CC 03-07-2022 Oral CommunicationsCC 03-07-2023
Written Communications
Oral
Communications
CC 03-07-2023
Written Communications
Item No. 11
Removal of
Planning
Commissioner
R Wang
1
Kirsten Squarcia
From:Ian <>
Sent:Monday, February 27, 2023 9:10 PM
To:City Council
Cc:City Clerk
Subject:Removal of R (Ray) Wang from the Planning Commission
Attachments:20191112_DLG_Greensides_wExhibits_Redacted.pdf; Wang-Foust Pleadings.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Council Members,
I am a business owner in the City of Cupertino and former resident and I am writing to ask you to remove R (Ray) Wang
from the city’s Planning Commission.
As outlined, in the following news article, Mr. Wang had previously been involved in an incident in San Mateo County, in
which Rosanne Foust accused him of signing her up for pornographic emails to retaliate for disagreeing with him on
public policy issues. https://sanjosespotlight.com/cupertino‐policymaker‐in‐hot‐water‐for‐past‐sexual‐harassment‐
lawsuit/
This came to light after Mr. Wang had apparently threatened Richard Mehlinger’s employment, in retaliation for
disagreeing with him on social media posts related to public policy issues in Cupertino (Please see the following article
regarding this issue: https://cupertinotoday.com/2019/06/26/cupertino‐planning‐commissioner‐under‐fire‐for‐doxing‐
member‐of‐public/).
When I raised concerns on social media and wrote to the city council about Mr. Wang’s interactions, he had an attorney
send me a letter threatening to sue me, in attempt to silence me. (Please see the following article, which outlines this
threat: https://sanjosespotlight.com/cupertino‐commissioner‐threatens‐lawsuit‐for‐nextdoor‐posts/).
Attached is a copy of the letter that his attorney sent to me. Also attached is the copy of filings from a San Mateo
County Superior Court case involving Ms. Foust and Mr. Wang.
Mr. Wang sets a bad example for our community, he has a history of threatening those who disagree with him on policy
issues, and I ask that he be removed from the planning commission.
I ask that this letter and attachments be included in the public record, when the issue of Mr. Wang’s removal from the
Planning Commission is on the agenda for the upcoming City Council meeting on March 7, 2023. If this agenda item is
moved to a different city council meeting, I ask that this email and attachments be included in the public record for that
council meeting.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Ian R. Greensides
Krista L. Baughman
kbaughman@DhillonLaw.com
177 POST STREET, SUITE 700 | SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108 | 415.433.1700 | 415.520.6593 (F)
November 12, 2019
VIA EMAIL AND U.S. MAIL
Mr. Ian R. Greensides
Cupertino, CA 95014-2384
Re: R Wang v. Ian Greensides
Cease and Desist Concerning Defamation Per Se
Dear Mr. Greensides:
This firm represents Mr. R. “Ray” Wang in connection with his legal claims against you,
arising from your defamation of his character. The purpose of this letter is to inform you of the
facts and evidence supporting our client’s claims, demand that you immediately cease and desist
from further illegal conduct toward Mr. Wang, and explore whether a settlement can be reached
before we initiate litigation. Please direct all communication regarding this matter to our office.
Factual Background
On August 26, 2019, you published several provably false statements of fact about Mr.
Wang, both on the social networking system NextDoor.com, and in emails you sent to Cupertino
City Council members and Planning Commissioners. Among these statements, you claimed that
Mr. Wang sent “revenge porn to a City Council candidate in Redwood City; that Mr. Wang was
criminally charged with sending “revenge porn” and did not contest the charge; and that these
“facts” were confirmed by San Mateo County court records and news publications. Not only are
each of these statements provably false, but the evidence confirms that you made them with a
reckless disregard for their falsity, and out of actual malice for Mr. Wang.
The true facts are as follows: over 15 years ago, Mr. Wang was charged with three
violations of the California Penal Code in an action captioned The People of the State of
California vs. Ray Kuang Wang, San Mateo Superior Court, Case No. SM328047A. See Exhibit
Mr. Ian Greensides
November 12, 2019
Page 2 of 5
DHILLON LAW GROUP INC.
177 POST STREET, SUITE 700 | SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108 | 415.433.1700 | 415.520.6593 (F)
A (case docket from San Mateo Superior Court). 1 As crystal clear from the court docket, Mr.
Wang pled “No Contest” to the single misdemeanor charge (PC 653m(b), Annoying Telephone
Call to Place of Work), and pled not guilty to the remaining two felony charges (PC 529(3),
Personate to Make Other Liable, and PC 530.5, Unauthorized Use of Personal Identification) –
neither of which accused him of sending “revenge porn.” The docket further reflects, without
ambiguity, that on January 13, 2004, Mr. Wang entered a plea of no contest to the misdemeanor
count, and that all remaining counts were dismissed, without any finding of guilt. See Exhibit A
(“[u]pon motion of people all remaining counts dismissed. Reason: negotiated plea.”). The
docket further reflects that Mr. Wang was ordered to pay a fine “to State restitution fund” and
complete 50 hours of public service work; there is no mention of any attorney fee payment.
Nowhere in the criminal case docket, or in the underlying Penal Code statutes, is
“revenge porn” discussed. The widely accepted definition of revenge porn is “the distribution of
sexually explicit images or videos of individuals without their permission.”2 See also Cal. Penal
Code §647(j)(4) (California’s “revenge porn” statute, criminalizing “[a] person who intentionally
distributes the image of the intimate body part or parts of another identifiable person, or an
image of the person depicted engaged in an act of sexual intercourse, sodomy, oral copulation,
sexual penetration, or an image of masturbation by the person depicted or in which the person
depicted participates, under circumstances in which the persons agree or understand that the
image shall remain private….”). We are aware of no source – governmental or otherwise –
indicating that Mr. Wang has engaged in the conduct of sending revenge porn to anyone.
Despite these facts, on August 26, 2019, you published the following statements on
NextDoor.com, addressed to Mr. Wang (see Exhibit B):
“You plead no contest to sending revenge porn. The record was later expunged
after you completed your sentence of community service and paid restitution in
the form of attorney’s fees, and a certain amount of time passed.”
“I went back and looked at the San Jose Spotlight article – it appears that you
plead no-contest in two cases: one for the revenge porn, and one for making
harassing phone calls to someone at work…[including link to
https://sanjosespotlight.com/cupertino-policymaker-in-hot-water-for-past-sexual-
harassment-lawsuit/]”;
“@Ray I’m not sure of the difference between revenge porn and signing someone
up for porn sites. Maybe you could explain. I don’t have experience in either one
of them…I reviewed the San Mateo County online docket. It confirms what was
reported in the press.”)
1 The docket for this case can be accessed, for free, via the San Mateo Superior Court’s website
http://www.sanmateocourt.org/online services/odyssey portals.php.
2 See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenge porn.
Mr. Ian Greensides
November 12, 2019
Page 3 of 5
DHILLON LAW GROUP INC.
177 POST STREET, SUITE 700 | SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108 | 415.433.1700 | 415.520.6593 (F)
Further, on August 26, 2019 you sent an email to Cupertino City Council members and
Planning Commissioners, stating that “[Mr. Wang] continues to make repeated false comments
on ND [NextDoor] about his computer having been hacked by a real estate developer in 2003,
when he was charged with two felonies and one misdemeanor for having revenge porn sent to a
City Council candidate in Redwood City…”
Each of these statements is provably false. First, Mr. Wang has never been charged with
sending revenge porn to anyone, and by your own concession, you used this term with a reckless
disregard for what it meant. See Exhibit B (“I’m not sure of the difference between revenge porn
and signing someone up for porn sites.”) The sending of revenge porn is a crime under California
Penal Code 647(j)(4).
Second, Mr. Wang did not “plead no contest to sending revenge porn” – as is clear from
free and publicly accessible court records (Exhibit A), Mr. Wang pled no contest only to a single
misdemeanor charge, and vigorously denied the remaining charges, which were dismissed
without a finding of guilt.3
Third, your false statements are not supported by either the court docket or “what was
reported in the press,” as you claim. Indeed, the San Jose Spotlight article that you cite nowhere
mentions the term “revenge porn,” and instead confirms what this letter describes: that Mr. Wang
“pleaded no contest to a misdemeanor charge of ‘making annoying telephone calls to a place of
work.” The article also discusses allegations that Ms. Rosanne Foust made against Mr. Wang in a
civil lawsuit, but notes that Mr. Wang vigorously opposed the allegations, and that the lawsuit
ultimately settled with no adjudication of guilt. See https://sanjosespotlight.com/cupertino-
policymaker-in-hot-water-for-past-sexual-harassment-lawsuit/.
Suffice it to say, while a reasonable reader would understand your comments to mean
that Mr. Wang has sent – and has admitted to sending – revenge porn, these statements are false,
lack any corroboration from external sources, and are directly contradicted by court records.
Your decision to broadly and inaccurately summarize the disposition of a 16-year old criminal
case against Mr. Wang supports a finding that you published the statements with malice, as does
your express admission that you didn’t know what “revenge porn” was when you accused Mr.
Wang of sending it.
Your Legal Liability to Mr. Wang
for Defamation per se
Defamation is an “invasion of the interest in reputation” that involves the intentional
publication of a statement of fact that is false, unprivileged, and has a natural tendency to injure
or which causes special damage. Gilbert v. Sykes (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 13, 27; Wong v. Jing
(2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 1354, 1369. Publication occurs when the statement is communicated to
at least one person other than the plaintiff who understands its defamatory meaning and that it
3 Nor was the criminal record in this case “expunged,” nor did Mr. Wang “pa[y] restitution in the
form of attorney’s fees,” as is clear from the docket.
Mr. Ian Greensides
November 12, 2019
Page 4 of 5
DHILLON LAW GROUP INC.
177 POST STREET, SUITE 700 | SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108 | 415.433.1700 | 415.520.6593 (F)
refers to plaintiff. Shively v. Bozanich (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1230, 1242. Defamation per se exists
when the false statement charges plaintiff with, among other things, criminal activity. Civ. C.
§46(1); see also McGarry v. University of San Diego (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 97, 112. When
defamation is alleged against a public figure, the plaintiff must also prove that the defendant
knew the statements were false or had serious doubts about the truth of the statements, when
made.
As discussed above, you falsely stated that Mr. Wang sent revenge porn, that he was
criminally charged with sending revenge porn, and that he pled no contest to that charge. None
of this is true – in fact, Mr. Wang never sent or was charged with having sent revenge porn; both
felony charges filed against him in 2003 were contested and ultimately dismissed with no finding
of guilt; and Ms. Foust’s civil complaint against him was similarly dismissed with no finding of
guilt. Your false statements also suggest that Mr. Wang is lying to the public about the 2003
criminal case (“[h]e continues to make repeated false comments on ND…”), and that he sought
to hide or “expunge” the criminal record by “pa[ying] restitution in the form of attorney’s fees,”
which is also false.
Further, it is clear from the evidence that you made these statements knowing them to be
false and/or with serious doubts about their truth. By your own admission, you had no idea what
“revenge porn” was when you accused Mr. Wang of being implicated with it. What’s more
concerning, although you are a lawyer yourself, and you apparently “reviewed the San Mateo
County online docket,” your statements directly contradict those records, meaning you lacked a
reasonable ground for believing that your statements were true when you published them. In
addition, you have a motive to defame Mr. Wang, given your opposition to Mr. Wang’s position
on Cupertino’s housing crisis. This evidence strongly supports a malice finding, sufficient to
demonstrate a probability of prevailing on the defamation claims. See, e.g., Reader’s Digest
Assn. v. Sup. Court (1984) 37 Cal.3d 244, 257-258 (factors such as hostility to plaintiff, using
biased, unreliable sources, and making inherently improbable assertions may indicate defendant
had “serious doubts” regarding truth of publication).
You intentionally made your statements to Mr. Wang’s constituency and colleagues in
the Cupertino City Council. Although Mr. Wang will not be required to prove actual damages
stemming from your defamation per se, he is regrettably suffering ongoing harm to his
reputation, profession, and occupation as a result of your actions. As your conduct was
malicious, Mr. Wang will also be entitled to recover punitive damages, should this matter
proceed to trial.
Your Duty to Preserve All Evidence
Litigation is likely to ensue in this matter. Under governing state and federal laws, you
are hereby placed on notice that you have an obligation to maintain hard copies of documents, as
well as all e-mail and other electronically stored information, pertaining to this dispute and the
surrounding events, including all communications with or about Mr. Wang.
Mr. Ian Greensides
November 12, 2019
Page 5 of 5
DHILLON LAW GROUP INC.
177 POST STREET, SUITE 700 | SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108 | 415.433.1700 | 415.520.6593 (F)
You must retain all copies of material that exist on any storage medium, including
sources of data such as portable hard drives, memory cards, “thumb drives,” blackberry, personal
digital assistants, mobile telephones, iPods®, and smartphones. This list is not exhaustive; these
potential locations of relevant data are included by way of example only, and all documents
relating in any way to the dispute set forth herein must be preserved. It may be necessary for you,
or other persons under your control, such as managers, employees, and agents, to take
affirmative steps to ensure that evidence is not destroyed. Please take such steps immediately.
Failure to do so could result in, among other things, court imposed sanctions and criminal
charges.
Demand
As a result of the facts set forth above and the evidence already in our possession, we are
highly confident in Mr. Wang’s ability to prevail on his claims at trial. However, in recognition
of the effort and expense inherent in litigation, Mr. Wang is willing at this time to engage in
settlement discussions to determine whether a resolution can be reached to resolve this issue. A
settlement must include a retraction and correction of each of the defamatory statements
discussed above, sufficient to inform all recipients of the inaccuracies of your factual assertions,
and a public apology to Mr. Wang.
We request a response to this proposal no later than November 20, 2019. Meanwhile, Mr.
Wang reserves all rights to seek redress for his grievances, which we continue to investigate. If
you have any questions about the contents of this letter, please contact me or my colleague,
Dorothy C. Yamamoto. We look forward to your prompt response.
Regards,
Krista L. Baughman
Exhibit A
01/13/2004 Plea
Judicial Officer
SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE, SAN MATEO COUNTY
00
1
PC653M(B)-MISD-ANNOYING TELEPHONE CALL TO PLACE OF
WORK
No Contest / Nolo
Contendere
10/27/2003 Plea
Judicial Officer
SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE, SAN MATEO COUNTY
002 PC529(3)-FEL-PERSONATE TO MAKE OTHER LIABLE Not Guilty
10/27/2003 Plea
Judicial Officer
SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE, SAN MATEO COUNTY
003 PC530.5-FEL-UNAUTHORIZED USE OF PERSONAL IDENTIFICATION Not Guilty
03/13/2006 Disposition
001 PC653M(B)-MISD-ANNOYING TELEPHONE CALL TO PLACE OF WORK Dismissal: 1203.4
01/13/2004 Disposition
002 PC529(3)-FEL-PERSONATE TO MAKE OTHER LIABLE Dismissal: Negotiated Plea
01/13/2004 Disposition
00
3
PC530.5-FEL-UNAUTHORIZED USE OF PERSONAL
IDENTIFICATION
Dismissal: Negotiated
Plea
Events and Hearings
09/19/2003 Conversion Event
Comment
FDSAW: DECLARATION UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY IN SUPPORT OF
ARREST WARRANT, FILED.
09/19/2003 Conversion Event
Comment
MISEN: FILE SENT TO JUDGE ELLIS
09/19/2003 Conversion Event
Comment
OTHER: TO SIGN A/W
09/22/2003 Conversion Event
Comment
MIRFL: FILE RETURNED TO CLERK'S OFFICE.
09/22/2003 Conversion Event
Comment
AWAWA: ARREST WARRANT ISSUED TO RC ON 09/22/2003 . BAIL SET AT
$5,000.00 . WARRANT SIGNED BY ELLIS, H. JAMES .
09/23/2003 Conversion Event
Comment
MISEN: FILE SENT TO JUDGE ELLIS
09/23/2003 Conversion Event
Comment
OTHER: SENT MEMO TO JUDGE ELLIS REQUESTING THAT ARREST WARRANT
BE RECALLED DUE TO D.A.'S ERROR IN ASKING FOR ARREST WARRANT
RATHER THAN AN NTA.
09/25/2003 Conversion Event
Comment
MIRFL: FILE RETURNED TO CLERK'S OFFICE.
09/25/2003 Conversion Event
Comment
OTHER: PER JUDGE ELLIS,O.K. TO RECALL ARREST WARRANT.
09/25/2003 Conversion Event
Comment
WWIRO: ARREST WARRANT ISSUED ON 09/22/2003 . RECALLED ON
09/25/2003 .
10/14/2003 Conversion Event
Comment
SHNTC: NOTICE TO APPEAR SENT TO DEFENDANT ON 10/14/2003 TO
APPEAR ON 10/27/2003 AT 9:00 A.M. IN SUPERIOR COURT SOUTHERN
BRANCH DEPT. AR FOR MISDEMEANOR ARRAIGNMENT .
10/24/2003 Conversion Event
Comment
SHRES: CASE SHIFTED FROM HEARING ON 10/27/2003 AT 9:00 A.M. IN
DEPARTMENT AR OF SUPERIOR COURT SOUTHERN BRANCH TO HEARING
ON 10/27/2003 AT 9:00 A.M. IN DEPARTMENT 32 OF SUPERIOR COURT
SOUTHERN BRANCH .
10/27/2003 Conversion Event
Comment
HHELD: HEARING HELD ON 10/27/03 AT 9:00 A.M. IN SUPERIOR COURT
SOUTHERN BRANCH , D- 32 . HON. SUSAN GREENBERG, COURT
COMMISSIONER , PRESIDING. CLERK: ROSA VEGA . REPORTER: BETTY GALIN
. CLERK2: SARAI MORENO . DEPUTY D.A. FORD . DEFENSE COUNSEL
PRESENT: PLISKA .
10/27/2003 Conversion Event
Comment
HHMAR: MISDEMEANOR ARRAIGNMENT
10/27/2003 Conversion Event
Comment
FDSPT: STIPULATION RE: JUDGE PRO TEMPORE HEARING MATTER.
10/27/2003 Conversion Event
Comment
APAFD: DEFENDANT NOT PRESENT, BUT IS REPRESENTED BY ATTORNEY
PLISKA .
10/27/2003 Conversion Event
Comment
ARWVD: ARRAIGNMENT AND ADVICE OF RIGHTS WAIVED.
10/27/2003 Conversion Event
Comment
PLCEA: DEFENDANT THROUGH HIS/HER COUNSEL ENTERS A PLEA OF NOT
GUILTY TO ALL COUNTS.
10/27/2003 Conversion Event
Comment
JTDEM: DEFENDANT DEMANDS TRIAL BY JURY.
10/27/2003 Conversion Event
Comment
WTIMJ: TIME WAIVED FOR JURY TRIAL.
10/27/2003 Conversion Event
Comment
SHOTA: CASE CONTINUED TO 12/30/2003 AT 8:30 A.M. IN REDWOOD CITY IN
DEPT. PT FOR PRETRIAL CONFERENCE. .
10/27/2003 Conversion Event
Comment
SHOTA: CASE CONTINUED TO 01/20/2004 AT 9:00 A.M. IN REDWOOD CITY IN
DEPT. JT FOR JURY TRIAL. .
10/27/2003 Conversion Event
Comment
MIENT: ENTERED BY S.MORENO ON 10/27/2003 .
10/31/2003 Conversion Event
Comment
SHSET: APPEARANCE SET ON 11/05/2003 AT 9:00 A.M. IN SUPERIOR COURT
SOUTHERN BRANCH DEPT. AR FOR TO SET AT REQUEST OF ATTORNEY .
11/04/2003 Conversion Event
Comment
SHRES: CASE SHIFTED FROM HEARING ON 11/05/2003 AT 9:00 A.M. IN
DEPARTMENT AR OF SUPERIOR COURT SOUTHERN BRANCH TO HEARING
ON 11/05/2003 AT 9:00 A.M. IN DEPARTMENT 32 OF SUPERIOR COURT
SOUTHERN BRANCH .
11/05/2003 Conversion Event
Comment
HHELD: HEARING HELD ON 11/05/03 AT 9:00 A.M. IN SUPERIOR COURT
SOUTHERN BRANCH , D- 32 . HON. SUSAN GREENBERG, COURT
COMMISSIONER , PRESIDING. CLERK: ROSA VEGA . REPORTER: JENELL
MULLANEL . CLERK2: MICHAEL BOLANDER . DEPUTY D.A. JOO . DEFENSE
COUNSEL PRESENT: PLISKA .
11/05/2003 Conversion Event
Comment
HHTOS: TO SET
11/05/2003 Conversion Event
Comment
FDSPT: STIPULATION RE: JUDGE PRO TEMPORE HEARING MATTER.
11/05/2003 Conversion Event
Comment
APAFD: DEFENDANT NOT PRESENT, BUT IS REPRESENTED BY ATTORNEY
PLISKA .
11/05/2003 Conversion Event
Comment
WTIMD: TIME CONTINUES TO BE WAIVED BY DEFENDANT/COUNSEL.
11/05/2003 Conversion Event
Comment
SHOTA: CASE CONTINUED TO 01/06/2004 AT 8:30 A.M. IN REDWOOD CITY IN
DEPT. PT FOR PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE AND TO SET .
11/05/2003 Conversion Event
Comment
SHOTA: CASE CONTINUED TO 01/13/2004 AT 9:00 A.M. IN REDWOOD CITY IN
DEPT. AR FOR DISPOSITION AND TO SET .
11/05/2003 Conversion Event
Comment
MIVJT: JURY TRIAL SET ON 01/20/2004 AT 9:00 A.M. ORDERED VACATED.
11/05/2003 Conversion Event
Comment
MIVOT: PRETRIAL CONFERENCE. SET ON 12/30/2003 AT 8:30 A.M. ORDERED
VACATED.
11/05/2003 Conversion Event
Comment
MIENT: ENTERED BY MBOLANDER ON 11/05/2003 .
01/05/2004 Conversion Event
Comment
SHRES: CASE SHIFTED FROM HEARING ON 01/06/2004 AT 8:30 A.M. IN
DEPARTMENT PT OF SUPERIOR COURT SOUTHERN BRANCH TO HEARING
ON 01/06/2004 AT 8:30 A.M. IN DEPARTMENT 29 OF SUPERIOR COURT
SOUTHERN BRANCH .
01/06/2004 Conversion Event
Comment
HHELD: HEARING HELD ON 01/06/04 AT 8:30 A.M. IN SUPERIOR COURT
SOUTHERN BRANCH , D- 29 . HON. JOSEPH N GRUBER, COURT
COMMISSIONER , PRESIDING. CLERK: SARAI MORENO . REPORTER: TRACY
WOOD . CLERK2: LISABETH FALLS . DEPUTY D.A. FEASEL . DEFENSE
COUNSEL PRESENT: PLISKA .
01/06/2004 Conversion Event
Comment
HHPTE: PRE TRIAL CONFERENCE AND TO SET
01/06/2004 Conversion Event
Comment
FDSPT: STIPULATION RE: JUDGE PRO TEMPORE HEARING MATTER.
01/06/2004 Conversion Event
Comment
APWAT: DEFENDANT APPEARED WITH ATTORNEY PLISKA .
01/06/2004 Conversion Event
Comment
APNAD: NEITHER ATTORNEY NOR DEFENDANT PRESENT WHEN MATTER
HEARD ON THE RECORD.
01/06/2004 Conversion Event
Comment
SHPDS: PREVIOUS DATES REMAIN AS SET.
01/06/2004 Conversion Event
Comment
MIENT: ENTERED BY L FALLS ON 01/06/2004 .
01/12/2004 Conversion Event
Comment
SHRES: CASE SHIFTED FROM HEARING ON 01/13/2004 AT 9:00 A.M. IN
DEPARTMENT AR OF SUPERIOR COURT SOUTHERN BRANCH TO HEARING
ON 01/13/2004 AT 9:00 A.M. IN DEPARTMENT 31 OF SUPERIOR COURT
SOUTHERN BRANCH .
01/13/2004 Conversion Event
Comment
HHELD: HEARING HELD ON 01/13/04 AT 9:00 A.M. IN SUPERIOR COURT
SOUTHERN BRANCH , D- 31 . HON. CLARK LESLIE, COURT COMMISSIONER ,
PRESIDING. CLERK: IRMA LOPEZ-OCEGUEDA . REPORTER: RHONDA GUESS .
CLERK2: LISABETH FALLS . DEPUTY D.A. FORD . DEFENSE COUNSEL
PRESENT: PLISKA .
01/13/2004 Conversion Event
Comment
HHDOS: DISPOSITION AND TO SET
01/13/2004 Conversion Event
Comment
FDSPT: STIPULATION RE: JUDGE PRO TEMPORE HEARING MATTER.
01/13/2004 Conversion Event
Comment
APAFD: DEFENDANT NOT PRESENT, BUT IS REPRESENTED BY ATTORNEY
PLISKA .
01/13/2004 Conversion Event
Comment
PLCEF: DEFENDANT THROUGH HIS/HER COUNSEL ENTERS A PLEA OF NOLO
CONTENDERE TO COUNT 1 . DEFENDANT FOUND GUILTY BY COURT.
01/13/2004 Conversion Event
Comment
FDWOR: DEFENDANT IS ADVISED OF, UNDERSTANDS, AND KNOWINGLY
AND VOLUNTARILY WAIVES ALL THE FOLLOWING RIGHTS: WAIVES THE
RIGHT TO COUNSEL; TO TRIAL BY JURY; TO CONFRONT AND CROSS-
EXAMINE ADVERSE WITNESSES; THE PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-
INCRIMINATION. THE COURT FINDS THAT THE DEFENDANT UNDERSTANDS
THE NATURE OF THE CHARGES, THE ELEMENTS OF THE OFFENSE, THE
DEFENSE THERETO, THE CONSEQUENCES OF PLEAS AND THE RANGE OF
PENALTIES THERETO. WAIVER OF RIGHTS SIGNED.
01/13/2004 Conversion Event
Comment
CDFRC: UPON MOTION OF PEOPLE ALL REMAINING COUNTS DISMISSED.
REASON: NEGOTIATED PLEA.
01/13/2004 Conversion Event
Comment
WTSTB: TIME WAIVED FOR SENTENCING.
01/13/2004 Conversion Event
Comment
ARWFS: DEFENDANT WAIVES FORMAL ARRAIGNMENT FOR SENTENCING.
01/13/2004 Conversion Event
Comment
SESCB: COUNT 1 IMPOSITION OF SENTENCE SUSPENDED. DEFENDANT IS
PLACED ON COURT PROBATION FOR 2 YEARS; 0 MONTHS; 0 DAYS.
01/13/2004 Conversion Event
Comment
SECJL: AS TO COUNT 1 , DEFENDANT TO SERVE 0 YEAR(S), 0 MONTH(S), 2
DAY(S), 0 HOUR(S) IN THE COUNTY JAIL.
01/13/2004 Conversion Event
Comment
SESEJ: DEFENDANT TO SURRENDER TO COUNTY JAIL ON 02/28/2004 AT
10:00 A.M. .
01/13/2004 Conversion Event
Comment
SESWP: DEFENDANT IS RECOMMENDED TO THE SHERIFF'S WORK
PROGRAM.
01/13/2004 Conversion Event
Comment
SEPFX: TOTAL FINE AMOUNT PAYABLE, INCLUDING ALL ASSESSMENTS, IS
$1,230.00 .
01/13/2004 Conversion Event
Comment
SERET: DEFENDANT ORDERED TO PAY $110.00 TO STATE RESTITUTION
FUND. THIS PAYMENT IS A CONDITION OF PROBATION
01/13/2004 Conversion Event
Comment
SEPRC: DEFENDANT TO PAY FINE AND ASSESSMENTS THROUGH
MUNICIPAL COURT CLERK'S OFFICE.
01/13/2004 Conversion Event
Comment
SEOAL: OBEY ALL LAWS. FOLLOW ALL ORDERS OF THE COURT/PROBATION
OFFICER AND REPORT AS DIRECTED. NOTIFY THE COURT/ PROBATION
OFFICER IMMEDIATELY OF ANY CHANGE OF RESIDENCE ADDRESS.
01/13/2004 Conversion Event
Comment
SENOC: DEFENDANT NOT TO CONTACT, CALL OR OTHERWISE
COMMUNICATE WITH VICTIM .
01/13/2004 Conversion Event
Comment
MIATS: ATTORNEY MAY SIGN.
01/13/2004 Conversion Event
Comment
MIASE: ALL SENTENCE ELEMENTS FOR THIS PROCEEDING ENTERED.
01/13/2004 Conversion Event
Comment
MIENT: ENTERED BY L FALLS ON 01/13/2004 .
01/30/2004 Conversion Event
Comment
SEFCN: FINE PAID THROUGH CLERK'S OFFICE ON 01/30/2004 . RECEIPT
NUMBER 41-0005 . AMOUNT PAID $1,230.00 .
01/30/2004 Conversion Event
Comment
SEFCR: $110.00 RESTITUTION FUND PAID THROUGH THE CLERKS OFFICE.
02/11/2004 Conversion Event
Comment
HHMOD: MODIFICATION OF SENTENCE
02/11/2004 Conversion Event
Comment
SECSB: DEFENDANT ORDERED TO COMPLETE 50 HOURS OF PUBLIC SERVICE
WORK ON OR BEFORE 08/11/2004 AS DIRECTED BY THE PUBLIC SERVICE
REPRESENTATIVE.
02/11/2004 Conversion Event
Comment
SEPSA: SUBMIT PROOF OF COMPLETION OF PUBLIC SERVICE WORK TO THE
COURT BY 08/11/2004 .
02/11/2004 Conversion Event
Comment
MIENT: ENTERED BY IRMA ON 02/11/2004 .
04/21/2004 Conversion Event
Comment
CERTC: CERTIFIED COPY OF DOCUMENTS SENT TO DEPARTMENT OF REAL
ESTATE . $0.00 FEE PAID.
07/27/2004 Conversion Event
Comment
MISEN: FILE SENT TO DEPT 29
08/04/2004 Conversion Event
Comment
SHSET: APPEARANCE SET ON 08/10/2004 AT 9:00 A.M. IN SUPERIOR COURT
SOUTHERN BRANCH DEPT. 29 FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS. AT REQUEST
OF ATTY PLISKA .
08/10/2004 Conversion Event
Comment
HHELD: HEARING HELD ON 08/10/04 AT 9:00 A.M. IN SUPERIOR COURT
SOUTHERN BRANCH , D- 29 . HON. JOSEPH N GRUBER, COURT
COMMISSIONER , PRESIDING. CLERK: ROSA VEGA . REPORTER: TRACY
WOOD . CLERK2: BIANCA NEDELCU . DEPUTY D.A. BAUM . DEFENSE
COUNSEL PRESENT: PLISKA .
08/10/2004 Conversion Event
Comment
HHFUR: FURTHER PROCEEDINGS
08/10/2004 Conversion Event
Comment
FDSPT: STIPULATION RE: JUDGE PRO TEMPORE HEARING MATTER.
08/10/2004 Conversion Event
Comment
APWAT: DEFENDANT APPEARED WITH ATTORNEY PLISKA .
08/10/2004 Conversion Event
Comment
PROBE: PROBATION IS MODIFIED.
08/10/2004 Conversion Event
Comment
SEOTH: PUBLIC SHERRIF'S WORK SEEMED COMPLETED .
08/10/2004 Conversion Event
Comment
MIASE: ALL SENTENCE ELEMENTS FOR THIS PROCEEDING ENTERED.
08/10/2004 Conversion Event
Comment
MIENT: ENTERED BY B NEDELCU ON 08/10/2004 .
03/10/2006 Conversion Event
Comment
OTHER: EXPUNGEMENT FEE OF $60.00 PAID. RECEIPT #41-0013
03/13/2006 Conversion Event
Comment
MIRFL: FILE RETURNED TO CLERK'S OFFICE.
03/13/2006 Conversion Event
Comment
FDPDC: PETITION TO DISMISS COUNT 1 PURSUANT TO SECTION
1203.4/1203.4A PENAL CODE FILED.
03/13/2006 Conversion Event
Comment
FDCOM: ORDER GRANTING AND DISMISSING COUNT 1 PURSUANT TO
SECTION 1203.4/1203.4A PENAL CODE, FILED.
03/13/2006 Conversion Event
Comment
FDACI: AMENDED CII FORWARDED TO ARRESTING AGENCY.
Exhibit B