9 defendants in UCI pro-Palestine protest opt for diversion programs
02 MONDAY, NOVEMBER 18- NOVEMBER 24, 2024
Another LA City Hall fundraiser sentenced on Huizar-related charge
By City News Service
Aformer City Hall fundraiser was sentenced Friday to a year of home detention for arranging a $500,000 bribe for nowimprisoned ex-Los Angeles City Councilman José Huizar to “grease the wheels” for a proposed downtown condominium project.
Justin Kim was the first of four defendants to plead guilty in the “pay-to-play” federal public corruption probe centering on Huizar and his associates.
Kim was also ordered to complete 100 hours of community service as part of his three-year probationary sentence. He pleaded guilty in June 2020 to a single count of federal program bribery and agreed to cooperate with investigators.
Kim’s role in the bribery scheme began in 2016 when a labor group filed an appeal claimingadeveloper’s proposed project violated the California Environmental Quality Act. The developer contacted Kim in hopes of
gaining Huizar’s support.
According to the U.S. Attorney’s Office, Huizar and the developer negotiated a $500,000 payment, and in
early 2017, the developer gave Kim $400,000 in cash inside a paper bag to deliver to the council member. Kim kept some cash for himself
Ofor acting as a go-between, then delivered the money to a staff member to pass along to Huizar, evidence showed.
Prosecutors said the
developer later paid the other $100,000 when the appeal was resolved, but Kim kept the money for himself.
Huizar is now serving
a 13-year prison sentence for accepting bribes from downtown developers and cheating on his taxes. He pleaded guilty in January 2023 to conspiracy to violate the RICO Act and tax evasion.
Huizar, 56, represented the downtown area and was chairman of the Planning and Land Use Management Committee, the powerful panel that reviews the city’s largest development projects. Evidence showed he monetized his position and leveraged his political clout for over $1.5 million in cash bribes, gambling chips, luxury trips, political contributions, prostitutes, extravagant meals, services, concerts and other gifts.
Federal prosecutors said the probe exposed “significant and blatant corruption” at City Hall.
Huizar’s co-defendant, former Los Angeles Deputy Mayor Raymond Chan, was
Pasadena voters approve Measure PL for retrofitting Central Library
By Staff
ver 72% of Pasadena voters approved funding for earthquake retrofit work on the Central Library, city officials announced Thursday.
Measure PL’s funding is key to the city’s plan to reopen the historic library with planned improvements that aim to preserve the historic elements and while modernizing the building “to serve the community for the next century and beyond,” officials said.
The enacted measure clears the way for $195 million in general obligation bonds that would cost an estimated $12 million annually, according to the city. That “equates to an average of $19.61
ranging from $12.58 to $28.90 over the years per $100,000 of the assessed valuation of a parcel over the 30-year term of the bond.”
“Pasadena’s Central Library is a landmark and a lifeline for our community, offering educational, cultural, and historical value,” Mayor Victor Gordo said in a statement. “With Measure PL, we’re investing in its future and ensuring it remains a safe and welcoming place for generations to come. The voters’ overwhelming support for this measure is a powerful reflection of the community’s commitment to preserving and strengthening our librar-
ies, which play an essential role in fostering learning, connection, and opportunity for all.”
The voter-approved funding keeps the project’s timeline for reopening the Central Library on track, officials said.
Bidding, construction documents and a decision on the contract award was expected to complete by summer 2025.
Construction was projected to start following contract award with a duration of 30-36 months.
The library’s estimated reopening will be sometime in 2028.
“This is a significant step forward for the community,” District 3 Councilman Justin Jones said in a statement. Central Library connects us through access to knowledge, resources, and programs. Thanks to Measure PL, we’ll see it continue to serve Pasadena, providing opportu-
nities for growth and learning in a resilient, updated space.” Library Director Tim McDonald said in a statement, “We are grateful to our residents who appreciate the value, history, and opportunity that Central Library represents. Central Library is not just a building; it’s a hub of learning that provides free access to resources for all members of the community. We are committed to reopening this vital institution and protecting it for the next 100 years and beyond.”
To learn more about the library retrofit and building repairs, visit cityofpasadena. net/library.
Mayor Bass swears in McDonnell as LAPD chief
A photo of the entrance to the Pasadena Central Library
Photo courtesy of the city of Pasadena
Los Angeles City Hall. | Photo courtesy of Michael J Fromholz/Wikimedia
9 defendants in UCI pro-Palestine protest opt for diversion programs
By City News Service
Nine defendants charged in connection with unrest on the UC Irvine campus in May stemming from a pro-Palestinian encampment opted Wednesday for diversion programs, while one defendant’s arraignment was rescheduled for next month.
The court appearances came one day after leaders with the Council on American-Islamic Relations joined the defendants and other activists at a news conference calling on prosecutors to drop charges against 50 people arrested in the crackdown.
“We are here today to unequivocally condemn the Orange County DA’s charges against ... anti-genocide protesters,” CAIR attorney Dina Chehata said Tuesday.
The civil rights attorney said the defendants’ supporters come from different backgrounds and stages of life, “and the one thing we all stand united against is Israel’s genocide against Palestinians and our government’s complicity in it.”
The pro-Palestinian encampment had been largely peaceful for a few weeks, but when protesters surrounded the Physical Sciences Lecture Hall on May 15, campus police sought help from the Orange County Sheriff’s Department and Irvine police as well as other neighboring law enforcement agencies.
Hundreds of law enforcement personnel descended on the Irvine campus to break up the encampment.
Chehata argued that the university and the Orange County District Attorney’s
Office share “a history of silencing Palestinian voices,” pointing to the so-called “Irvine 11” case against students who protested an ambassador’s visit to the campus in 2010.
“We remember the Irvine 11,” Chehata said.
She also said Muslim students were referred to the FBI for inviting someone to speak on campus to discuss humanitarian aid to Palestinians.
The prosecutions are meant to “silence dissent,” and are “a direct attack on the 1st Amendment ... Stay silent or face the consequences,” Chehata alleged.
Amr Shabaik, CAIR-LA’s legal director, characterized the cases as an “extreme waste of and misuse of tax dollars.”
Estee Chandler, chair of the Jewish Voice for Peace Los Angeles, said the protests that emerged on campuses nationally after war broke out in Gaza prompted by Hamas’ Oct. 7, 2023, attack on Israeli civilians were mostly peaceful, but were met with a “militarized response” that “aimed to suppress civil disobedience.”
Chandler described resistance to the pro-Palestine protests as “Zionist McCarthyism” that includes “smears” of antisemitism against activists.
Hasna El-Nounou of the Muslim Student Association West said the harassment of protesters includes the “doxxing” (publicly identifying) of protesters to destroy their future academic and professional interests.
UCI professor Tiffany
Willoughby-Herard, who is facing misdemeanor charges in the case, accused university officials of making a “false report” to law enforcement that some of the protesters had taken over a building on campus to justify the “police raid.”
Willoughby-Herard said the encampment was an opportunity for students to learn about democracy and put it into practice, but they were met with “terrifying violence.”
She added to university officials, “You can’t be afraid
of learning.”
“I do not consent to genocide ... I will not make excuses for genocide,” she said. “... I will not look away from genocide ... These charges need to be dropped.”
Lubna Hummad, co-founder of Yalla Indivisible who is also facing charges, said the arrests represented a “very sad day for me and my community.”
She added that the students were “in mourning” the day of the crackdown, referring to a significant date in the 1948 war in Palestine.
“We were mourning and protesting,” she said.
She added they were also mourning the civilian deaths of children in the conflict sparked by the Oct. 7 Hamas abductions and attacks on Jews.
“I have a daughter,” she said, choking up. “Every time I hold (her) in my arms I remember ... and I think of the tens of thousands of children whose parents can no longer hold them in their arms, kiss their foreheads or smell their hair.”
Hammad said Orange County District Attorney Todd Spitzer charged the students and professors “to push his political agenda.”
“Anyone who was there that day knows there were no riots,” she said.
The District Attorney’s Office issued a statement saying, “The conduct of each individual arrested at the May 15, 2024, protest at UCI was thoroughly investigated and then reviewed to determine whether a crime occurred and could be proven
beyond a reasonable doubt. Each individual’s actions were evaluated independently and charges were filed consistent with that person’s criminal culpability. Freedom of speech is a right afforded to everyone, but university campuses are not immune from criminal consequences when peaceful protests cross the line into criminal behavior. The law applies equally to everyone and those who choose to break the law will be held accountable accordingly.”
When additional defendants were charged last month, UCI spokesman Tom Vasich issued the following statement:
“UC Irvine has a longstanding commitment to upholding free speech and peaceful protest. While we encourage all members of the campus community to exercise their right to express their views, they are also expected to comply with all applicable laws, university policies, and codes of conduct while doing so. It is important to clarify that the university is not involved in the decision by the Orange County District Attorney’s Office to file criminal charges against individuals arrested on campus during the May 15 incident.
“As part of ongoing efforts across the University of California system, UC Irvine is clearly communicating with all members of the university community regarding campus policies, their enforcement, and the balance between free expression and campus safety.”
Los Angeles County tackles hunger with new Office of Food Equity
By Suzanne Potter, Producer, Public News Service
About one-third of the population in Los Angeles does not have reliable access to healthy food, so leading philanthropic organizations are teaming up with Los Angeles County to launch a new Office of Health Equity.
Data from the University of Southern California-Dornsife show food insecurity is up from 24% in 2022, linked to high food prices and the end of a pandemic-era boost in CalFresh benefits.
Paula Daniels, incoming executive director of the Los Angeles County Office of Food Equity, will head up the
new office when it opens in January.
“We have a food-insecurity rate of about 30%,” Daniels noted. “You have that, and yet you have that paradox that at the same time, we are right next to the largest agricultural-producing region in the country.”
Market Match is a program helping people with CalFresh benefits afford more fruits and vegetables from local farmers’ markets. The office wants to expand the concept to other public food programs such as meals for schools, seniors and people experiencing homelessness.
They want to establish more mission-driven “food hubs,” connecting smaller and midscale farmers to communities of need.
Daniels also wants to ensure public feeding programs can provide locally sourced, culturally relevant menus.
“In 2022, I was part of getting $100 million in the California budget to give to school districts so that they could buy more locally sourced climate-smart and fair-labor food and support smaller farmers,” Daniels recounted. “If you take concepts like that, what can
CAIR-LA held a press conference Tuesday. | Screenshot courtesy of CAIR - Greater Los Angeles/Facebook
do in L.A. County? “ The office will work to implement the multi-prong action plan developed by the Los Angeles County Food Equity Roundtable.
Photo by Conscious Design on Unsplash
Editorial editorial@beaconmedianews.com
editor@hlrmedia.com
Graphics/Production production@beaconmedianews.com production@hlrmedia.com
Advertising advertising@beaconmedianews.com advertising@hlrmedia.com
Legal Advertising legals@beaconmedianews.com legals@hlrmedia.com
Business accounting@beaconmedianews.com accounting@hlrmedia.com
BEACON MEDIA ADDRESS: 820 S. Myrtle Ave. Monrovia, CA 91016
PHONE: (626) 301-1010
WEBSITE www.beaconmedianews.com
HLR MEDIA ADDRESS: 820 S. Myrtle Ave. Monrovia, CA 91016
PHONE: (626) 301-1010
www.HLRmedia.com PRESS
editor@beaconmedianews.com editor@hlrmedia.com
Study questions aggressive treatment for some prostate cancer patients
By City News Service
Increasing numbers of older U.S. men with prostate cancer are undergoing treatments that carry risks of side effects that can significantly reduce the quality of life without extending life, according to a Cedars-Sinai study out last week.
Researchers said these men might not have life expectancies that would allow them to receive the benefits of more aggressive treatments.
The findings were published in the peer-reviewed journal JAMA Internal Medicine, and can be read at jamanetwork.com/journals/ jamainternalmedicine/articleabstract/2825764.
Prostate cancer is the second-most common cancer in the United States, exceeded only by breast cancer. About one-eighth of U.S. men are diagnosed with prostate cancer at a median age of 67, according to the National Cancer Institute.
Most patients have slowgrowing, localized tumors, confined to the prostate gland, that are unlikely to threaten their lives. Instead of immediate treatment, these low-risk patients can be monitored through “active surveillance,” in which examinations and tests are performed on a regular schedule to make sure the disease is not progressing.
“Conservative management,” which includes active surveillance or watchful waiting, is also recommended for men with limited life expectancies who likely will not live long enough to benefit from aggressive local treatment, even for higherrisk cancers.
However, for these
men, the trend is going in the opposite direction, as measured by the investigators’ analysis of extensive data from the U.S. Veterans Affairs health system. They found that for men with limited life expectancies and intermediate- and high-risk cancers, conservative management was being employed less often and more were receiving aggressive local treatment with surgery or radiation.
“We found this pattern surprising,” said Dr. Timothy Daskivich, director of Urologic Oncology Research for the CedarsSinai Department of Urology and corresponding author of the study.
“Prostate cancer patients with life expectancies of less than five or 10 years were being subjected to treatments that can take up to a decade to significantly improve
their chances of surviving cancer, despite guidelines recommending against treatment.”
The study analyzed medical data on 243,928 men in the Veterans Affairs health system who were diagnosed with localized prostate cancer between 2000 and 2019. Among patients with average life expectancies of less than 10 years, the proportion who underwent treatments such as surgery or radiation for low-risk prostate cancer rather than receiving active surveillance decreased from 37.4% to 14.7%; but treatment for intermediate-risk disease increased from 37.6% to 59.8%.
Among patients with average life expectancies of less than five years, treatment for high-risk disease increased from 17.3% to 46.5%. Among men who were overtreated, roughly
80% were treated with radiation therapy.
Daskivich said that solving the issue of overtreatment in higher-risk patients with limited longevity requires a multifaceted approach involving better estimation, communication, and integration of life expectancy into decision-making. He and his team proposed a “trifecta” method for communicating cancer prognosis to the patient, with doctors discussing the likelihood of dying from the cancer with treatment vs. without treatment at the endpoint of the patient’s life expectancy.
“Our goal is to encourage clinicians to make longevity part of the discussion about the best treatment options so that prostate cancer patients with limited life expectancies can make educated choices,” Daskivich said.
A 13-year-old with autism got arrested after his backpack sparked fear. Only his stuffed bunny was inside.
By Aliyya Swaby, ProPublica, and Paige Pfleger, WPLN/Nashville Public Radio
This story was originally published by ProPublica. ProPublica is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative newsroom. Sign up for The Big Story newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox.
Series: Crackdown on Student Threats: Tennessee’s Harsh Punishment of Kids
On the second day of school this year in Hamilton County, Tennessee, Ty picked out a purple bunny from hundreds of other
plushies in his room. While his mom wasn’t looking, the 13-year-old snuck it into his backpack to show to his friends.
It was the 10th anniversary of his favorite video game franchise, Five Nights at Freddy’s, and Bonnie the
bunny is one of the stars.
Ty has autism and Bonnie is his biggest comfort when he gets agitated or discouraged. No one other than Ty, not even his mom, is allowed to touch Bonnie.
Ty was new to Ooltewah Middle School, located just east of Chattanooga. In class that morning, he told his teacher he didn’t want anyone to look in his backpack, worried they would confiscate his toy,
Photo by Gus Moretta on Unsplash
How Lincare became a multibillion-dollar Medicare scofflaw
Reporting Highlights
- Decades of Misbehavior: Lincare has repeatedly landed on Medicare’s equivalent of probation; the company has a dismal history of exploiting the government and ailing patients.
- Too Big to Ban: Despite Lincare’s track record, Medicare, which provides most of the company’s revenues, has never sought to bar the company from the Medicare system.
- Tolerating Wrongdoing:
Faced with $60 billion a year in fraud, Medicare spends millions chasing companies but accepts penalties that are only a fraction of the profits made on misbehavior.
These highlights were written by the reporters and editors who worked on this story.
For Lincare, paying multimillion-dollar legal settlements is an integral part of doing business.
The company, the largest distributor of home oxygen equipment in the United States, admitted billing Medicare for ventilators it knew customers weren’t using (2024) and overcharging Medicare and thousands of elderly patients (2023). It settled allegations of violating a law against kickbacks (2018) and charging Medicare for patients who had died (2017). The company resolved lawsuits alleging a “nationwide scheme to pay physicians kickbacks to refer their patients to Lincare” (2006) and that it falsified claims that its customers needed oxygen (2001). (Lincare admitted wrongdoing in only
the two most recent settlements.)
Such a litany of Medicarerelated misconduct might be expected to provoke drastic action from the Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees the federal health insurance program that covers 1 in 6 Americans. Given that most of Lincare’s estimated $2.4 billion in annual revenues are paid by Medicare, HHS wields tremendous power over the company.
Sure enough, as part of the 2023 settlement, HHS placed Lincare on the agency’s equivalent of probation, a so-called corporate integrity agreement. The forebodingsounding document includes a “death penalty” provision: Any “material breach” of the probation agreement, which runs for five years, “constitutes an independent basis for Lincare’s exclusion from participation in the Federal health care programs.” Such a ban could effectively kill Lincare’s business.
That sounds dire. Except that before that corporate integrity agreement was signed in 2023, Lincare was under the same form of probation, with the same death penalty provision, from 2018 to 2023, and violated its terms. From 2006 to 2011, Lincare was similarly on probation and also violated the terms, according to the government. And before that — well, you get the picture. Lincare has been on probation four times since 2001. And despite a pattern not only of fraud, but of breaking its probation agreements, Lincare has
By Peter Elkind, ProPublica
never been required to do more than pay settlements that amount to pennies relative to its profits.
This is not an aberration. While HHS routinely imposes the death penalty on small operations, it has never barred a national Medicare supplier like Lincare from continuing to do business with the government. Some companies, it seems, are too big to ban.
Lincare’s lengthy record of misbehavior isn’t a surprise to people in the medical equipment business. What is surprising is the federal government’s willingness to pull its punches with a company that has fleeced taxpayers and elderly customers again and again. Federal officials have never pursued the company executives who oversee this behavior even though two of them, Chief Operating Officer Greg McCarthy and Chief Compliance Officer Jenna Pedersen, have worked at Lincare through all four of the company’s probationary periods. No one has faced criminal charges for activity the government’s own investigators deemed fraud.
Medicare has continued to pay Lincare billions even as many of the company’s customers revile it. Evaluations on customer-review websites are lacerating, and complaints to state attorneys general abound. On the Better Business Bureau’s website, 888 reviewers gave Lincare an average score of 1.3 out of 5. They cite dirty and broken equipment, charges that continue even after equipment has been
returned, harassing sales and collection calls, and nightmarish customer service. As one person wrote in April, Lincare is “running a scam where they have guaranteed income” and “the customer can’t do a thing.”
HHS has always been reluctant to cut off big suppliers. Medicare’s first objective is to make sure nothing interrupts the flow of medications, devices and services to beneficiaries. And were HHS to seek to ban Lincare, the company would surely launch a long, costly legal war. But even if the cost of such combat reached many millions of dollars, it would still be a tiny fraction of the amount lost to fraud, which is yet another contributor to the soaring medical costs that bedevil the country. “This is taxpayer money,” said Jerry Martin, a former U.S. attorney who represented an ex-Lincare executive in a whistleblower suit against the company. “We need to pay people that don’t have four corporateintegrity agreements.”
Weak enforcement is not the only problem. Lincare is paid to rent oxygen equipment to patients, with HHS covering most of the monthly bills. But those rental fees often add up to many times what it would cost simply to buy the equipment. “If this were a rational country,”
Bruce Vladeck, who ran Medicare from 1993 to 1997, told ProPublica, “the government would buy a million [oxygen] concentrators and pay Amazon or somebody to deliver them.”
In a seven-month investi-
gation, ProPublica examined how Medicare’s largest provider of home medical equipment has managed to take advantage of its customers for a quarter of a century while fending off meaningful enforcement. ProPublica interviewed more than 60 current and former employees and executives, Medicare and Justice Department officials, patient advocates, and health care experts. ProPublica also reviewed dozens of court cases involving Lincare and thousands of pages of internal company documents, sales presentations and emails.
The investigation reveals a dismal picture of a company with a sales culture that depends on squeezing infirm and elderly patients and the government for every penny. Lincare employees are pressured to sell — whether a customer needs a product or not — on pain of losing their jobs.
And the company’s record of misbehavior and conflict extends far beyond its sales and billing practices. Lincare has paid $9.5 million in settlements for data breaches and mishandling patient and employee records. It has faced claims of violating wage rules, harassing customers with sales and collection calls, and tolerating racist comments to an African American employee. (Lincare lost the latter suit at trial and is appealing.) The company has repeatedly sparred in court with former executives, including a 2017 suit in which longtime executive Sharon Ford claimed that the
company had cheated her out of a $1 million bonus. (A judge ruled in favor of Ford at trial before the case was overturned on appeal.) Ford testified that Lincare had earned an industry reputation as “The Evil Empire.” And when Lincare’s CEO, Crispin Teufel, resigned last year to become CEO of a rival company, Lincare sued him for breach of contract and misappropriating trade secrets. Teufel ultimately admitted to downloading confidential company records and was blocked from taking the new job. (Teufel did not respond to requests for comment. His replacement, Jeff Barnhard, took over as Lincare’s CEO in July 2023.)
Lincare declined multiple requests to make executives available for interviews. After ProPublica provided a lengthy document listing every assertion in this article, along with separate such letters to executives McCarthy and Pedersen, the company responded with a three-paragraph statement. It asserted that Lincare is “committed to delivering high-quality and clinically appropriate equipment, supplies, and services” but acknowledged “missteps in the past.” The company said its “new leadership” had “commenced a comprehensive review of our policies and procedures to help ensure we are complying fully with all state and federal regulations” and that “investments and enhance-
according to Ty and his mom. When the teacher asked why, Ty responded, “Because the whole school will blow up,” he and his mom recalled.
School officials acted quickly, Ty’s mom said: The teacher, who had only known Ty for one day, called a school administrator, who got the police involved. They brought Ty to the counselor’s office and found Bonnie in the backpack. As Ty stood there, he said, confused about what he had done wrong, the police handcuffed him and patted him down before placing him in the back of a police car.
“I think they thought an actual bomb was in my backpack,” Ty told ProPublica and WPLN. But he didn’t have a bomb. “It was just this, right here,” he said, holding Bonnie. “And they still took me to jail.”
The sheriff’s department issued a press release about the incident stating that police checked the backpack and it was “found to not contain any explosive device.” ProPublica and WPLN are using a nickname for Ty at his mother’s request, to protect his identity because he’s a minor. The sheriff’s department didn’t respond to questions about Ty’s case. The Hamilton County School district, which includes Ty’s school, declined to respond, even though his mother signed a form giving officials permission to do so.
Highlights From This Series
Sept. 25, 2024
Junior, an 11-year-old, is accused of making a threat at school, which he denies. Officials let him go home with his mom. Hours later, a deputy tracks him down at a family dinner at a LongHorn Steakhouse, cuffing him in the parking lot.
Aug. 8, 2024
Ty, a 13-year-old with autism, is arrested, charged with a felony and detained for telling a teacher not to look in his backpack because the school would blow up. Ty later explains that he was trying to protect
the stuffed bunny inside.
September 2023
Lee, a 10-year-old fifth grader in East Tennessee, is accused by fellow students of pointing a finger gun. The school expels him for a year for making a threat of mass violence.
Ty’s arrest was the result of a new state law requiring that anyone who makes a threat of mass violence at school be charged with a felony. The law does not require that the threat be credible. ProPublica and WPLN previously reported on an 11-year-old with autism who denied making a threat in class and was later arrested at a birthday party by a Hamilton County sheriff’s deputy.
Advocates had warned Tennessee lawmakers during this year’s legislative session that the law would be particularly harmful for students prone to frequent outbursts or disruptive behavior as a result of a disability.
Lawmakers did include an exception for people with intellectual disabilities. And according to Ty’s mom and a school district psychological report, Ty has an intellectual disability as defined by Tennessee statute, in addition to autism. But the family’s lawyer said there is no evidence that law enforcement took that into consideration — or even checked to see if Ty had a disability — before handcuffing and arresting him.
The law doesn’t state how police should determine whether kids have intellectual disabilities before charging them.
Rep. Cameron Sexton, the Tennessee House speaker and Republican co-sponsor of the law, said Ty’s case shows that “there may need to be more training and resources” for school officials and law enforcement.
Rep. Bo Mitchell, a Nashville Democrat who co-sponsored the law, said he hoped the exception for kids with intellectual disabilities would be enough to keep students like Ty from being arrested. “No one passed that law
Autism
in order for a child with any type of disability to be charged,” he said.
But he said the law was still necessary to help prevent hoax threats that disrupt learning and terrify students. “I don’t know whose level of trauma is going to be the greatest: the kids in the classroom wondering if there’s an active shooter roaming their halls or a kid that didn’t know better and says something like that and gets arrested,” Mitchell said. “It’s a no-win situation.”
The state does not collect information about how the felony law, which went into effect in July, has applied to kids with disabilities like Ty. Data from Hamilton County provides a limited glimpse. In the first six weeks of the school year, 18 kids were arrested for making threats of mass violence. A third of them have disabilities, more than double the proportion of students with disabilities across the district.
Before the academic year began, Ty’s mom sent an email to school officials asking for their help to make her son’s transition to eighth grade as smooth as possible.
Ty’s specialized education plan states that he is social and friendly with other students but regularly has outbursts and meltdowns in class due to his disability. He struggles to regulate his feelings when asked to follow classroom guidelines and to understand social situations and boundaries.
Federal law prohibits his school from punishing him harshly for those behaviors, since they are caused by or related to his disability. But Ty’s principal later told his mom in an email that Tennessee’s threats of mass violence law requires school officials to report the incident to police.
When Ty’s mom got the phone call that her son was going to be arrested, she said it was her worst fear come true: Her son’s autism was mistaken for a threat. “Once you looked
at his backpack, if there was nothing in there to hurt anyone, then why did you handcuff my 13-yearold autistic son who didn’t understand what was going on and take him down to juvenile?” she said.
Disability rights advocates said kids like Ty should not be getting arrested under the current law. And they tried to push for a broader exception for kids with other kinds of disabilities.
In a meeting with Mitchell before the law passed, Zoe Jamail, the policy coordinator for Disability Rights Tennessee, explained that the legislation could harm kids with disabilities who struggle with communication and behavior — such as those with some developmental disabilities — but aren’t diagnosed with an intellectual disability. She proposed language that Mitchell and other sponsors could include in the law, to ensure children with disabilities were not improperly arrested.
“No student who makes a threat that is determined to be a manifestation of the student’s disability shall be charged under this section,” one version of the amendment read.
The amendment was
never taken up for a vote in the state legislature. Lawmakers passed the narrower version instead.
“I think it demonstrates a lack of understanding of disability,” Jamail said.
Sexton, the Republican House speaker, said kids with disabilities were capable of carrying out acts of mass violence and should be punished under the law. “I think you can make a lot of excuses for a lot of people,” he said.
Ty still doesn’t fully grasp what happened to him, and why.
On a recent morning in October, Ty turned the stuffed bunny toward his mom and asked, “Is he the reason why I can’t bring plushies anymore?”
Ty’s mom told him the reason is because he didn’t ask first. “You can’t just sneak stuff out of the house,” she said.
“Will I get in trouble for that?” he asked her.
“Yeah, absolutely,” she said. “You want them to possibly think it’s another bomb and take you back down to kiddie jail?”
“No,” he said, emphatically.
After the incident, Ty’s middle school suspended him for a few days. His case was dismissed in juvenile court soon after.
The principal told Ty’s mom in an email that if Ty said something similar again, the school would follow the same protocol. She decided to transfer him out of Ooltewah Middle School as soon as she could.
“Whenever we go past that school, Ty’s like: ‘Am I going back to jail, mom? Are you taking me back over there?’ He’s for real traumatized,” she said. “I felt like nobody at that school was really fighting for him. They were too busy trying to justify what they did.”
Mitchell, the Democratic representative, said he was “heartbroken” to hear that Ty was handcuffed and traumatized. But, he added, “we’re trying to stop the people who should know better from doing this, and if they do it, they should have more than a slap on the wrist.” He said he would be open to considering a carve-out in the law in the upcoming legislative session for kids with a broader range of disabilities.
But, he said, he believes that the law as it stands is making all children in Tennessee, with or without disabilities, safer.
Republished with Creative Commons License (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0).
Photo by Jelleke Vanooteghem on Unsplash
ments we have made over the last several months will help prevent these issues from repeating in the future.”
Lincare did not respond to follow-up questions requesting examples of the steps the company says it’s taking, including whether it has terminated any executives as part of this push.
When ProPublica asked a top Medicare enforcer why Lincare had eluded banishment, her answer suggested she views probation as a continuing ed class rather than a harsh punishment. “It’s like taking a college course,” said Tamara Forys, who is in charge of administrative and civil remedies for HHS’ Office of Inspector General. “At the end of the day, it’s really up to you to change your corporate culture and to study, to learn to pass the class … to embrace that and take those lessons learned and move them forward.” A spokesperson for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which runs Medicare, declined to comment on Lincare but said the agency “is committed to preventing fraud and protecting people with Medicare from falling victim to fraud.”
There’s little incentive to refrain from misbehaving in an environment that tolerates bad behavior, said Lewis Morris, who was chief counsel to HHS’ Office of Inspector General from 2002 to 2012. “As long as that [settlement] check is less than the amount you stole, it’s a good business proposition.”
Indeed, Lincare has counted on the government’s tepid response, two former company executives told ProPublica. Top management, they said, responds to fraud warnings by conducting a cost-benefit analysis. “I’ve sat in meetings where they said, ‘We might have $5 to $10 million risk — if caught,’” said Owen Kirk Staggs, who ran one of Lincare’s businesses in 2017 and fell out with the company. “‘But we’ve made $50 million. So let’s go for it. The risk is worth the reward.’”
Libby, Montana, provides a glimpse of the way Lincare operates. Oxygen is an urgent need in this mountain town of 2,857. Libby suffers from the lingering effects of “the worst case of industrial poisoning of a whole community in American history,” in the words of the Environmental Protection Agency. An open-pit vermiculite mine, which operated from 1963 to 1990, coated the area — and residents’ lungs — with needle-like asbestos fibers. More than
2,000 Libby citizens have been diagnosed with respiratory diseases since then; some 700 have died.
Hundreds of ailing residents relied on Lincare for home concentrators, which provide nearly pure oxygen extracted from room air. Medicare and Medicare Advantage plans (which the government also funds) covered 80% of the monthly rental of about $135; patients paid the remaining 20%.
In 2020, Brandon Haugen noticed something suspicious in Lincare’s bills. Haugen was a customer service representative at the company’s local distribution site, one of 700 such locations around the country. (Lincare serves 1.8 million respiratory patients in 48 states.)
Lincare was allowed to charge patients and their insurers for a maximum of 36 months under federal rules. After that point, patients could use the equipment without further charge. Lincare, however, kept billing local patients and their Medicare Advantage plans far beyond 36 months — in some cases, for years. To Haugen, this looked like fraud.
Haugen conferred with center manager Ben Montgomery. The two, who had grown up in the area, had been buddies since seventh grade, after getting to know each other at summer Bible camp. Then 38, earnest and just beginning to gray out of their boyishness, the two men were concerned. The patients the men dealt with were their neighbors.
A regional Lincare manager assured them that charging beyond 36 months for Medicare Advantage patients “is the correct way to bill.” Skeptical, Montgomery raised the issue with Lincare’s headquarters in Clearwater, Florida. Lincare’s compliance director told him, according to Montgomery, that “it’s the patients’ problem to fix it if they want it to stop”; that was “just how it worked.” Further questions, sent to Lincare’s chief compliance officer, Pedersen, went nowhere. “It seemed pretty obvious they were well aware of this,” Montgomery told ProPublica. “For me, these were my customers that you were screwing over.”
Among them was Neil Bauer, now 80, who lives in a ramshackle house “out in the boondocks,” as he put it, 38 miles southeast of Libby. Bauer spent his career as a barber, head of investigations for the county sheriff’s department and a member of the local school board. He’s been on oxygen for more
than a decade and quickly gets short of breath. “I can’t do stuff so much now,” he said. His wife is on oxygen, too. “We just have a sick family,” Bauer said.
Lincare had kept billing Bauer for his concentrator for seven years after it was supposed to stop. The monthly copays weren’t huge, but they added up to $2,325 that he shouldn’t have been charged over that period, a daunting sum for Bauer, who lives on a fixed income — and a hefty mark-up over the cost of the equipment, which can be purchased online for $799. For its part, Medicare Advantage paid Lincare $9,299 for Bauer’s concentrator during this period, along with another $5,760 for the months Lincare was legally permitted to bill. All told, the rental payments to Lincare, during authorized and unauthorized periods, were $16,547 for that one $799 piece of equipment. “We paid forever,” said Bauer. “Never was I told that we could have one without having to pay anything.”
Haugen and Montgomery studied billing records. Among the customers in their tiny office, Lincare was improperly charging at least 33 people and their Medicare plans. The two began to wonder how far this problem extended. An employee in Idaho confirmed the same practice was occurring there.
“In my mind,” Montgomery said, “I went, ‘This is Libby, Montana. Multiply that by every center in the country. This is obviously a lot bigger deal.’”
Montgomery and Haugen had seen enough. On Jan. 18, 2021, they emailed a joint resignation letter to Lincare’s top management, recounting their concerns about billing that “likely affects thousands of patients company wide.” Citing the lack of response from corporate officials, they wrote, “we can only conclude that this is a known issue that is being covered up by Lincare.”
Haugen had 10 children. Montgomery had four. Neither man had another job lined up. “Had this not happened,” said Montgomery, who had been at the company for 13 years, “I would have seen myself retiring from Lincare.”
Instead, they became whistleblowers. They retained a law firm and sued Lincare in Spokane, Washington, the site of Lincare’s regional headquarters. After federal prosecutors decided to back the case, Lincare settled in August 2023. The company admitted to overbilling Medicare plans and patients across the
country for years and paid $29 million to settle the matter, with $5.7 million of that going to Montgomery, Haugen and their lawyers.
Dan Fruchter, the assistant U.S. attorney leading the government’s case, told ProPublica that the overbillings likely involved “tens of thousands” of patients.
Lincare agreed to its fourth stint of probation with HHS; the new corporateintegrity agreement took effect on the day after the previous one expired. The conduct Montgomery and Haugen flagged had gone on for years while the company was already on probation. But Lincare got the government lawyers to agree that nobody would try to impose the Medicare death penalty. Lincare asserted in the settlement that it had installed software (which it did only after learning of the government investigation) that will prevent billing beyond 36 months. Lincare promised to ensure “full and timely” compliance with the agreement and prevent future wrongdoing.
Medicare fraud, including in the “durable medical equipment” category that Lincare operates in, has long been an intractable problem. It cost the U.S. Treasury an estimated $60 billion in 2023 alone.
The government deploys large sums to try to stop it. HHS’ inspector general’s office has a $432 million budget and a staff of 1,600. Those resources are effectively extended by whistleblowers — most of the cases against Lincare have been such suits — who can receive a percentage of a civil settlement if they reveal wrongdoing, and by federal prosecutors, who can also bring cases or join those filed by whistleblowers. Last year HHS recovered $3.2 billion from fraudulent schemes.
But the agency’s enforcers have wielded their biggest deterrent almost entirely against small perpetrators.
In 2023, they banned 2,112 small firms and individuals from Medicare reimbursement.
HHS hasn’t done the same with companies that operate on a national scale. Forys, the agency enforcer, said she worries that expelling a big provider from Medicare could leave customers in the lurch. In April, Inspector General Christi Grimm defended her office’s work in congressional testimony but also asserted that its resources are inadequate. A lack of staff keeps it from even investigating “between 300 and 400 viable criminal and civil health care cases” annually, she testified, as well as more than half the fraud referrals from Medicare’s outside audit contractors.
A different reason for going easy on big companies was suggested by Vladeck, the former Medicare chief. Seeking to bar a large supplier for repeatedly violating probation would require exhaustive documentation and years of litigation against squadrons of well-paid corporate lawyers. As a result, Vladeck said, “there’s a real incentive, from a bureaucratic point of view, to just slap their wrist, give them a kick and make them apologize. … It’s a cost of doing business.”
There are steps enforcers could take, but almost never do, that would make companies take notice, according to Jacob Elberg, a former federal prosecutor who is now a professor at Seton Hall Law School. (Among his publications is a 2021 law review article titled “Health Care Fraud Means Never Having to Say You’re Sorry.”)
Elberg’s research shows that HHS and prosecutors tend to negotiate far smaller civil settlements than the law allows, and they rarely prosecute company executives. They also almost never take cases to trial. In short, enforcers have long signaled to companies that they’re
looking for a smooth path to a cash payment rather than a stern punishment for a company and its leaders. “It is generally a safe assumption,” Elberg said, “that the result will be a civil settlement at an amount that is tolerable.”
For its part, Congress may soon be weighing a new law that would reshape how the oxygen industry is paid by Medicare. But rather than clamp down on corporations, the legislation seems poised to do the opposite. A new bill called the SOAR (Supplemental Oxygen Access Reform) Act would hand companies like Lincare hundreds of millions more, by raising reimbursement rates and eliminating competitive bidding among equipment providers. Advocates say the legislation will help patients by making some forms of oxygen more available and improving service. But along the way it will reward Lincare and its rivals.
Congress has a history of treating oxygen companies generously. For years, lawmakers set Medicare reimbursements for oxygen equipment at levels that even HHS, in 1997, characterized as “grossly excessive.” Over the succeeding decade and a half, Lincare took advantage, snatching up hundreds of small suppliers and becoming the industry’s largest player.
In 2006, under pressure to reduce costs, Congress approved steps to curb oxygen payments, including the introduction of competitive bidding and the 36-month cap on payments for equipment rentals. But even those strictures were watered down after the industry poured money into political contributions and lobbyists, who warned that cuts would harm elderly patients. Lincare compensated by
| Photo courtesy of Medicare.gov
amping up strategies that generated profits, with little apparent regard for Medicare’s rules, which say it will reimburse costs for equipment only when there is evidence of “medical necessity.” The company aggressively courted doctors and incentivized sales, through bonuses the company paid for each new device “setup.” According to a 2016 commission schedule, reps could earn $40 for winning an order for a new sleep apnea machine, $100 for a new oxygen patient and $200 for a noninvasive ventilator. The entire staff of each Lincare center could receive a small bonus for signing up a high percentage of new patients for automatic monthly billing. Patients who refused auto-billing, a company document advised, should be warned they might face “collection activity” and service cutoffs. “Sales is our top priority!” declared a 2020 PowerPoint to train new hires.
Once it had a customer, Lincare would pitch them more costly products and services. One way Lincare did this was through a program called CareChecks. Promoted as a “patient monitoring” benefit, CareChecks were aimed, according to a company presentation, at generating “internal growth.” If a patient exhibited a persistent phlegmy cough, Lincare could persuade their doctor to prescribe a special vibrating vest to loosen chest mucus. Nebulizer patients might be candidates for home oxygen. Patients using apnea devices were potential candidates for ventilators. “We’d make patients think we were coming in clinically to assess them,” a former Lincare manager said, “when really it was to make money off of them.” Selling replacement parts could also be lucrative. At Lincare call centers that sold
items like hoses, masks and filters for CPAP machines (used to treat apnea), hundreds of commissioned agents in Nashville, Tennessee, and Tampa, Florida, were equipped with programs displaying what items each patient was eligible for under Medicare. By law, patients had to request replacement parts. But frequently, that wasn’t what happened, according to Staggs, who oversaw the CPAP business in 2017. He discovered that top salespeople, whose bonuses could total $8,000 a month, averaged just a few minutes on the phone per order. That wasn’t nearly enough time to identify what items, if any, customers actually needed. Staggs listened to recorded calls and found that, after reaching customers, agents often placed them on hold until they hung up, then ordered them every product that Medicare would cover.
At Lincare, results were closely tracked and widely shared in weekly emails displaying the best and worst performers in each region. Notes taken by one manager show supervisors’ performance demands during weekly conference calls: “Unacceptable to miss goal … stop the excuses … If this is not being done, wrong [center manager] in place … If you’re not getting O2 and not getting Care Checks — you shit the bed. Stop accepting mediocre, lazy responses ….”
“If we didn’t meet our quota, they were going to chop our heads,” said former Illinois sales rep Sandra Gauch, who worked for Lincare for 17 years before joining a whistleblower suit and quitting in 2022.
One salesperson was so fearful of missing her quota, according to Gauch, that she signed her mother up for a ventilator that she didn’t need. A company audit in
Medicare
2018 found that only 10 of 56 ventilator patients at one center were using them consistently. Some patients hadn’t used their devices for years. Yet Lincare kept billing Medicare.
Only one thing mattered as much as maximizing new equipment rentals, according to former employees and company documents: minimizing customers’ attempts to end rentals. A call to retrieve breathing equipment meant that it was no longer wanted or being used, and Lincare was supposed to retrieve it and promptly stop billing Medicare and the patient. The person’s health might have improved. They might have gone into the hospital — or died. The reason didn’t matter; at Lincare, “pickups” were a black mark, deducted from employees’ performance scores, jeopardizing their bonuses and jobs.
As a result, employees said, such requests were dreaded, delayed and deterred. Clinical staff were sent to “reeducate” customers to keep using their devices. Patients were told they’d need to sign a form stating they were acting “against medical advice.”
Lincare managers made it clear that pickups should be discouraged. In a 2010 email, an Ohio center manager instructed subordinates: “As we have already discussed, absolutely no pick-ups/ inactivation’s are to be do[ne] until I give you the green light. Even if they are deceased.” In 2018, an Illinois supervisor emailed her deputies that pickups were barred without her explicit approval: “Not even Death that I don’t approve first.”
In February 2022, Justin Linafelter, an area manager in Denver, responded to the latest corporate email celebrating monthly “Achievement Rankings” for oxygen sales by pointing out that almost all of the centers atop the rankings had at least 150
“pending pickups,” customers who weren’t using their equipment but whom the company appeared to still be billing. “Some of these centers are just ignoring pickups to make this list.”
That was only one of Linafelter’s concerns. In July of that year, he emailed headquarters, saying he no longer had “the resources to be successful at my job.” The customer service staff in Denver had been cut in half, Linafelter explained, and he’d been barred from hiring replacements. Denver’s remaining staff was “at a point of exhaustion,” threatening patient care.
The morning after Linafelter expressed concerns to Lincare in 2022, he was summoned to a conference call with the head of HR and fired, for what he was told was a “corporate restructuring.” Linafelter, who had worked at Lincare for nine years, said, “I got thrown away like a piece of trash.”
Other former employees offer similar accounts.
In 2020, Jillian Watkins, a center manager in Huntington, West Virginia, repeatedly alerted supervisors that Lincare was improperly billing for equipment that patients weren’t using. Lincare blocked her from
firing a subordinate who’d falsified documents supporting the charges, then fired Watkins, citing “inadequate direction and leadership.”
Then came a series of turns. Pedersen, the chief compliance officer, effectively confirmed Watkins’ assertions, belatedly alerting the government about $486,000 in improper billings by Lincare. But Pedersen blamed the billings on Watkins, writing to Medicare that the company had “terminated” her to “prevent [the problem] from recurring.” After Watkins sued, Pedersen admitted in a deposition that Watkins’ firing “had nothing to do with the overpayment.” In April 2024, a federal judge ruled that Watkins had presented “a prima facie case of retaliation.” The suit was privately settled in mediation.
Staggs, too, was ousted, he said, after he warned top Lincare executives about improper practices at the CPAP call centers. Staggs emailed a Lincare HR officer: “Patients are being shipped supplies that they never have ordered. … This is fraud and I have gotten zero support or attention to this matter when I raise the issue to my leadership.” Only months
after starting, he was fired in November 2017. He later filed a whistleblower suit; Lincare denied wrongdoing. After the U.S. attorney’s office in Nashville declined to join the case in 2022, Staggs withdrew the action.
Staggs’ account of improper billings matches an industry pattern that appears to continue to this day. In a 2018 report, HHS’ inspector general estimated that Medicare had paid more than $631 million in improper claims for CPAP and other supplies over a two-year period. Another HHS analysis identified an additional $566 million in potential overpayments for apnea devices. The agency’s oversight “was not sufficient to ensure that suppliers complied with Medicare requirements,” the 2018 report concluded. Six years later, HHS has not taken public action against Lincare relating to CPAPs.
Today, fraudulent billing among Medicare equipment providers remains a “major concern,” according to the inspector general. The agency says it continues to review the issue.
Doris Burke contributed research.
Republished with Creative Commons License (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0).
Starting a new business?
Rosemead City Notices
ORDINANCE NO. 1023
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD AMENDING MUNICIPAL CODE ADDING CHAPTER 1.14 TO TITLE 1 REGARDING ELECTRONIC AND PAPERLESS FILING OF FAIR POLITICAL PRACTICES COMMISSION CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE STATEMENTS
WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 84615 provides that a legislative body of a local government agency may adopt an ordinance that requires an elected officer, candidate, committee, or other person required to file statements, reports or other documents online or electronically with the City Clerk; and
WHEREAS, the City has entered into an agreement with Netfile, a vendor approved by the California Secretary of State, to provide an online electronic filing system (“System”) for Campaign disclosure statements; and
WHEREAS, the System will operate securely and effectively and will not unduly burden filers. Specifically, (1) the System will ensure integrity of the data and includes safeguards against efforts to tamper with, manipulate, alter, or subvert the date; (2) the System will only accept a filing in the standardized record format developed by the Secretary of State and compatible with the Secretary of State’s system for receiving online or electronic filings; and (3) the System will be available free of charge to the filers and to the public viewing filings; and
WHEREAS, the City of Rosemead desires to amend the Rosemead Municipal Code to add a new chapter related to electronic filing of campaign statements.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Amendment. Chapter 1.14, “Electronic filing of campaign disclosure statements,” is hereby added to Title 1 [General provisions] of the Rosemead Municipal Code as follows:
Chapter 1.14
ELECTRONIC FILING OF CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE STATEMENTS
1.14.010. General.
A. Any elected officer, candidate, committee, or other person required to file statements, reports, or other documents (“statements”) as required by Chapter 4 of the Political Reform Act (California Government Code Section 84100 et seq.) may file such statements using the City Clerk’s online system according to procedures established by the City Clerk. These procedures shall ensure that the online system complies with the requirements set forth in Section 84615 of the Government Code. From and after January 1, 2021, elected officers, candidates and committees required to file statements must file such statements using the City Clerk’s online system, unless exempt from the requirement to file online pursuant to Government Code Section 84615.
B. The online filing system shall only accept a filing in the standardized record format that is developed by the California Secretary of State pursuant to Section 84602(a)(2) of the California Government Code and that is compatible with the Secretary of State’s system for receiving an online or electronic filing.
C. The online filing system shall include a procedure for filers to comply with the requirement that they sign statements and reports under penalty of perjury pursuant to Section 81004 of the Government Code.
1.14.020 Procedures for utilizing online filing.
A. During the period commencing with the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter and ending January 1, 2025, an elected officer, candidate, appointee, committee or consultant may choose to utilize the electronic filing system by electronically filing a statement that is required to be filed with the City Clerk pursuant to Chapter 4 of the Political Reform Act. Once the elected officer, candidate, appointee, committee or consultant has filed electronically, all subsequent statements shall be filed electronically. From and after January 1, 2025, electronic filing is mandatory unless the officer, candidate, or committee is exempt as described in Section 1.14.010.
B. Any elected officer, candidate, appointee, committee or consultant who has electronically filed a statement using the
City Clerk’s online system is not required to file a copy of that document in paper format with the City Clerk.
C. The City Clerk shall issue an electronic confirmation that notifies the filer that the statement was received, which notification shall include the date and the time that the statement was received and the method by which the filer may view and print the data received by the City Clerk. The date of filing for a statement filed online shall be the day that it is received by the City Clerk.
D. If the City Clerk’s system is not capable of accepting a statement due to technical difficulties, an elected officer, candidate, or committee shall file that statement in paper format with the City Clerk.
1.14.030 Availability of statements for public review—Record retention.
A. The City Clerk’s system shall make all data filed available on the city’s web page in an easily understood format that provides the greatest public access. The data shall be made available free of charge as soon as possible after receipt. The data made available on the city’s web page shall not contain the street name and building number of the persons or entity representatives listed on the electronically filed forms or any bank account number required to be disclosed by the filer. The City Clerk’s office shall make a complete, unredacted copy of the statement, including any street names, building numbers, and bank account numbers disclosed by the filer, available to any person upon request.
B. The City Clerk’s Office shall maintain, according to the city’s retention schedule, a secured, official version of each online or electronic statement which shall serve as the official version of that record for purpose of audits and any other legal purpose.
SECTION 2. California Environmental Quality Act. The City Council finds that the Ordinance is not subject to review under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guideline Section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the Ordinance may have a significant effect on the environment. This Ordinance would not result in any development or changes to the physical environment.
SECTION 3. Severability. If any provision of this Ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the Ordinance, including the application of such phrase or provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby and shall continue in full force and effect. To this end, provisions of this Ordinance are severable. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase hereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses, or phrases be held unconstitutional, invalid, or unenforceable.
4. Publication and effective date. The City Clerk shall publish this ordinance as required by law. This Ordinance shall take effect and be enforced thirty (30) days after its adoption.
I, Ericka Hernandez, City Clerk of the City of Rosemead, County of Los Angeles, State of California, hereby attest to the above signature and certify that Ordinance No. 1023 was introduced for first reading at the regular meeting of October 8¬¬¬, 2024. Said Ordinance was approved and adopted by the City Council of the City of Rosemead at a regular meeting held on the 12th day of November, 2024, by the following vote:
AYES: ARMENTA, CLARK, DANG, LY NOES: NONE
ABSENT: LOW
ABSTAIN: NONE
PASSED, APPROVED AND ORDAINED this 12th day of November, 2024.
Steven Ly, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST: Rachel Richman, City Attorney Ericka Hernandez, City Clerk
Published November 18, 2024
ROSEMEAD READER
Probate Notices
NOTICE OF AMENDED PETITION TO ADMINISTER
ESTATE OF: HIROSHI TAKAKI CASE NO. 24STPB11737
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the WILL or estate, or both of HIROSHI TAKAKI.
der the Independent Administration of Estates Act. (This authority will allow the personal representative to take many actions without obtaining court approval. Before taking certain very important actions, however, the personal representative will be required to give notice to interested persons unless they have waived notice or consented to the proposed action.) The independent administration authority will be granted unless an interested person files an objection to the petition and shows good cause why the court should not grant the authority.
A HEARING on the petition will be held in this court as follows: 12/16/24 at 8:30AM in Dept. 67 located at 111 N. HILL ST., LOS ANGELES, CA 90012
IF YOU OBJECT to the granting of the petition, you should appear at the hearing and state your objections or file written objections with the court before the hearing. Your appearance may be in person or by your attorney.
IF YOU ARE A CREDITOR or a contingent creditor of the decedent, you must file your claim with the court and mail a copy to the personal representative appointed by the court within the later of either (1) four months from the date of first issuance of letters to a general personal representative, as defined in section 58(b) of the California Probate Code, or (2) 60 days from the date of mailing or personal delivery to you of a notice under section 9052 of the California Probate Code.
Other California statutes and legal authority may affect your rights as a creditor. You may want to consult with an attorney knowledgeable in California law.
YOU MAY EXAMINE the file kept by the court. If you are a person interested in the estate, you may file with the court a Request for Special Notice (form DE-154) of the filing of an inventory and appraisal of estate assets or of any petition or account as provided in Probate Code section 1250. A Request for Special Notice form is available from the court clerk.
Attorney for Petitioner RONALD BERMAN - SBN 079775 BERMAN & BERMAN, APLC 16633 VENTURA BLVD., STE. 940 ENCINO CA 91436
Telephone (818) 593-5050 11/14, 11/18, 11/25/24 CNS-3870577# EL MONTE EXAMINER
NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF KAI S. LEM
Case No. 24STPB12526
To all heirs, beneficiaries, cred-itors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both, of KAI S. LEM
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by Elizabeth D. Lem in the Superior Court of California, County of LOS ANGELES.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that Elizabeth D. Lem be appointed as personal representative to administer the estate of the decedent.
THE PETITION requests authority to administer the estate under the Independent Administration of Estates Act. (This authority will allow the personal representative to take many actions without obtaining court approval. Before taking certain very important actions, however, the personal representative will be required to give notice to interested persons unless they have waived notice or consented to the proposed action.)
The independent administra-tion authority will be granted unless an interested person files an objec-tion to the petition and shows good cause why the court should not grant the authority.
A HEARING on the petition will be held on Dec. 10, 2024 at 8:30 AM in Dept. No. 62 located at 111 N. Hill St., Los Angeles, CA 90012.
of mailing or personal delivery to you of a notice under section 9052 of the California Probate Code. Other California statutes and legal authority may affect your rights as a creditor. You may want to consult with an attorney knowl-edgeable in California law.
YOU MAY EXAMINE the file kept by the court. If you are a person interested in the estate, you may file with the court a Request for Special Notice (form DE-154) of the filing of an inventory and appraisal of estate assets or of any petition or account as provided in Probate Code section 1250. A Request for Special Notice form is available from the court clerk. Attorney for petitioner: STACI TOJI ESQ SBN 299385 TOJI
AN AMENDED PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by KEIICHI MASADA in the Superior Court of California, County of LOS ANGELES. THE AMENDED PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that KEIICHI MASADA be appointed as personal representative to administer the estate of the decedent. THE AMENDED PETITION requests authority to administer the estate un-
IF YOU OBJECT to the granting of the petition, you should appear at the hearing and state your objections or file written objections with the court before the hearing. Your ap-pearance may be in person or by your attorney.
IF YOU ARE A CREDITOR or a contingent creditor of the decedent, you must file your claim with the court and mail a copy to the personal representative appointed by the court within the later of either (1) four months from the date of first issuance of letters to a general personal representative, as defined in section 58(b) of the California Probate Code, or (2) 60 days from the date
Starting a new business? Go to filedba.com
Glendale City Notices
NOTICE OF PREPARATION OF A DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING
Lead Agency: City of Glendale, Planning Division 633 East Broadway, Room 103 Glendale, California 91206-4386
Contact: Vilia Zemaitaitis, AICP, Deputy Director of Long Range Planning
The City of Glendale will be the Lead Agency and will prepare an Environmental Impact Report pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines for the project identified below:
Project Title: City of Glendale Land Use and Mobility Element Update and New Environmental Justice Element
Project Location: The City is located in the heart of Los Angeles County, approximately four miles north of downtown Los Angeles. Encompassing approximately 30.6 square miles, the city is bounded by the City of Los Angeles (Shadow Hills and Tujunga neighborhoods) to the north and northwest; the City of La Cañada Flintridge and unincorporated Los Angeles County (La Crescenta-Montrose neighborhood) to the northeast; the City of Pasadena to the east; the City of Los Angeles (Atwater Village, Eagle Rock, and Glassell Park neighborhoods) to the south, southeast, and southwest; and the City of Burbank to the east. Regional access to the City is provided by four major freeways: the Golden State Freeway (I-5), the Foothill Freeway (I-210), the Glendale Freeway (SR-2), and the Ventura Freeway (SR-134).
Project Description: The Project proposes comprehensive updates to the City of Glendale General Plan Land Use and Circulation (Mobility) Elements and a new Environmental Justice (EJ) Element.
The Draft EIR will describe the project need, goals, and objectives, baseline environmental conditions in the project study area, which includes the entire City Limits and the Sphere of Influence, and the environmental effects associated with implementation of the comprehensive Land Use Element and Mobility Element Updates and the New Environmental Justice Element. Alternatives to the project and the effects of those alternatives will also be described and analyzed in the Draft EIR. In order to maintain consistency with the General Plan, updates to the Zoning Ordinance are anticipated to occur subsequent to Project adoption.
For more information on the Project and the detailed Notice of Preparation, please visit www.GlendalePlan.com.
In accordance with time limits mandated by State CEQA law and taking into account the holidays, the NOP review period will begin on November 20, 2024 and end on January 10, 2025. All responses must be submitted no later than JANUARY 10, 2025 at 5:00 PM.
Written comments on the NOP and on the contents of the forthcoming EIR should be addressed to:
Land Use and Mobility Element Updates and New Environmental Justice Element EIR
City of Glendale, Long Range Planning Division
Attn: Vilia Zemaitaitis, Deputy Director of Long Range Planning 633 E. Broadway, Room 103 Glendale, CA 91206
Or e-mailed to: vzemaitaitis@glendaleca.gov and glendaleplan@glendaleca.com.
Any information pertinent to the potential environmental effects of this project should be directed to the Planning Division in order to be included in the Draft EIR.
If submitting comments as an organization, please also provide contact information for an individual.
A Scoping Meeting to receive oral comments on the proposed EIR will be held on Monday, December 9, 2024 at 6:00 p.m. at Glendale Municipal Services Building, 633 East Broadway, Room 105 (Hearing Room), Glendale, CA 91206.
Date: November 18, 2024
City of Glendale
NOTICE INVITING BIDS
Specification No. 3989 For Maintenance and Repair of Electrical Services
Four (4) sets of a sealed Bid (one original and three copies) must be received before
2:00PM on Wednesday, December 18th, 2024, in the City Clerk’s Office, located at 613 E. Broadway, Room 110, Glendale, CA 91206. Late Bids will not be accepted. There will be a mandatory Pre-Bid Meeting on December 4th at 8AM.
Copies of Specification 3989 (“Specification”) will be made available from noon on November 13th, 2024 until noon on December 4th, 2024. To receive an electronic copy, please send an email request to the City’s contact listed below.
Bid Security equal to 10% of the total Bid Amount, in the form of cash, cashier’s check, money order, or surety bond, made out to City of Glendale, must accompany all Bids.
Refer to the Specification for complete details and Bid requirements. The Specification and this Notice shall be considered a part of any contract made pursuant thereunder. Bidders shall submit all questions regarding the scope of services, Specification, and Bid process by email with the Subject “Request for Clarification – Electrical”. All Requests for Clarifications shall be submitted before 3PM on December 10th, 2024. City personnel to contact regarding this Bid:
Public Works Facilities Management Division
Bolaji Sojobi, Sr. Public Works Management Analyst
633 E. Broadway, Room 307 Glendale, CA 91206
(818) 548-3970
bsojobi@glendaleca.gov
The Electrical Services per this Specification are anticipated to start on or about February 1, 2025.
Published on November 18, 25, 2024
GLENDALE
www.Notiecfiling.com
Dr. Suzie Abajian
The City Clerk of the City of Glendale
Publish November 18, 2024 GLENDALE INDEPENDENT
City of Glendale NOTICE INVITING BIDS Specification No. 3990 For Maintenance and Repair of Flooring
Four (4) sets of a sealed Bid (one original and three copies) must be received before 2:00PM on Wednesday, December 18th, 2024, in the City Clerk’s Office, located at 613 E. Broadway, Room 110, Glendale, CA 91206. Late Bids will not be accepted. There will be a mandatory Pre-Bid Meeting on December 4th at 8AM.
Copies of Specification 3990 (“Specification”) will be made available from noon on November 13th, 2024 until noon on December 4th, 2024. To receive an electronic copy, please send an email request to the City’s contact listed below.
Bid Security equal to 10% of the total Bid Amount, in the form of cash, cashier’s check, money order, or surety bond, made out to City of Glendale, must accompany all Bids.
Refer to the Specification for complete details and Bid requirements. The Specification and this Notice shall be considered a part of any contract made pursuant thereunder.
Bidders shall submit all questions regarding the scope of services, Specification, and Bid process by email with the Subject “Request for Clarification – Flooring”. All Requests for Clarifications shall be submitted before 3PM on December 10th, 2024.
City personnel to contact regarding this Bid:
Public Works Facilities Management Division
Bolaji Sojobi, Sr. Public Works Management Analyst 633 E. Broadway, Room 307 Glendale, CA 91206 (818) 548-3970 bsojobi@glendaleca.gov
The Flooring Services per this Specification are anticipated to start on or about February 1, 2025.
Published on November 18, 25, 2024
GLENDALE INDEPENDENT
Special Meeting Planning Comission Zoning Code Amendment to Implement Objective Design Standards for High Density Residential Development
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Planning and Community Development Department is bringing forward a Zoning Code Amendment to amend Title 17 (the Zoning Code) of the Pasadena Municipal Code to implement objective design standards, related to items such as bulk and mass, setbacks, open space, and building materials, applicable to residential and mixed-use projects, with a density greater than 48 dwelling units per acre.
PROJECT LOCATION: Citywide
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The Planning Commission will consider whether the proposed Zoning Code Amendment is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption) in that it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the proposed objective design standards will have a significant effect on the environment and whether there are no features that distinguish this project from others in the exempt class, therefore resulting in no unusual circumstances.
APPROVALS NEEDED: The Planning Commission will conduct a public hearing and consider recommendations on the proposed Zoning Code Amendment and environmental determination. The Planning Commission recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council. The City Council will make a final decision at a separately noticed public hearing.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Commission will conduct a public hearing and consider the proposed Zoning Code Amendment and proposed environmental determination. The hearing is scheduled for:
Date: Wednesday, December 4, 2024
Time: 6:30 p.m.
Place: Council Chambers, Pasadena City Hall 100 North Garfield Avenue, Room S249. The meeting agenda packet will be posted by November 29, 2024 at https://www. cityofpasadena.net/commissions/planningcommission/.
PUBLIC INFORMATION: Any interested party or their representative may provide live public comment by following the instructions in the meeting agenda. Prior to the start of the meeting, written correspondence may be emailed to commentsPC@ cityofpasadena.net or mailed to the address below (note that this email address will not be checked once the meeting starts).
Contact Person: Martin Potter, Principal Planner Phone: (626) 744-6710
E-mail: mpotter@cityofpasadena.net
Website: www.cityofpasadena.net/planning
Mailing Address:
Planning & Community Development Department
Planning Division, Community Planning Section 175 North Garfield Avenue, Pasadena, CA 91101
ADA: To request a disability-related modification or accommodation necessary to facilitate meeting participation, please contact the Planning & Community Development Department as soon as possible at (626) 744-4009 or (626) 744-4371 (TDD) or mpotter@ cityofpasadena.net. Providing at least 72 hours advance notice will help ensure availability. Language translation services may also be requested with 72-hour advance notice by calling (626) 744-4009
Published on November 18, 25, December 2 2024 PASADENA PRESS
Probate Notices
NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF: JERRY GORNEY HESS CASE NO. 24STPB12368
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the WILL or estate, or both of JERRY GORNEY HESS.
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by CATHLEEN F. KIBALA in the Superior Court of California, County of LOS ANGELES.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that CATHLEEN F. KIBALA be appointed as personal representative to administer the estate of the decedent.
THE PETITION requests the decedent’s WILL and codicils, if any, be admitted to probate. The WILL and any codicils are available for examination in the file kept by the court.
THE PETITION requests authority to
administer the estate under the Independent Administration of Estates Act with limited authority. (This authority will allow the personal representative to take many actions without obtaining court approval. Before taking certain very important actions, however, the personal representative will be required to give notice to interested persons unless they have waived notice or consented to the proposed action.) The independent administration authority will be granted unless an interested person files an objection to the petition and shows good cause why the court should not grant the authority.
A HEARING on the petition will be held in this court as follows: 12/06/24 at 8:30AM in Dept. 4 located at 111 N. HILL ST., LOS ANGELES, CA 90012 IF YOU OBJECT to the granting of the petition, you should appear at the hearing and state your objections or file written objections with the court before the hearing. Your appearance may be in person or by your attorney. IF YOU ARE A CREDITOR or a con-
tingent creditor of the decedent, you must file your claim with the court and mail a copy to the personal representative appointed by the court within the later of either (1) four months from the date of first issuance of letters to a general personal representative, as defined in section 58(b) of the California Probate Code, or (2) 60 days from the date of mailing or personal delivery to you of a notice under section 9052 of the California Probate Code. Other California statutes and legal authority may affect your rights as a creditor. You may want to consult with an attorney knowledgeable in California law.
YOU MAY EXAMINE the file kept by the court. If you are a person interested in the estate, you may file with the court a Request for Special Notice (form DE-154) of the filing of an inventory and appraisal of estate assets or of any petition or account as provided in Probate Code section 1250. A Request for Special Notice form is available from the court clerk.
Attorney for Petitioner
JUSTIN A. MILLER, ESQ. - SBN 302136 THE BARRISTER BUILDING 7956 PAINTER AVENUE WHITTIER CA 90602
Telephone (562) 698-9941
11/11, 11/14, 11/18/24
CNS-3869399#
WEST COVINA PRESS
NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF DAVID D. O’DONNELL aka DAVID DEE O’DONNELL
Case No. 24STPB09749
To all heirs, beneficiaries, cred-itors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both, of DAVID D. O’DONNELL aka DAVID DEE O’DONNELL
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by Brenda Depew in the Superior Court of California, County of LOS ANGELES. THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that Brenda Depew be appointed as personal representative to administer the estate of the decedent.
THE PETITION requests authority to administer the estate under the Independent Administration of Estates Act. (This authority will allow the personal representative to take many actions without obtaining court approval. Before taking certain very important actions, however, the personal representative will be required to give notice to interested persons unless they have waived notice or consented to the proposed action.) The independent administra-tion authority will be granted unless an interested person files an objec-tion to the petition and shows good cause why the court should not grant the authority.
A HEARING on the petition will be held on Dec. 20, 2024 at 8:30 AM in Dept. No. 44 located at 111 N. Hill St., Los Angeles, CA 90012.
IF YOU OBJECT to the granting of the petition, you should appear at the hearing and state your objections or file written objections with the court before the hearing. Your ap-pearance may be in person or by your attorney.
IF YOU ARE A CREDITOR or a contingent creditor of the decedent, you must file your claim with the court and mail a copy to the personal representative appointed by the court within the later of either (1) four months from the date of first issu-ance of letters to a general personal representative, as defined in section 58(b) of the California Probate Code, or (2) 60 days from the date of mailing or personal delivery to you of a notice under section 9052 of the California Probate Code. Other California statutes and legal authority may affect your rights as a creditor. You may want to consult with an attorney knowl-edgeable in California law.
YOU MAY EXAMINE the file kept by the court. If you are a person interested in the estate, you may file with the court a Request for Special Notice (form DE-154) of the filing of an inventory and appraisal of estate assets or of any petition or account as provided in Probate Code section 1250. A Request for Special Notice form is available from the court clerk. Attorney for petitioner:
JEFFREY FORER ESQ SBN 108310
HINOJOSA & FORER
2215 COLBY AVE
LOS ANGELES CA 90064-1504
CN111657 O’DONNELL Nov 14,18,21, 2024
GLENDALE INDEPENDENT
NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF:
VIRGINIA ANN NEUBERT
CASE NO. 30-2024-01437213-PR-PWCMC
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the WILL or estate, or both of VIRGINIA ANN NEUBERT.
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by JASON HANS NEUBERT AND ERICH SCOTT NEUBERT in the Superior Court of California, County of ORANGE.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that JASON HANS NEUBERT AND ERICH SCOTT NEUBERT be appointed as personal representative to administer the estate of the decedent.
THE PETITION requests the decedent’s WILL and codicils, if any, be admitted to probate. The WILL and any codicils are available for examination in the file kept by the court.
THE PETITION requests authority to administer the estate under the Independent Administration of Estates Act. (This authority will allow the personal representative to take many actions without obtaining court approval. Before taking certain very important actions, however, the personal representative will be required to give notice to interested persons unless they have waived notice or consented to the proposed action.) The independent administration authority will be granted unless an interested person files an objection to the petition and shows good cause why the court should not grant the authority.
A HEARING on the petition will be held in this court as follows: 12/12/24 at 1:30PM in Dept. CM07 located at 3390 HARBOR BLVD., COSTA MESA, CA 92626 NOTICE IN PROBATE CASES
The court is providing the convenience to appear for hearing by video using the court’s designated video platform. This is a no cost service to the public. Go to the Court’s website at The Superior Court of CaliforniaCounty of Orange (occourts.org) to appear remotely for Probate hearings and for remote hearing instructions. If you have difficulty connecting or are unable to connect to your remote hearing, call 657-622-8278 for assistance. If you prefer to appear in-person, you can appear in the department on the day/time set for your hearing.
IF YOU OBJECT to the granting of the petition, you should appear at the hearing and state your objections or file written objections with the court before the hearing. Your appearance may be in person or by your attorney.
IF YOU ARE A CREDITOR or a contingent creditor of the decedent, you must file your claim with the court and mail a copy to the personal representative appointed by the court within the later of either (1) four months from the date of first issuance of letters to a general personal representative, as defined in section 58(b) of the California Probate Code, or (2) 60 days from the date of mailing or personal delivery to you of a notice under section 9052 of the California Probate Code. Other California statutes and legal authority may affect your rights as a creditor. You may want to consult with an attorney knowledgeable in California law.
YOU MAY EXAMINE the file kept by the court. If you are a person interested in the estate, you may file with the court a Request for Special Notice (form DE-154) of the filing of an inventory and appraisal of estate assets or of any petition or account as provided in Probate Code section 1250. A Request for Special Notice form is available from the court clerk. Attorney for Petitioner
JAN A. MEYER, ESQ. - SBN 272101 MEYER ESTATE LAW, PC 32776 SAIL WAY DANA POINT CA 92629 Telephone (949) 607-9412 11/14, 11/18, 11/21/24 CNS-3869333# ANAHEIM PRESS
NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF: DAVID F. SAENZ CASE NO. 24STPB12668
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the WILL or estate, or both of DAVID F. SAENZ.
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by LYNDA CARRILLOSAENZ in the Superior Court of California, County of LOS ANGELES. THE PETITION FOR PROBATE
LEGALS
requests that LYNDA CARRILLOSAENZ be appointed as personal representative to administer the estate of the decedent.
THE PETITION requests authority to administer the estate under the Independent Administration of Estates Act with limited authority. (This authority will allow the personal representative to take many actions without obtaining court approval. Before taking certain very important actions, however, the personal representative will be required to give notice to interested persons unless they have waived notice or consented to the proposed action.) The independent administration authority will be granted unless an interested person files an objection to the petition and shows good cause why the court should not grant the authority.
A HEARING on the petition will be held in this court as follows: 12/09/24 at 8:30AM in Dept. 67 located at 111 N. HILL ST., LOS ANGELES, CA 90012
IF YOU OBJECT to the granting of the petition, you should appear at the hearing and state your objections or file written objections with the court before the hearing. Your appearance may be in person or by your attorney. IF YOU ARE A CREDITOR or a contingent creditor of the decedent, you must file your claim with the court and mail a copy to the personal representative appointed by the court within the later of either (1) four months from the date of first issuance of letters to a general personal representative, as defined in section 58(b) of the California Probate Code, or (2) 60 days from the date of mailing or personal delivery to you of a notice under section 9052 of the California Probate Code. Other California statutes and legal authority may affect your rights as a creditor. You may want to consult with an attorney knowledgeable in California law.
YOU MAY EXAMINE the file kept by the court. If you are a person interested in the estate, you may file with the court a Request for Special Notice (form DE-154) of the filing of an inventory and appraisal of estate assets or of any petition or account as provided in Probate Code section 1250. A Request for Special Notice form is available from the court clerk.
Attorney for Petitioner MICHAEL G. EBINER, ESQ. - SBN 183499, EBINER LAW OFFICE
100 N. CITRUS STREET, SUITE 520 WEST COVINA CA 91791
Telephone (626) 918-9000 11/14, 11/18, 11/21/24 CNS-3870622#
BALDWIN PARK PRESS
NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF ELIZA ROSS THORNE
Case No. 24STPB00854
To all heirs, beneficiaries, cred-itors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both, of ELIZA ROSS THORNE
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by Catlan T. Brinsley in the Superior Court of California, County of LOS ANGELES.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that Catlan T. Brinsley be appointed as personal representative to administer the estate of the decedent.
THE PETITION requests authority to administer the estate under the Independent Administration of Estates Act. (This authority will allow the personal representative to take many actions without obtaining court approval. Before taking certain very important actions, however, the personal representative will be required to give notice to interested persons unless they have waived notice or consented to the proposed action.) The independent administra-tion authority will be granted unless an interested person files an objec-tion to the petition and shows good cause why the court should not grant the authority.
A HEARING on the petition will be held on Dec. 10, 2024 at 8:30 AM in Dept. No. 29 located at 111 N. Hill St., Los Angeles, CA 90012.
IF YOU OBJECT to the granting of the petition, you should appear at the hearing and state your objections or file written objections with the court before the hearing. Your ap-pearance may be in person or by your attorney.
IF YOU ARE A CREDITOR or a contingent creditor of the decedent, you must file your claim with the court and mail a copy to the personal representative appointed by the court within the later of either (1) four months from the date of first issu-ance of letters to a general personal represen-
tative, as defined in section 58(b) of the California Probate Code, or (2) 60 days from the date of mailing or personal delivery to you of a notice under section 9052 of the California Probate Code.
Other California statutes and legal authority may affect your rights as a creditor. You may want to consult with an attorney knowl-edgeable in California law.
YOU MAY EXAMINE the file kept by the court. If you are a person interested in the estate, you may file with the court a Request for Special Notice (form DE-154) of the filing of an inventory and appraisal of estate assets or of any petition or account as provided in Probate Code section 1250. A Request for Special Notice form is available from the court clerk. Attorney for petitioner: VERLAN Y KWAN ESQ SBN 243246
KEYSTONE LAW GROUP 11300 W OLYMPIC BLVD STE 910 LOS ANGELES CA 90064 CN111677 THORNE Nov 14,18,21, 2024 BURBANK INDEPENDENT
NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF URSULA W. SCHUMACHER aka URSULA WALTRAUDT WALLER-SCHUMACHER
Case No. 24STPB12610
To all heirs, beneficiaries, cred-itors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both, of URSULA W. SCHUMACHER aka URSULA WALTRAUDT WAL-LERSCHUMACHER
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by Bryant Lamont Schu-macher in the Superior Court of California, County of LOS ANGELES. THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that Bryant Lamont Schumacher be appointed as personal representative to administer the estate of the decedent.
THE PETITION requests the decedent’s will and codicils, if any, be admitted to probate. The will and any codicils are available for examination in the file kept by the court.
THE PETITION requests authority to administer the estate under the Independent Administration of Estates Act. (This authority will allow the personal representative to take many actions without obtaining court approval. Before taking certain very important actions, however, the personal representative will be required to give notice to interested persons unless they have waived notice or consented to the proposed action.) The independent administra-tion authority will be granted unless an interested person files an objec-tion to the petition and shows good cause why the court should not grant the authority.
A HEARING on the petition will be held on Dec. 13, 2024 at 8:30 AM in Dept. No. 5 located at 111 N. Hill St., Los Angeles, CA 90012.
IF YOU OBJECT to the granting of the petition, you should appear at the hearing and state your objections or file written objections with the court before the hearing. Your ap-pearance may be in person or by your attorney.
IF YOU ARE A CREDITOR or a contingent creditor of the decedent, you must file your claim with the court and mail a copy to the personal representative appointed by the court within the later of either (1) four months from the date of first issu-ance of letters to a general personal representative, as defined in section 58(b) of the California Probate Code, or (2) 60 days from the date of mailing or personal delivery to you of a notice under section 9052 of the California Probate Code. Other California statutes and legal authority may affect your rights as a creditor. You may want to consult with an attorney knowl-edgeable in California law.
YOU MAY EXAMINE the file kept by the court. If you are a person interested in the estate, you may file with the court a Request for Special Notice (form DE-154) of the filing of an inventory and appraisal of estate assets or of any petition or account as provided in Probate Code section 1250. A Request for Special Notice form is available from the court clerk. Attorney for petitioner: KATHRINE D STAPLETON ESQ SBN301566
STAPLETON & STAPLETON 401 E ROWLAND
NOTICE OF AMENDED PE-TITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF LARRY LeDUC aka LARRY D. LeDUC aka LARRY DONALD LeDUC Case No. 24STPB03178
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both, of LARRY LeDUC aka LARRY D. LeDUC aka LARRY DONALD LeDUC AN AMENDED PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by Andrew Leduc in the Superior Court of California, County of LOS ANGELES.
THE AMENDED PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that Andrew Leduc be appointed as personal representative to administer the estate of the decedent.
THE AMENDED PETITION requests the decedent’s will and codicils, if any, be admitted to probate. The will and any codicils are available for examination in the file kept by the court.
THE AMENDED PETITION requests authority to administer the estate under the Independent Ad-ministration of Estates Act. (This authority will allow the personal representative to take many actions without obtaining court approval. Before taking certain very important actions, however, the personal representative will be required to give notice to interested persons unless they have waived notice or con-sented to the proposed action.) The independent administration authority will be granted unless an interested person files an objection to the petition and shows good cause why the court should not grant the authority.
A HEARING on the amended petition will be held on Dec. 4, 2024 at 8:30 AM in Dept. No. 9 located at 111 N. Hill St., Los Angeles, CA 90012.
IF YOU OBJECT to the granting of the petition, you should appear at the hearing and state your objections or file written objections with the court before the hearing. Your ap-pearance may be in person or by your attorney.
IF YOU ARE A CREDITOR or a contingent creditor of the decedent, you must file your claim with the court and mail a copy to the personal representative appointed by the court within the later of either (1) four months from the date of first issu-ance of letters to a general personal representative, as defined in section 58(b) of the California Probate Code, or (2) 60 days from the date of mailing or personal delivery to you of a notice under section 9052 of the California Probate Code. Other California statutes and legal authority may affect your rights as a creditor. You may want to consult with an attorney knowl-edgeable in California law.
YOU MAY EXAMINE the file kept by the court. If you are a person interested in the estate, you may file with the court a Request for Special Notice (form DE-154) of the filing of an inventory and appraisal of estate assets or of any petition or account as provided in Probate Code section 1250. A Request for Special Notice form is available from the court clerk. Attorney for petitioner: ZOE A HAMILTON ESQ SBN 186266
LAW OFFICE OF ZOE A HAMILTON 400 CORPORATE POINTE STE 300 CULVER CITY CA 90230 CN111941 LEDUC Nov 14,18,21, 2024 BURBANK INDEPENDENT
NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF ANGEL MARIA VALDES Case No. 24STPB11596
To all heirs, beneficiaries, cred-itors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both, of ANGEL MARIA VALDES A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by Maria Cruz and Paula Cruz in the Superior Court of Cali-fornia, County of LOS ANGELES.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that Maria Cruz and Paula Cruz be appointed as personal representative to administer the estate of the decedent.
THE PETITION requests authority to administer the estate under the Independent Administration of Estates Act. (This authority will allow the personal representative to take many actions without obtaining court approval. Before taking certain very important actions, however, the personal representative will be required to give notice to interested persons
unless they have waived notice or consented to the proposed action.) The independent administra-tion authority will be granted unless an interested person files an objec-tion to the petition and shows good cause why the court should not grant the authority.
A HEARING on the petition will be held on Dec. 9, 2024 at 8:30 AM in Dept. No. 4 located at 111 N. Hill St., Los Angeles, CA 90012.
IF YOU OBJECT to the granting of the petition, you should appear at the hearing and state your objections or file written objections with the court before the hearing. Your ap-pearance may be in person or by your attorney. IF YOU ARE A CREDITOR or a contingent creditor of the decedent, you must file your claim with the court and mail a copy to the personal representative appointed by the court within the later of either (1) four months from the date of first issu-ance of letters to a general personal representative, as defined in section 58(b) of the California Probate Code, or (2) 60 days from the date of mailing or personal delivery to you of a notice under section 9052 of the California Probate Code.
Other California statutes and legal authority may affect your rights as a creditor. You may want to consult with an attorney knowl-edgeable in California law. YOU MAY EXAMINE the file kept by the court. If you are a person interested in the estate, you may file with the court a Request for Special Notice (form DE-154) of the filing of an inventory and appraisal of estate assets or of any petition or account as provided in Probate Code section 1250. A Request for Special Notice form is available from the court clerk. Attorney for petitioner:
GREG ASLANIAN ESQ SBN269824 TRUST LAW PARTNERS 275 E CALIFORNIA BLVD PASADENA CA 91106 CN111948 VALDES Nov 18,21,25, 2024 GLENDALE INDEPENDENT
NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF MARIO S. BALIWAG CASE NO. 24STPB12743 To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both, of MARIO S. BALIWAG A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by LILIA P. BALIWAG, AKA LILY BALIWAG in the Superior Court of California, County of LOS ANGELES. THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that LILIA P. BALIWAG, AKA LILY BALIWAG be appointed as personal representative to administer the estate of the decedent.
THE PETITION requests the decedent’s will and codicils, if any, be admitted to probate. The will and any codicils are available for examination in the file kept by the court. THE PETITION requests authority to administer the estate under the Independent Administration of Estates Act. (This authority will allow the personal representative to take many actions without obtaining court approval. Before taking certain very important actions, however, the personal representative will be required to give notice to interested persons unless they have waived notice or consented to the proposed action.) The independent administration authority will be granted unless an interested person files an objection to the petition and shows good cause why the court should not grant the authority.
A HEARING on the petition will be held on DECEMBER 13, 2024 at 8:30 A.M. in Dept.: “5” located at: 111 N. Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA Stanley Mosk Courthouse
IF YOU OBJECT to the granting of the petition, you should appear at the hearing and state your objections or file written objections with the court before the hearing. Your appearance may be in person or by your attorney. IF YOU ARE A CREDITOR or a contingent creditor of the decedent, you must file your claim with the court and mail a copy to the personal representative appointed by the court within the later of either (1) four months from the date of first issuance of letters to a general personal representative, as defined in section 58(b) of the California Probate Code, or (2) 60 days from the date of mailing or personal delivery to you of a notice under section 9052 of the California Probate Code. OTHER CALIFORNIA statutes and legal authority may affect your rights as a creditor. You may want to con-
In a ceremonial formality, Mayor Karen Bass on Thursday swore in former LA County Sheriff Jim McDonnell as 59th chief of the Los Angeles Police Department.
In an event at Elysian Park Academy, north of downtown Los Angeles, elected officials and dignitaries witnessed as McDonnell’s wife Kathy pinned the chief’s badge onto him. Following a standing ovation, McDonnell laid out his priorities within his first 90 days as new leader of the third-largest law-enforcement agency in the nation.
“As chief of police, I stand ready to work with you to face our challenges head on and to move forward together with courage, compassion and a clear vision as we embark on this new chapter,” McDonnell said.
“I’m committed to strengthening public confidence in the LAPD through community based innovative policing that prioritizes the needs and concerns of our residents. Our focus will be on building trust through transparency, accountability and a commitment to every voice in every neighborhood,” he added.
As chief, his first 90 days will focus on listening, evaluating and planning, he noted. McDonnell is expected to meet with
Mayor Bass swears in McDonnell as LAPD chief
By Jose Herrera, City News Service
various stakeholders for this “listening period,” which he says will shape the department’s priorities and refine its approach to public safety.
His priorities as chief will be to address violent and property crimes by forming specialized teams to tailor responses for specific needs of communities; maintain a state of the department that “champions” accountability, transparency and continuous improvement; assist vulnerable populations such as unhoused Angelenos and the city’s youth; preparing for major events coming to the region; and the responsible implementation of technology for public safety.
“Today, I stand here,
not only as chief of police, but as a fellow Angeleno. We’re a city of dreamers, of resilience and of strength,” McDonnell said. “Every corner of Los Angeles tells a story, and every story is worth protection.”
Bass described the celebration as a “new and exciting day for public safety” for Los Angeles. She touted McDonnell’s leadership experience — as a 29-year veteran of LAPD, and held several ranks leading up to first assistant chief of police before he left in 2010 to lead the Long Beach Police Department, where he served for almost five years. In 2014, LA County voters elected him
as the sheriff.
“I know we will be prepared for the World Cup, the Olympics and everything that is ahead of us,” Bass said.
McDonnell succeeded former chief Michel Moore, who retired in February. Interim Chief Dominic Choi, who had been leading the LAPD since March, is expected to become one of three assistant chiefs.
The mayor took a moment to recognize Choi for his “steady leadership” over the last six months, as well as the Board of Police Commissioners and City Council.
Following the ceremony, asked by reporters about whether LAPD will be involved in federal immigra-
tion sweeps/deportations, he said:
“I know that there is a lot of fear in many of our communities relative to comments made about immigration enforcement. The LAPD’s role is very clear. We do not engage in immigration enforcement. We’re there for everybody in all of our communities.”
McDonnell already took the reins of the third-largest law-enforcement agency in the nation last week, after the City Council voted 11-2 in favor of Bass’ nominee. He was later sworn in during a private ceremony at City Hall.
McDonnell has said he will focus on addressing
the LAPD’s recruitment challenges and improving morale, among other issues.
Council members Eunisses Hernandez and Hugo Soto-Martinez opposed his confirmation, citing concerns from the immigrant community regarding McDonnell’s past policies as county sheriff from 2014-18, when he allowed federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents into county jails.
Council members Heather Hutt and Kevin de León were absent during the vote.
The new LAPD chief reiterated post ceremony, that if the LAPD were to assist federal immigration agents:
“It would have a chilling effect on people’s willingness to come forward, report crime and partner with us. And to have a safe community, we need all of the community members to be partners.
“And so, my assurance is we’re not in that business. We will not be doing any of the things that people are worried about recently. And we’ll work forward with an open dialogue with ... concerns, we want to hear them and we want to address them quickly so the rumors don’t get started, we don’t see panic in some of our communities. That’s the last thing we want and need,” McDonnell said.
Audit finds failures, shortcomings in UCLA response to encampment violence
By City News Service
Citing multiple shortcomings, failures and breakdowns in UCLA’s response to a pro-Palestinian encampment and a violent attack by counter-protesters, an independent auditor issued a series of recommendations Thursday aimed at ensuring a smoother response if future political disruptions occur.
The audit was ordered by University of California President Michael Drake in May following several days of unrest on the Westwood campus, beginning when counter-protesters attacked the encampment with fireworks and pepper spray and culminating in a massive law enforcement raid to dismantle the camp, resulting in more than 200 arrests.
Conducted by 21st Century Policing Solutions, the audit cited “shortcomings, performance failures, systems breakdowns and campus safety issues that emerged from the campus events of April and May 2024.”
“These recommendations are designed to ensure that UCLA’s response to acts of civil disobedience aligns with its commitments to freedom of expression and the protection of the health, safety, and well-being of the UCLA community,” according to the report. “In addition to resulting in a more effective response to acts of civil disobedience, implementation of these recommendations will support a more effective response to a wide range of low- frequency, high-impact emergencies events on campus, including potential natural disasters or acts of mass violence.
“Finally, implementing these measures will better enable UCLA to deliver a range of public safety services in a manner that is effective, that aligns with changing conceptions of the meaning
of public safety, and that reflects the UCLA community’s values and priorities.”
The list of recommendations included development and training on campus safety plans for all personnel, establishment of concrete
decision- making plans during campus emergencies, better definition of the roles of campus leaders during such events, and more formalized mutual aid agreements with other law enforcement agencies.
Auditors noted that UCLA leaders have already begun work to implement many of the immediate short-term recommendations. But the report notes that “in the long term, UCLA will need to address the possibility of making fundamental, structural changes to its public safety ecosystem.”
In May, UCLA announced the creation of the Office of Campus Safety in response to the seeming confusion in the law enforcement response to the violence that erupted during the overnight attack on the encampment, which
many observers said was allowed to continue for hours before any effort was made by police to quell the attack.
The university later announced upgraded “time, place and manner” policies to govern campus protests and free speech.
“Last spring, as conflict spread at universities across the country, we saw the limits of our traditional approach,” Drake said in a statement Thursday following the release of the audit recommendations. “We are taking a close, detailed look at where we fell short and how we can do better moving forward. This comprehensive review and these recommendations will help ensure that we have actionable plans and policies in place to prevent similar events from happening again.”
Mayor Karen Bass and Jim McDonnell shake hands last month when she announced his selection as the next LAPD chief. | Photo courtesy of the city of Los Angeles
Protesters gather in April in front of Royce Hall’s red brick towers on the UCLA campus in Westwood. | Photo courtesy of Niashervin/ Wikimedia Commons (CC BY-SA 4.0)
Penske Entertainment acquires Grand Prix of Long Beach Association
The operator of the Grand Prix of Long, one of the premier events in the NTT IndyCar Racing Series, has new leadership with Penske Entertainment acquiring it from Gerald R. Forsythe, the longtime owner of the racing event, it was announced Thursday.
Penske Entertainment purchased the Grand Prix Association of Long Beach, LLC, from Forsythe, and includes the administration of the Acura Grand Prix of Long Beach, the longest-running street circuit race in North America.
The next Grand Prix of Long Beach will be the 50th edition of the race weekend and is expected to include special events to mark the anniversary. The race will be broadcast on Fox on April 13.
“We’re incredibly proud to be the new stewards of this cherished and iconic event,” said Roger Penske. “This is the most historic and prestigious street circuit race in North America, and we’re excited
to work with Jim Michaelian and his great team in Long Beach to ensure continued success and growth over the long term. This race and its loyal fans matter so much to everyone across the IndyCar community, and we’re looking forward to a very special 50th anniversary celebration this April, as well.”
Penske owns a three-car team in the IndyCar Series with Josef Newgarden, Will Power and Scott McLaughlin as drivers. Penske teams have won 17 IndyCar Series championships and five NASCAR championships.
Penske teams have won the Indianapolis 500 a record 20 times. Penske also owns the Indianapolis Motor Speedway.
The three-day event in Long Beach regularly attracts nearly 200,000 fans to the 1.968-mile street course. The event in 2024 included IMSA, GT America, Super Drift Challenge and Stadium Super Truck races. An international field of drivers and
sentenced last month to 12 years in federal prison for acting as an intermediary in Huizar’s scheme.
Chan, 68, was convicted in March by a jury in Los Angeles federal court of a dozen felony counts: one count of conspiracy to violate the RICO Act, seven counts of honest services wire fraud, three counts of bribery and one count of making false statements to a federal government agency.
Members and associates of the scheme included lobbyists, consultants and other city officials and
staffers, who sought to personally enrich themselves and their families and associates in exchange for official acts.
Earlier this month, three defendants who pleaded guilty and cooperated in the probe were sentenced in Los Angeles federal court.
George Esparza, a former aide to Huizar, was sentenced Nov. 8 to federal probation for his role in the bribery scheme. Esparza pleaded guilty four years ago to a single count of conspiring to violate the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
By City News Service
teams compete in the IndyCar Racing Series.
“As we prepare to celebrate a truly remarkable milestone, the 50th anniversary of this amazing event, it’s fitting that we have such exciting and important news to share about its future,” said Acura Grand Prix of Long Beach President & CEO Jim Michaelian. “Roger and the team at Penske Entertainment understand the
special history and unique qualities that give us such a strong foundation and will be ideal partners as we continue to deliver an exceptional race weekend for our fans moving forward. I also want to acknowledge the significant contribution that the previous owners, Jerry Forsythe and the late Kevin Kalkhoven, made to the success of our event over the past 19 years.”
Bribery
Organization statute, and agreed to cooperate in the wide-ranging federal probe.
According to his plea agreement, Esparza and Huizar took bribes from the billionaire head of a Chinese real estate company, who paid more than $1 million in exchange for Huizar’s support for a 77-story skyscraper the company wanted to build on downtown’s Figueroa Street.
Esparza told investigators that between 2014 and 2018, the developer provided him and the then-council member flights on private
jets, gambling chips, expensive meals, prostitution/ escort services and other perks during more than a dozen trips to casinos in Las Vegas, court records show.
U.S. District Judge John Walter said at Esparza’s sentencing hearing that his cooperation was “nothing short of extraordinary.”
The judge said, “In my 20 years as a district court judge ... I have not seen a defendant who has provided such extensive and helpful cooperation to the government.”
On Nov. 5, real estate development consul-
Penske Entertainment said in a prepared statement it plans to bolster and enhance the experience for racing fans, sponsors and supporters.
Forsythe and Kalkhoven acquired the Grand Prix of Long Beach Association in 2005 for a reported $15 million. Financial terms of the deal between Penske and Forsythe for the Grand Prix of Long Beach Association were not disclosed.
Penske once owned the Ontario Motor Speedway in the 1970s and was instrumental in the construction and development of California Speedway in Fontana, which later became Auto Club Speedway, and was built in 1994. Both tracks have since been demolished.
Acquiring the Grand Prix of Long Beach gives Penske another signature event in his racing empire.
“This is a major race weekend, not just on our calendar but across the motorsport landscape,” Penske Entertainment President &
CEO Mark Miles said. “We’re committed to preserving the core attributes that make it best in class while also working on some exciting and bold initiatives to make its future even bigger and brighter.”
The Grand Prix of Long Beach also provides an economic boost to the community and gives the city an opportunity to host an international event every year.
“The Grand Prix is an incredibly vital and vibrant asset for our community and an annual event that drives commerce, attracts tourism and elevates cultural connectivity across our city,” said Long Beach Mayor Rex Richardson. “Penske Entertainment will be a committed and energetic partner for the future that seeks to preserve and enhance this event’s rich history and strong legacy. We’re looking forward to a great working relationship that benefits everyone who calls Long Beach home.”
tant George Chiang was sentenced to a year in home detention and 150 hours of community service as part of his three-year probationary sentence.
Chiang pleaded guilty in June 2020 to one federal count of conspiring to violate the RICO Act. The charge carries a possible sentence of up to 20 years behind bars, but because of his cooperation in the investigation, Chiang received a far lighter penalty, court papers show.
A close political ally of Huizar, Chiang interfaced with Chinese companies
that were developing real estate projects in Los Angeles and sought the councilman’s help. Chiang helped orchestrate bribes for Huizar in order to win his support, federal prosecutors said.
On Nov. 4, longtime lobbyist Morrie Goldman also dodged prison and was sentenced to six months’ home detention as part of his probationary sentence. Goldman pleaded guilty to conspiring to commit bribery and honest services mail fraud, and cooperated in the investigation.
JPL announces layoffs of 325 workers amid ‘dynamic funding environment’
By City News Service
Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena was expected to lay off about 325 workers Wednesday, affecting roughly 5% of its workforce, as it copes with continued concerns about its overall funding.
The cuts were announced Tuesday in a memo to the staff by JPL Director Laurie Leshin. She said the layoffs would occur on Wednesday, when all JPL employees were instructed to work from home.
Leshin said that the
number of planned layoffs “is lower than projected a few months ago thanks in part to the hard work of so many people across JPL.”
“The workforce assessment conducted as part of this process has been both extensive and thorough, and although we can never have perfect insight into the future, I sincerely believe that after this action we will be at a more stable workforce level moving forward,” Leshin wrote.
The cuts are expected to
impact “essentially all areas of the lab including our technical, project, business and support areas,” according to
Leshin, who said the decision was made in an effort to address “the dynamic funding environment” for the space
agency.
“With lower budgets and based on the forecasted work ahead, we had to tighten our belts across the board, and you will see that reflected in the layoff impacts,” Leshin wrote.
“... To reiterate to you all, I believe this is the last crossLab workforce action we will need to take in the foreseeable future,” according to Leshin. “After this action, we will be at about 5,500 JPL regular employees. I believe this is a stable, support-
able staffing level moving forward. While we can never be 100% certain of the future budget, we will be well positioned for the work ahead.”
The lab in February announced layoffs of more than 500 people. Those cuts were prompted in part by a reduction in federal dollars that were anticipated in support of the Mars Sample Return program, a mission to retrieve soil and rock samples collected by a Mars rover and bring them to Earth for analysis.
| Photo courtesy of the Acura Grand Prix of Long Beach/ Facebook