, or omitted facts (deceitful statements or half-truths may constitute false or fraudulent representations) The statements made or facts omitted as part of the scheme were material (they had a natural tendency to influence, or were capable of influencing, a person to part with money or property) Defendant acted with the intent to defraud Defendant used, or caused to be used, an interstate wire communication |
| Primary Code | Add’l Code(s) | Crime | Quick Summary | Elements |
| [continued from above] (i.e., via phone, computer, etc) to carry out or attempt to carry out an essential part of the scheme. NOTE: to convict of wire fraud based on omissions of fact, there must have been a duty to disclose the omitted facts arising out of a relationship of trust. | ||||
| 18 USC § 1346 (definition) | see also 18 USC § 1341 | Honest Services Fraud (via mail or wire fraud) | Pursuant to Federal Law, the public has the right to the “honest services” of public officials. That right is violated when a public official makes a decision that is not motivated by the public’s interest but instead by his or her personal interests. | Defendant devised or knowingly participated in a scheme or plan to deprive the victim of his or her right of honest services The scheme or plan consisted of a bribe or kickback in exchange for Defendant’s services (the exchange may be express or implied from all surrounding circumstances) Defendant owed a fiduciary duty to the victim Defendant acted with the intent to defraud by depriving victim of his or her right of honest services Defendants act had a natural tendency to influence or was capable of influencing an entity’s acts Defendant used, or caused someone to use, the mails or an interstate wire communication to carry out or to attempt to carry out the scheme or plan |
| 18 USC § 1503 | see also 18 USC § 1519 (destruction, alteration or falsification of records in federal investigations; 9th Cir. Model Criminal Jury Instructions, 19.4) | Obstruction of Justice | Defendant influenced, obstructed, or impeded, or tried to influence, obstruct, or impede the due administration of justice Defendant acted corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening communication, with the intent to obstruct justice. (The government need not prove that Defendant’s sole or even primary intention was to obstruct justice so long as the government proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant had a substantial intention to obstruct justice.) | |
| 18 USC § 1512(b) | Witness Tampering | Defendant knowingly uses intimidation, threatens, or corruptly persuades another person, or attempts to do so, or engages in misleading conduct toward another person,Defendant did so with the intent to:influence, delay, or prevent the testimony of any person in an official proceeding; cause or induce any person to: (i) withhold testimony, or withhold a record, document, or other object, from an official proceeding; (ii) alter, destroy, mutilate, or conceal an object with intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; (iii) evade legal process summoning that person to appear as a witness, or to produce a record, document, or other object, in an official proceeding; or (iv) be absent |
| Primary Code | Add’l Code(s) | Crime | Quick Summary | Elements |
| [continued from above] from an official proceeding to which such person has been summoned by legal process; or (c) hinder, delay, or prevent the communication to a law enforcement officer or judge of the United States of information relating to the commission or possible commission of a Federal offense | ||||
| 18 USC § 1951 | Hobbs Act: Interference with Commerce Through Extortion or Attempted Extortion Under Color of Official Right | “Whoever . . . Affects commerce or the movement of any article or commodity in commerce, by . . . Extortion or attempts or conspires to do so . . .” where “extortion” means, in part, “obtaining of property from another, with his consent . . . Under color of official right.” | Defendant is a public officialDefendant obtained or intended to obtain property that Defendant knew he or she was not entitled toDefendant knew the property would be given in return for taking or withholding some official action, or in return for an express promise to perform a particular actionCommerce or the movement of an article or commodity in commerce from one state to another was or would have been affected in some wayDefendant did something that was a substantial step toward committing the crime and that strongly corroborated Defendant’s intent to commit the crime. NOTE (re element 4): Conduct affects interstate commerce if it in any way involves, interferes with, changes, or alters the movement or transportation or flow of goods, merchandise, money, or other property in commerce between or among the states or between the United States and a foreign country. The effect can be minimal. | |
| 18 USC § 1952 | Travel Act: Interstate and Foreign Travel or Transportation in Aid of Racketeering Enterprises | “Whoever . . . Uses the mail or any facility in interstate . . . Commerce, with intent to . . . promote, manage, establish, carry on, or facilitate the promotion, management, establishment, or carrying on, of any unlawful activity” where “unlawful activity” includes “extortion, bribery, or arson in violation of the laws of the State in which committed or of the United States” | Defendant traveled interstate or used the mail or used a facility in interstate commerce with the intent to promote, manage, establish, or carry on an [unlawful activity]After doing so, Defendant performed an act or attempted to perform an act that was a substantial step toward committing the unlawful activity. | |
| 18 USC § 1957 | See also 18 USC 1956, which includes other “flavors” of money laundering (discussed in | Money Laundering | Other money laundering offenses under section 1956 include a heightened level of criminal intent, without the $10,000 requirement. | Defendant knowingly engaged or attempted to engage in a monetary transaction (i.e., the deposit, withdrawal, transfer, exchange, in or affecting interstate commerce, of funds or a monetary instrument by, through, or to a financial institution)Defendant knew the transaction involved criminally derived propertyThe property had a value greater than $10,000 |
| Primary Code | Add’l Code(s) | Crime | Quick Summary | Elements |
| model jury instructions 18.3- 18.6, available here: https://www.ce9.u scourts.gov/jury- instructions/node/ 796) | [continued from above] The property was, in fact, derived from [specified unlawful activity]The transaction occurred in the United States | |||
| 18 USC § 1961 et seq. | Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations | The federal RICO statutes are complex and require a showing of various elements and sub-elements, including based on a list of specific crimes that can constitute “racketeering activity” and with the requirement that there be an effect on interstate commerce. Not just gang or typical organized crime groups, but various government officials also have been indicted under RICO. See the model jury instructions for more particulars on some of the other various RICO charges that can be brought (e.g., using or investing income from racketeering activity), or JK can provide more information. An individual’s conduct or participation in an enterprise’s affairs through a “pattern” of “racketeering activity” (where “racketeering activity” includes bribery, mail and wire fraud, obstruction of justice, witness tampering), a “pattern” requires at least two incidents of racketeering, and where the enterprise is engaged in, or the activities affect, interstate commerce. | Defendant was engaged in an “enterprise” involving a group of people (a) associated for a common purpose of engaging in a course of conduct, (b) that the association of these people was an ongoing formal or informal organization, and (3) the group was engaged in or had an effect upon interstate or foreign commerce (only a minimal effect on commerce is required). Defendant and the enterprise were engaged in certain state or federal crimes (as listed in 18 U.S.C. 1961; see “quick summary” column for some examples) Defendant’s purpose in committing a crime was to gain entrance to, or maintain, or increase his or her position in the enterprise. The enterprise is guilty of at least two of the crimes listed, and those crimes formed a pattern of racketeering activity (were committed within 10 years of each other, were “related” to each other, and posed a threat of continued criminal activity) | |
| 18 USC § 666(a)(1)(A) and (B) | Theft or Bribery Concerning Programs | Defendant is an agent of an organization and/or local agency The organization receives, in any one year period, benefits in excess of $10,000 under a Federal program involving a grant, contract, subsidy, loan, |
| Primary Code | Add’l Code(s) | Crime | Quick Summary | Elements |
| Receiving Federal Funds | [continued from above] guarantee, insurance, or other form of Federal assistance. 3. Defendant embezzles, steals, obtains by fraud, or otherwise without authority knowingly converts to the use of any person other than the rightful owner or intentionally misapplies, property that is valued at $5,000 or more, and is owned by, or is under the care, custody, or control of such organization, government, or agency OR 3. Defendant corruptly solicits or demands for the benefit of any person, or accepts or agrees to accept, anything of value from any person, intending to be influenced or rewarded in connection with any business, transaction, or series of transactions of such organization, government, or agency involving any thing of value of $5,000 or more | |||
| 26 USC § 7206 | see also 26 USC §§ 7203 (willful failure to pay tax), 7207 (delivering/disclos ing a tax return knowing it contained false information (misdemeanor)); see 9th Cir. Model Criminal Jury Instructions, 22.2, 22.5 | Filing False Tax Return | Defendant signed and filed a tax return that he or she knew contained false or incorrect information as to a material matter.The return contained a written declaration that it was being signed subject to the penalties of perjury.In filing the false tax return, Defendant acted willfully | |
| Anaheim Municipal Code, Title 1, Chapter 1.09, Section 1.09.130 (Enforcement of Chapter) | Contribution Disclosures and Limits for City Officials | The Anaheim Municipal Code includes a Campaign Reform Law “to ensure that the financial strength of certain individuals or organizations does not permit them to exercise a disproportionate or controlling influence on the election of city candidates. | Some examples, but others may be contemplated by the Code: Defendant is an official for the City of Anaheim. Defendant makes or accepts a contribution in excess of applicable contribution limits (e.g., $2,200 per “election cycle” was made effective Jan. 2021). (If an accepted contribution): Defendant failed to return the excess contribution to the donor within 14 days, and/or failed to provide written notification of that return to the city clerk within 72 hours after the return. Defendant is an official for the City of Anaheim. Defendant accepts a “contribution” cumulating $100 or more in an election cycle |
| Primary Code | Add’l Code(s) | Crime | Quick Summary | Elements |
| [continued from above] 3. Defendant fails to disclose the contribution in the manner required by the Political Reform Act or otherwise return the campaign contribution. “Contribution” also includes “any funds, property, goods or services, other than government funds, received by the elective city officers which are used, or intended by the donor or by the recipient to be used, for expenses (including legal expenses) related to holding public office” | ||||
| Anaheim Municipal Code, Title 1, Chapter 1.09, Section 1.09.135 (Laundered Contributions) | Laundered Contributions to City Officials | A specific provision of the City of Anaheim Campaign Reform Law related to Laundered Contributions. | Defendant is an official for the City of Anaheim. Defendant accepts a contribution. The contribution was made directly or indirectly by a person in a name other than the name by which such person is identified for legal purposes. Defendant becomes aware that the contribution was made in another’s name Defendant fails to pay the amount to the General Fund of the City of Anaheim. | |
| Cal Gov. Code § 34090 | Cal Gov. Code §§ 34090-34090.8, 12168.7; Anaheim Municipal Code, Title 1, Chapter 1.11 (“Sunshine Provisions”) | Public Official Document Retention Obligations | In addition to permitting access to public records, cities have document retention obligations and cannot destroy records unless certain criteria are met. | Defendant is a city officer having custody of public records, books, and papers. Defendant fails to obtain approval of the legislative body or the written consent of the city attorney for destroying those records. Defendant causes those records to be destroyed. The destroyed material was not legibly copied or reproduced in the manner required for electronic maintenance of records as permanent. OR 4. The destroyed material was legibly copied or reproduced, but not made accessible for public reference as the original records were. |
| Cal. Elec. Code § 18680 | Misuse of Campaign Funds | A person entrusted with money or things of value relating to a campaign becomes a trustee of the money or things of value, and cannot use it for purposes “not in the due and lawful execution of the trust.” | Defendant was entrusted with money or things of value for the purpose of promoting or defeating any initiative, referendum, or recall petition or any measure that has qualified for the ballot in California.Defendant wrongfully appropriates the money or things of value for a use or purpose “not in the due and lawful execution of the trust” NOTE: the code section includes a list of expenses within the due and lawful execution of the trust, but also states that “[e]xpenses for food, clothing, shelter and other personal needs of the trustee are not within the due and lawful execution of the trust” unless they involve expenses for travel and accommodations related to promoting or defeating the measure, initiative, etc. |
| Primary Code | Add’l Code(s) | Crime | Quick Summary | Elements |
| Cal. Gov. Code § 1090 | Cal. Gov. Code §§ 1097, 1097.1; see also Anaheim Municipal Code Charter, Article VII, Section 708. | Public Official Self-Dealing (Contractual Conflict of Interest) | California law forbids public officials from having an economic interest in their agencies’ contracts. | Defendant is a city officer or employee.While acting in his/her official capacity, Defendant (or the body or board of which Defendant is a member) is purposefully involved in the making of a public contract (even if Defendant abstains from voting or resigns from the deliberative body before the vote on the contract is taken).Defendant knows there is a reasonable likelihood that the contract may result in a personal financial benefit. It is not a defense that: Defendant acted in good faith, sincerely believed the contract was in the public’s best interest, or acted under the advice of counsel. |
| Cal. Gov. Code § 1094 | see also Anaheim Municipal Code Charter, Article VII, Section 708. | Public Official’s False Affidavit of Nonviolation of Self-Dealing Provisions | In addition to the general penal code provision regarding perjury, this section specifically requires public officials to submit information about accounts under penalty of perjury, including by attesting that he or she has not violated the conflict of interest provisions under broadly-interpreted Cal. Gov. Code § 1090 (see other row regarding this code section). | Defendant is a state, county, or city officer with an “account” Defendant signs an affidavit or certificate under penalty of perjury that he or she has not violated any conflict of interest provisions under Cal. Gov. Code § 1090 et seq. (this includes Cal. Gov. Code § 1098) Defendant states that material information in the affidavit or certificate is true even though he/she knew it was false. When the defendant made the false statement, he/she intended to declare falsely. |
| Cal. Gov. Code § 1098 | see also Anaheim Municipal Code Charter, Article VII, Section 708. | Public Official’s Disclosure of Confidential Information for Pecuniary Gain (Type of Self- Dealing) | California law specifically forbids public officials from disclosing confidential information for pecuniary gain. | Defendant is a public officer or employee. Defendant acquires confidential information (that is not required to be disclosed by the Public Records Act) in the course of his or her official duties. Defendant discloses the confidential information to a third party. Use or disclosure of the confidential information will have, or could reasonably be expected to have, a material financial effect on any investment or interest in real property which the third party has at the time of the use or disclosure of the information. Defendant does so willfully, knowingly, and for pecuniary gain. |
| Cal. Gov. Code § 1099 | See also CCP 803 (allows the attorney general to bring an action to enforce this section) | Public Official Holding Multiple Incompatible Public Offices | Holding multiple offices creates inherent conflicts of interest and divided loyalties. Accordingly, the law puts limitations on an official’s ability to be hold multiple offices at the same time. | Defendant is a public officer, including, but not limited to, an appointed or elected member of a governmental board, commission, committee, or other body Defendant simultaneously holds two public offices that are incompatible. (Offices are incompatible when: (a) Either of the offices may audit, overrule, remove members of, dismiss employees of, or exercise supervisory powers over the other office or body; (b) Based on the powers and jurisdiction of the offices, there is a possibility of a significant clash of duties or loyalties |
| Primary Code | Add’l Code(s) | Crime | Quick Summary | Elements |
| [continued from above] between the offices OR (c) Public policy considerations make it improper for one person to hold both offices.) NOTE: according to the section, when two public offices are incompatible, a public officer is deemed to have forfeited the first office upon acceding to the second. | ||||
| Cal. Gov. Code § 1126 | City of Anaheim Administrative Regulations, Chapter 2, A.R. 233 (https://www.anah eim.net/2896/Adm inistrative- Regulations) | Public Official Engaging in Incompatible Outside Employment | An official can generally engage in outside employment, unless it is incompatible with the official’s duties. The law requires the particular agency to define what constitutes incompatible outside employment. | Defendant is a local agency officer or employee (where “local agency” includes a city).Defendant engages in an employment, activity, or enterprise that “is inconsistent, incompatible, in conflict with, or inimical to his or her duties as a local agency officer or employee or with the duties, functions, or responsibilities of his or her appointing power or the agency by which he or she is employed……. ” (excerpt of Cal. Gov. Code § 1126)The “employment, activity, or enterprise” was “for compensation.” NOTE: this code section must be implemented by the specific agency, including with the local agency “adopt[ing] rules governing the application of this section.” (Cal. Gov. Code § 1126(c).) This is done (at a very high/general level) through the City of Anaheim’s Administrative Regulations, Chapter 2 (Employment Procedures), A.R. 233 (re Outside Employment). |
| Cal. Gov. Code § 53232.2 | Cal. Gov. Code §§ 53232.3, 53232.4; Cal. Penal Code § 424; City of Anaheim City Council Policy Manual, Sections 1.1 and 1.12 (https://www.anah eim.net/2892/Cou ncil-Policies); Ethics Training: Cal. Gov. Code § 53235, City of Anaheim City Council Policy Manual, Section 1.11 | Public Official’s Excessive Expense Reimbursement | An official is a steward of the public funds. He or she cannot be reimbursed for an expense unless the expense was “actual and necessary” in the official’s performance of official duties. Local agencies are also required to provide regularly-scheduled ethics trainings on reimbursements to their local agency officials. | A local agency reimburses members of its legislative body for actual and necessary expenses incurred in the performance of official duties.Defendant is a member of that legislative body.Defendant falsifies an expense report to seek reimbursement for amounts not “actual and necessary” to the “performance of official duties.” OR 3. Defendant otherwise engages in a misuse of public resources in incurring expenses and obtaining reimbursement for activities not “actual and necessary” to the “performance of official duties.” NOTE: If a local agency chooses to reimburse members of a legislative body for actual and necessary expenditures in the performance of official duties, “the governing body shall adopt a written policy, in a public meeting, specifying the types of occurrences that qualify . . . [for] reimbursement.” (Cal. Gov. Code § 54964(b).) This is done through the City of Anaheim’s City Council Policy Manual, Policy Nos. 1.1 and 1.12. |
| Primary Code | Add’l Code(s) | Crime | Quick Summary | Elements |
| (https://www.anah eim.net/2892/Cou ncil-Policies). | ||||
| Cal. Gov. Code § 54950 et seq | Including: 54952.2, 54952.6, 54953; Cal. Gov. Code § 54959; Anaheim Municipal Code, Title 1, Chapter 1.11 (“Sunshine Provisions”); Ethics Training: Cal. Gov. Code § 53235, City of Anaheim City Council Policy Manual, Section 1.11 (https://www.anah eim.net/2892/Cou ncil-Policies). | The Brown Act: Failure to Conduct Government Business in the Open (a handbook about the Brown Act is available via the OAG’s website: https://oag.ca.gov/o pen-meetings) | Transparency in government requires that all government business be conducted in the public eye. The Brown Act provides that: “In enacting this chapter, the Legislature finds and declares that the public commissions, boards and councils and the other public agencies in this State exist to aid in the conduct of the people’s business. It is the intent of the law that their actions be taken openly and that their deliberations be conducted openly. The people of this State do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created.” (Cal. Gov. Code § 54950.) | For CRIMINAL liability: Defendant is a member of a legislative body. Defendant attends a meeting where action is taken in violation of any provision of the Brown Act (some examples include: a “meeting” occurring without being open to the public or without proper notice to the public (including “serial meetings”), or if a meeting is permitted to be a “closed session,” without satisfying the reporting requirements for such a session; exceptions are listed in Cal. Gov. Code § 54952.2(b)(2)-(3) and (c)). The action taken involves “a collective decision made by a majority of the members of a legislative body, a collective commitment or promise by a majority of the members of a legislative body to make a positive or a negative decision, or an actual vote by a majority of the members of a legislative body when sitting as a body or entity, upon a motion, proposal, resolution, order or ordinance.”Defendant intends to deprive the public of information to which the member knows or has reason to know the public is entitled under the Brown Act. |
| Cal. Gov. Code § 54964 | Public Official’s Use of Public Resources on Ballot Measure or Candidate Related Activities | Public officials and local agencies may take positions on ballot measures in open meetings where all points of view can be heard. However, public officials and agencies may not use public resources to engage in campaign type advocacy with respect to those positions. | Defendant is an officer, employee, or consultant of a local agency. Defendant expends or authorizes expenditure of any of the funds of the local agency to support or oppose the election or defeat of a candidate by the voters. The “expenditure” was used for communications that advocated the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate by the voters or the approval or rejection of a ballot measure. NOTE: caselaw suggests this provision is primarily invoked in civil suits, |
| Primary Code | Add’l Code(s) | Crime | Quick Summary | Elements |
| [continued from above] but it also seems it could be reasonably read in conjunction with Cal. Gov. Code § 53232.2 and related provisions, including the criminal penalties proscribed by those other sections (e.g., Cal. Penal Code § 424) | ||||
| Cal. Gov. Code § 6253 | Cal. Gov. Code §§ 6250-70; Anaheim Municipal Code, Title 1, Chapter 1.11 (“Sunshine Provisions”) | The Public Records Act: Failure to retain public records and/or failure to allow public access to public records (a summary document regarding the Public Records Act is available through the OAG’s website: https://oag.ca.gov/si tes/all/files/agweb/p dfs/publications/su mmary_public_reco rds_act.pdf . There is also a training guide: https://oag.ca.gov/si tes/all/files/agweb/p dfs/publications/pra .pdf) | Transparency in government requires that the people have access to materials created by government officials when conducting the people’s business. Public records include written documents, images, computer data, e-mails, facsimiles, and photographs. | Defendant is a state or local agency.Defendant receives a “request for a copy of records that reasonably describes an identifiable record or records”Defendant fails to make the records available (including an exact copy if requested and not impracticable (Cal. Gov. Code § 6253)) OR Defendant fails to assist the member of the public seeking records in identifying information responsive to a request and/or providing other suggestions for overcoming “any practical basis for denying access to the records or information sought” (Cal. Gov. Code § 6253.1) AND The information sought is not exempt from disclosure (e.g. Cal. Gov. Code §§ 6254-6254.4.5, 6254.6; but see Cal. Gov. Code § 6254.5 (exceptions to exemptions)) OR it is not true that “the public interest served by not disclosing the record clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure of the record” (Cal. Gov. Code § 6255) |
| Cal. Gov. Code § 8314 | Cal. Penal Code § 424; Cal. Gov. Code § 36522; Anaheim Administrative Regulations, Chapter 4 – City Property, A.R. 400, 425 | Public Official’s Use of Public Resources for Private or Political Purposes | Using public resources for either personal or political purposes is illegal. “Public resources” include such things as: public funds, staff time; public equipment; and supplies. A separate statutory provision also specifically directs that if an officer or employee receives money for the city, the officer must “deposit it immediately in the treasury in the manner prescribed by ordinance for the benefit of the funds to which it belongs.” (Cal. Gov. Code § 36522.) | Defendant is an elected state or local official. Defendant uses or permits others to use public resources (“any property or asset owned by the state or any local agency”). Such use is knowingly for a campaign activity or personal or other purposes not authorized by law. Such use is “substantial enough to result in a gain or advantage to the user or a loss to the state or any local agency for which monetary value may be estimated,” and is not “incidental and minimal.” |
| Primary Code | Add’l Code(s) | Crime | Quick Summary | Elements |
| Anaheim’s administrative regulations similarly make clear that “[a]ll materials owned by the City are to be utilized only for City purposes. Use of materials owned by the City for personal use is expressly prohibited.” (A.R. 400 at p. 5 (p. 251 of .pdf document)). Anaheim also has administrative regulations regarding “surplus” or “obsolete” materials and how they must be handled by the City. | ||||
| Cal. Gov. Code § 84300-10 | Political Reform Act Violations re Campaign Contributions (see also – other rows addressing subsections relating to such violations, including regarding Cal. Gov. Code § 84308, and regarding Anaheim’s Municipal Code and campaign contribution disclosures) | From Witkin, Crimes Against Governmental Authority, Section 146 (X. Election Offenses – A. In General): “The Political Reform Act . . . contains provisions requiring political campaigns to file periodic reports disclosing specified information regarding contributions and expenditures, and requiring slate mailing organizations to file specified reports and statements. (Govt.C. 84100 et seq.;…………………………….. ) The statute prohibits contributions and expenditures of $100 or more in cash (Govt.C. 84300), contributions made in a name other than the donor’s legal name (Govt.C. 84301), contributions by agents unless they make certain disclosures (Govt.C. 84302), unreported expenditures by agents or independent contractors (Govt.C. 84303), anonymous contributions of $100 or more in a calendar year (Govt.C. 84304), mass mailings that are not properly identified as to the name and address of the sender (Govt.C. 84305), unreported receipt of contributions by | [JK would be happy to study and/or further elaborate on any of the code sections described upon request.] |
| Primary Code | Add’l Code(s) | Crime | Quick Summary | Elements |
| agents (Govt.C. 84306), commingling of contributions with personal funds (Govt.C. 84307), . . . , and receipt or delivery of contributions in specified state buildings (Govt.C. 84309).” | ||||
| Cal. Gov. Code § 84308 | Cal. Gov. Code § 91000 et seq. | Public Official Making Decisions Based on Campaign Contribution Bias | As a general rule, the receipt of campaign contributions is not perceived as giving rise to a duty to disqualify for bias. An official does have an ethical duty to make independent decisions not swayed by the fact or promise of a political contribution. In certain licensing and permitting decisions, however, a local agency official must disqualify himself or herself if the official has received cash or in-kind contributions worth more than $250 during the previous twelve months from any party or participant in the proceeding. Additionally, it is illegal to receive or solicit campaign contributions worth more than $250 from any party in a license or permit proceeding while the proceeding is pending and for three months after the proceeding. | Defendant is an officer of an “agency,” where definition of “agency” EXCLUDES “local governmental agencies whose members are directly elected by the voters” (unless a person is a member of an exempted agency but acting as a voting member of another nonexempt state agency or local government agency) Defendant accepted, solicited, or directed a contribution of more than $250 from any party or participant while a proceeding involving a license, permit, or other entitlement for use is pending before the agency and for three months following the date of a final decision. [NOTE: this amount of time will change to 12 months on 1/1/2023] Defendant is an officer of an “agency” as defined above. Defendant received a contribution of more than $250 from a party or participant in the 12 months before the license, permit or other entitlement was pending before the agency. Defendant did not return the contribution within 30 days from become aware of it. Defendant failed to disclose that he/she received the contribution on the record of the proceeding. OR 4. Defendant otherwise proceeded to participated in the proceeding even though the Defendant had reason to know that he/she has a “financial interest” in the decision. |
| Cal. Gov. Code § 86203 | Cal. Gov. Code §§ 89503, 89506; Cal. Gov. Code § 91000 et seq.; City of Anaheim City Council Policy Manual, Section 1.2 (https://www.anah eim.net/2892/Cou ncil-Policies) | Public Official Receiving Excessive Gifts; Non-Disclosure of Acceptable Gifts | To avoid the appearance that political favors are being bought with gifts, there is an annual limit on the aggregate value of gifts a public official can receive from a single source. Officials must also report gifts over a certain amount. | Defendant (an individual) knowingly receives a gift or gifts. The gift(s) aggregate(s) to more than ten dollars in a calendar month The gift(s) was/were given, or arranged for the making, by a lobbyist or lobbying firm (or their intermediary or agent). Defendant is an elected state officer, elected officer of a local government agency, or other individual specified by Cal. Gov. Code § 87200. Defendant accepts gifts from any single source in any calendar year with a total value of more than two hundred fifty dollars ($250). (NOTE: travel paid for from campaign funds is not considered a “gift of travel” under this section, per Cal. Gov. Code § 89506(d)(1)) |
| Primary Code | Add’l Code(s) | Crime | Quick Summary | Elements |
| [continued from above] 3. Defendant does so when he/she, or his/her immediate family member, “knowingly takes actual possession of the gift, is provided the benefit of the gift, or takes any action exercising direction or control of the gift.” (NOTE: these sections do not apply to “[p]ayments, advances, or reimbursements for travel . . . that is reasonably related to a legislative or governmental purpose” or public policy and meets certain specifications, including being reported on the recipient’s statement of economic interests (Cal. Gov. Code § 89506).) | ||||
| Cal. Gov. Code § 86204 | Political Reform Act Violations re Gifts from Lobbyists | Lobbyists are prohibited from giving gifts with an aggregate worth of over $10 per month to agency officials (including of local government agencies), and it is also unlawful for a person to knowingly accept such gifts. | Defendant receives a gift or gifts (where a “gift” was required to be listed on the registration statement of a lobbying firm or lobbyist).The gift or gifts were (a) given by a lobbyist or lobbying firm acting either independently or as an intermediary for another person or (b) arranged by the lobbyist or lobbying firm to be given by another. The value of the gift(s) to Defendant aggregate more than ten dollars in a calendar month. Defendant receives the gift(s) knowingly. | |
| Cal. Gov. Code § 87100 | Cal. Gov. Code § 87103; Cal. Gov. Code § 91000 et seq. | Conflict of Interest for Public Official (and handbook regarding conflicts of interest is available via the OAG’s website: https://oag.ca.gov/c onflict-interest) | A public official may not make, participate in, or influence a governmental decision that will have a reasonably foreseeable and material financial effect on the official, the official’s immediate family, or any of the official’s financial interests. | Defendant is a public official Defendant makes, participates in making, or otherwise attempts to use his/her official position to influence a governmental decision. Defendant knows or has reason to know that he/she has a financial interest in the governmental decision. It is reasonably foreseeable that the governmental decision may have a financial effect different from its effect on the public generally, including on any donor of (or intermediary or agent for a donor of) a gift or gifts aggregating a certain monetary value ($250 at the time of the statute’s enactment) provided to, received by, or promised to Defendant within 12 months prior to the time when the decision is made. Defendant’s participation was not legally required for the action or decision to be made. NOTE: “elected public officials” are not subject to criminal prosecution under this title (see Cal. Gov. Code § 87102.5). Instead, if their action falls specifically under the list of conduct provided by Cal. Gov. Code § 87102.5, they are subject to investigation by the commission created by this chapter of the government code (Cal. Gov. Code § 83100 et seq.) (Conflicts of interest can instead be prosecuted for elected public officials under Cal. Gov. Code § 1090, assuming they meet the requirements of that chapter) |
| Primary Code | Add’l Code(s) | Crime | Quick Summary | Elements |
| Cal. Gov. Code § 87200 et seq | Cal. Gov. Code § 91000 et seq. | Public Official’s Non-Disclosure of Economic Interests | In order to shine a light on an official’s potential conflicts, he or she must disclose sources of income, real property interests, investment, business positions; and sources of gifts. | Defendant is a candidate for public office, a newly elected and appointed public official, a previously elected public official, or a person leaving public office within the last 30 days.Defendant fails to file a statement disclosing his/her investments, interests in real property, and income during the relevant time period (where the relevant time period depends on what category defendant falls under for element 1); OR Defendant submitted a required financial statement under penalty of perjury.Defendant willfully stated that the information was true even though he/she knew it was false or incomplete.Defendant knew he/she was making the statement under oath or penalty of perjury.When the defendant made the false statement, he/she intended to declare or testify falsely while under oath. |
| Cal. Gov. Code § 87407 | Cal. Gov. Code § 87406; Cal. Gov. Code § 91000 et seq.; Anaheim Municipal Code, Title 1, Chapter 1.11 (“Sunshine Provisions”), Section 1.11.080 | Using Official Position to Advance Private Future Employment; Post- Government Employment Restrictions | Public officials may not influence agency decisions when the interests of a prospective employer are at stake. In addition, revolving door laws regulate an official’s actions even after he or she leaves office. In order to prevent public officials from trading on past relationships and from using insider information, elected officials and chief executives who leave government service must not represent people for pay before their former agencies for one year after leaving their agency. | Defendant is a public official. Defendant makes, participates in making, or uses his/her official position to influence any governmental decision directly relating to any person with whom the public official is negotiating, or has any arrangement concerning, prospective employment. Defendant was an elected state officer who has left office within the past year and has not become an officer or employee of another state agency or an official holding an elective office of a local government agency. Defendant, for compensation, acts as agent or attorney for, or otherwise represents any other person by making any formal or informal appearance or communication before the legislature. The appearance or communication was made with the purpose of influencing administrative action, or influencing any action or proceeding involving the issuance, amendment, awarding, or revocation of a permit, license, grant, or contract, or the sale or purchase of goods or property. |
| Cal. Gov. Code § 87460 | Cal. Gov. Code § 91000 et seq. | Public Official Receiving Personal Loans Within the Agency | California law prohibits a public official from receiving a personal loan from any other official, employee, or consultant of the official’s agency. | Defendant is an elected officer of a state or local government agency. Defendant receives a personal loan from any officer, employee, member, or consultant of, or person who has a contract with, that state or local government agency or over which the elected officer’s agency has direction and control. Where a “loan” does not include: (1) loans made to the campaign committee of an elected officer, (2) loans made by certain types of family |
| Primary Code | Add’l Code(s) | Crime | Quick Summary | Elements |
| [continued from above] members, provided that family member is not acting as the agent or intermediary for any person not otherwise exempted, (3) loans that do not exceed $250. | ||||
| Cal. Gov. Code § 89001 | Cal. Gov. Code § 91000 et seq. | Public Official Sending Mass Mailings at Public Expense | It is a misuse of public resources if government officials use public funds to pay for mass mailings to constituents as a stealth mode of campaigning. It is also deemed unfair if incumbents have access to free means of communicating with voters, not available to other candidates. Accordingly, California law prevents public officials from making mass mailings at public expense. | More than 200 substantially similar tangible items are delivered, by any means, to recipients’ residences, places of employment or business, or post office boxes (unless they fall under the list of exceptions under Cal. Gov. Code § 89002(b)).The items either feature an elected officer “affiliated with” the agency that produces or sends the mailings OR the items include the name, office, photograph, or other reference to an elected officer “affiliated with” the agency that produces or sends the mailing, and is prepared or sent in cooperation, consultation, coordination, or concert with the elected officer.The costs of distribution are paid with public money OR the costs of design, production, and printing exceeding $50 are paid with public moneys. NOTE: emails, text messages, and other forms of electronic communication are not subject to this statutory provision. |
| Cal. Gov. Code § 89502 | Cal. Gov. Code § 91000 et seq. | Public Official Receiving Honoraria | Giving a speech, writing an article, or attending a public or private conference, convention, meeting, or social event are considered part of a public official’s job. Accordingly, no public official may receive outside payment for these activities. | Defendant is an elected state officer, an elected officer of a local government agency, or another type of individual as specified by Cal. Gov. Code § 87200 Defendant accepts payment made in consideration for any speech given, article published, or attendance at any public or private conference, convention, meeting, social event, meal, or like gathering. Defendant does not, within 30 days after receipt, either return to the donor or deliver to the Defendant’s agency for donation to a fund equivalent to the General Fund, without being claimed as a deduction for tax purposes. |
| Cal. Labor Code § 1102.5 | Cal. Labor Code §§ 1102.6, 1103, 1106; City of Anaheim Administrative Regulation Nos. 130, 243 (https://www.anah eim.net/2896/Adm inistrative- Regulations) | Retaliation against whistle blowers | To help ensure compliance with the ethics laws, California whistle-blowing legislation make it unlawful for public employers to retaliate against employees who inform about ethics violations or who refuse to participate in unlawful activities. | An employee has reasonable cause to believe that their employer (including through the acts of the employer’s managers, officers, agents, and employees) has violated or not complied with a local, state, or federal law.The employee discloses information based on that belief to a person with authority over the employee or another employee who has the authority to investigate, discover, or correct the violation or non-compliance. (It does not matter whether the disclosure occurs as part of the employee’s job duties.)The employee is subject to an adverse employment action. The employee proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the employee’s protected whistleblowing as a “contributing factor” to the adverse employment action. DEFENSE: |
| Primary Code | Add’l Code(s) | Crime | Quick Summary | Elements |
| [continued from above] 5. Once an employee has established points 1-4, the employer has an opportunity to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the alleged adverse employment action would have occurred for legitimate, independent reasons even if the employee had not engaged in protected whistleblowing activities. | ||||
| Cal. Pen. Code § 118 | Cal. Pen. Code § 126 | Perjury | It is a crime to willfully and knowingly make a false statement under oath about a material fact. | Defendant took an oath to declare or certify or testify (etc) truthfully before a competent tribunal, officer, or person under circumstances in which the oath of the State of California lawfully may be given (OR Defendant gave a statement under penalty of perjury). Defendant willfully stated that the information was true even though he/she knew it was false. The information was material. Defendant knew he/she was making the statement under oath or penalty of perjury. When the defendant made the false statement, he/she intended to declare or testify falsely while under oath. |
| Cal. Pen. Code § 135 | Destroying or Concealing Evidence | This penal code section is similar to that for Evidence Tampering, but only requires an intent to prevent the destroyed contents from being produced. It is punishable as a misdemeanor. | Defendant knows that a book, paper, record, is about to be produced in evidence “upon trial, inquiry, or investigation, authorized by law.” Defendant “willfully destroys, erases, or conceals” the material. In doing so, Defendant intends to prevent its content from being produced. | |
| Cal. Pen. Code § 136.1 | Cal. Pen. Code §§ 133 (Written False Statement to Deceive a Witness), 137(a), 138(a) (Giving or Offering a Bribe to a Witness); Cal. Pen. Code § 138(b) (Witness Receiving a Bribe); and Cal. Pen. Code § 137(b) (Influencing a Witness by Fraud) | Witness Tampering (also referred to as “Intimidating a Witness”) | There are numerous forms of witness interference or witness tampering, including some involving bribery of a witness or other means to either influence the nature of a witness’s testimony or prevent a witness from providing any testimony. Elements of one general “flavor” are provided here, but more can be added (they have slightly different elements). | Defendant tried to or otherwise prevented or discouraged a person from cooperating or providing information so that a complaint/indictment/etc. could be sought and prosecuted. The person was a witness or crime victim. Defendant knew he/she was trying to prevent or discourage the person from cooperating or providing information, and intended to do so. |
| Primary Code | Add’l Code(s) | Crime | Quick Summary | Elements |
| Cal. Pen. Code § 141 | Evidence Tampering | This penal code section is similar to that for Destroying or Concealing Evidence, but requires a more specific intent, i.e. someone else being charged with a crime or the incorrect information being wrongfully produced as true at trial. It is punishable as a felony. | Defendant willfully, intentionally, and wrongly changed/planted/placed/hid/etc [evidence]. Defendant knew he/she was changing/planting/placing/hiding/etc [the evidence]. When the Defendant did so, he/she intended that his/her action would result in [someone being charged with a crime or [the evidence] being wrongfully produced as genuine or true in a trial, proceeding, or inquiry]. | |
| Cal. Pen. Code § 182 | Conspiracy | In addition to being charged for committing a crime itself (or attempting to), a Defendant can be charged if he/she was part of a conspiracy with others to commit a crime (even if the co-conspirators were again ultimately unsuccessful in committing the crime). | Defendant intended to agree and did agree with others to commit [crime]. At the time of the agreement, Defendant and the other alleged members of the conspiracy intended that one or more of them would commit [crime]. Member and/or one of the alleged members of the conspiracy committed overt acts to accomplish [crime]. At least one of these overt acts was committed in California | |
| Cal. Pen. Code § 186.10 | Cal. Pen. Code § 186.9 | Money Laundering | It is a crime to conceal the origin of money obtained through criminal means by transacting it through a financial institution. | Defendant conducted one or more financial transactions involving at least one monetary instrument through at least one financial institution.The financial transaction involved a monetary instrument with a total value of more than $5,000 OR multiple financial transactions took place within a 7-day period and involved more than $5,000 OR the financial transactions took place within a 30-day period and involved more than $25,000. When Defendant did so, he/she intended to promote, manage, establish, etc criminal activity OR knew that the monetary instruments represented the proceeds of criminal activity. |
| Cal. Pen. Code § 30, 31 | Aiding and Abetting (including of Intended Crimes or under the “Natural & Probable Consequences Doctrine”) | A person can be guilty of committing a crime if he/she directly committed the crime OR if he/she aided and abetted a perpetrator who directly committed the crime. | A perpetrator committed a crime. Defendant knew that the perpetrator intended to commit the crime. Before or during the commission of the crime, Defendant intended to aid and abet the perpetrator in committing the crime. Defendant’s word or conduct did in fact aid and abet the perpetrator’s commission of the crime. NOTE: if these requirements are met, Defendant need not have been present when the crime was committed to be guilty as an aider and abettor. It is a defense, however, if Defendant withdraws before the crime is committed by (1) notifying all involved that he or she is no longer participating and (2) doing everything reasonably within his or her power to prevent the crime from being committed. |
| Primary Code | Add’l Code(s) | Crime | Quick Summary | Elements |
| Cal. Pen. Code § 32 | Accessory to a Felony | A person can be guilty of aiding another after the other person has committed a crime, by helping them to escape arrest, trial, conviction, or punishment for their crime. | Another person (“the perpetrator”) committed a felony Defendant knew that the perpetrator had committed a felony or that the perpetrator had been charged with or convicted of a felony. After the felony was committed, Defendant harbored, concealed, or aided the perpetrator. When Defendant acted, he/she intended the perpetrator to avoid or escape arrest, trial, conviction, or punishment. | |
| Cal. Pen. Code § 424 | Cal. Pen. Code 503, 504, 514 (“if the embezzlement . . . is of the public funds of the United States, or of this state, or of any county or municipality within this state, the offense is a felony, and is punishable by imprisonment in the state person; and the person so convicted is ineligible therafter to any office of honor, trust, or profit in this state.”); Cal. Pen. Code 799 (no statute of limitations) | Misappropriation of Public Funds by Public Official or Trustee of Public Funds. | It is a criminal offense for a public official OR a someone who otherwise is a trustee of public funds to misappropriate or embezzle public funds. Certain other government code sections reference this code section in terms of applicable criminal enforcement. | Defendant is a public official or is a person who has been “charged with the receipt, safekeeping, transfer, or disbursement of public moneys” Defendant, while responsible for receiving, safekeeping, transferring or distributing public money: took some of that money for his/her own or someone else’s use without legal authority; loaned, made a profit from, or used some of that money without legal authority; knowingly kept a false account or made a false entry or erasure in any account of the money; fraudulently changed, falsified, hid, destroyed, or obliterated an accounting of that money; [other alternatives omitted] 3. When Defendant did so, he/she knew that he/she was not following the law on receiving, safekeeping, transferring or distributing public money or was acting without legal authority or was criminally negligent in failing to know the legal requirements for or restrictions on his/her conduct. |
| Cal. Pen. Code § 484 | Theft by Fraud, Deceit or Trick | Theft by larceny includes largely the same requirements as theft by fraud or deceipt, except that instead of obtaining the owner’s consent through fraud or deceit, the property is taken without the owner’s consent. (See e.g. CALCRIM No. 1800) | Defendant obtained property he/she knew was owned by someone else; The property owner consented to possession of the property because Defendant used fraud or deceit; When Defendant obtained the property, Defendant intended to deprive the owner of it permanently or to remove it from the owner’s possession for so extended a period of time that the owner would be deprived of a major portion of the value or enjoyment of the property; |
| Primary Code | Add’l Code(s) | Crime | Quick Summary | Elements |
| [continued from above] Defendant kept the property for any length of time; AND The owner did not intend to transfer ownership of the property. | ||||
| Cal. Pen. Code § 503, 504 | Cal. Pen. Code 503, 504, 514 (“if the embezzlement . . . is of the public funds of the United States, or of this state, or of any county or municipality within this state, the offense is a felony, and is punishable by imprisonment in the state person; and the person so convicted is ineligible therafter to any office of honor, trust, or profit in this state.”); Cal. Pen. Code 799 (no statute of limitations) | Embezzlement of Public Funds | Cal. Penal Code 503 generally refers to embezzlement of money from any source, but Cal. Penal Code 514 specifically notes that the embezzlement of public funds is a felony. This is essentially the same offense that can also be charged under Cal. Penal Code 424, except that Cal. Penal Code 424 also covers misappropriation, which does not include some of the same intent requirements as embezzlement (see other row regarding 424). | Defendant was responsible for receiving, safekeeping, transferring or distributing [public] money. Defendant fraudulently converted or used the money for his/her own benefit. Defendant intended to deprive the [owner/public] of the money’s use. |
| Cal. Pen. Code § 518 | Cal. Pen. Code § 523 (extortion via letter or writing) | Extortion | Extortion occurs when a public official wrongfully uses his or her public position to obtain a benefit. | Defendant [asserted an official right] against another person. Defendant intended to rely on [that assertion] to obtain the other person’s consent to give money/property or to do an official act. As a result, the other person so consented. As a result, the other person then gave the defendant money/property or did an official act. |
| Cal. Pen. Code § 532a(1) | Cal. Pen. Code § 532a(2)-(3) (Obtaining the Benefit of a False Financial Statement and | False Financial Statements | As another specific flavor of perjury, it is illegal to make false financial statements to obtain property, money, or other benefit. | [D]efendant made or caused to be made a false written statement about the financial condition or means or ability to pay off another person, firm, or corporation in which the defendant had an interest or for which the defendant was acting. [D]efendant knew the statement was false defendant intended that the statement be relied on. |
| Primary Code | Add’l Code(s) | Crime | Quick Summary | Elements |
| Reaffirming a False Financial Statement) | [continued from above] 4. [D]efendant made the statement (or caused it to be made) to obtain the delivery of personal property or payment of cash or discount of an account receivable [other variations omitted] for his/her benefit or the benefit of the other person or corporation. | |||
| Cal. Pen. Code § 653f | Solicitation | A person can also be guilty of soliciting another to commit a crime or to join in the commission of a crime. | Defendant asked another person to commit or join in the commission of [crime (crimes that may be the target of a solicitation are listed in Cal. Penal Code § 653f)]. Defendant intended that [crime] be committed. The other person received the communication containing the request. | |
| Cal. Pen. Code § 664 | Attempt | In addition to being charged for committing a crime itself, for most crimes, a Defendant can be charged with attempting that crime if Defendant took steps toward committing the crime but was ultimately unsuccessful in committing it. | Defendant took a direct but ineffective step toward committing [crime] (beyond planning or preparation, and showing that Defendant was putting a plan in motion) Defendant intended to commit [crime] NOTE: that Defendant took a step toward committing a crime but then abandoned further efforts is not a defense. | |
| Cal. Pen. Code § 86 | Public Official’s Vote Trading | It is illegal in California for a public official to vote or offer to vote in a certain manner in exchange for another public official’s vote on the same or another matter before the body. | Defendant was a member of a legislative body of State/City/County. Defendant requested/took/agreed to cast his/her vote in consideration of the vote of another listed public official. Defendant expressly or impliedly represented that such vote trading would unlawfully influence his/her official act/decision/etc. Defendant acted with the corrupt intent that his/her public or official duty would be unlawfully influenced. | |
| Cal. Pen. Code § 86 (member of a legislative body asking for and/or taking a bribe) | Cal. Pen. Code §§ 85 (bribing a member of a legislative body) 67 (bribing an “executive officer”), 67.5 (bribing a “ministerial officer”), 68 (an executive or ministerial officer taking a bribe); 70 (public officer’s solicitation or | Bribery (incl of or by Public Official) | A bribe occurs when something of value is conferred on a public official in exchange for a promise of official action (or inaction). Asking for official favors by a briber, asking for a bribe by a public official, and receiving a bribe by an official are all illegal activities. There are many different statutory provisions related to bribery, but they generally include the same elements, dictated by the definition of the word “bribe” early in the penal code. (Cal. Pen. Code § 7(6).) Bribing the member of a legislative body includes the same | Requesting or taking a bribe (e.g., Cal. Penal Code 68, 86): Defendant was an executive officer or ministerial officer or member of a legislative body of State/City/County. Defendant requested/took/agreed to take a bribe. When taking the bribe, Defendant expressly or impliedly represented that the bribe would unlawfully influence his/her official act/decision/etc. Defendant acted with the corrupt intent that his/her public or official duty would be unlawfully influenced. Bribing a public official (e.g., Cal. Penal Code 67, 67.5, 85): Defendant gave or offered a “bribe” to an executive officer or ministerial officer or member of a city legislative body in this state. Defendant acted with the “corrupt intent” to unlawfully influence that officer’s official act/decision/vote/opinion. |
| Primary Code | Add’l Code(s) | Crime | Quick Summary | Elements |
| [continued from above] acceptance of “any emolument, gratuity, or reward, or any promise thereof”), 165 (bribing local officials) | elements of a bribe to an executive or ministerial officer, but also involves additional (including financial) penalties. | |||
| Cal. Public Contract Code § 20100-22178 | Anaheim Municipal Code, Title 1, Chapter 1.04, Sections 1.04.240-1.04.310; Anaheim Charter, Article XII, Sections 1206, 1211-12; Anaheim Administrative Regulations 300, 345 (available here: https://www.anahe im.net/2896/Admi nistrative- Regulations); Anaheim City Council Policy Manual, Section 4.0 (available here: https://www.anahe im.net/2892/Coun cil-Policies) | Unfair Contractual Bidding Practices for Public Works Contracts Solicited by Local Agencies | The public has a right to the best services and products available for the best price. In addition, all citizens, including contractors, have the right to be treated fairly. Public contracting laws are designed to promote competition and to avoid favoritism, partisanship, and/or corruption in the bidding process. Specific subsections of California’s public contracting laws relate to public works contracts solicited by local agencies (involving $5,000 or more). Otherwise, the local agency’s ordinances and other resolutions generally dictate the agency’s practices for other non-public-works types of contracts. | Anaheim requires a competitive bidding process for all projects $50,000 or more and approval of the City Council for all projects $100,000 or more, except that Anaheim’s standard purchasing procedures (as stated in its City Council Policy Manual, Section 4.0) do not apply to the following, which are governed by other procedures/processes: Any contract governed by and subject to the requirements of Section 1211 of the Charter of the City of Anaheim. [Contracts on Public Works, which are also covered by Cal. Public Contract Code] Any contract for legal or other professional services, or for services governed by the provisions of City Council Policy 4.1. [contracts for professional consultant services, where the City Manager is authorized to execute the contract unless it exceeds $200,000 (then, it needs City Council approval)] The procurement of supplies, materials, equipment or services for which the Purchasing Agent is not responsible, as described in Section 1.04.310 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. [various exemptions, including “technical and special advisory or engineering services procured by the City Council” and “purchases made pursuant to the authority of the City Manager”] Any contract made on behalf of the City by the City Manager, pursuant to the authority set forth in Section 518 of the Charter of the City of Anaheim. [permits, among other things, the City Council to authorize the City Manager to bind the city for supplies, services, etc “within the budget approved by the City Council.”] Any contract as to which the provisions of this policy have been waived at any time prior to the award of the contract by a duly adopted motion of the |
| Primary Code | Add’l Code(s) | Crime | Quick Summary | Elements |
| [continued from above] City Council. F. Any contract awarded by the Purchasing Agent using pre-established cooperative purchasing agreements, or a pre-existing contract of another government agency, when such agreements or contracts resulted from competitive bids that would meet the bidding requirements of City purchasing regulations. Such agreements or contracts may be used in lieu of competitive bidding by the City when their solicitation was for equal or greater quantities of like items or services, purchased under similar terms and conditions, and the Purchasing Agent determines it is in the best interest of the City to do so. | ||||
| Cal. Rev. & Tax. Code § 19701 | Cal. Rev. & Tax. Code §§ 19705, 19706 | Filing of False Tax Return | The California Tax Code makes it a crime to engage in tax fraud, and makes it a felony to willfully and intentionally submit information and/or file a false tax return with the Franchise Tax Board, including for the purpose of specifically evading taxes. | Defendant made, verified, signed, or rendered a tax return to the Franchise Tax Board over a period of two years or more. Information in the tax return was false. When Defendant made, verified, signed, or rendered the tax return, he/she knew that it contained false/fraudulent information. Defendant’s making, verifying, signing, or rendering of the false/fraudulent tax return resulted in an estimated delinquent tax liability of at least fifteen thousand dollars. Higher penalties/liability may be present (without the 2 years or more of filing or $15,000 delinquent tax liability requirement) if (1) Defendant willfully verified the false tax return under penalty of perjury, OR (2) Defendant willfully intended to unlawfully evade paying a tax in his/her submission of the false information / tax return. It is also a crime to aid or abet the preparation of a false tax return. |
| California Constitution, Article XVI, § 6 | Gift of Public Funds | Prohibits public agencies from making a gift of public funds to any individual (including public employees), corporation, or even to another government agency. “ ‘It is well settled that the primary question to be considered in determining whether an appropriation of public funds is to be considered a gift is whether the funds are to be used for a public or private purpose. If they are to be used for a public purpose, they are |
| Primary Code | Add’l Code(s) | Crime | Quick Summary | Elements |
| [continued from above] not a gift within the meaning of this constitutional prohibition. [Citation.]’ [Citation.]” (Jordan v. Department of Motor Vehicles (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 431, 450, 123 Cal.Rptr.2d 122.) Importantly, “[t]he determination of what constitutes a public purpose is primarily a matter for the Legislature, and its discretion will not be disturbed *638 by the courts so long as that determination has a reasonable basis. [Citations.]” (County of Alameda v. Carleson (1971) 5 Cal.3d 730, 746, 97 Cal.Rptr. 385, 488 P.2d 953.) Sturgeon v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, 167 Cal. App. 4th 630, 637–38, 84 Cal. Rptr. 3d 242, 248 (2008), as modified on denial of reh’g (Nov. 7, 2008) superseded by statute on other grounds 242 Cal. App. 4th 1437 (2015) |
I always wondered if the cheapskate Sidhu ever tried to get reimbursed for some of his helicopters jaunts.
You really should have come forward offered to be interviewed.
Maybe you’ll be in time for the sequel.
Anyway, if he had, wouldn’t the city have records of it? (Ha-ha, just kidding.)
I think Donna maybe overstates our importance to JL. I’m all “Why neither Aitken?” And she’s all, “Well, we didn’t suggest they talk to the Aitkens.” And I’m all, “Really? We need to suggest the Mayor and her major-mover-and-shaker dad?”
But the fact is we suggested they talk to a lot of people, and they talked to everyone we suggested. Duane Roberts, Grant Henninger, Tom Tait, Joanne Sosa, Cynthia Ward… I guess we shoulda been thorough and said Zenger too. And the Aitkens.
You misled the investigators, Vern.
Oh man, remember when he dressed up like a soldier for a parade then claimed it was because he was out flying his helicopter?
That guy has an unbelievable limitless depth of clownery.
All Disney and the Chamber had to do was pick ANYONE else and they’d still be stealing millions.
The Assclown. Military of the Kleptocracy. If Aitken had used that we never would have been stuck with Hide-and-Seek Sidhu.
Ah the memories…. https://www.orangejuiceblog.com/2018/07/harry-sidhus-heroic-military-record-sarcasm/
That was the ultimate, shameless adventure in Assclownery.
Looks like a particular few got treated with kid gloves. I guess the Aitken’s haven’t meant a thing in Anaheim like ever. Lol!
It would have been interesting to hear what old Wylie has to say about his time “negotiating” with the Arte Moreno.
I don’t remember suggesting that they talk to him, though in retrospect of course that would have been right to do. He’d have been bound by attorney-client privilege, of course — but the Council could have voted to waive it.
He wasn’t working as a lawyer.
I don’t know where you get that. One thing that lawyers do for clients is negotiate. It’s part of the skill set.
You may be thinking that he was not acting as a litigator, which is true. In this instance, he would be acting as what’s called a transactional lawyer — one of their main jobs being to create and vet contracts. Transactional lawyers too are limited in what they can say without client permission. (And having an experienced litigator put together a transaction, if possible, is a great idea; they spot issues well.
Was he paid?
It doesn’t actually matter.
Lead negotiator.
https://www.aitkenlaw.com/case_results/wylie-aitken-serve-as-the-city-of-anaheims-lead-negotiator/
OMG, again???
Oh. I see. Old news.
Yes, they should have called him; yes, many of us should have called on them to call him. Of course, maybe they did call him and just left him off their list.
Voice of OC reports today that the Anaheim Police Department wouldn’t cooperate with unlocking Sidhu’s phone because this wasn’t a criminal investigation.
Yet here’s a big fat list of applicable potential charges.
That’s the level of bullshit y’all are dealing with.
I hate to say it, but it’s not bullshit.
This was, in fact, not a criminal investigation. JL Group had no ability to bring charges. So if they can only unlock a phone in the event of a criminal investigation, that makes sense.
Of course, Anaheim doesn’t need OCDA or a grand jury to initiate a criminal investigation. Anaheim prosecutes its own misdemeanors. I’m pretty sure that some of what Sidhu did could be classified as a misdemeanor. So: prosecute him for one, open the phone, divulge the contents.
I dunno, Greg.
Seeing the contract would help, but APD is an entity under the Anaheim Municipal Corporation, which authorized this investigation. The investigation included potential criminal activity.
APD acting like a separate and distinct agency with contract making authority separate from the municipal organization smells like deep donkey poo.
And the phone belongs to the City. So there is a proprietary angle. The cops just didn’t want to play ball.
Assuming the City still has the phones (plural) it’s never too late.
The cops are claiming that their license to the pertinent software prohibits them from using it unless there’s a criminal investigation. Which, even if true, begs the question…
But let’s not forget Fabela and Pelletier are the mostly redacted people in the report, so no help there.
They also have probable cause that the phone returned by Sidhu is actually a fake, believe it or not.
That phone should be unlocked. Come on Spitzer, get it done.
Ring up the City Attorney and PIO while you’re at it.
You’ve explained this to me, but I don’t think publicly? Do you want to?
Does mean that Sidhu and O’Neil may still have these phones? And that the City never knew this because they didn’t check? And that they might even have given the phones to someone else for, ahem, “safe keeping”?
My sense of O’Neil is that, especially when Pringle tossed him aside for Meeks, he’s probably irked and worried about being used as a fall guy — and with good reason! The advice I gave to Jordan — win the race to turn State’s Evidence! — also applies to him. He’s expendable to the Cabal — and should not play along with it.
The Fourth Amendment be damned – right Greg?
Damning the Fourth Amendment certainly has been the traditional conservative view, junior, but I don’t agree.
How do you think the Fourth Amendment was violated here? Was there some lack of probable cause?
“I’m pretty sure that some of what Sidhu did could be classified as a misdemeanor. So: prosecute him ..” That’s not vague at all …
I was relieved that the Voice didn’t connect all the dots in the story – for that you’ll have to wait for MY Bahu story.
In short, cop union boss Edgar Hampton shilled bigtime for Bahu’s competitor Malik in 2019, and in May 2020 penned a startlingly illiterate piece printed on the Kleptoblog talking about how great the Chamber’s cannabis ordinance would be and how the police were 100% behind it.
https://www.anaheimobserver.com/2020/05/12/anaheim-police-assoc-legalizing-cannabis-in-anaheim-helps-law-enforcement-health-safety-oversight/
In the middle of that, early February 2020, right before COVID, the police got an unaffordable raise, with an especially sweetheart deal for Hampton, who was to be paid 400K STRAIGHT FROM THE CITY to represent the union. (Eat your heart out Gerry Serrano!) At the time Trevor O’Neil embarrassingly said, “Sure, we’ll have to dip into our resources to afford this contract, but hopefully revenues are gonna pick up soon.” Then something called COVID happened. That month. I wrote about it at the time here:
https://www.orangejuiceblog.com/2020/03/weak-kneed-spendthrift-cop-worshipers-bipartisan-edition-doug-chaffee-and-trevor-oneil/
Hampton sure was rewarded for his dumb loyalty to the Cabal. He must have felt like celebrating later in July after the George Floyd murder when he (apparently) ran his cruiser into a Black Lives Matter protester. Chief Cisneros told me “I can’t tell you who that was but I’ll tell you it wasn’t Hampton.” But the picture of the cop who hit Tyerae Bailey SURE LOOKS like Hampton, and we know now from the Jordan story that “When it’s an influential individual we keep it under wraps.” And Tyerae seems to still be afraid to tell me who it actually was. (HELLO, TYERAE?) A couple times he told me “I THINK it mighta been him,” but by now I’m sure he knows for sure.
https://www.orangejuiceblog.com/2020/07/1464833-gone-wild-apd-car-rams-peaceful-protester-and-speeds-away/
But yeah, the important thing, is the great unaffordable raise he and his union got while shilling bigtime on things police unions shouldn’t be shilling for.
Mayor Ashleigh just announced the members of her Advisory Committee on, I guess, how to craft new policies and ordinances to prevent future ravages as described in the JL Report. That was quick! I thought we’d have some time to suggest people, for people to apply. And their first meeting is TOMORROW. Where? What time? We were wanting to demand they meet IN PUBLIC.
The Board is better than I expected though, we got our Cynthia Ward, Ed Lopez (College District Trustee) and Ruan Ruelas (Elementary School Trustee.) Two people we don’t know are James Guziak, a labor and employment lawyer, and Bobby McDonald from the OC Black Chamber of Commerce. Wrapping up the eight are three who deserve comment:
LORETTA SANCHEZ? She has not been involved in Anaheim in a long time, and I’m pretty sure she works as a lobbyist now, but I’m not sure. PAUL KOTT? A puzzling and contradictory character and realtor, who has sometimes been a harsh critic of corruption in Anaheim but sometimes its beneficiary, and has been on the SOAR Board since I believe its inception, despite all his criticisms. (How does that work?)
Finally, TOM DALY? Will he offer advice how NOT to give away your city to Disney as he did in the 90’s, with bonds we are still paying off to build their Mickey & Friends Garage? Seems like maybe somebody who DID NOT do that might be more appropriate.
My next order of business is to FIND OUT IF WE CAN COME TO TOMORROW’S MEETING! I’ll be back…
[In announcing the Advisory Committee members, Aitken released the following statement:
“I’d like to thank each of these leaders for volunteering their time in service to Anaheim. This committee and I will begin meeting tomorrow to review and prioritize the report’s findings, invite public input, and bring recommendations forward to the council. I know my colleagues on the City Council will also have ideas and insights into how we can improve our processes and procedures. Together, we will chart a course toward a more honest and transparent government.”]
Apart from Cynthia none of these people have the knowledge or interest in reforming anything. Tom Daly, Loretta (Woo woo) Sanchez? WTF?
A clown show is about to ensue.
As I said on FB, Paul Kott should send his employee Wally Courtney in his stead. Wally’s brilliant, honest, and well-informed.
My hope is that Daly will agree to clarify how an agreement that originally had a lot of public protection provisions within it ended up having them slough away in practice.
Daly is the worst kind of hack. Exhibit A: Jordan Brandman’s employment and subsequent phony “report.” The there’s the Brett Barbre scam of the OC Sports Hall of Fame and real estate acquisition that piled lie on top of lie. Daly should be investigated, not investigating.
Exhibit D: Enterprise Zones.
Yes, that is impressive hackishness. But it’s not Anaheim hackishness; it’s county executive hackishness.
Both Cynthia and Tait have said that there were significant benefits to the city in the original agreement that simply were never provided or stopped being provided — to the point that they may have in effect been “written out of the contract” by performance and lack of enforcement.
I’d like to know a whole lot more about how that happened. Daly might be in a position to explain.
He can put it in writing and mail it in. His continued existence as an elected is (or should be) an offense to everybody.
Daly? He has long since ascended to Consultant Heaven.
Yes you’re right. I had forgotten. He’s moved on to a different sort of parasitism.
A more highly refined, and compensated, stratum.
And speaking of that, Aitken chose a LOBBYIST to provide advice on ethical issues? WETF? Why not just put Flint on it?
Well I don’t know why Paul would do that, Ashleigh invited HIM. Plus Wally doesn’t live in Anaheim. (But then, neither does Loretta as far as I know )
He might do it because if the pressure we put on him.
Courtney was keenly aware of Anaheim issues back when we were interviewing him. I don’t recall Kott having much to say at all.
And of course her advisory committee has no official standing and no requirements to hold public meetings. It can’t approve of anything; it can only make recommendations to HER.
This is such lame window dressing that’s it’s really beneath contempt.
Noticeably missing from this rag tag team of corruption crushers are any other former prosecutors, federal, or, not. You would think Ashleigh FFP would know at least one she could trust. Heck, she didn’t even give her husband a post. Lol!!
I can’t believe anybody would fall for this Potemkin “Committee.” I wonder if dad cooked up this eyewash.
I do like the looks of the dude in the cavalry chapeau. Got a live one there.
Bobby McDonald, head of the OC Black Chamber of Commerce; a veteran and activist for the Veterans Cemetery; and a fan of the Buffalo Soldiers (as my part-black son is.) I admit I picked a silly looking picture of him.
A lot of my friends know him and say he’s a great guy. But it doesn’t mean he has any history fighting corruption in Anaheim.
Eric, do you think that this committee will be making decisions related to prosecution?
It won’t. It will be recommending policies.
What good will the policies be if they are not based on existing law? And, what good will it be attempting to create policy if you don’t know the difference between legal act and illegal act? Federal and state laws both cover influence peddling. Isn’t where the inquiry should begin? You are the guy who thinks you can defend the constitution and your constitutional rights without exercising your 2nd Amendment rights, right? Sit in the corner, moonbat!
Wait, wait — my eyes aren’t done rolling yet — ok, there we go.
I suppose that Ashleigh herself might bring such knowledge to the table. I also suppose that she could consult with City Attorneys. I further suppose that even if the committee could use another criminal lawyer, there’s no assurance that that sole individual would know the relevant law, or be right about it, you adorable sunshiny optimist.
I don’t think that I have to use my 2nd Amendment rights to defend the Constitution; we have people charged with doing that, and they way outgun me. I come from the part of the political spectrum that, when we stockpile guns, tend to get hunted down and shot. We live in a racist and biased society abd culture, honey; my side depends on having a just constitutional society rather than getting ready to play bang-bang with our guns.
I’ll sit in the corner and wait for Farrah to take out a restraining order on you based on this trigger-happy comment, moon pie.
Guziak is a “labor and employment lawyer.”
Then why does she need a committee if she has the knowledge and city attorneys at her disposal. Makes it look like political window dressing.
You think law enforcement f are going to protect your constitutional rights? ROFL.
You know they hire armed guards to protect some synagogues in Southern California?…
The right to life is a fundamental one that can be defended with reasonable force including deadly force….
I haven’t harrassed her…. But, if you want to encourage her to try and get one. Please be my guest…
The committee to assist in reforms promoting greater transparency is opaque.
https://voiceofoc.org/2023/08/anaheim-mayors-committee-to-increase-transparency-wont-have-public-meetings/
Law enforcement is not here to protect us from crime. They generally gather evidence of it for prosecuting bodies. What happens when they go astray? Here are two examples currently in the news cycle.
Goon squad. https://abcnews.go.com/amp/US/wireStory/former-mississippi-officers-expected-plead-guilty-state-charges-102243836
Overreaching. https://kansasreflector.com/2023/08/11/police-stage-chilling-raid-on-marion-county-newspaper-seizing-computers-records-and-cellphones/
Simplistic, but you be you!
Throwback Thursday. I know wrong Sanchez. And wrong Aitken. Is it a beautiful day for Anaheim?
https://www.c-span.org/video/?76804-1/sanchez-victory-declaration
https://www.ocweekly.com/the-dems-wine-and-cheese-whiz-6396617/
Ashleigh KNOWS how to clean up corruption gals and guys. Why? You ask. Cuz, she is a former federal prosecutor.
https://twitter.com/AshleighAitken/status/1690220500134330368
Hey Greg can you confirm or deny if your daughter has ever worked for Ashleigh Aitken?
We know she worked for Farrahkhan.
I’ve just updated my profile here in response to that criticism from Chumley’s blog. I’ve noted that relationship many times over the years, but it’s fair to argue that it should be on all my posts.
I don’t recall whether or not I have known that. (Sorry, but my memory for things without an emotional charge was diminished by my stroke, so I don’t want to give an unequivocal answer.) I can tell you it doesn’t matter in my coverage of Ashleigh or Farrah (or anyone else); I have a far stronger basis for my opinions on local politicians than whatever effect it has on her firm — where she and her business partner generally are solicited to do more work than they can.
I am pleased that so many politicians that I like end up using her firm, but I generally don’t know about it until late in an election (when I usually start checking campaign filings) and I’m often surprised when I see her name mentioned as a Treasurer. It doesn’t buy them a damn thing when it comes to affecting my coverage and their hiring someone else doesn’t cost them anything here. I flat-out don’t care. What I do care about is that she is a very hard worker, very intelligent and good at her job, and that by making her services available she helps candidates without much money compete. As I told her when I first suggested this activity to her, pundits like me are commonplace, but a really good campaign treasurer is a rare and precious find.
I think that I knew that she worked for Farrah because someone (not her) told me, but — obviously — it’s didn’t buy Farrah shelter from my criticism. (Did you ever read that “Sleepwalks towards a cliff” series of mine?)
Hide-and-Seek Sidhu pleads guilty on numerous counts.
On it, but most of the story will be later tonight due to conflicting obligations.
You will love the graphic.
ummm… thought you didn’t have time. I just put up an “open thread” about it, featuring a picture of Harry doing Community Service on Anna Drive.
What you guys will love is Dan C’s comment on HIS blog, “a reminder, without the work of Melahat Rafiei for the FBI, this never would have happened.”
I didn’t have time. I did it anyway. I’m using that one for analysis.
That quote from Chumley deserves its own place of honor on our masthead.