CA Dept. of Insurance “Suggested” Doctor NOT to Identify Himself as Christian

You do not have to use time travel to find bigots in California. If I want to find a bigot all I have to do is go to the California Department of Insurance. That is where Democrat Dave Jones, the Commissioner, allows his employees to warn doctors not to mention on the Internet they are Christians. Why hasn’t Jones gotten to the bottom of this and fired every bigot he has found?

This is a department that is out of control—but what did you expect when it is a political office. Corruption, bigotry and fraud is expected. Dave Jones has said and done nothing—and might be re-elected in November—with Christians voting for this open bigot! Shame on us for allowing this. Note the mainstream media has said nothing about government bigotry.California_Insurance_Commissioner_Dave_Jones_--_PD-CAGov

State apologizes, drops bizarre investigation of ObamaCare flyer

Brad Dacus, Pacific Justice Institute, 6/16/16
Bakersfield, CA—The California Department of Insurance (CDI) has taken the unusual step of apologizing to a Bakersfield doctor for what his attorneys with Pacific Justice Institute described as an extreme example of bureaucrats run amok.

Dr. Jan Mensink and his staff were visited by CDI investigators on May 7.  The investigation was purportedly sparked by a typo in a flyer distributed by the doctor about patient options under ObamaCare.  Despite the minor error, the investigator demanded information on all of Dr. Mensink’s patients, suggested that Dr. Mensink should not identify himself on the internet as a Christian, and even urged him to suspend all advertising during the investigation.  The lead investigator, from CDI’s Valencia office, left Dr. Mensink and his staff bewildered and provided only a business card as the sole basis for compliance with his demands.

A few days after the initial visit, Pacific Justice Institute began representing Dr. Mensink.  In a phone call to PJI staff attorney Matthew McReynolds on May 15, the lead investigator confirmed that his sweeping demands were based on a typo in a flyer, while claiming that it was “uncooperative with the investigation” to even ask that such demands for documents be communicated in writing.  “It was the single most bizarre conversation I’ve ever had with someone representing the government,” McReynolds noted. “It was like Barney Fife gone bad.”

After PJI sent a follow-up letter on May 19 insisting, at a minimum, that the State identify clear legal authority for its investigation, the CDI went silent until June 11.  In a phone call to McReynolds, a chief investigator in the Valencia office of the CDI apologized for the conduct of its agent, promised an internal investigation, and announced the closure of Dr. Mensink’s case.

PJI president Brad Dacus expressed both jubilation and concern.  “We are elated that the State has abandoned its very misguided and out-of-control investigation of Dr. Mensink,” Dacus noted.  “This incident has raised serious questions about the CDI and its agents who seem to have no concept of legal bounds.  We are calling on state leaders to probe the CDI to find out how something like this could happen, and what else these bureaucrats are doing to harass innocent citizens and waste taxpayer resources.”

PJI believes there may be additional victims and is interested in hearing from anyone whose free speech or religious freedom have also been threatened by the California Department of Insurance.

We are “SEIU Nongermane Objectors”–No Need to Pay Full Dues to a Union

Most people do not know, the unions refuse to tell them, that they do not have to pay for the radical political activities of a union. In San Bernardino the SEIU is using stolen personnel records for the purpose of harassing workers into paying them dues. SEIU spent tens of millions to elect Barack Obama, San Fran Nan, Boxer, Feinstein and the Democrat Sacramento Super Majority. The workers get higher taxes, more unemployment and Third World health care, while their children are held hostage in failed government schools controlled by the unions.

Read this press release and pass it on to your friends—let them know how to save money and

Stop the abuse of workers in this country.

www.SEIUNGO.com is a group of SEIU Members and Non Members whose goal is to educate and raise the awareness of ALL Participants that they are paying unknowingly a ‘voluntary’ contribution to political candidates and initiatives that they may not support. Participants can opt out of having to contribute towards that part of their dues. The Union does NOT want you to know, you CAN OPT OUT. The Union makes no attempt to notify their Members of their rights & options.”

SEIU-California-340x250

We are “SEIU Nongermane Objectors”

Who are we?

“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can change the world;

indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has. Margaret Mead

 

For Immediate Release                                                           June 15, 2014

Lisa Garcia/SEIU Member

Mariam Noujaim/SEIU Member         916 834 8916

SEIU Confiscates Wages for Political Purposes

Objecting State Workers Obstructed by Red Tape.

SACRAMENTO- June 15, 2014. State workers Lisa Garcia and Mariam are standing up to their state employee union, the SIEU, for suppressing their First Amendment Rights. “We have launched our Campaign to educate all SEIU Participants about their option to discontinue paying SEIU dues that are used for political or ideological activities,” say Garcia and Noujaim.

 

They are spreading their message throughout California by sending it to email lists of fellow state workers and other interested friends and families. State workers who wish to opt out have little time, the month of June. Garcia and Noujaim are helping them wade through the complex forms and bureaucratese to restore their rights to contribute or not to the causes of their own choice, not those of union leaders.

WHAT SEIU 1000 DOES NOT WANT THEIR MEMBERS TO KNOW

A mass email campaign has been launched to inform all SEIU Local 1000 Participants of their right to choose. Over 83,000 emails have been rolled out to notify Members and Non Members that June is the month they have the option to become a Non Germane Objector. A Non Germane Objector, is an SEIU Participant who objects to a portion of their dues being used for purposes not related to collective bargaining

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2014/06/12/6479181/email-campaign-aims-to-cut-money.html#storylink=cp

www.SEIUNGO.com is a group of SEIU Members and Non Members whose goal is to educate and raise the awareness of ALL Participants that they are paying unknowingly a ‘voluntary’ contribution to political candidates and initiatives that they may not support. Participants can opt out of having to contribute towards that part of their dues. The Union does NOT want you to know, you CAN OPT OUT. The Union makes no attempt to notify their Members of their rights & options.

SEIU is not required to notify their Members in writing each year that June is the open enrollment period to Opt Out and become a Non Germane Objector. SEIU does send yearly notification to Non Members in an effort to encourage them to become Members to bring in additional revenue.

Members who choose to withdraw their ‘voluntary contribution’ lose their right to vote for the Officers who represent all collective bargaining for ALL Fair Share Fee Payers who are the ones who pay 66.4% of regular member dues. Non Germane Objectors are required every June to complete a new form to renew their Non Germane Objector status. SEIU is not required to send a notification to the Members to let them know of their right to Opt Out in June.

SEIU forces their Members to relinquish their membership as a requirement to Opt Out.

CONTACT INFORMATION:

Lisa Garcia/SEIU Member                 916 893 4449              [email protected]

Mariam Noujaim/SEIU Member         916 834 8916              [email protected]

 

Below is the email that was sent to all SEIU Participants who have a State email:

OPEN ENROLLMENT FORM FOR SEIU/NGO 2014-12015

DEADLINE: July 1, 2014

 

www.seiuNGO.com

 

NGO (Non Germane Objector) Information can easily be verified by

SEIU Local 1000.  Phone Number:  (866) 471-7348.

 

The ‘Notice To Fair Share Fee Payers’ who object to expenditures not related to Collective Bargaining Activities i.e NGO (Non Germane Objector) is mailed by SEIU Local 1000 to Non-Members once a year.

 

Our mission is to educate & inform ALL SEIU Participants of their right/option to:

ONLY pay the dues amount required to cover the cost of

“Collective Bargaining”.

34% Saving Of Regular Monthly Dues

 

ADVANTAGE of Becoming a “Non Germane Objector” 2014 – 2015:

1-    REDUCE YOUR MONTHLY DUES by 34%

2-    STILL BE ENTITLED TO ‘FAIR & IMPARTIAL’ REPRESENTATION

 

“Effective July 1, 2014 through June 30, 2015 (the “2014-15 Fee Payer Year), SEIU LOCAL 1000 will charge fee payers who object to expenditures not germane to collective bargaining a fee of no more than 66.44% of regular membership dues for that salary level. In order to obtain this reduced amount, you must send an objection letter to SEIU LOCAL 1000’s Membership Processing Center”.

 

 

  • It must be received no later than July 1, 2014,

 

 

Completion of all 6 items on the ‘Objection Letter’ is a requirement.

(see form below)

 

 

OBJECTION LETTER TO SEIU LOCAL 1000’s MEMBERSHIP PROCESSING CENTER

SEIU Local 1000 Membership Cancellation & Non-Germane Objector (NGO)

www.seiuNGO.com

 

•       I am submitting this form to cancel my SEIU Local 1000 membership

•       I am filing for Non-Germane Objector

•       I object the use of my fees for activities NOT related to collective bargaining

 

________________________________________________________________

1-    SIGNATURE                                                                                   DATE

 

________________________________________________________________

2-        Print First/M.I./Last Name

 

3-        Street ADDRESS__________________________________________________

 

4-        CITY/State/ZIP: __________________________________________________

 

6-        Department: _____________________________

 

5-        Agency/Bargaining Unit see: www.seiuNGO.com                                      ________

6-        Last 4 digits of your SSN (for identification)   ___________

CSEA/SEIU Membership        1108 “O” Street, Ste 415         Sacramento, CA  95814

Objector letter must be received by July 1 2014.
 

Assemblyman Jim Patterson: Cap and Trade is a Slush Fund

We were told that “cap and trade” would save us from global warming. Instead it takes money from one company, gives it to another company—with the government taking a major cut—and the exact same pollution exists, just in a different place. Oh, the consumer gets to pay for all of this with higher prices for goods and services.

Assemblyman Jim Patterson of Fresno has it right—this is a slush fund for politicians to give their donors, friends and supporters. Next years’ $250 million from this slush fund goes to the choo choo train to nowhere, for nobody but the unions the contractors and other donors to Democrat campaigns.

“This legislature has given the green-light to spend $250 million in cap-and-trade funds to prop up the fiscally irresponsible high-speed rail. Those funds come at the expense of our employers under the guise of offsetting carbon emissions. The cap-and-trade account has essentially become another slush fund for the Democrats to use when the money they want to spend doesn’t exist.”

http://www.dreamstime.com/-image18074825

Assemblyman Patterson’s Statement on the Passage of the State Budget

Assemblyman Jim Patterson, 6/16/14

SACRAMENTOAssembly Budget Committee member Assemblyman Jim Patterson (R-Fresno) made the following statement regarding the passage of the 2014-2015 state budget.

“The on-time passage of this budget is a win for legislators, who will continue to receive a paycheck, but it’s a real loss for the taxpayers of California and a blatant display of what happens when one party has all the power.”

“This budget increases spending by $12 billion over last year and is full of tax and fee increases, leaving only a paltry 0.4 percent reserve. Taxpayers have sent additional billions to Sacramento recently and this budget spends 99.6% of it. Not one cent is being returned to taxpayers.”

“This legislature has given the green-light to spend $250 million in cap-and-trade funds to prop up the fiscally irresponsible high-speed rail. Those funds come at the expense of our employers under the guise of offsetting carbon emissions. The cap-and-trade account has essentially become another slush fund for the Democrats to use when the money they want to spend doesn’t exist.”

“The short list of California doctors who still accept Medi-Cal patients will continue to work for free with the failure of this body to restore the 10 percent cuts to California’s already disproportionately low Medi-Cal reimbursement rates. Patients will only find more doors closed to them when they seek treatment.”

“Lastly, trailer bill language that would tie the hands of our school districts, preventing them from building healthy reserve funds is disturbing and yet another example of the strangle-hold one party rule has on the Legislature.”

 

Economist: Twin Tunnels would spell disaster for California agriculture

In the end, it will be the consumer that will pay the more than $67 billion for the Delta Tunnel—really meant to pay off the unions and special interests. It will provide no new water—just push northern water to the south, kill off some of prime agriculture land in the State and raise the cost of water to everybody. This is such a bad plan, that while the confused Guv Brown is promoting it, I think Texas Guv Perry is really behind it—since it will force more productive California businesses and families to his State.

“Construction cost estimates for the BDCP’s twin water tunnels have increased from $4 billion to $15 billion;

• Anticipated water exports have decreased from 6.5 million acre-feet to about 5 million acre-feet with no increase in the water supply;

• Seismic benefit estimates have declined substantially;

• Chances of federal and state funding now or in the future have severely declined;”

On every level this is an economic disaster for the former Golden State.

ManInWater

 

Economist: Twin Tunnels would spell disaster for California agriculture
by Gene Beley, Delta Correspondent, Central Valley Business Times, 6/16/14

•  Jeffrey Michael says BDCP shifts risks to taxpayers

•  “The financial plan is a mess”
The controversial Bay Delta Conservation Plan, if implemented, would spell disaster for California agriculture, says University of the Pacific economist Jeffrey Michael.

The massive, 40-foot in diameter twin water tunnels that are the reason more than $100 million has been spent on the BDCP plan could cost $67 billion, including interest on borrowed money, making the cost of any water the tunnels sent south of the Delta too costly for farming. Water for farming is the ostensible reason for the tunnels.

While it may have been a decent sounding project to the state’s water contractors when they started planning it back in 2006, the economics of the world have changed greatly since then, making it a huge financial risk, Mr. Michael told a recent meeting of the Solano County Board of Supervisors.

“So if these [water district] agencies are looking for good reasons to walk away form the project, I’ve given them a list of five,” he said.

Here they are:

• Construction cost estimates for the BDCP’s twin water tunnels have increased from $4 billion to $15 billion;

• Anticipated water exports have decreased from 6.5 million acre-feet to about 5 million acre-feet with no increase in the water supply;

• Seismic benefit estimates have declined substantially;

• Chances of federal and state funding now or in the future have severely declined;

• Urban water demand is declining and future population forecasts have dropped significantly.

“How much is this water going to cost?” Mr. Michael asked rhetorically. “Dr. Rodney Smith, a well known consulting economist who works with a lot of these water agencies, has expressed a lot of skepticism about the BDCP financing. Basically, he says, ‘I can’t tell you what the water will cost because no one will tell me what the yield of the product (twin tunnels) will be. It ranges from no extra water to best case scenario of 1.7 million acre feet of yield.’

“According to Dr. Smith, the best assumption is the water will cost over $500 an acre-foot to get it to Tracy. So that doesn’t work well for agriculture. If it doesn’t work well for agriculture, will it work for urban areas?”

That’s when Mr. Michael told about his experience appearing at Assemblyman Jim Frazier’s economic accountability hearing on the BDCP project February 12 and interacting with Dennis Cushman, assistant general manager of the San Diego Water Authority. Mr. Cushman told how they would have to pay $1.1 to $1.2 billion and that the “optimistic yield scenario” would be about 76,000 acre-feet.

So, although they have not opted out of the $67 billion BDCP twin tunnels yet, they opted to spend about $1 billion to build a desalination plant in Carlsbad that is guaranteed to produce 56,000 acre feet of purified water every year. “Basically, they said that the (BDCP) deal can not get any worse for us and keep us in,” said Mr. Michael.

“The product is designed as a very marginal product for urban areas and there has to be a lot of shifting of costs from agriculture users to urban users to make it work,” Mr. Michael said. “The financial plan is a mess. They still don’t have one after seven or eight years. The BDCP is counting on two or more water bonds to pass to finance the habitat.”

Risk Reduction – For Whom?

The UOP economist, who is the director of the university’s Business Forecasting Center, said that when BDCP’s supporters talk about risk reduction, they are talking about a select minority, not all users of water from the Delta, let alone all Californians.

“My view is most of the BDCP is reducing risk for the junior water rights holders that are customers of the projects and the State Water Project under the Department of Water Resources and increasing the risks to other users in that process. And that’s pretty important,” he said.

California water rights have been shaped by 150 years of legislation, litigation and violence. “Junior” water rights are much like the term would suggest – other rights holders have more say on getting water. Many of those getting water from the State Water Project and the federal Central Valley Project are junior rights holders.

Mr. Michael said if the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta needs more water, it would have to come from somebody else, which increases the risk to upstream users and taxpayers. “All this stuff needs to be accounted for from a state wide perspective,” he said.

“Another reason they [the water contractors] are worried is this big flood scenario. I have no idea what the probabilities are for that. In the Delta there are a lot of stakeholders who have an interest in flood control and integrity of those levees. It’s not risk reduction. It’s risk shifting. Be clear about that. The BDCP’s approach to risk reduction is to create an individual solution to take them out of the puzzle and leave everyone else on their own. If you take the water exporters out of the picture, indeed you’ll have less people there to share the common burden of that flood controls system.”

Regarding other parts of the BDCP package, he said the state “doesn’t have to build the tunnels to have that ‘stuff.’ It’s not being financed by the water exporters. It is being financed by bonds and the people of California. The BDCP — whether it is in the EIR [environmental impact report] or in their benefit cost analysis, in my view, shouldn’t be counted as benefits from habitat projects that aren’t financed by the proponents that can be reasonably expected to go forward within the tunnels. Those should be part of the baseline. If the state follows the 2009 Delta Reform Act, it says they have to achieve these co-equal goals, but doesn’t say only if we have a BDCP With or without the tunnels, they have to achieve that stuff. That is the proper baseline.”

He said in economics, if you want to make a project look good, you set up a weak alternative. “Another issue is evaluating environment,” Mr. Michael continued. “This is a sticky issue to do in economics.” He said he found an error in the BDCP: “Once it starts talking about environmental benefits of BDCP, it switches back to the EIR baseline.”

“I submitted those comments to the author of the report. They said they were going to correct the errors, but I haven’t seen a revised report yet.”

Mr. Michael also said there are “lots of optimistic assumptions” about construction by the BDCP — like no delays and everything happening on time. Nor have they factored in that San Diego’s Carlsbad desalinization plant will be on line by 2016, or other technological improvements that will happen in the next 50 years.

“I don’t think anybody that has an interest in California agriculture in the Delta or south of the Delta should be excited about the BDCP,” said Mr. Michael.

About Jeffrey Michael:

Mr. Michael received his Ph.D. from North Carolina State University. His areas of expertise include regional economic forecasting and environmental economics including work on the economic impacts of the Endangered Species Act, climate change, and regulation on land use, property values and employment growth.

He has been published in scholarly journals such as the Journal of Law and Economics, Southern Economic Journal, Energy Policy, and Ecological Economics.

Mr. Michael makes frequent presentations to the regional business and government audiences, and is cited over 200 times per year in the local and national press including the Wall Street Journal, New York Times Magazine, Los Angeles Times, San Francisco Chronicle, Newsweek, National Geographic, Washington Post, NPR, and PBS.

Before coming to Pacific in 2008, he spent nine years as faculty, associate dean, and director of the Center for Applied Business and Economic Research at Towson University in Maryland.

Sen. Nielsen: State Budget Sets Record Spending and Depends on Rosy Revenue Projections

California is going to spend $12 billion MORE this year than last. Our very confused Guv Brown is still claiming a surplus and balanced budget—while the State Controller says we have an $8.5 billion cash deficit, the LAO says we have a $340 billion debt (which becomes $348.5 billion on July 1). The real unemployment in California –the U-6, total of unemployment, underemployed and discouraged is 16.7%. In April our sales tax revenues dropped 3.1% and in May it dropped 2.3%–while in May Texas sales tax collection increased by 8.6%.

California is in a Depression—and our economics are getting worse.

“The budget sets a new record on spending and depends on rosy revenue projections that may or may not become reality. If the revenues don’t come in as expected, the state could face deficits and tax increases,” Senator Nielsen added.”

money surplus budget bank

“State Budget Sets Record Spending and Depends on Rosy Revenue Projections,” says Nielsen.

Senator Jim Nielsen, 6/15/14

The Legislature barely passed the state’s spending plan before the Constitutional deadline Sunday night. Expressing his frustration with the broken budget process and backroom deals, Vice Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, Jim Nielsen, voted against the budget.

“While this bill may be better than years past, it includes deals that were made without much public input particularly one that penalizes local school districts for being financially prudent,” said Senator Jim Nielsen (R-Gerber). “This is no way to do the people’s business.”

“The budget sets a new record on spending and depends on rosy revenue projections that may or may not become reality. If the revenues don’t come in as expected, the state could face deficits and tax increases,” Senator Nielsen added.

The budget bill – Senate Bill 852 – increases state spending for a variety of state programs from education to public safety. Below are the major reasons why Republicans opposed the final budget bill:

  • Record High Spending – Over $250 billion total funds represents a $20 billion increase over last year.  $108 billion General Fund spending level is about $12 billion higher than last year.
  • More Spending and Less Debt Repayment than Governor’s Original Plan – Appears to reduce the amount of debt repayment by about $800 million relative to Governor’s budget plan while increasing new permanent spending by at least $700 million annually.
  • Restrict Responsible Budgeting for Local Schools – In a last minute amendment, Democrat lawmakers sided with special interests to limit local school districts’ ability to save for a rainy day fund. This is a huge step backward for transparency and a disincentive for fiscal responsibility among local schools.
  • Lacks Quality Control to Maintain Program Integrity in the following programs:

o   High Speed Rail – $66.6 million in state operations funding to continue the development of the high-speed rail. Includes $32 million in federal funds for the Southern California improvements, which may require repayment to the federal government if the system is never built. This is in addition to the $8 billion appropriated in SB 1029 (Committee on Budget, 2012) for high-speed rail and connectivity costs.

o   Cap and Trade – Includes $850 million in Cap and Trade revenues to fund high speed rail, urban housing, wetland restoration, and low income weatherization.  These programs have no clear nexus to the Cap and Trade fee nor do any metrics exist to measure the amount of greenhouse gas emissions reductions that would result from these programs.

o   Air Resources Board – Provides funding for the California Air Resources Board to continue to impose more regulations and fees on Californians through their greenhouse gas emissions, Cap and Trade, diesel retrofits, and zero emission vehicle programs.

o   Drivers Licenses for Undocumented Immigrants – Includes more than $67 million from the Motor Vehicle Account for DMV to issue driver’s licenses to undocumented immigrants.

o   Early Release of Criminals – Includes $3.1 million to expand sentence credits for second strikers.

o   In Home Support Services – $600 million increase to provide overtime compensation to caregivers. About 70 percent of recipients receive care from a family member and California is one of only eight states that pay spouses and parents to provide personal care services to their own family members.

o   Welfare Increase – $170.8 million to increase CalWORKs grants by five percent in 2014-15. California currently has the 5th highest welfare grant in the nation, and is 2nd highest amongst the ten largest states.

“This year’s budget spending is supported by a massive tax increase that sunsets in 2016. What do we do then? Extend this ‘temporary tax’?” concluded Senator Nielsen.

The budget bill and the accompanying trailer bills will head to the Governor’s desk for his veto or approval. At his discretion, the Governor can also use his “blue pencil” to eliminate a budget line item he deems objectionable.

 

NSA Can Spy on Turned Off Phones—AND USE Camera!

Whether Ed Snowden is a traitor or a patriot is no longer the point. We know that question needs to be asked about Barack Obama. Thanks to Snowden we have found out that the U.S. government have put bugs in our cell phones so they can take pictures in a room—and LISTEN to conversations in a room, even if your phone is turned off. Not a typo. Barack Obama, the sneak, has had the NSA bug your phones, whether they are on or off.

This column is by Kim Komando (her real name) a nationally syndicated radio talk show host who is totally non political. Her radio show is about technology, not politics or public policy. Everyone is concerned about the sneaks that run our government, steal our privacy. Maybe we all need to get a Maxwell Smart “Cone of Silence” if we want private conversations to be private.

nsa fbi obama spying

Can the NSA spy on your phone when it’s turned off?

Kim Komando, 6/14/14

Whether you consider Edward Snowden a traitor or a patriot, before he hit the news most people didn’t give much thought to government spying on everyday citizens. During a recent interview, he said that the NSA has the ability to spy on your smartphone, even if it’s turned off.

Yes, this is exactly what you think it means. The NSA can listen to your conversations and use your camera when you power off your phone. Sounds crazy, but it can happen.

The most likely way is with a type of invisible spying app. Spying apps aren’t anything new; everyone from corporations to hackers to jealous exes use them.

This spying app, though, doesn’t just steal your surfing history, text messages and photos. It also gives the NSA full access to your phone’s microphone and camera.

Your phone basically becomes a bug that tells the NSA everything going on around you. Any conversation you have or any embarrassing thing you do, the NSA will have it recorded.

The worst part is that even if you turned the phone off to be safe, it wouldn’t really be off. The app makes your phone pretend to be off – it turns off the screen, ignores incoming calls and doesn’t respond to button presses – but the spying will still be going on.

Now, if you wanted to have a sensitive conversation without worry, you could remove the phone’s battery. Then the phone would really be off. But, some phones, like the iPhone, don’t have a removable battery.

Here’s when you get to feel like a spy. To truly turn off an iPhone, you have to know how to use the “device firmware upgrade” or DFU, mode. This is what Apple and developers use to install iOS updates, jailbreak a phone or unlock a SIM card.

Don’t worry, you’re not doing any of that. You just want to really turn off your iPhone.

To get into DFU mode, you’ll need an iPhone, USB cord and a computer with iTunes installed.

First, connect the iPhone to your computer using the USB cord and start iTunes. Once iTunes is running, go to the iPhone and hold down the Power button for three seconds, then press the Home button. Hold both buttons and count to 10 seconds.

The phone’s screen will go black, but keep holding the buttons. After the 10 seconds are up, let go of the Power button, but keep the Home button pressed.

-advertisement-

Hold the Home button for another 10 to 15 seconds. When you see a pop-up message in iTunes, you know you’re successfully in DFU mode.

Click here to watch a video of these steps in action.

When you’re ready to get out of DFU mode, hold the Home button and Power button until the Apple logo appears. Then let the phone start like it normally would.

Of course, this turning on and off procedure is a complete hassle. So you might think it’s better to keep the NSA or anyone else from putting the spy app on your phone in the first place. Good idea, but it’s going to be tricky.

The NSA or anyone else after you could slip a spy app on your phone disguised as another legitimate app. This is easier to do on Android phones because they can download apps from third-party sites and Google Play’s review policy is very relaxed.

Apple gadgets can only download from the Apple App Store, and the nefarious sneak would have to get the app past Apple’s reviewers. That’s harder, but still isn’t impossible.

Another concern is that the NSA knows undiscovered bugs in operating systems and common programs that let it collect data without anyone knowing. It turns out the NSA was exploiting the Heartbleed bug to spy on people, so it isn’t that farfetched. And it’s just about impossible for you to stop.

In the worst case, the NSA could pull the same trick it allegedly uses with American-made routers heading overseas. The NSA intercepts a router shipment, puts a backdoor in the software, packages the routers back up and sends them on. Then it can spy on any networks the routers connect to.

I doubt the NSA is doing that to phones coming into the U.S. – it would be a logistical nightmare if nothing else – but you never know.

If you’re really worried about the NSA and spying apps, you might want to look into the new Blackphones. These Android-based phones are built from the ground up with security and privacy in mind.

Of course, once on the market, a Blackphone will set you back $630, so it isn’t for the faint of heart or light of wallet. It might worth it, though, if it keeps the NSA out of your life – for now.

 

Record Low Voter Turnout for November: California’s November Ballot Could Be Shortest Ever

We just finished a primary election with an historic low vote. The November election will bring another historically low voter turnout. There are 11 seats where the incumbent has NO opponent (unless a write in qualifies—and then that candidate will have no money to campaign). There are, at this time 27 races for legislative seats with only one Party on the ballot—so why should folks of the other Party vote. There are ZERO Third Party candidates on the ballot—so why should those folks vote?

The Statewide races will be little noticed. As of June 4—the GOP candidate has no money in the bank to run for Governor, while the incumbent has about $21 million. The same goes for the GOP candidates for Secretary of State, Treasurer, Lt. Governor and even Controller. The Democrats have money and the Republicans have none. This is public record on the Secretary of State web site.

Now we are going to have an historic low number of ballot measures and only a couple will provide any interest. That is not enough to bring out the public to vote. Thanks to those that passed Prop. 14—the Top Two—instead of increasing voter participation, it has tanked the electoral system. Time for repeal.

vote initiative

California’s November Ballot Could Be Shortest Ever

John Myers, KQED, 6/13/14

After months of private maneuvering, polling and even some expensive signature-gathering efforts that appear to have been in vain, November’s statewide ballot in California is looking like the smallest ever when it comes to propositions.

State law requires that ballot measures clear all hurdles at least 131 days before the election; and in the case of Nov. 4, that’s June 26.

In truth, though, there are deadlines that come much earlier — unless the measure is written by the Legislature.

But we’ll come back to that in a minute.

At this juncture, five measures have either qualified for California’s fall ballot or are sure bets to be included; a sixth also has pretty good odds, though it remains in some political limbo at the state Capitol.

Six propositions would be the lowest on any general election ballot since California enacted the direct democracy system in 1911. The low-water mark, to date, for propositions was seven measures in both 2002 and 1916.

The small crop of 2014 measures stands in contrast to the more than four dozen proposed laws that have been in circulation for voter signatures in the 2013 and 2014 cycle.

As of now, only four measures have officially qualified. They include an effort to lift the state’s existing cap on medical malpractice awards; an effort to change how health insurance rates are regulated; a referendum on the state’s first off-reservation Indian casino project; and the expanded state budget rainy day fund crafted by Gov. Jerry Brown and the Legislature.

The fifth likely candidate is an initiative, now in the process of signature verification, to change some nonviolent felony crimes into misdemeanors. The random sampling by elections officials of signatures (PDF) suggests it will be certified for the ballot by the official deadline.

And there may be a sixth measure: a still-being-discussed statewide water bond to replace the $11 billion proposal now sitting on the ballot unless lawmakers recraft it before adjourning at the end of August.

Of the fall 2014 crop, expect the medical malpractice initiative — which also includes drug testing rules for doctors — and the health insurance regulation initiative to be the biggest spending campaigns.

So when will the ballot be officially all set? Well, for the water bond and any other measures crafted by lawmakers, the deadlines get… sorry… fluid.

Although state election law clearly says that no measure may be placed on the ballot within 131 days of the election, don’t forget that legislators and the governor write laws. And they can suspend those laws when it comes to writing ballot measures, as they’ve done time and time again. That means that water bond negotiations — which are expected to produce a smaller and refocused borrowing plan to boost water resources — can continue on for weeks, much to the frustration of elections officials who would have to scramble to print voter guides, ballots, and more.

(In 2011, some noodling over the drop-dead date for lawmakers to create a tax ballot measure seemed to suggest 88 days may be the practical bare minimum — which would give water bond talks until early August.)

Several much talked about proposals look to have fizzled out, at least for 2014, including talk of a marijuana legalization initiative and a unique proposal to split California into six separate states. The reason for those measures missing the mark are many; and keep in mind that in some cases it may be purely tactical, as the November 2016 election — a presidential election — is expected to have a much larger turnout than the gubernatorial election that will be held in a little more than four months.

There’s also a chance of other proposals coming from the Legislature before it adjourns just before Labor Day — notably, that could include a constitutional amendment to allow for the suspension of legislators without pay, an idea born out of the recent Capitol corruption allegations.

That would mean 2014 wouldn’t break a record for fewest propositions. Still, it’s shaping up to be a very lean year for voters to write laws — something Californians have done an awful lot of over the last century.

 

How Obama energy rules hurt, help CA

Thanks to the Obama EPA rules, the high cost of energy will go even higher. Between AB 32 and the EPA rules the California Great Depression of 2014 (U-6 unemployment rate is 16.7%, cash deficit is $8.5 billion, debt is $340 billion and Medicaid is exploding our budget—while the confused government calls all of this a “recovery miracle”). While indigenous California energy will not be affected, we import lots of energy from Oregon and the State of Washington—they get killed—so their price to California will soar.

California, thanks to the confused Guv Brown and the radical Obama, we are about to assure generations of Depression for the former Golden State.

“But the president’s much-more ambitious renewable energy targets of 91.7 percent for the state of Washington and 85.3 percent for Oregon may reduce cheap hydropower availability to California because these states might stop exporting to California — especially during cold snaps or heat waves. This could be devastating for a state energy grid that in coming decades will be forced to rely more on inherently less dependable wind and solar energy supplies.

California doesn’t count hydroelectric power as renewable energy under AB32, its Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. However, the U.S. EPA’s draft new renewable energy targets for each state leave it open whether hydropower will count or not.”

650px-Coal_power_plant_Datteln_2_Crop1

How Obama energy rules hurt, help CA
By Wayne Lusvardi, Calwatchdog, 6/13/14 

On June 2, President Barack Obama announced his new rules to mothball “dirty” coal power plants so as to reduce carbon-dioxide power plant emissions by 30 percent from their 2005 level. He also set voluntary targets for the percentage of renewable energy in each state by 2029.

Coverage generally focused on Obama’s overall proposals rather their specific implications for individual states. But if Western states take Obama’s goals seriously, or if these goals are given some teeth, that could hurt California.

At first glance, it appears the Golden State would fare well under key sections of the president’s plan.

California has no large in-state coal power plants connected to the power grid. While several cities in Los Angeles County get their power from coal-fired power plants in Nevada, Arizona and Utah, their contracts expire by 2020.

There are 80 fossil fuel power plants in California that would be subject to 30 percent reduction in carbon dioxide levels from 2005. But normally, they would be retired by 2030 anyways and replaced with more energy-efficient natural gas power plants as well wind and solar power plants.

Furthermore, Obama’s 34.1 percent renewable energy target for California by 2029 seems oddly low. Because of state policies, California is already on course to reach 33 percent by 2020.

But the president’s much-more ambitious renewable energy targets of 91.7 percent for the state of Washington and 85.3 percent for Oregon may reduce cheap hydropower availability to California because these states might stop exporting to California — especially during cold snaps or heat waves. This could be devastating for a state energy grid that in coming decades will be forced to rely more on inherently less dependable wind and solar energy supplies.

California doesn’t count hydroelectric power as renewable energy under AB32, its Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. However, the U.S. EPA’s draft new renewable energy targets for each state leave it open whether hydropower will count or not.

Washington and Oregon, however, would be prone to keep their cheap hydropower in-state to meet their high renewable energy targets. Today, Washington’s and Oregon’s hydropower plants produce 57 percent and 50 percent of their power, respectively.

EPA mandate may reduce some states’ advantages

A central focus of the debate over the AB32 state law is whether the higher energy costs it mandates for California in coming years will spur companies to go to cheaper states or nations. The term used in environmental and regulatory circles for this is “leakage.”

Cara Horowitz — executive director of the Center on Climate Change and the Environment at UCLA School of Law — says this concern has “been one of the motivations all along for California hoping it wouldn’t have to go it all alone. Leakage is a real risk to California if it continues to be well out in front on the climate change question.”

But if AB32-style mandates such as the EPA rule take effect, then “California becomes less likely to lose business to Texas,” she thinks.

Mary Nichols, chair of the California Air Resources Board, put it another way: “Requiring the use of renewable power and ‘energy efficiency’ is exportable.”

What she means by the term “exportable” is exporting California’s high electrical energy prices to other Western states that now have the competitive advantage of cheap coal, hydro or nuclear power.

States that generate enough electric energy to meet their consumption such as Washington, Oregon, Arizona, Utah and Texas would have to play by the rules of those Western states that are not self-sustaining: California, Nevada and Colorado.

By keeping the cost of electrical energy high like California in all Western states, there is less likelihood of “leakage” of not just companies but of population to states that no longer have the huge economic advantage of cheaper power.

 

 

South Los Angeles parents leverage California’s empowerment law for reforms.

Thanks to a 2010 State law, parents in California government schools, by majority signatures, can fire teachers, administrators and take over schools—take the management of the schools away from unions?   They could also push for the creation of charter schools—that would allow teachers to be responsive to the parents not a dues collecting union. This could be the salvation of government schools—parents and teachers controlling them rather than a powerful union more interested in owning the system than creating quality education. Unions equal power/control, not quality education.

Passed in 2010, mired in controversy, and loathed by teachers’ unions, the parent trigger provides that if at least half of eligible parents at a low-performing public school sign a petition, local school officials must adopt one of several specified reform models. These include replacing the principal and staff or converting the school to an independently operated charter. After a couple of false starts, Golden State parents have availed themselves of the parent trigger on a handful of occasions over the past two years.”

This will also end the bigotry of unions—since most of the totally failed schools are in the minority communities—bigotry and unions go together—not by word, but by action.

schools reform

The “Trigger” that Wasn’t Pulled

South Los Angeles parents leverage California’s empowerment law for reforms.

Ben Boychuk, City Journal, 6/13/14

Parents and school administrators assembled late last month in the auditorium of West Athens Elementary School in South Los Angeles to sign an unusual agreement. After months of discussions with a group calling itself “Aguilas de West Athens” (Eagles of West Athens), the Los Angeles Unified School District agreed on May 23 to spend $300,000 on a full-time psychologist, a new attendance officer, a part-time social worker, an additional teacher’s assistant, and a few part-time aides for the school. The agreement also commits West Athens to improving student discipline; directing more staff resources to Common Core implementation; and, more broadly, strengthening parent participation on campus in the coming year.

The announcement was significant enough to merit an appearance by LAUSD Superintendent John Deasy, who added his signature to a pair of oversized, ceremonial copies of the agreement. “I actually think this is a remarkable model,” he said. “I’m proud to sign this pledge and this promise to work for youth.” Yet in order to achieve this “remarkable” outcome, parents didn’t need to file any lawsuits, form any picket lines, or hold any rallies or sit-ins. They simply said they were considering a petition campaign under California’s landmark Parent Empowerment Act, also known as the “parent trigger.” Almost immediately, West Athens principal Ruth Castillo and local administrators stopped paying lip service and started listening to what the group of mostly black and Latino parents had to say. West Athens marks the first time parents have effectively used the 2010 parent trigger law without, in fact, using the law.

Passed in 2010, mired in controversy, and loathed by teachers’ unions, the parent trigger provides that if at least half of eligible parents at a low-performing public school sign a petition, local school officials must adopt one of several specified reform models. These include replacing the principal and staff or converting the school to an independently operated charter. After a couple of false starts, Golden State parents have availed themselves of the parent trigger on a handful of occasions over the past two years. The first successful effort attracted national attention in 2012. Parents at Desert Trails Elementary School in Adelanto faced heavy resistance from school administrators, local school board members, and other parents before a San Bernardino County Superior Court judge ordered the district to accept their petition and hand the failing school over to a charter operator. The newly rechristened Desert Trails Preparatory Academy opened last July and completed its first year on May 30.

Other parent groups have stopped short of pulling the trigger, too, but not before beginning serious petition drives. Parents at Lennox Middle School and Haddon Avenue Elementary in L.A. used signed petitions as leverage to persuade administrators to adopt curricular changes and improve school security. Last year, parents at Weigand Elementary School in Watts used the law to force out a recalcitrant and unpopular principal. But West Athens parents told me they were happy to work with Principal Castillo, despite her initial resistance. And all of the parents I spoke with said that they never contemplated following the Adelanto model and converting West Athens to a charter school. They understood that opponents of the parent trigger have portrayed the law as a blunt instrument, less about empowering parents than empowering “private” charter operators. (Charter schools are public schools and the vast majority of charter operators in California are nonprofit organizations.) For the Aguilas de West Athens, their primary concern was ensuring their children have better opportunities than they’ve had. Their refrain: “We just want our kids to go to college.”

“Despite some differences of opinion,” said Winter Hall, one of AWA’s leaders, “whether it be with the school, district, parents, teachers . . . this proves that we are able to sit down, despite all of that, and have a dialogue.” Added Principal Castillo: “It’s been a bumpy road, but it’s about students.” Not all West Athens parents welcomed the May 23 announcement. The morning of the assembly, a group of volunteers allied with United Teachers of Los Angeles handed out flyers emblazoned with “No AWA” to parents and other passersby, inviting them to “come and join us to demand the truth!” Working from a clichéd playbook, the leaflets denounced an agreement that existed only in the imaginations of its opponents. “We do not want to privatize our education!” “These people DO NOT REPRESENT our interests!” “We are fine here!”

West Athens is anything but “fine.” Serving 800 predominantly Latino and black students in the first through fifth grades, the school is one of the worst performers in the district and the state. West Athens scored 721 on the state’s Academic Performance Index last year—30 points below the district average and in the bottom 10 percent of schools statewide. (The statewide API target is 800, on a scale of 400 to 1,000.) The school has been classified as “program improvement” since 2006, which means it has consistently missed state-mandated academic performance goals in reading, math, and science.

Apart from the lagging academic indicators, West Athens also has a serious discipline problem. Hall helped organize Aguilas de West Athens in part because another student had stabbed her daughter, a first grader, in the face with a pencil. And the place looks like one would expect a 40-year-old urban school to look. Shavonn Jones was more blunt. “Walk around the school,” she told me. “It looks like a jail. It’s so bland. There’s no enthusiasm.” Jones, who is also Hall’s sister-in-law, said she attended West Athens and has sent her five children to the school. She described how campus bathrooms were in severe disrepair at the start of the school year. Under a 2004 class action lawsuit settlement, the LAUSD must ensure that every school has clean, functioning bathrooms. (Yes, it took a lawsuit to compel the second largest school district in America to keep its toilets working.) Jones joined the group, she explained, because she hoped to help restore some of the school’s lost luster. “Just because the neighborhood is poor,” she said, “why should the people be treated that way?”

Aguilas de West Athens exists in part because parents became fed up with bureaucratic intransigence, and in part because the Los Angeles-based Parent Revolution gave parents the organizational training and logistical support they needed to succeed. In fact, the proliferation of these “parent unions” at schools across Southern California is the direct result of Parent Revolution’s efforts. Ben Austin, the organization’s executive director, is unapologetic about emulating the tactics of public-employee unions. Over the years, he’s explained how the parent-trigger law gives parents “a seat at the table” in much the same way that the state’s byzantine education code has strengthened and protected teachers. Lately, Austin has come to think of the parent trigger as akin to a strike. Of the West Athens agreement, Austin said, parents could negotiate a satisfactory outcome without using the full force of the law. “The unions don’t go on strike every time,” he said. “They sit down and negotiate. Why shouldn’t parents do the same?” The parent-trigger movement, Austin wrote recently, “isn’t about any particular policy endgame. . . . Different parent unions at different schools in different communities will have different needs. That’s the point.”

After six states quickly adopted laws modeled after California’s, efforts to pass parent-trigger legislation have foundered this year as teachers unions and their allies have tried to make “charter school” into a pejorative. But California’s experience suggests far more innovative possibilities for local reform through parent empowerment. “The real power of the law,” Austin told me, “is just knowing that it’s there.”

Ben Boychuk ([email protected]) is an associate editor of City Journal. His account of the controversy surrounding the parent-trigger law appears in City Journal’s book, The Beholden State: California’s Lost Promise and How to Recapture It.

Worst Bill of the Day: SB 1010—To Allow Leniency/Probation to Cocaine Dealers

I am always shocked when a legislator PROMOTES cocaine use in a minority community. It is even more shocking when you know the Democrat legislator is herself a Black American—why does she want more people in her community using and selling cocaine?   Yes, there are two types of cocaine—so what—both are devastating—neither is good for the individual or society. But here you have SB 1010 which DOUBLES the amount of cocaine someone has on them that constitutes a felony.

Then the bill allows a 400% increase in the amount of cocaine and still allow probation. This promotes drug use in the minority community. Also, the Hollywood Elites that snort cocaine will also be free from police action.   This is a sick bill promoting the frying of brains of minorities, because too many minorities already use cocaine. It has already passed the State Senate—protect society from those that see no problem with hard drugs. Tell your Assembly member to vote against the bigotry of SB 1010.

http://www.dreamstime.com/-image16843792

Senate Bill No. 1010

 

Introduced by Senator Mitchell
(Principal coauthor: Senator Hancock)
(Principal coauthor: Assembly Member Ammiano)
(Coauthors: Senators Lara and Leno)
(Coauthors: Assembly Members Hall, Jones-Sawyer, and Quirk, Skinner, and Stone)
February 13, 2014

 

An act to amend Sections 11351.5 and 11470 of the Health and Safety Code, and to amend Section 1203.073 of the Penal Code, relating to controlled substances.

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL’S DIGEST

 

SB 1010, as amended, Mitchell. Cocaine base: penalties.

Existing law provides that every person who possesses for sale or purchases for purposes of sale cocaine base is subject to imprisonment in the state prison for a period of 3, 4, or 5 years.

This bill instead would provide that every person who possesses for sale or purchases for purposes of sale cocaine base is subject to imprisonment in the state prison for 2, 3, or 4 years.

Existing law generally provides that the interest of any registered owner of a boat, airplane, or any vehicle, except as specified, that has been used to facilitate the manufacture of, or possession for sale or sale of, 14.25 grams or more of cocaine base or 28.5 grams or more of cocaine is subject to forfeiture, as specified.

This bill would revise that provision to instead make property that has been used to facilitate the manufacture of, or possession for sale or sale of, 28.5 grams or more of cocaine base or cocaine subject to forfeiture.

Existing law, except in unusual cases, prohibits granting probation or suspending a sentence for persons convicted of specified crimes relating to controlled substances, including possessing for sale a substance containing 57 grams or more of a substance containing cocaine, 14.25 grams of or more of cocaine base, or 57 grams or more of a substance containing at least 5 grams of cocaine base, and transporting or importing for sale, selling, or offering to sell cocaine base.

This bill would delete those provisions and would instead prohibit, except in unusual cases, granting probation or suspending a sentence for persons convicted of possessing for sale or selling a substance containing 28.5 grams or more of cocaine base or 57 grams or more of a substance containing at least 5 grams of cocaine or cocaine base.

By making additional persons eligible for probation, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Digest Key

Vote: MAJORITY   Appropriation: NO   Fiscal Committee: YES   Local Program: YES

Bill Text

The people of the State of California do enact as follows:

 

SECTION 1.

This act shall be known, and may be cited, as the California Fair Sentencing Act.

SEC. 2.

(a) The Legislature finds and declares that cocaine hydrochloride (powder cocaine) and cocaine base (crack cocaine) are two forms of the same drug, the effects of which on the human body are so similar that to mete out unequal punishment for the same crime (e.g., possession for sale of a particular form of cocaine), is wholly and cruelly unjust.

(b) It is the intent of the Legislature in enacting this act to provide that for the purposes of determining appropriate penalties for crimes relating to cocaine hydrochloride and cocaine base, including, but not limited to, the crime of possession, possession for sale, or transportation for sale, cocaine hydrochloride and cocaine base shall be treated in an identical manner.

SEC. 3.

Section 11351.5 of the Health and Safety Code is amended to read:

11351.5.

Except as otherwise provided in this division, every person who possesses for sale or purchases for purposes of sale cocaine base, which is specified in paragraph (1) of subdivision (f) of Section 11054, shall be punished by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170 of the Penal Code for a period of two, three, or four years.

SEC. 4.

Section 11470 of the Health and Safety Code is amended to read:

The following are subject to forfeiture:

(a) All controlled substances which have been manufactured, distributed, dispensed, or acquired in violation of this division.

(b) All raw materials, products, and equipment of any kind which are used, or intended for use, in manufacturing, compounding, processing, delivering, importing, or exporting any controlled substance in violation of this division.

(c) All property except real property or a boat, airplane, or any vehicle which is used, or intended for use, as a container for property described in subdivision (a) or (b).

(d) All books, records, and research products and materials, including formulas, microfilm, tapes, and data which are used, or intended for use, in violation of this division.

(e) The interest of any registered owner of a boat, airplane, or any vehicle other than an implement of husbandry, as defined in Section 36000 of the Vehicle Code, which has been used as an instrument to facilitate the manufacture of, or possession for sale or sale of 14.25 grams or more of heroin, or a substance containing 14.25 grams or more of heroin, or 14.25 grams or more of a substance containing heroin, or 28.5 grams or more of Schedule I controlled substances except marijuana, peyote, or psilocybin; 10 pounds dry weight or more of marijuana, peyote, or psilocybin; or 28.5 grams or more of cocaine, as specified in paragraph (6) of subdivision (b) of Section 11055, cocaine base as specified in paragraph (1) of subdivision (f) of Section 11054, or methamphetamine; or a substance containing 28.5 grams or more of cocaine, as specified in paragraph (6) of subdivision (b) of Section 11055, cocaine base as specified in paragraph (1) of subdivision (f) of Section 11054, or methamphetamine; or 57 grams or more of a substance containing cocaine, as specified in paragraph (6) of subdivision (b) of Section 11055, cocaine base as specified in paragraph (1) of subdivision (f) of Section 11054, or methamphetamine; or 28.5 grams or more of Schedule II controlled substances. No interest in a vehicle which may be lawfully driven on the highway with a class C, class M1, or class M2 license, as prescribed in Section 12804.9 of the Vehicle Code, may be forfeited under this subdivision if there is a community property interest in the vehicle by a person other than the defendant and the vehicle is the sole class C, class M1, or class M2 vehicle available to the defendant’s immediate family.

(f) All moneys, negotiable instruments, securities, or other things of value furnished or intended to be furnished by any person in exchange for a controlled substance, all proceeds traceable to such an exchange, and all moneys, negotiable instruments, or securities used or intended to be used to facilitate any violation of Section 11351, 11351.5, 11352, 11355, 11359, 11360, 11378, 11378.5, 11379, 11379.5, 11379.6, 11380, 11382, or 11383 of this code, or Section 182 of the Penal Code, or a felony violation of Section 11366.8 of this code, insofar as the offense involves manufacture, sale, possession for sale, offer for sale, or offer to manufacture, or conspiracy to commit at least one of those offenses, if the exchange, violation, or other conduct which is the basis for the forfeiture occurred within five years of the seizure of the property, or the filing of a petition under this chapter, or the issuance of an order of forfeiture of the property, whichever comes first.

(g) The real property of any property owner who is convicted of violating Section 11366, 11366.5, or 11366.6 with respect to that property. However, property which is used as a family residence or for other lawful purposes, or which is owned by two or more persons, one of whom had no knowledge of its unlawful use, shall not be subject to forfeiture.

(h) (1) Subject to the requirements of Section 11488.5 and except as further limited by this subdivision to protect innocent parties who claim a property interest acquired from a defendant, all right, title, and interest in any personal property described in this section shall vest in the state upon commission of the act giving rise to forfeiture under this chapter, if the state or local governmental entity proves a violation of Section 11351, 11351.5, 11352, 11355, 11359, 11360, 11378, 11378.5, 11379, 11379.5, 11379.6, 11380, 11382, or 11383 of this code, or Section 182 of the Penal Code, or a felony violation of Section 11366.8 of this code, insofar as the offense involves the manufacture, sale, possession for sale, offer for sale, offer to manufacture, or conspiracy to commit at least one of those offenses, in accordance with the burden of proof set forth in paragraph (1) of subdivision (i) of Section 11488.4 or, in the case of cash or negotiable instruments in excess of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000), paragraph (4) of subdivision (i) of Section 11488.4.

(2) The operation of the special vesting rule established by this subdivision shall be limited to circumstances where its application will not defeat the claim of any person, including a bona fide purchaser or encumbrancer who, pursuant to Section 11488.5, 11488.6, or 11489, claims an interest in the property seized, notwithstanding that the interest in the property being claimed was acquired from a defendant whose property interest would otherwise have been subject to divestment pursuant to this subdivision.

SEC. 5.

Section 1203.073 of the Penal Code is amended to read:

1203.073.

(a) A person convicted of a felony specified in subdivision (b) may be granted probation only in an unusual case where the interests of justice would best be served. When probation is granted in such a case, the court shall specify on the record and shall enter in the minutes the circumstances indicating that the interests of justice would best be served by such a disposition.

(b) Except as provided in subdivision (a), probation shall not be granted to, nor shall the execution or imposition of sentence be suspended for, any of the following persons:

(1) Any person who is convicted of violating Section 11351 or 11351.5 of the Health and Safety Code by possessing for sale, or Section 11352 of the Health and Safety Code by selling, a substance containing 28.5 grams or more of cocaine as specified in paragraph (6) of subdivision (b) of Section 11055 of, or cocaine base as specified in paragraph (1) of subdivision (f) of Section 11054 of, the Health and Safety Code, or 57 grams or more of a substance containing at least five grams of cocaine as specified in paragraph (6) of subdivision (b) of Section 11055 of, or cocaine base as specified in paragraph (1) of subdivision (f) of Section 11054 of, the Health and Safety Code.

(2) Any person who is convicted of violating Section 11378 of the Health and Safety Code by possessing for sale, or Section 11379 of the Health and Safety Code by selling a substance containing 28.5 grams or more of methamphetamine or 57 grams or more of a substance containing methamphetamine.

(3) Any person who is convicted of violating subdivision (a) of Section 11379.6 of the Health and Safety Code, except those who manufacture phencyclidine, or who is convicted of an act which is punishable under subdivision (b) of Section 11379.6 of the Health and Safety Code, except those who offer to perform an act which aids in the manufacture of phencyclidine.

(4) Except as otherwise provided in Section 1203.07, any person who is convicted of violating Section 11353 or 11380 of the Health and Safety Code by using, soliciting, inducing, encouraging, or intimidating a minor to manufacture, compound, or sell heroin, cocaine base as specified in paragraph (1) of subdivision (f) of Section 11054 of the Health and Safety Code, cocaine as specified in paragraph (6) of subdivision (b) of Section 11055 of the Health and Safety Code, or methamphetamine.

(5) Any person convicted of violating Section 11379.6, 11382, or 11383 of the Health and Safety Code with respect to methamphetamine, if he or she has one or more prior convictions for a violation of Section 11378, 11379, 11379.6, 11380, 11382, or 11383 of the Health and Safety Code with respect to methamphetamine.

(c) As used in this section, the term “manufacture” refers to the act of any person who manufactures, compounds, converts, produces, derives, processes, or prepares, either directly or indirectly by chemical extraction or independently by means of chemical synthesis.

(d) The existence of any previous conviction or fact which would make a person ineligible for probation under this section shall be alleged in the information or indictment, and either admitted by the defendant in open court, or found to be true by the jury trying the issue of guilt or by the court where guilt is established by a plea of guilty or nolo contendere or by trial by the court sitting without a jury.

SEC. 6.

No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because the only costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school district will be incurred because this act creates a new crime or infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction, or changes the penalty for a crime or infraction, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code, or changes the definition of a crime within the meaning of Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution.