Blog

Snoopy Perfect Cover For Mob Run Air Craft Maintenance Facility

Posted by Sherlock Pwahrow on October 10, 2018 at 4:00 PM

O what a blessing that Mr. Schulz is not alive to see the moral turpitudes that his beloved namesake airport is sheltering! Right from the beginning of the liberally greased approval process, apparently zero if any real vetting of the applicants occurred. Worse it was all accomplished in secret without even bothering to file any information about the financial impact of this multimillion dollar changing of business ownership and then the subsequent shuffling of the ownership resposibility between faceless firms like some shell game. Instead the document lamely claims that there is no financial impact whatsoever. Worse still this raises no red flags amongst the august members of the County Of Sonoma Department Of Transportation & Public Works!


Witness the County Of Sonoma Agenda Item Summary Report Department: Transportation & Public Works – Airport item:


Sonoma Jet Center is located at 6000 and 6030 Flightline Drive



Prior Board Action: 12/11/07: Approved First Amendment to Lease; 07/13/04: Approved Lease to Sonoma Jet Center; 12/09/03: Closed Session Alternatives – Results of Non-Approval: a) No alternatives to consideration of a request for consent to assignment are applicable. SJC desires to assign its leasehold interest at the Airport, and has complied with its lease obligations for so doing. SRA, via Redwood Hangar, LLC and New Sonoma FBO, Inc., is financially and otherwise capable of successfully operating an FBO at the Airport; b) The inadvertent misalignment of taxilane and lease line would remain uncorrected.


Rubber-stamped all of the way through the approval process, how many free luxury cars did that cost them?


Taxpayers might like to know exactly why the Board approved a lease that allowed item b), and by not correcting the situation, even endorsing the misalignment of a taxilane and a lease line? That is at the very least gross incompetence but considering the benefits of this sweetheart deal given to these sly crooks from Jersey, probably closer to gross corruption. Because with the taxi lane mixed up with the lease line, this is probably done to evade paying their share of taxi lane fees to the airport.

 

Further evidence of Sonoma Jet Center’s disconnect from the community can be seen in their inattention to their own web site, a clear indication thereof. Evidence of that can be seen in the fact that when visited for this post on October 10, 2018 their last entry was on July 10th 2018.


The Latest News from Sonoma Jet Center

the ability of organized crime groups to run “daisy chain” schemes using shell companies

 

the ability of organized crime 37 Grosse, Robert E. Drugs and Money: Laundering Latin America’s Cocaine Dollars (Connecticut: Praegan Publishers, 2001) 72. Todisco 22 groups to run “daisy chain” schemes using shell companies

 

Why was it a Closed Session? What were they hiding from the public, is that really how Snoopy does business?

 

CURRENT FISCAL YEAR FINANCIAL IMPACT - None. Is that so? Explanation (if required): None. ; 



Why was no explanation required, it sure sounds like a lot on ‘splaining is clearly left to untangle this sordid transaction? Indeed. For what we really have here is the deep, deep pockets of organized crime moving in next door to the not unsuspecting, just relatively powerless ordinary folk who ran up against New York City style corruption; the kind that killed the Kennedys, the kind that won the war against them. 

The kind that will piss on your head and tell you that it's raining in singsong. People think, going about their ordinary business, that organized crime was long ago successfully dealt with. After all, Elliot Ness did away with that lot long ago, no? Yes, no. Unfortunately, very, very unfortunately for Sonoma County, the opposite is true. Organized crime has so won that battle, that your police chief. Sheriff, city councilman, fire chief, ambulance drivers, they’re all owned and operated by the former.

What explanation would you provide for the absurd claim expressed by the filers of the lease for the Sonoma Jet Center and the complicit Sonoma County government officials that there is absolutely zero financial impact of the changing of ownership of a multimillion dollar company planning to demolish half a neighborhood with a runway expansion project from the get go and then continue to maintain and grow the toxic waste dump of jet fuel and other aircraft waste brewing and percolating down into the local ecosystem?

;

https://tenor.com/rwR6.gif

 

Prior Board Action: 12/11/07: Approved First Amendment to Lease; 07/13/04: Approved Lease to Sonoma Jet Center; 12/09/03: Closed Session (!)

 

And for democracy, it gets worse, far worse dear readers. Department: Transportation & Public Works - Airport 4/5 Vote Not Required Contact: Jon Stout John Merget 565-3633 Phone: 565-7243 Board Date: 7/13/2010 Deadline for Board Action: 7/13/2010

 

The Sonoma County Board of Supervisors for some reason decided to exclude the public in their unilateral decision to award the county’s precious airspace to marauding mobsters masquerading under the cover of a bevy of shell companies leading nowhere with no accountability. Run by a couple of New Jersey puppets whose real objectives are conducting illegal surveillance and harassing of victims singled out for such treatment by their crime bosses by means of sonic jet bursts and dives.

 

Note: Airport services and freight handling – At John F. Kennedy International Airport, LaGuardia and Newark Liberty, the unions were controlled by the Lucchese family.


In the lease for the “Sale of Sonoma Jet Center Sonoma” it states that the “Jet Center has been a solid asset for the Airport and an excellent tenant for the County.” But it offers zero evidence for those claims.


As a voluntary business decision, Sonoma Jet Center now desires to sell its assets at the Airport and has entered into a sales agreement with South River Aviation, LLC. (They were probably threatened if they refused to sell.)


South River Aviation, LLC (“SRA”;) is an aviation-related investment company formed in 2002 for the purpose of identifying and acquiring an existing FBO which met its very conservative business acquisition parameters. Sure it is, and you will be happy to learn that the County further wisely invested the taxpayers’ dollars in acquiring great holdings of swampland in the Garden State. That says basically nothing about the company or those allegedly behind it. Where is the vetting process?


SRA has entered into a purchase and sale agreement with SJC for its FBO assets at the Airport, which agreement is contingent upon the County’s approval of an assignment of the lease from SJC to a subsidiary corporation of SRA. So the County agreed to give their taxpayer’s precious airspace to some company that was suspect in the first place for clear obfuscation to another shell company with zero interest in the community and basically a completely unknown entity if even that. See the work that gets done behind closed doors and behind the taxpayers’ backs. These are jet planes flown over your heads daily controlled by pilots controlled by the mob. Sleep easy Sonoma County!

 

SRA has formed two California entities specifically for the subject acquisition. (Why is that, the first one was plenty murky enough?)

 

These entities are Redwood Hangar, LLC and New Sonoma FBO, Inc., (WHO?)

 

 

the former to acquire SJC’s lease with the County of Sonoma, subject to Board approval,

(Asleep at the wheel, on the take, or both, you decide.)

 

along with SJC’s leasehold improvements (general aviation terminal, fuel farm, and improvements to the Redwood Hangar), -Can you spell toxic waste cleanup?

 

and the latter, (They must have meant ladder, because it will take many steps and rungs to figure out the real crime boss.)

 

which, after closing, will do business as Sonoma Jet Center, (Yet another Mob Run Enterprise.)

 

to sublease the entire leasehold from Redwood Hangar, LLC, (to further abdicate any shred of responsibility for the damage we will cause.)

 

subject to Board approval, (bought and paid for or cowed into submission.)

 

for the purpose of operating the FBO business. (Complete strangers given the keys to hover over sleeping taxpayers at will and to make and perpetrate any kind of aerial disturbance they see fit.)


South River Aviation, LLC, Redwood Hangar, LLC, and New Sonoma FBO, Inc., are all inter-related entities, all owned in part and managed by Joshua Hochberg; Meet the straw man.

 

The acquisition is being funded solely through the equity investment of the company’s stockholders. What company are they referring to and who are the stockholders, where is the data?

 

Reasons for Recommendation

SJC desires to assign its leasehold interest at the Airport, and has complied with its lease obligations for so doing (Oh really? What obligations did the Sonoma County Board require, virtually ZERO.)

 

and SRA, via Redwood Hangar, LLC, and New Sonoma FBO, Inc., is financially and otherwise capable of successfully operating an FBO at the Airport. "What proof of this statement, other than the generous contributions to the board members, is offered?"


Recommendation: Authorize the Chair to: (1) execute the Second Amendment to the July 13, 2004, Lease between the County of Sonoma and Sonoma Jet Center, in order to correct a misalignment of airport taxilane and lease line; (2) execute the Consent to Sonoma Jet Center’s assignment of its Lease to Redwood Hangar, LLC; (3) execute the Consent to Redwood Hangar’s sublease to New Sonoma FBO; and (4) authorize the Director of Transportation and Public Works to execute any other documents reasonably required to effect said assignment (Fourth Supervisorial District). Roll over, fetch, now play dead spot!

 

County Of Sonoma Agenda Item Summary Report Department: Transportation & Public Works - Airport 4/5 Vote Not Required Contact: Jon Stout John Merget 565-3633 Phone: 565-7243 Board Date: 7/13/2010 Deadline for Board Action: 7/13/2010 AGENDA SHORT TITLE: Second Amendment and Assignment of Airport Lease













County Of Sonoma

Agenda Item

Summary Report

Department: Transportation & Public Works - Airport 4/5 Vote Not Required

Contact:

Jon Stout

John Merget 565-3633

Phone:

565-7243

Board Date:

7/13/2010

Deadline for Board Action:

7/13/2010

AGENDA SHORT TITLE: Second Amendment and Assignment of Airport Lease

REQUESTED BOARD ACTION: Authorize the Chair to: (1) execute the Second Amendment to the July 13,

2004, Lease between the County of Sonoma and Sonoma Jet Center, in order to correct a misalignment of airport

taxilane and lease line; (2) execute the Consent to Sonoma Jet Center’s assignment of its Lease to Redwood Hangar,

LLC; (3) execute the Consent to Redwood Hangar’s sublease to New Sonoma FBO; and (4) authorize the Director of

Transportation and Public Works to execute any other documents reasonably required to effect said assignment (Fourth

Supervisorial District).

CURRENT FISCAL YEAR FINANCIAL IMPACT - None.*


CURRENT FISCAL YEAR FINANCIAL IMPACT - None.

 

Âu contraire!

 

Here, for the edification of the Director of Transportation and Public Works of the County of Sonoma is only a partial a list of some of the many, many fiscal impacts of this airport lease upon concerned Sonoma County Residents:

1. Mr. Birdlebough: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members. I am Steve Birdlebough with the Sierra Club. Our concern is that lengthening runways and the additional aircraft to twenty-one flights a day is going to affect the goose that’s laying the golden egg. Sonoma County is a magnet for tourists because they are looking for quiet, they are looking for country, they are looking for open space. They are not really looking for a lot of jet aircraft that are coming in and out every day.

2. MR. Hopkins: My name is Robert Hopkins. And I am a fifty-year-plus airport neighbor. I agree with the previous speaker in terms of killing the goose that laid the golden egg. Sonoma County is attractive because of the beauty of the area, because of the vineyards, because of the quiet, and we need to make sure that we don’t disrupt that to the point where it is like everywhere else in the state and people are not going to want to come here to visit. Thank you.

3. MS BEVERLY SCHENCK: Hello. My name is Beverly Schenck and I live south of the airport. I live on Laughlin Road in one of the Laughlin homes that are over one hundred fifty years old. And by this proposal of removing some of the land to the south and it’s going to be on a voluntary basis, I find very ironic. People have lived in these homes and their families have lived in these homes for over a hundred years.

4. But my concern is about Airport Boulevard where that has not been expanded. And so our infrastructure will not meet the needs of this expansion, which normally the county develops – proposes growth without having their infrastructure expanded. The Airport Boulevard is not and cannot and will not meet the needs of an expansion of an airport. We do not need a runway to accommodate the same size jets that we find in San Francisco or Oakland Airports. We do not need to take away people’s homes to expand their hangers for the wealthy that don’t pay a fair share of taxes on their jets. We don’t need to compete against these large carriers. We don’t need this expansion, this extensive expansion. Why do you have to go to this huge development plan?

5. MR. MUMM- Good evening. My name is Gary Mumm. I can’t stand here tonight and offer you millions of dollars in revenue. Clearly, there is two fashions here, Ladies and Gentleman. There are those who stand to profit from this and there are those that don’t. There are people here this evening whose families go back over a hundred years in this area. It may not mean anything to a lot of people who stand to profit by a larger airport, but it means a lot to us.

6. As a voluntary business decision, Sonoma Jet Center now desires to sell its assets at the Airport and has entered into a sales agreement with South River Aviation, LLC.

7. SJC incurred approximately $330,000 in clean-up costs, the County’s participation in which was negotiated at $80,660 in base rent abatement over a 60-month period, plus the provision of two (2) additional lease renewal option periods of five (5) years each.

8. MS. OLSON: Yes. Good evening. My name is Rosemary Olson. I am a resident on Shiloh Greens and have been there for thirteen years. We are on a free ride and I am very perplexed about that and how through all of these reports there is no commentary on the quality of life of the hundreds of families – not the sixteen thousand jobs that keep, you know, being pounded into our heads tonight – but hundreds of families will be impacted by this twenty-four seven if this expansion goes through with these plans. And that’s what we need to consider. You consider people’s lives first. Thank you.

9. MR. STOUT: The EIR identified seven properties – I believe it’s seven properties that would be impacted by changes in the noise contours. Those properties would be significantly impacted. Properties within the fifty-five decibel contour, over the life of the project, they would experience, I believe, a plus-three decibel increase in the CNEL level (Community Noise Equivalent Level). They would be considered a significant impact. So the mitigation would be to finalize our Airport Approach Protection Plan and identify mitigation measures should we get to those thresholds, such as sound insulation, acquisition and aviation easements.

10. Thank you. My name is Rob Shiperly. I have lived in this area for twenty-seven years…we are really in the “V” of the runway pattern and we are about two miles out. The airport has their consultants. You know, the airport has its consultants. The people that own the commercial property around the airport have their people, but we are all individual people, ;

11. MR. CRABB: Mark Crabb. I am a Windsor resident, but I am also the director of sales for the Tourism Bureau here in Sonoma County. …The bigger thing is we have 16,000 jobs that are affected by tourism. It’s an $80 million government tax business for the County of Sonoma. It’s a $1.4 billion industry for the County. …The actual airport project itself and expansion is very important, I think, to the economy for Sonoma County and its future…because we have a lot of mom-and-pops that really depend on those travelers coming into this area. So we look forward to see this expansion done so that we can actually bring in more tourists into our area that we call temporary taxpayers, because when they come in, they spend their money, they pay the taxes and they go home.  ;

12.MR CALKINS: My name is Brad Calkins. I live in Santa Rosa and I am the executive director of the Santa Rosa Convention and Visitors Bureau and we feel that commercial service is critical to the growth of the hospitality and tourism industry. In Santa Rosa alone, transient occupancy tax for 2010 – that’s guests who come to visit Santa Rosa – was over 3.2 million into the general fund. That helps pay for those emergency services; the fire, the police, the parks, the roads and everything. As a gentleman stated earlier, it’s over 1.35 million in economic impact to Sonoma County. But what does that mean? That goes a lot beyond those 16,000 jobs. Those 16,000-plus people have banking. We use the local banks and facilities. We rent and own homes here. We go grocery shopping, support the local grocery stores or farm stands. We all pay taxes. We support the local retail. We are shopping at retail. We are eating out at restaurants. We have accountants, financial planners. We use transportation, public transportation. We own cars. We spend money on gas. Some of our kids even go to school right here in Windsor. In fact, the majority of us even have to go and get a haircut. So think of how long and how far those 16,000 jobs and what that economic impact extends to and how we can help growth.

13. I believe it was Steven Thornberg who just did a study who said hospitality is going to help lead Sonoma County out of what we are right now and where we are right now through that economic help. And with travel going East, we can provide a lot more visitors a hassle-free incentive to come here with fewer connections. With an increased commercial service, we can open up new markets. Right now, actually today, United Vacations did a special from Seattle. Well imagine how we could do special vacations from Denver alone. Think of the possibilities and the amount of visitors we can attract and how that can help grow and spur the economics of the tourism and hospitality industry.

14. Also, don’t forget: Just because one airline comes in – they have coach air partners. So all those coach air partners now would have the opportunity to market to their people to bring them to Sonoma County and Santa Rosa and help increase and improve our economic independence and spend here in Sonoma County.  ;

15. MR. WEBER: My name is Jeff Weber. I am the public affairs manager for Agilent Technology in Sonoma County. I also serve on the Santa Rosa Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors and am leading the Chamber’s Task Force on the Sonoma County Airport. The Chamber believes that, if approved, the safety improvements and runway lengthening outlined in the revised 2011 Airport Master Plan will be instrumental in creating new jobs in Sonoma County. A safer, more modern airport with additional flights will bring more visitors and perhaps new companies to our area, both of which we believe would help increase employment and improve our economy in Sonoma County.

16. Not only would airport expansion create new jobs, we believe it would help existing companies be more successful and grow their business here, and my company is a good example. Over the past year, Agilent employees in Santa Rosa ad other Bay Area locations took more than 400 flights from San Francisco and Oakland Airport to Denver International Airport, which is close to other major Agilent facilities in Colorado and is one possible destination with the airport expansion. In addition, Agilent employees in Colorado took more than 600 flights from Denver to San Francisco and Oakland. That’s more than a thousand flights and approximately one-third of them involved employees who tend to spend up to two hours driving between the airport and our facility in Santa Rosa. Having direct flights between Sonoma County and Denver would cut these commute to ten minutes, allowing our employees to spend more time inventing and making our products and selling them to our customers and growing our business here in Sonoma County, please be aware of the positive impact that additional flights would have in creating Sonoma County jobs and enabling our existing companies to maximize their success.

17. MR. CLARK: Hello. I am Robert Clark. I live and have lived on – just near the south-end of Chalk Hill Road for the past 23 years. That’s underneath the Delwin Lakeford (phonetic) police jet traffic landing on Runway 14. I am also the owner and president of a flight school at the Sonoma County Airport and I travel throughout the county as an engineer. I support the impact on the economy that we really need both in construction and for the tourist traffic and our own local population traffic, air traffic that would be a part of this expansion. I have pilots and students and renters out on those runways many times every day.

18. MR. BROPHY: My name is Paul Brophy. My company is EGS, Inc., which has been established in Sonoma County since 1995. It is a small Business, less than ten employees. I think this is a critical development for business, particularly in our current economic climate, and very important for the development of jobs in our area. Anything that would allow easier travel arrangements, as has been expressed by Jeff Weber from Agilent, is going to help business in this County.

19. MR. LENTZ: Hi, my name is Gary Lentz and I live in Santa Rosa. As a.director at the largest independent CPA firm in the North Bay and as a father of five, I am very interested – and somebody who is aware of the eleven per cent unemployment rate in this county, I am very excited about the possibility of us opening up and expanding the airport. And you know the tax revenes and the things we need to keep our roads, you know, strong and good and to keep our schools strong and all that, that has got to come from somewhere and we’ve got to have people working. We’ve got to have people being able to make a living there.

20. MS DARCY:My name is Terry Darcy of Santa Rosa. I am representing small businesses in general. My husband and I own a mom-and-pop jewelry store and believe it or not, having the airport expansion will affect us in a positive way. We have vendors, we have clients that will fly in directly. We don’t have the big impact, but the big impact comes from improving our economy.  ;

21. MR. HOCHBERG: Hi, my name is Josh Hochberg and I am president of the Sonoma Jet Center at the Sonoma County Airport. It brings in major Federal dollars in a time when we can – most need it for a big project and it increases economic vitality. The airport has obviously studied the environmental impacts at considerable expense already.

We are bullish on aviation in Sonoma County (Said the president of South River Aviation and New Sonoma FBO Inc.) Sonoma County Airport’s central location in the heart of the wine country and close proximity to northern California’s business centers make this a great airport for business and pleasure travel.”And finally…it enables us to have better air service that everyone can afford back to the East Coast and places other than along the West Coast.

22.

South River Aviation, Ltd.- 778 MONTEBELLO DR SANTA ROSA, CA 95403  (609) 924-2781

Business Info: Founded 2010 Incorporated

Annual Revenue: $103,230.00 (This is yet another in this seemingly endless list of undeclared and undisclosed financial impacts from this highly questionable airport lease made by The County Of Sonoma Department Of Transportation & Public Works! Who greased their palms?)

Employee: Count 2

Industries: Airports, Flying Fields, And Services ContactsCounty Of Sonoma Department Of Transportation & Public Works

 



To have missed so many elephants in the room by declaring on their sworn official county documents "CURRENT FISCAL YEAR FINANCIAL IMPACT - None.", must indicate what. either; ignorance on a monumental scale very advanced even for a government official, or corruption so well paying, that there could have been no question that all concerned mustn't look such a gift horse in the mouth?



 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Explanation (if required): None.

Prior Board Action: 12/11/07: Approved First Amendment to Lease; 07/13/04: Approved Lease to Sonoma

Jet Center; 12/09/03: Closed Session

Alternatives – Results of Non-Approval: a) No alternatives to consideration of a request for consent to

assignment are applicable. SJC desires to assign its leasehold interest at the Airport, and has complied with

its lease obligations for so doing. SRA, via Redwood Hangar, LLC and New Sonoma FBO, Inc., is

financially and otherwise capable of successfully operating an FBO at the Airport; b) The inadvertent

misalignment of taxilane and lease line would remain uncorrected.

Background:

Sonoma Jet Center FBO

Pursuant to its July 13, 2004, long-term lease with the County, Sonoma Jet Center, LLC (“SJC”;) developed

and currently operates Sonoma Jet Center as one of two Fixed Based Operators (“FBO”;) at the Charles M.

Schulz-Sonoma County Airport (“Airport”;). The other FBO at the Airport is Santa Rosa Jet

Center/KaiserAir. Sonoma Jet Center is located at 6000 and 6030 Flightline Drive and is comprised of a

3.87-acre portion of Apron C, the FBO development of which included major upgrades to the vintage/historic

“Redwood Hangar” (a 12,608 SF aircraft maintenance and storage hangar); construction of a new, 2,900

square foot general aviation terminal; and, installation of a state of the art fuel storage and dispensing facility.

The lease with SJC was first amended on December 11, 2007, to reflect the negotiated agreement between

the County and SJC as to the cost of clean-up of contaminated soils encountered by SJC in the construction

of its general aviation terminal. The possibility of unanticipated soil contamination and remediation costs

had been contemplated in the original lease, under Section 5.4(b) Further Negotiations on Account of Certain

Soil Conditions. The soil contamination apparently resulted from routine aircraft parking in the vicinity of

the Redwood Hangar over an extended period of time; consequently, there was no responsible party to whom

the County could turn for the clean-up costs. SJC incurred approximately $330,000 in clean-up costs, the

County’s participation in which was negotiated at $80,660 (= A CURRENT FISCAL YEAR FINANCIAL IMPACT,)in base rent abatement over a 60-month period,

plus the provision of two (2) additional lease renewal option periods of five (5) years each. The original

lease was for a 15-year term, with one (1) renewal option at five (5) years. Per the first amendment and

assuming tenant’s exercise of all three (3) lease renewal options, the amended lease term would be for thirty

(30) years.

Second Amendment to Lease

The proposed second amendment to the lease pertains to an inadvertent misalignment of airport taxilane and

lease line, whereby approximately five (5) feet of taxilane are located within the southerly portion of the land

area legally described in the original lease as the Leased Premises. This misalignment is corrected by a new

legal description for the leased premises, with a resultant reduction in the land area of the Leased Premises

from 3.87 acres to 3.80 acres. Ground rent for the Leased Premises is reduced commensurately.

Sale of Sonoma Jet Center

Sonoma Jet Center has been a solid asset for the Airport and an excellent tenant for the County. As a

voluntary business decision, Sonoma Jet Center now desires to sell its assets at the Airport and has entered

into a sales agreement with South River Aviation, LLC.

South River Aviation, LLC

South River Aviation, LLC (“SRA”;) is an aviation-related investment company formed in 2002 for the

purpose of identifying and acquiring an existing FBO which met its very conservative business acquisition

parameters. Its prospective acquisition of Sonoma Jet Center would be its first such acquisition. SRA has

entered into a purchase and sale agreement with SJC for its FBO assets at the Airport, which agreement is

contingent upon the County’s approval of an assignment of the lease from SJC to a subsidiary corporation of

SRA. SRA has formed two California entities specifically for the subject acquisition. These entities are

Redwood Hangar, LLC and New Sonoma FBO, Inc., the former to acquire SJC’s lease with the County of

Sonoma, subject to Board approval, along with SJC’s leasehold improvements (general aviation terminal,

fuel farm, and improvements to the Redwood Hangar), and the latter, which, after closing, will do business as

Sonoma Jet Center, to sublease the entire leasehold from Redwood Hangar, LLC, subject to Board approval,

for the purpose of operating the FBO business. South River Aviation, LLC, Redwood Hangar, LLC, and

New Sonoma FBO, Inc., are all inter-related entities, all owned in part and managed by Joshua Hochberg.

The acquisition is being funded solely through the equity investment of the company’s stockholders.

Consequently, the new Sonoma Jet Center will be virtually debt free from day one. Additionally, the

company will have on-hand working capital equal to approximately six months of fixed expense. New

Sonoma FBO, Inc. will retain Sonoma Jet Center’s current employees, including its on-site management

team. Except for the second lease amendment discussed above, there are no changes to the original SJC

lease and first amendment thereof.

As a matter of information only, the month-to-month lease between the County and SJC for ramp area

adjacent to its FBO will be terminated, and a new month-to-month lease established with Redwood Hangar,

LLC. This ramp area is utilized for transient aircraft parking during peak air traffic periods. Additionally,

the month-to-month lease covers a portion of ramp area utilized for FBO fuel truck parking.

Reasons for Recommendation

SJC desires to assign its leasehold interest at the Airport, and has complied with its lease obligations for so

doing and SRA, via Redwood Hangar, LLC, and New Sonoma FBO, Inc., is financially and otherwise

capable of successfully operating an FBO at the Airport. The second lease amendment corrects an

inadvertent misalignment of taxilane and lease line.

Recommendation: Authorize the Chair to: (1) execute the Second Amendment to the July 13, 2004, Lease

between the County of Sonoma and Sonoma Jet Center, in order to correct a misalignment of airport taxilane

and lease line; (2) execute the Consent to Sonoma Jet Center’s assignment of its Lease to Redwood Hangar,

LLC; (3) execute the Consent to Redwood Hangar’s sublease to New Sonoma FBO; and (4) authorize the

Director of Transportation and Public Works to execute any other documents reasonably required to effect

said assignment (Fourth Supervisorial District).

Attachments: None

On File With Clerk: (1) Second Amendment to Lease; (2) Consent to Assignment Agreement; and (3)

Consent to Sublease Agreement





*https://www.shouselaw.com/forging-deeds.html



California Penal Code 115 PC - Filing False Documents

California Penal Code 115 PC makes it a crime to knowingly file, register or record a false or forged document with a government office in the state.1

 

Probably the most common form of this California fraud crime is the filing of false or forged real estate deeds or deeds of trust—a variation on the crime of real estate fraud.2

 

However, you may be accused of filing false documents for filing, recording or registering virtually any kind of false or forged document in a California public office.3

 

Examples

 

Here are some examples of situations where defendants could be charged with filing a false document under Penal Code 115:

 

A woman forges a notarized deed transferring ownership of her elderly father's house to her and files it with the county clerk.

A house painter, angry with one of his clients, creates a fraudulent mechanic's lien for money the client does not actually owe him and files it with the county clerk.

The owner of a fishing boat files false fishing activity records with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Penalties

 

Filing false or forged documents is a California felony.4

 

The potential penalties include sixteen (16) months, two (2) years or three (3) years in California state prison, and/or a fine of up to ten thousand dollars ($10,000).5

 

You may also face an additional fine of up to seventy-five thousand dollars ($75,000) if the alleged false document affects title to or places an encumbrance or mortgage on a single-family residence.6

 

In addition, filing false or fraudulent documents could be considered a crime of moral turpitude—which means that a conviction for PC 115 may have immigration consequences for non-citizen defendants.7

 

Legal defenses

 

If you or a loved one is charged with filing a false document, you will certainly benefit from the help of an experienced criminal defense attorney who can help you assert one of the following common legal defenses:

 

You had consent to file the document;

You didn't know that the document was false or forged; and/or

You were falsely accused.

In order to help you better understand the crime of filing false or forged documents in California, our California criminal defense attorneys will address the following:

 

1. Legal Definition of Filing False Documents

2. Penalties for Penal Code 115 Filing a False Document

2.1. Sentence enhancements

2.2. Immigration consequences of a filing false documents conviction

3. Legal Defenses to Charges of Filing False or Forged Documents

4. PC 115 and Related Offenses

4.1. Senior fraud

4.2. PC 470 forgery

4.3. PC 118 perjury

4.4. VC 10501 false reports of auto theft

If, after reading this article, you would like more information, we invite you to contact us at Shouse Law Group.

 

california forgery deed law

California Penal Code 115 PC makes it a crime to knowingly file, register or record a false or forged document with a government office in the state.

1. Legal Definition of Filing False Documents

The legal definition of California Penal Code 115 filing a false or forged document consists of the following “elements of the crime” (that is, facts that the prosecutor must prove in order for you to be guilty of this offense):


You either a) offered a false or forged document for filing, recording or registration in a public office in California, or b) caused a false or forged document to be filed, recorded or registered in a public office in California;

When you did so, you knew that the document was false or forged; and

The document was one that, if genuine, could have been filed, recorded or registered in a California public office.8

Let's take a closer look at these elements in order to better understand how the legal definition of filing false documents works.

 

Offered or causing a document to be filed

 

You can be found guilty of filing false documents if you either:

 

Offer a document for filing, recording or registration; or

Cause a document to be filed, recorded or registered.9

“Offering” a document simply means that you present it to a government office to be filed, recorded or registered. If it does not actually get filed, you could still be convicted of PC 115 (as opposed to the lesser offense of attempting to file a false document).

 

Example: Araceli goes to the county clerk's office in her rural county to record a real estate deed. The deed is signed and notarized and transfers some land owned by Araceli's mother to Araceli herself.

 

But the county clerk is suspicious because he knows that Araceli and her mother haven't spoken in years. So he calls the notary public whose seal is on the deed. The notary claims that she did not actually notarize this deed and her seal and signature must have been forged.

 

Upon hearing this, the county clerk does not record the deed. Instead, he contacts the police.

 

Araceli can be convicted of filing a false document even though she did not succeed in getting the deed recorded—because she offered the deed for recording in a government office.

 

An open filing cabinet with documents showing

You violate California Penal Code 115 when you either present for filing, or cause to be filed, a false or forged document.

You can also be convicted of filing false or forged papers if you cause a document to be filed, recorded or registered. This means that you do not need to have done the filing yourself—you can cause someone else to do it for you.10

 

Example: Scott runs a foreclosure fraud scheme targeting immigrants whose English is poor and who are behind on their mortgage payments. He tells his victims that he will help them avoid foreclosure by negotiating reduced payments with their bank.

 

Scott presents documents for his victims to sign and claims that these simply give him permission to negotiate with the bank on their behalf. In fact these documents are deeds that transfer ownership of the victims' homes to Scott.

 

Scott works closely with his secretary Michelle, who is a notary. She travels with Scott to his victims' homes and notarizes the deeds that they sign. Then what typically happens is that Michelle will drive the victim to the county clerk's office, without Scott, and she and the victim will file the deed together.

 

Scott is not actually filing the false deeds himself. But he is still guilty of Penal Code 115 PC filing false deeds, because he causes Michelle and the victims to do the filing.

 

False or forged documents

 

Penal Code 115 PC applies to a broad range of documents that may be filed or recorded in government offices.11

 

Specifically, California's law against filing false instruments applies to any false or forged document if either of the following is true:

 

The information contained in the document is of such a nature that the government is required or permitted by law to rely on it; or

The information contained in the document materially affects the rights of third parties, in a way that is contemplated by the law or regulation providing for the document to be filed in a public office.12

Mortgage loan document with a set of keys on top

It is common for filing false documents cases to involve mortgage fraud.

According to City of Orange fraud crimes defense attorney John Murray13:

 

“The classic PC 115 case involves real estate documents like title deeds or deeds of trust. But the fact is that prosecutors can charge you with filing false instruments over pretty much any kind of document that is commonly filed or recorded with a government office. The penalties under this statute are pretty tough, and in recent years prosecutors have been relying on it in a wider variety of cases.”

 

Here are some examples, drawn from actual cases, of less-intuitive uses of PC 115 to prosecute defendants:

 

Example: Mike and his ex-girlfriend Donna have a rocky relationship, and each has accused the other of domestic abuse.

 

Mike persuades a family law judge to issue him a temporary restraining order that will prevent Donna from contacting or harassing him. Mike is responsible for filing the order with the marshal's office. On his way there, he alters the TRO to add the additional condition that Donna's new boyfriend Paul stay away from both him and Donna.

 

The marshal suspects that the altered TRO has been tampered with and contacts the police instead of serving it on Donna and Paul.

 

Mike is guilty of California Penal Code 115 filing false documents for filing an altered (forged) TRO with the marshal's office.14 

Example: After pleading guilty to a California misdemeanor, Iris is placed on misdemeanor (summary) probation. One of the conditions of her probation is that she perform a specified number of community service hours.


Iris is referred to a community service center for this requirement. It turns out that this center has earned a reputation for filling out forms for probationers claiming that they have completed community service hours that they haven't actually completed.

 

Iris happily makes use of this service. She repeatedly files with the probation office forms stating that she has performed volunteer work that she hasn't actually performed.

 

Iris can be found guilty of filing false documents under California Penal Code 115 for submitting these documents.15

 

Knowing that the document was false or forged

 

You are not guilty of filing a false or forged document unless you knew that the document was false or forged.16

 

This is often the hardest element to prove in a Penal Code 115 PC case. Without knowledge, there is no guilt.

 

Example: Let's return to the example of Scott above. Scott runs a foreclosure fraud scam that involves persuading people facing foreclosure to sign over title to their property.

 

Scott's secretary Michelle is usually the one who actually records the deeds. But Michelle's English is not particularly good, and she does not know that the documents she is recording are anything other than what Scott says they are.

 

If Michelle is charged with filing false documents, she can probably fight the charges by arguing that she did not record the deeds knowingly.

 

a gavel on top of a printed contract

You are only guilty of recording a false or forged document if you knew the document was false or forged.

2. Penalties for Penal Code 115 Filing a False Document

Filing false documents is a California felony. The potential penalties are:

 

Felony (formal) probation;

Sixteen (16) months, two (2) years or three (3) years in California state prison; and/or

A fine of up to ten thousand dollars ($10,000).17

It is important to note that you can be charged with a separate count of filing false documents for each document you offer for filing/recording. This is true even if the documents are closely related to each other.18

 

AND you will not be eligible to receive a sentence of probation if either of the following are true:

 

You have a prior conviction for violating California Penal Code 115 PC; or

You are convicted of more than one count of PC 115, and your actions resulted in a total loss to a victim or victims of more than one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000).19

2.1. Sentence enhancements

There are a number of sentence—and fine—enhancements that could apply to a PC 115 conviction.

 

First, if the false or forged document affects title to or places an encumbrance or mortgage on a single-family residence with up to four (4) residential units, then you may face an additional fine of up to seventy-five thousand dollars ($75,000).20

 

Second, if your actions end up depriving a victim or victims of more than sixty-five thousand dollars ($65,000)—and the prosecutor can prove that you intended to cause that loss—then you may face an additional and consecutive sentence of one (1) to four (4) years in prison.21

 

Third, you will face California's so-called “aggravated white collar crime enhancement” if all of the following are true:

 

You are convicted of two (2) or more felonies involving fraud or embezzlement (one of which can be PC 115 filing false or forged documents) in the same criminal proceeding;

The felonies are part of a pattern of related criminal conduct;

The felonies are committed either against two (2) or more separate victims, or against the same victim on two (2) or more separate occasions; and

Your actions are alleged to have deprived the victim or victims of more than one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000).22

This aggravated white collar crime enhancement can lead to an additional one (1) to five (5) years in state prison, and/or an additional fine of as much as five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000) or double the amount of the fraud (whichever is greater).23

 

Handcuffs sitting on a paper with the center focusing on the word "fraud"

Filing false documents with intent to defraud is a crime of moral turpitude.

2.2. Immigration consequences of a filing false documents conviction

If the prosecutor can prove that you acted with “intent to defraud,” then a conviction for filing a false or forged document will be considered a crime involving moral turpitude.24

 

This means that defendants who are not American citizens may face immigration consequences if they are convicted of PC 115 filing a false instrument.

 

Specifically:

 

You may face deportation if you are convicted of filing false documents with intent to defraud within five (5) years of being admitted to the United States;25

You may face deportation if you are convicted of Penal Code 115 with intent to defraud and you already have a conviction for another “crime involving moral turpitude” on your record;26 and

You will be deemed “inadmissible” for only one conviction of a crime of moral turpitude, no matter when it occurs. Being “inadmissible” means that you cannot re-enter the country after leaving, become a U.S. citizen, or apply for a green card.27

In addition, a conviction for a crime of moral turpitude can have serious consequences for your professional license if you are in certain professions (such as lawyer, doctor, etc.).

 

Signing a false contract

Consent to file the document is a potential defense to filing false document charges.



Categories: None

Post a Comment

Oops!

Oops, you forgot something.

Oops!

The words you entered did not match the given text. Please try again.

Already a member? Sign In

0 Comments