Negotiations with PG&E over San Bruno Explosion

story first appeared on mercurynews.com

SAN FRANCISCO -- Recent moves by state regulators to bargain with PG&E over its fine for the San Bruno gas explosion have been riddled with backroom dealing and could lead to the utility paying a lighter penalty, watchdogs said Wednesday.

Speaking on the steps of the California Public Utilities Commission, some participants in the regulatory case against PG&E, including San Bruno city officials and The Utility Reform Network, told reporters they have been shut out of recent, major decisions.

One of the most troubling, they said, was the involvement of the PUC's top attorney -- a former PG&E lawyer -- in the commission's move to suspend public regulatory hearings about the explosion. Another was the decision, apparently made by PG&E and state regulators, to appoint former Sen. George Mitchell and his law firm to mediate negotiations with the utility over its fine. San Bruno and TURN were among those who filed a letter with PUC President Michael Peevey on Tuesday opposing that choice.

Regulators say several company failures, including shoddy record keeping, led to the explosion that killed eight people and destroyed 38 homes. The utility said it expects a fine of at least $200 million, though a recent report said PG&E's parent company could absorb a $2.5 billion hit.

PG&E said it's goal has always been a fair and quick resolution for all parties involved.

A PUC spokeswoman didn't immediately respond to an email seeking comment, but Peevey said last week the controversy has been fueled by misunderstanding.

The outrage expressed Tuesday finds its roots in a confrontation two weeks ago. Officials from San Bruno, San Francisco, TURN, the PUC's divisions of Ratepayer Advocates and Consumer Protection and Safety, all of which are legally part of the proceedings against PG&E, were meeting Oct. 5 on the case, DRA interim Chief Counsel Karen Paull said.

PUC's lead attorney Frank Lindh, who used to represent PG&E, arrived and told the parties to agree to a motion seeking to suspend a scheduled public regulatory hearing on the blast.

With just two weeks of testimony left in the hearings, which would help determine the utility's fine for the blast, most of the parties refused to back the suspension, Paull said. Ultimately only the Consumer Protection and Safety and PG&E advocated the suspension, which was granted.

Lindh did not immediately respond to a call seeking comment.

Watchdogs were also outraged by the "backroom" decision to hire former Sen. George Mitchell and his law firm DLA Piper to handle penalty negotiations between PG&E and regulators.

The parties, except PG&E and PUC, said they only learned of the choice when the commission sent out a news release Monday.

PG&E apparently knew about the choice at least since last week, TURN Legal Director Thomas Long said. He said Mitchell's firm, which will be paid by PG&E, could favor the utility. Piper has already worked for numerous corporate clients, including Southern California Edison, which Peevey used to run.

Also, it's doubtful the mediation attorneys would be specialists in the arcane world of California natural gas regulations.

Sara Clara County Public Defender Accused of Lying

Story first appeared on murcurynews.com

SAN FRANCISCO -- The liar in the courtroom Wednesday wasn't the Santa Clara County prosecutor charged with misconduct, his defense attorney contended. It was his accuser, a public defender with a reputation for dirty tricks.

A child abuse defense attorney is involved in any case when child abuse allegations are made toward an individual.

The contention came on the first day of prosecutor Troy Benson's trial in State Bar Court. Benson is charged with concealing evidence in 2006 from a defense lawyer in a child sex-assault case and then lying about it under oath. Benson, who denies the allegations, faces at least a year's suspension, a career-killing penalty.

Benson's attorney, Jonathan Arons, promised during his opening statement to offer evidence that the primary witness against his client -- Alternate Public Defender Al Lopez -- was not known for his "truth and veracity."

But Lopez appeared to withstand the onslaught, feinting every parry except perhaps one.

Arons first accused Lopez of lying when he said he never had a case with Benson before 2006. The misconduct allegations stem from Benson's 2006 prosecution of Augustin Uribe on charges he sexually molested a female relative, starting when she was 5.

Arons persisted in trying to impeach Lopez as a witness, saying it was a real trial because the defendant was sentenced. But McElroy did not seem impressed.

Arons tried again, with a bit more success. He said Judge Arthur Bocanegra had found Lopez conducted himself in bad faith when he claimed the prosecution had violated "discovery" rules.

Benson is accused of failing to turn over a videotaped medical exam of the child in the Uribe case made by the Sexual Assault Response Team (SART) at Valley Medical Center.

Arons then blamed Lopez for accusing prosecutor Alison Filo of purposely excluding jurors of a certain unspecified ethnic or racial group in a trial involving an Asian man. His point was Lopez would go to any lengths to win a case, even smearing the reputation of a prosecutor. But an appellate court agreed with Lopez and sent the case back for a new trial. Arons then noted when Lopez filed a similar motion in another case, a judge called that motion improper.

Two of Arons' many other attempts to discredit Lopez also appeared to backfire.

He asked Lopez if he ever said the DA's office was out to get him after Judge Andrea Bryan's controversial decision to free Uribe in 2010 on the grounds that Benson committed "outrageous prosecutorial misconduct." An appellate panel agreed Benson committed "substantial misconduct" but found the judge went too far in releasing Uribe. In turn, the state Attorney General's Office found there were no grounds to charge Benson with perjury and that Lopez could just as easily have not been telling the truth.

Arons also asked why Lopez hadn't responded for about two weeks to an important email from Benson.

At times, the fierce cross-examination appeared to annoy the judge, who was holding his own against Arons. She even lectured the defense at one point, saying the heart of the case was whether Benson turned over the videotape, and that the defense didn't seem to understand the meaning of the term.

However, evidence that merely tends to impeach the state's case is also exculpatory.

Arons said Benson did not withhold the videotape, adding in his opening statement that "there's a difference between withholding something and not revealing something you don't know even know about."

But the day wasn't a complete loss for Benson. Lopez was the least clear about what he told Uribe trial Judge Paul Bernal about who discovered the tape first. Bernal is set to take the stand Tuesday to provide what could be key testimony.

SF Attorney Awarded Thousands in Spam Suit

Mercury News

SAN FRANCISCO—A San Francisco attorney has been awarded $7,000 in damages for e-mail spam sent to his inbox.

A San Mateo County Superior Court judge ruled last week the seven e-mails Daniel Balsam received from Redwood City-based Trancos Inc. in 2007 were misleading and violated California's 2004 anti-spam law. Trancos is an Internet advertising business.

The law prohibits sending an unsolicited commercial e-mail that misrepresents the source or subject.

Trancos's attorney, Robert Nelson, said only someone who suffers losses as a result of the e-mail message can sue under the state's anti-spam law.

He says Trancos will appeal the ruling.

Lawyers on both sides of Balsam's case said it appeared to be among the first lawsuits by a consumer under the state's anti-spam law to be tried outside small claims court.