1. Federal Government Resources
    1. Census Bureau—all info from:
    2. U.S. Census Bureau. The United States Census Bureau Web Site. 17 Oct 1999. http://www.census.gov (17 Oct 1999).

      PERSONS

      Universe: Persons

      Total................................................................29760021

      FAMILIES

      Universe: Families

      Total.................................................................7139394

      HOUSEHOLDS

      Universe: Households

      Total................................................................10381206

      URBAN AND RURAL

      Universe: Persons

      Urban:

      Inside urbanized area.....................................................0

      Outside urbanized area....................................................0

      Rural.......................................................................0

      Not defined for this file............................................29760021

      SEX

      Universe: Persons

      Male.................................................................14897627

      Female...............................................................14862394

      DETAILED RACE

      Universe: Persons

      White (800-869, 971).................................................20524327

      Black (870-934, 972)..................................................2208801

      American Indian, Eskimo, or Aleut (000-599, 935-970, 973-975):

      American Indian (000-599, 973).......................................236078

      Eskimo (935-940, 974)..................................................2552

      Aleut (941-970, 975)...................................................3534

      Asian or Pacific Islander (600-699, 976-985):

      Asian (600-652, 976, 977, 979-982, 985):

      Chinese (605-607, 976).............................................704850

      Filipino (608, 977)................................................731685

      Japanese (611, 981)................................................312989

      Asian Indian (600, 982)............................................159973

      Korean (612, 979)..................................................259941

      Vietnamese (619, 980)..............................................280223

      Cambodian (604).....................................................68190

      Hmong (609).........................................................46892

      Laotian (613).......................................................58058

      Thai (618)..........................................................32064

      Other Asian (601-603, 610, 614-617, 620-652, 985)...................80195

      Pacific Islander (653-699, 978, 983, 984):

      Polynesian (653-659, 978, 983):

      Hawaiian (653, 654, 978).........................................34447

      Samoan (655, 983).................................................31917

      Tongan (657).......................................................7919

      Other Polynesian (656, 658, 659)...................................1675

      Micronesian (660-675, 984):

      Guamanian (660, 984)..............................................25059

      Other Micronesian (661-675)........................................1566

      Melanesian (676-680).................................................5778

      Pacific Islander, not specified (681-699)............................2238

      Other race (700-799, 986-999).........................................3939070

      PERSONS OF HISPANIC ORIGIN

      Universe: Persons of Hispanic origin

      Total.................................................................7687938

      AGE

      Universe: Persons

      Under 1 year...........................................................424303

      1 and 2 years.........................................................1027947

      3 and 4 years..........................................................945465

      5 years................................................................464440

      6 years................................................................443347

      7 to 9 years..........................................................1316195

      10 and 11 years........................................................827453

      12 and 13 years........................................................778136

      14 years...............................................................371754

      15 years...............................................................378995

      16 years...............................................................377610

      17 years...............................................................395080

      18 years...............................................................423911

      19 years...............................................................477552

      20 years...............................................................509737

      21 years...............................................................495714

      22 to 24 years........................................................1505343

      25 to 29 years........................................................2854057

      30 to 34 years........................................................2832314

      35 to 39 years........................................................2500949

      40 to 44 years........................................................2138372

      45 to 49 years........................................................1620528

      50 to 54 years........................................................1282041

      55 to 59 years........................................................1133907

      60 and 61 years........................................................443446

      62 to 64 years.........................................................655873

      65 to 69 years........................................................1055174

      70 to 74 years.........................................................802047

      75 to 79 years.........................................................601809

      80 to 84 years.........................................................377415

      85 years and over......................................................299107

      SEX BY MARITAL STATUS

      Universe: Persons 15 years and over

      Male

      Never married........................................................4034185

      Now married, except separated........................................6096047

      Separated.............................................................252628

      Widowed...............................................................237667

      Divorced..............................................................897477

      Female

      Never married........................................................2939043

      Now married, except separated........................................5914528

      Separated.............................................................359727

      Widowed..............................................................1148050

      Divorced.............................................................1281629

      PERSONS PER FAMILY

      Universe: Families

      Persons per family.......................................................3.32

    3. FAA—all info from:
    4. Federal Aviation Administration. FAA - Federal Aviation Administration. 3 Sept 1999. http://www.faa.gov 17 Oct 1999.

      Accidents:

      **** 10/15/1999 Preliminary Accident/Incident Data Record RECORD 4 ****

      A. Type: Incident Mid Air:N Missing:N Entry date: 10/15/1999

      From: WESTERN PACIFIC REGION OPERATIONS CENTER

       

      B. Reg.No.: 16889 M/M: BH06 Desc: JET RANGER/LONG/SEA/KIOWA

      Activity: Unknown Phase: Landing GA-A/C: General Aviation

      Descr: BELL 206B HELICOPTER LOST CONTROL WHILE ATTEMPTING TO LAND, MADE A

      DESCENDING LEFT TURN, AND CRASH-LANDED ON THE TARMAC OF TWY 08,

      OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES ARE UNKNOWN, LOS ANGELES, CA.

      WX: LAX METAR 142350Z 25009KT 9SM FEW200 19/17 A2983 Damage: Minor

      C2. Injury Data: # Crew: 1 Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 1 Unk:Y

      # Pass: 2 Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 2 Unk:Y

      # Grnd: Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 UNK:

      D. Location City: LOS ANGELES State: CA

      E. Occ Date: 10/14/1999 Time: 23:31

      F. Invest Coverage. IIC: Reg/DO: WP23 DO CTY: LOS ANGELES

      DO State: CA Others:

      G. Flt Handling. Dep Pt: UNKN Dep Date: / / Time:

      Dest: LOS ANGELES, CA Last Radio Cont: HELI FREQ 119.8 Flt Plan: VFR

      Last Clearance: CLRD TO LAND WX Briefing:

      Other:

      **** 10/14/1999 Preliminary Accident/Incident Data Record RECORD 5 ****

      A. Type: Accident Mid Air:N Missing:N Entry date: 10/14/1999

      From: WESTERN PACIFIC REGION OPERATIONS CENTER

       

      B. Reg.No.: 711BG M/M: C210 Desc: CENTURIAN 210

      Activity: Pleasure Phase: Landing GA-A/C: General Aviation

      Descr: ACFT LANDING GEAR COLLAPSED ON LANDING, SANTA BARBARA, CA.

      WX: SBA METAR 132050Z 24006KT 10SM CLR 26/10 A2994 Damage: Substantial

      C2. Injury Data: # Crew: 1 Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:

      # Pass: 0 Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:

      # Grnd: Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 UNK:

      D. Location City: SANTA BARBARA State: CA

      E. Occ Date: 10/13/1999 Time: 20:52

      F. Invest Coverage. IIC: Reg/DO: WP01 DO CTY: VAN NUYS

      DO State: CA Others: NTSB

      G. Flt Handling. Dep Pt: IDAHO Dep Date: 10/13/1999 Time:

      Dest: SANTA BARBARA, CA Last Radio Cont: DNWND CLRD TO L Flt Plan: IFR

      Last Clearance: CLRD TO LAND WX Briefing:

      Other:

      **** 10/12/1999 Preliminary Accident/Incident Data Record RECORD 2 ****

      A. Type: Incident Mid Air:N Missing:N Entry date: 10/12/1999

      From: WESTERN-PACIFIC REGION OPERATIONS CENTER/TOA ATCT

       

      B. Reg.No.: 123FR M/M: C172 Desc: SKYHAWK 172/MESCALERO/CUTLASS

      Activity: Pleasure Phase: Landing GA-A/C: General Aviation

      Descr: ACFT PORPOISED DOWN THE RWY ON LANDING, DID A GO-AROUND, AND LANDED

      AGAIN WITH THE SAME RESULT, THE PILOT THEN WENT AROUND AGAIN,

      LANDED, AND TAXIED TO THE RAMP, OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES ARE UNKNOWN,

      TORRANCE, CA.

      WX: 0055Z 29004KT 25SM SKC 26/06 A2986 Damage: Minor

      C2. Injury Data: # Crew: 1 Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:

      # Pass: 3 Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:

      # Grnd: Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 UNK:

      D. Location City: TORRANCE State: CA

      E. Occ Date: 10/08/1999 Time: 01:25

      F. Invest Coverage. IIC: Reg/DO: WP05 DO CTY: LONG BEACH

      DO State: CA Others: NTSB

      G. Flt Handling. Dep Pt: TORRANCE, CA Dep Date: / / Time:

      Dest: TORRANCE, CA Last Radio Cont: GC=TAXIED ACFT Flt Plan: IFR

      Last Clearance: GC TAXIED ACFT WX Briefing:

      Other:

    5. Congress
    1. California has 54 Senators and Congressmen. To list the names, addresses, committee assignments and voting records would be ludicrous. As we discussed in class I am only listing the info above for one Congressman and the source, where all of the others are available as well.
    2. From:

      Project Vote Smart. Project Vote Smart - A Voter's Self-Defense System. 1999. http://www.vote-smart.org/. (2 Nov 1999).

      Mike Thompson

      Washington DC Address

      415 Cannon House Office Building

      Washington, DC 20515

      Phone: 202-225-3311

      District Address - Eureka

      317 3rd Street, Suite 1

      Eureka, CA 95501

      Phone: 707-269-9595

      Fax: 707-269-9598

      District Address - Napa

      1040 Main Street, Suite 101

      Napa, CA 94559

      Phone: 707-226-9898

      Fax: 707-251-9800

      District Address - Fort Bragg

      The Fort Building 430 North Franklin Street Post Office Box 2208

      Fort Bragg, CA 95437

      Phone: 707-962-0933

      Fax: 707-962-0934

      Committees:

      Agriculture [House]

      Armed Services [House]

      Recent Voting Record:

      Date: 10/28/99

      Issue: Appropriations

      Roll Call Number: 0549

      Bill Number: HR 3064

      Voted: No.

      Date: 10/28/99

      Issue: Health

      Roll Call Number: 0549

      Bill Number: HR 3064

      Voted: No.

      Date: 10/28/99

      Issue: Labor

      Roll Call Number: 0549

      Bill Number: HR 3064

      Voted: No.

      Date: 10/27/99

      Issue: Health

      Roll Call Number: 0544

      Bill Number: HR 2260

      Voted: No.

      Date: 10/21/99

      Issue: Appropriations

      Roll Call Number: 0528

      Bill Number: HR 2466

      Voted: No.

      Date: 10/21/99

      Issue: Education

      Roll Call Number: 0526

      Bill Number: HR 2

      Voted: Yes.

      (I could go on)…

    3. Proposed by a California Senator—info from:

Starr, Kevin, Stephen P. Teale Data Center and the California State Home Team. "CA Home Page: Government - Your Elected Officials." The California Home Page. 6 Oct 1999. http://www.ca.gov/s/govt/offices.html (10 Oct 1999).

    1. Bill: Lake Tahoe Restoration Act, Senator Dianne Feinstein.
    2. Resolution: By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself and Mrs. Boxer): S. Res. 132. A resolution designating the week beginning January 21, 2001, as `Zinfandel Grape Appreciation Week'; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
    1. Federal Register—following info from:
    2. Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration. 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998 and 1999 Federal Register. 13 Aug 1999. http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/aces140.html (17 Oct 1999).

      1. [Federal Register: January 22, 1999 (Volume 64, Number 14)]

      [Notices]

      [Page 3551-3571]

      From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

      [DOCID:fr22ja99-109]

      -----------------------------------------------------------------------

      DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

      Antitrust Division

      Public Comments and Response of the United States; United States

      v. Enova Corporation

      Notice is hereby given pursuant to the Antitrust Procedures and

      Penalties Act, 15 U.S.C. 16(b)-(h), that public comments and the

      response of the United States thereto have been filed with the United

      States District Court for the District of Columbia in United States v.

      Enova Corporation, Civil No. 98-CV-583 (RWR).

      On March 9, 1998, the United States filed a Complaint seeking to

      enjoin a transaction in which Pacific Enterprises (``Pacific'') would

      merge with Enova Corporation (``Enova''). Pacific is a California gas

      utility company and Enova is a California electric utility company.

      Enova sells electricity from plants that use coal, gas, nuclear power,

      and hydropower. Pacific is virtually the sole provider of natural gas

      transportation and storage services to plants in southern California

      that use natural gas to produce electricity. The proposed merger would

      have created a company with both the incentive and the ability to

      lessen competition in the market for electricity in California. The

      [[Page 3552]]

      Complaint alleged that the proposed merger would substantially lessen

      competition in the market for electricity in California, in violation

      of Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18.

      Public comment was invited within the statutory sixty-day comment

      period. The two comments received, and the responses thereto, are

      hereby published in the Federal Register and filed with the Court.

      Copies of the Complaint, Stipulation and Order, Proposed Final

      Judgment, Competitive Impact Statement, Public Comments, and

      Plaintiff's Response to Public Comments are available for inspection in

      Room 215 of the U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, 325

      Seventh Street, NW., Washington, DC 20530 (telephone: (202) 514-2481)

      and at the office of the Clerk of the United States District Court for

      the District of Columbia, 333 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC

      20001. Copies of these materials may be obtained on request and payment

      of a copying fee.

      Constance K. Robinson,

      Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.

      United States of America, U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust

      Division, 325 Seventh Street, NW., Suite 500, Washington, DC 20530,

      Plaintiff, v. Enova Corporation, 101 Ash Street, San Diego, CA

      92101, Defendant.

      [Case Number: 98-CV-583 (RWR); Judge Richard W. Roberts]

      Plaintiff's Response to Public Comments

      Pursuant to the requirements of the Antitrust Procedures and

      Penalties Act (``APPA''), 15 U.S.C. 16(b)-(h) (``Tunney Act''), the

      United States hereby responds to the two public comments received

      regarding the proposed Final Judgment in this case.

      I. The Complaint and Proposed Judgment

      The United States filed a civil antitrust Complaint on March 9,

      1998, alleging that the proposed merger of Pacific Enterprises

      (``Pacific''), a California natural gas utility, and Enova Corporation

      (``Enova''), a California electric utility, would violate Section 7 of

      the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18. The Complaint alleges that as a result

      of the merger, the combined company (``PE/Enova'') would have both the

      incentive and the ability to lessen competition in the market for

      electricity in California and that consumers would be likely to pay

      higher prices for electricity.

      The Complaint further alleges that prior to the merger, Pacific's

      wholly owned subsidiary, Southern California Gas Company, was virtually

      the sole provider of natural gas transmission and storage to natural

      gas-fueled electric generating plants in Southern California (``gas-

      fired plants''). As a consequence and without regard to the merger, it

      had the ability to use that market power to control the supply and thus

      the price of natural gas available to the gas-fired plants. Prior to

      the merger, however, Pacific did not own any electric generation

      plants, so it did not have the incentive to limit its gas

      transportation, sales or storage or to raise the price of gas to

      electric utilities in order to increase the price of electricity.

      The Complaint alleges that in early 1998, the California electric

      market experienced significant changes as the result of a legislatively

      mandated restructuring. In this new competitive electric market, gas-

      fired plants, which are the most costly electric generating plants to

      operate, set the price that all sellers receive for electricity in

      California in peak demand periods. Thus, if a firm could increase the

      cost of the gas-fired plants by raising their fuel prices, it could

      raise the price all sellers of electricity in California receive, and

      increase the profits of owners of lower cost sources of electricity.

      Based on these facts, the Complaint alleges that the merger

      violated Section 7 of the Clayton Act because the acquisition of

      Enova's low-cost electric generating plants gave Pacific a means to

      benefit from any increase in electric prices. The Complaint challenges

      2. [Federal Register: January 20, 1999 (Volume 64, Number 12)]

      [Rules and Regulations]

      [Page 3015-3026]

      From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

      [DOCID:fr20ja99-8]

      ====================================================================

      -----------------------------------------------------------------------

      DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

      Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms

      27 CFR Part 9

      RIN 1512-AA07

      [T.D. ATF-407; Ref Notice No. 856]

      Establishment of the San Francisco Bay Viticultural Area and the

      Realignment of the Boundary of the Central Coast Viticultural Area (97-

      242)

      ACTION: Treasury decision, final rule.

      -----------------------------------------------------------------------

      SUMMARY: This Treasury decision establishes a viticultural area in the

      State of California to be known as ``San Francisco Bay,'' under 27 CFR

      part 9. The viticultural area is located mainly within five counties

      which border the San Francisco Bay and partly within two other

      counties. These counties are: San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara,

      Alameda, Contra Costa, and partly in Santa Cruz and San Benito

      Counties. The ``San Francisco Bay'' viticultural area encompasses

      approximately 2,448 square miles total and contains nearly 5,800 acres

      planted to grapes and over 39 wineries. In conjunction with

      establishing the ``San Francisco Bay'' viticultural area, ATF is

      amending the boundaries of the Central Coast viticultural area to

      include the ``San Francisco Bay'' viticultural area. The previous

      boundaries of the Central Coast viticultural area already encompassed

      part of the ``San Francisco Bay'' viticultural area. Approximately 639

      square miles is added to Central Coast with an additional 2,827 acres

      planted to grapes.

      3. [Federal Register: January 22, 1999 (Volume 64, Number 14)]

      [Notices]

      [Page 3483-3486]

      From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

      [DOCID:fr22ja99-37]

      ====================================================================

      -----------------------------------------------------------------------

      DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

      National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

      DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

      Fish and Wildlife Service

      [I.D. 011399B]

      Notice of Availability of Final Environmental Impact Statement/

      Environmental Impact Report and Habitat Conservation Plan/ Sustained

      Yield Plan for the Headwaters Forest Project

      AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

      Atmospheric Administration, Commerce; Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS),

      Interior.

      ACTION: Notice of availability.

      -----------------------------------------------------------------------

      SUMMARY: This notice announces the availability of a joint final

      Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR)

      and Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP)/Sustained Yield Plan (SYP) relating

      to several proposed actions by the Secretary of the Interior, FWS,

      NMFS, California Wildlife Conservation Board, the California Department

      of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF), and the California Department of

      Fish and Game (CDFG), and alternatives to those actions intended to

      achieve the following: to protect, in accordance with the Federal and

      state Endangered Species Acts (ESAs), species listed as threatened or

      endangered under one or both of the ESAs; to provide permanent

      protection for the Headwaters Forest and Elk Head Springs Forest

      through their transfer into public ownership; to provide for sustained

      production of timber products, consistent with Federal and state laws,

      on lands owned by The Pacific Lumber Company and its wholly owned

      subsidiaries, Scotia Pacific Company, L.L.C., and Salmon Creek

      Corporation (hereafter collectively referred to as ``PALCO''); and to

      reduce public controversy regarding PALCO's management of its

      timberlands, particularly the Headwaters Forest.

      4. [Federal Register: September 16, 1999 (Volume 64, Number 179)]

      [Rules and Regulations]

      [Page 50393-50415]

      From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

      [DOCID:fr16se99-19]

       

      [[Page 50393]]

       

      _______________________________________________________________________

      Part IV

      Department of Commerce

      _______________________________________________________________________

      National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

      _______________________________________________________________________

      50 CFR Part 223

      Endangered and Threatened Species; Threatened Status for Two Chinook

      Salmon Evolutionarily Significant Units (ESUs) in California; Final

      Rule

      [[Page 50394]]

      DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

      National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

      50 CFR Parts 223

      [Docket No. 990303060-9231-03; I.D. 022398C]

      RIN 0648-AM54

      Endangered and Threatened Species; Threatened Status for Two

      Chinook Salmon Evolutionarily Significant Units (ESUs) in California

      AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

      Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

      ACTION: Final rule; notice of determination.

      -----------------------------------------------------------------------

      SUMMARY: Previously, NMFS completed a comprehensive status review of

      west coast chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) populations in

      Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and California and identified 15 ESUs within

      this range. After soliciting additional data to resolve scientific

      disagreements, NMFS now issues a final rule to list two ESUs as

      threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The Central Valley

      spring-run ESU was originally proposed as endangered, but new

      information indicates that the ESU should instead be considered a

      threatened species. The California Coastal ESU was originally proposed

      as threatened, as part of a larger Southern Oregon and California

      Coastal ESU, but new information supports a threatened listing for a

      revised ESU consisting of California coastal chinook salmon populations

      from Redwood Creek (Humboldt County) south through the Russian River.

      Other coastal populations to the north of this ESU (and originally

      proposed as threatened) are now considered part of a separate Southern

      Oregon and Northern California Coastal ESU that does not warrant

      listing at this time.

      NMFS is also making final listing determinations for two other

      chinook salmon ESUs originally proposed as threatened. It has

      considered new information about the Central Valley fall and late fall-

      run ESU and has determined that listing is not warranted at this time,

      but it will consider it a candidate species. In the case of the

      proposed ESU expansion for threatened Snake River fall-run chinook

      salmon, NMFS has determined that the ESU does not include Deschutes

      River populations and that listing this latter population is not

      warranted at this time.

      In the two ESUs identified as threatened, only naturally spawned

      populations of chinook salmon are listed. At this time, no hatchery

      populations are deemed essential for recovery in either of the two

      listed ESUs, so no hatchery populations are part of this final listing

      determination.

      NMFS intends to issue protective regulations under section 4(d) of

      the ESA for these threatened ESUs. Even though NMFS is not now issuing

      protective regulations for the threatened ESUs, Federal agencies are

      required under section 7 to consult with NMFS if any activity they

      authorize, fund, or carry out may affect listed chinook salmon in these

      ESUs.

      5. [Federal Register: September 15, 1999 (Volume 64, Number 178)]

      [Proposed Rules]

      [Page 50036-50041]

      From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

      [DOCID:fr15se99-40]

      -----------------------------------------------------------------------

      ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

      40 CFR Part 80

      [FRL-6431-9]

      Regulation of Fuel and Fuel Additives: Extension of California

      Enforcement Exemptions for Reformulated Gasoline Beyond December 31,

      1999

      AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

      ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

      -----------------------------------------------------------------------

      SUMMARY: With this document, EPA proposes to continue to exempt

      refiners, importers, and blenders of gasoline subject to the State of

      California's reformulated gasoline regulations from certain enforcement

      provisions in the Federal reformulated gasoline regulations. Current

      exemptions applicable under the Federal Phase I reformulated gasoline

      program will expire after December 31, 1999, when the Federal Phase II

      reformulated gasoline program begins. Today's proposed rule would

      extend the California enforcement exemptions beyond that date. The

      Agency is publishing a separate direct final rule in today's Federal

      Register, because it does not expect this action to be controversial.

    3. Toxic Release Inventory—all info from:
    4. U.S. EPA. OPPT Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) Home Page. 15 Sept 1999. http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/tri/ (17 Oct 1999).

      See figure IIIE.

    5. General Accounting Office—all info from:

United States General Accounting Office. GAO Home Page. 4 Oct 1999. http://www.gao.gov (17 Oct 1999).

    1. Agencies undergoing audit: at this time this information does not seem to be available online.
    2. Report:

Tax Policy and Administration: California Taxes on Multinational

Corporations and Related Federal Issues (Letter Report, 07/11/95,

GAO/GGD-95-171).

This report provides information on (1) California's experience in

conducting formulary apportionment audits of multinational corporations

and (2) issues that would have to be considered before adopting a

formulary system at the federal level. In its discussion of issues that

would need to be considered before a federal formulary apportionment

system could be adopted, GAO considered the views of tax experts on

worldwide formulary apportionment. Separately, GAO discusses the

policies and procedures of the California Franchise Tax Board, which is

the state agency responsible for administering individual and corporate

Income tax in California.

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

REPORTNUM: GGD-95-171

TITLE: Tax Policy and Administration: California Taxes on

Multinational Corporations and Related Federal Issues

DATE: 07/11/95

SUBJECT: State taxes

Multinational corporations

Accounting procedures

Financial records

Tax administration

Income taxes

Tax law

Tax administration systems

    1. OSHA
    2. California has an OSHA approved state plan, so info is from the California OSHA site, not the federal site:

      California State Department of Industrial Relations. California State Department of Industrial Relations Home Page. 11 August 1999. http://www.dir.ca.gov/ (17 Oct 1999).

      Cal/OSHA Fines Quantic Industries $146,475 for Safety Violations

      SAN FRANCISCO -- The California Department of Industrial Relations' Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) today cited Quantic Industries, Inc. for 26 alleged violations of the state workplace safety regulations as a result of its investigation into the Feb. 11, 1999 fatal explosion at the company's Hollister location.

    3. US Circuit Court of Appeals: District 9—info from:

FindLaw, Inc. "9th Circuit Court Opinions." FindLaw. 15 Oct 1999. http://www.findlaw.com/casecode/courts/9th.html (17 Oct 1999).

1. Recent opinion:

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

No. 98-16625

Plaintiff-Appellee,

D.C. No.

v.

CV-96-00255-LDG

RIDGE HARVEY DAWSON,

OPINION

Defendant-Appellant.

 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Nevada

Lloyd D. George, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted

May 12, 1999--San Francisco, California

Filed October 6, 1999

Before: Betty B. Fletcher and Barry G. Silverman,

Circuit Judges, and Donald E. Walter, District Judge.*

Opinion by Judge Silverman;

Dissent by Judge B. Fletcher

ceedings are evaluated by the harmless error standard of

review.

When appellant Ridge Dawson pled guilty to robbery of a

federal credit union in 1977, the district court failed to inform

him of his right to confrontation and his privilege against self-

incrimination. In 1993, Dawson was again convicted of fed-

eral crimes. The district court sentenced him under the Armed

Career Criminals Act.

On appeal, the Ninth Circuit affirmed. In a memorandum

decision, the court held that Dawson could not collaterally

attack his 1977 conviction in the 1993 prosecution so long as

he had been apprised of his right to counsel in the earlier case.

    1. Breaking story in opinions:

NORMAN YOURISH,ON BEHALF OF

HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS

SIMILARLY SITUATED,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

and

KENNETH YOURISH,ON BEHALF OF

No. 98-56932

HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS

D.C. No.

SIMILARLY SITUATED,

CV-97-04293-CBM

Plaintiff,

OPINION

v.

CALIFORNIA AMPLIFIER; IRA CORON;

DAVID NICHOLS; MICHAEL FERRON;

ARTHUR HAUSMAN; WILLIAM

McKENNA,

Defendants-Appellees.

 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Consuelo B. Marshall, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted

July 15, 1999--San Francisco, California

Filed October 8, 1999

Before: Charles Wiggins, Ferdinand F. Fernandez, and

Sidney R. Thomas, Circuit Judges.

Opinion by Judge Wiggins

_________________________________________________________________

SUMMARY

The summary, which does not constitute a part of the opinion of the court,

is copyrighted C 1999 by West Group.

_________________________________________________________________

Securities/Fraud

The court of appeals affirmed a judgment of the district court. The court held that in an action for securities fraud under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities and Exchange Commission, a complaint's unsupported claim of the existence of non-public information that is inconsistent with the substance of identified representations by the defendant is insufficient to satisfy the pleading

particularity requirement of Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b).

In a class action on behalf of individuals who bought common stock of appellee California Amplifier (Cal Amp) during a specific period, appellants Norman and Kenneth Yourish alleged that Cal Amp insiders made false and misleading

statements to securities analysts and the market to manipulate and inflate the price of Cal Amp common stock.

The complaint charged that the defendants made various false representations, including statements regarding Cal Amp's MultiCipher Plus product lines and its international business. To satisfy the particularity requirements of Rule 9(b), the plaintiffs alleged that the defendants knew that the statements were false when made because of the existence of "true facts" that were known only to them due to their access to confidential non-public information about Cal Amp.

Specifically, the complaint alleged that appellee Ira Coron stated to securities analysts in 1995 that with respect to a large contract with IBC in Southeast Asia, follow-along business for Cal Amp would be $1 million to $2 million, but in 1996,

Coron stated that "we ended last fiscal year and through the first quarter with some very heavy shipments to Southeast Asia on new systems that were being launched; and we knew that was not going to repeat." The plaintiffs also attempted to establish the falsity of various optimistic statements in June and July 1996 about Multi-

Cipher Plus by means of the temporal proximity of Cal Amp's disclosure in August that shipments of MultiCipher Plus would be delayed indefinitely.

The breaking story here is not just this specific case, but the possibility of fraud across the board with high-tech stocks. In California specifically, stocks for high-tech companies are still skyrocketing and drawing large amounts of investment—but are all the companies telling the truth about their prospects? Here’s at least one case where that was suspect.

To do the story we would have to look for similar cases in this, state and local courts and try to find people who have been seriously burned by investing in companies that made their prospects seem higher than reality.

    1. Political Campaigns
    1. Biggest campaign contributors—all info from:
    2. Public Disclosure Inc. FECInfo Home Page. 17 Oct 1999. http://www.tray.com/ (17 Oct 1999).

      SHORENSTEIN, WALTER H (D) $482,500.00 SAN FRANCISCO

      E & J GALLO WINERY (D) $415,000.00 MODESTO

      WALT DISNEY COMPANY (R and D) $340,000.00 BURBANK

    3. Federal Taxes—all info from:
    4. IRS. "Tax Statistics—IRS ." IRS—The Digital Daily. 19 June 1996. <http://www.irs.gov/tax_stats/index.html> (17 Oct 1999).

      Total, 1995: $149,185,087,000

    5. 1996 Voting Patterns—all info from:

U.S. Census Bureau. "November 1996 Voting and Registration Tables for States." U.S. Census Bureau. 17 Aug 1999. <http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/voting/96sttabs.html> (17 Oct 1999).

Did not vote

Registered Voted Not Registered

Total # % # % Total Reg. Not citizen D/K+NA

CALIFORNIA

TOTAL. 22871 12827 56.1 11079 48.4 11792 1748 10044 4790 1569

18 TO 24 YEARS . . . . 3040 1290 42.4 971 32.0 2069 319 1750 732 194

25 TO 44 YEARS . . . . 10480 5117 48.8 4187 40.0 6293 930 5363 2778 756

45 TO 64 YEARS . . . . 6001 4000 66.7 3692 61.5 2310 309 2001 934 388

65 YEARS AND OVER. . . 3349 2420 72.2 2229 66.6 1120 190 930 345 231

    1. Securities and Exchange: see figure IIB5i.
    2. Supreme Court Decision—all info from:
    3. Legal Information Institute. LII: Supreme Court Collection. 12 Oct 1999. http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/ (17 Oct 1999).

      Nos. 92-1384 and 92-1839

      BARCLAYS BANK PLC, PETITIONER 92-1384 v. FRANCHISE TAX BOARD OF CALIFORNIA COLGATE

      PALMOLIVE COMPANY, PETITIONER 92-1839

      on writs of certiorari to the court of appeal of california, third appellate district

      [June 20, 1994]

      Justice Ginsburg delivered the opinion of the Court.

      The petitioner in No. 92-1384, Barclays Bank PLC (Barclays), is a United Kingdom corporation in the Barclays Group, a multinational banking enterprise. The petitioner in No. 92-1839, Colgate Palmolive Co. (Colgate), is the United States based parent of a multinational manufacturing and sales enterprise. Each enterprise has operations in California. During the years here at issue, California determined the state corporate franchise tax due for these

      operations under a method known as "worldwide combined reporting." California's scheme first looked to the worldwide income of the multinational enterprise, and then attributed a portion of that income (equal to the average of the proportions of worldwide payroll, property, and sales located in California) to the California operations. The State imposed its tax on the income thus attributed to Barclays' and Colgate's California business.

      Barclays urges that California's tax system distinctively burdens foreign based multinationals and results in double international taxation, in violation of the Commerce and Due Process Clauses. Both Barclays and Colgate contend that the scheme offends the Commerce Clause by frustrating the Federal Government's ability to "speak with one voice when regulating commercial relations with foreign governments." Japan Line, Ltd. v. County of Los Angeles,

      441 U.S. 434, 449 (1979) (internal quotation marks omitted). We reject these arguments, and hold that the Constitution does not impede application of California's corporate franchise tax to Barclays and Colgate. Accordingly, we affirm the judgments of the California Court of Appeal.

    4. Securities Class Action Complaints—all info from:
    5. Grundfest, Joseph A. "Securities Class Action Clearinghouse -

      2TheMart.com Inc. Filings." Stanford Securities Class Action Clearinghouse. 13 Sept 1999. http://securities.stanford.edu/cases/tmrt.html (17 Oct 1999).

      2TheMart.com Inc. (OTC BB: TMRT)

      1.Harrington v. 2TheMart.com, Inc., et al.

      U.S.D.C. C.D. California

      Case no. 99-CV-01127 [9/13/99]

      Class period: 01/19/99 - 08/26/99

      Class contacts:

      Stull Stull & Brody of Los Angeles, CA at 1.888.388.4605 or 1.310.209.2468 (Michael D. Braun, mdb@secfraud.com)

      Weiss & Yourman of Los Angeles, CA at 1.800.437.7918 or 1.310.208.2800 or wyinfo@wyca.com

      (Kevin J. Yourman)

      Docket as of 9/15/99 [retrieved 10/5/99]

      Summary: According to a Business Wire story dated 9/13/99, the Complaint alleges that the company disseminated false and misleading information about its financial position and prospects and about the prospect of benefit to shareholders. As a result, company stock traded at artificially inflated share prices during the class period.

    6. State Law: see fig IIIM.
    7. From:

      Legal Counsel State of California. Official California Legislative Information. 1999. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/ (17 Oct 1999).

    8. Law Firm—all info from:

Murphy Austin Adams Schoenfeld LLP. Murphy Austin Adams Schoenfeld LLP Sacramento California Law Firm. 27 May 1999. http://www.murphyaustin.com/ (17 Oct 1999).

    1. Firm: Murphy Austin Adams Schoenfeld LLP
    2. Size: 20 Lawyers
    3. Specialty: Business law
    4. Partners:

Russell J. Austin, University of California Santa Barbara, University of California, Berkeley Boalt Hall School.

Cary M. Adams, University of Virginia, University of Maryland School of Law.

Dennis R. Murphy, University of California, Los Angeles.

Michael Schoenfeld, University of California at Davis, Hastings College.

    1. Findlaw
    1. State Bar Association—all info from:

The State Bar of California. The State Bar of California. 26 June 1998. http://www.calbar.org (24 Oct 1999).

    1. President Andrew J. Guilford.
    2. Address: The State Bar of California
    3. Main Office

      180 Howard Street

      San Francisco, CA 94105

      (415) 538-2000

    4. Publication: California Bar Journal
    1. City Bar Association (San Francisco)—all info from:

The Bar Association of San Francisco. The Bar Association of San Francisco. 24 Oct 1999. http://www.sfbar.org/ (24 Oct 1999).

    1. President Therese M. Stewart.
    2. Address: The Bar Association of San Francisco
    3. 465 California Street, Suite 1100

      San Francisco, California 94104-1826

      Phone: (415) 982-1600

      Fax: (415) 477-2388

    4. Publication: San Francisco Attorney.
    1. City Government—all info from:

City of Sacramento. City of Sacramento Home Page. 3 May 1999. http://www.sacto.org/ (24 Oct 1999).

    1. See fig IIIP1.
    2. Mayor Joe Serna, Jr.
    3. City government outline:

The City of Sacramento was founded in 1849, and is the oldest incorporated city in California. In 1920, Sacramento City voters adopted a City Charter (municipal constitution) and a City Council~City Manager form of government, which are still used today.

The City Council consists of a Mayor elected by all City voters, and Councilmembers elected to represent the eight separate Council districts in the City. Each district is a separate geographical area with a population of about 46,000 residents. Each Councilmember must be a registered voter and live in the district they represent. Elected members serve 4 year terms and elections are staggered every two years in even numbered years.

The Council establishes City policies, ordinances, and land uses; approves the City's annual budget, contracts, and agreements; hears appeals of decisions made by City staff or citizen advisory groups; and appoints four Charter Officers, a City Manager, City Attorney, City Treasurer, and City Clerk. Councilmembers serve on several working committees, such as Law and Legislation, and Personnel and Public Employees. Councilmembers do not receive a City salary. They are paid for their attendance at official City meetings.

    1. County Distribution—all info from:

California State Association of Counties. CSAC Home Page. 1999. http://csac.counties.org/ (24 Oct 1999).

    1. 58 Counties.
    2. There is a county government system.
    3. County structure:

The basic provisions for the government of California counties are contained in the California Constitution and the California Government Code. A county is the largest political subdivision of the state having corporate powers. It is vested by the Legislature with the powers necessary to provide for the health and welfare of the people within its borders. The specific organizational structure of a county in California will vary from county to county.

County as Distinguished from a City

There is a fundamental distinction between a county and a city. Counties lack broad powers of self-government that California cities have (e.g., cities have broad revenue generating authority and counties do not). In addition, legislative control over counties is more complete than it is over cities. Unless restricted by a specific provision of the state Constitution, the Legislature may delegate to the counties any of the functions which belong to the state itself. Conversely, the state may take back to itself and resume the functions which it has delegated to counties (e.g., state funding of trial courts).

More info available on the site cited above.