LAKEPORT, Calif. – A visiting judge issued an order this week that requires the county’s sheriff to pay an expensive legal bill out of his own pocket for actions he’s taken against the district attorney in court.

On Tuesday, Mendocino County Judge Richard Henderson issued an order of clarification for a judgment and writ of mandate entered last November in a suit Sheriff Frank Rivero filed against the Board of Supervisors.

Rivero had sued the board in order to force them to hire him outside legal counsel in his dispute with District Attorney Don Anderson, who at that time was in the process of determining whether Rivero should be placed on a list of officers with credibility issues, or the “Brady list.”

Henderson’s clarification order said that in an August 2012 ruling in which he directed the supervisors to provide legal counsel, “The court did not intend to order respondent Board of Supervisors to provide any conflict representation to petitioner at any point after whatever listing determination was eventually made.”

Anderson placed Rivero on the Brady list in February.

“We understand the judge’s ruling. We do disagree with it,” said Paul Coble, one of the attorneys from the Jones and Mayer law firm that is representing Rivero.

County Counsel Anita Grant said the latest bill the county received from Jones and Mayer, for services rendered from the February decision through April 24, was for approximately $55,684.59.

None of that last legal bill has been paid, Grant said. “The only part we paid is the part the court said we should pay, through the district attorney’s final determination as to the Brady issue.”

At the time the supervisors asked Grant to seek a clarification from the court in March, the county had paid an estimated $23,000 in fees for Rivero’s counsel.

Sheriff sought legal counsel over Brady matter

Rivero sought – and received – a writ of mandate from the court requiring the Board of Supervisors to hire him outside legal counsel in the matter with Anderson because the County Counsel’s Office had a conflict of interest.

He based his action on Government Code Section 31000.6, which requires the Board of Supervisors to hire outside legal counsel for the assessor or sheriff to assist “in the performance of his or her duties in any case where the county counsel or the district attorney would have a conflict of interest in representing the assessor or the sheriff.”

At the time the writ of mandate was issued last fall, Anderson was still in the midst of making a determination on whether Rivero should be listed as a “Brady” officer for allegedly lying to investigators about his actions during a nonfatal 2008 shooting in which Rivero – then a deputy sheriff – shot at a man holding a can of pepper spray. The man, who was seven feet from Rivero, was not injured.

The US Supreme Court case Brady v. Maryland requires that prosecutors release to defendants in criminal cases any information that could potentially clear them, including matters related to the credibility of officers involved in their cases. The decision, handed down on May 13, 1963, marked its 50th anniversary this week.

On Feb. 19, Anderson delivered his determination that Rivero was a Brady officer to Rivero and his attorney. Days later, Rivero filed suit, seeking a temporary restraining order and injunction against release of the determination, and alleging civil rights violations.

While Rivero signaled his intention to fight being placed on the Brady list, Anderson has countered with significant amounts of case law showing that such decisions are the ultimate responsibility of prosecutors.

Numerous cases he cited in his responses to Rivero’s suit showed that courts at all levels have upheld that prosecutors have the sole discretion in making Brady determinations in order to meet their legal obligations.

At a March 4 hearing, retired Butte County Judge William Lamb denied Rivero’s restraining order application, kept the hearing open despite Rivero’s desire to close it, and ordered that all case documents, including Anderson’s Brady determination on Rivero, be unsealed and entered into public record.

Judge orders amended language be added to writ

At its March 12 meeting, the Board of Supervisors directed Grant to seek clarification from Henderson on the limits of their requirements to provide the legal counsel. They unanimously voted to defer further payment on Rivero’s legal counsel – at that point a bill for $29,600 was pending – until they received that additional guidance.

On May 7, Deputy County Counsel Shanda Harry and Coble gave oral arguments before Henderson, as Lake County News has reported. At that time, Henderson gave a tentative ruling matched his final one.

Referring to his August 2012 ruling, Henderson wrote in his decision this week, “The limited scope of the ruling is fully consistent with the very specific scope of the issues framed in the petition and response. Those pleadings referred onto to a proposed determination which had not yet been formally adopted and to proposed discussions leading up to the listing determination.”

Henderson found that the language of the subsequent writ of mandate, issued in November 2012, was “considerably more broad than the scope of the ruling.”

It stated that a writ of mandate was issued “commanding respondent Lake County Board of Supervisors to retain and pay for independent legal counsel for Petitioner Francisco Rivero pursuant to Gov. Code Sec. 31000.6.”

Henderson this week ordered the county to prepare, submit and serve an amended judgment and writ of mandate identical to the first, except that the paragraph commanding the board to hire Rivero outside counsel be replaced with more specific language.

The new language requires the board to employ independent legal counsel to represent Rivero “in any discussions and negotiations with District Attorney Donald Anderson concerning and occurring prior to the District Attorney’s final determination to identify and list petitioner as a ‘Brady officer.’ The ordered representation shall not extend to any post-determination representation or litigation.”

In addition to the more than $55,000 in legal fees amassed through April 24 and any fees incurred since then, Rivero could be looking at additional fees that are mandated by California’s anti-SLAPP statute.

That’s because in a May 7 hearing that immediately preceded the county’s clarification request before Henderson, Judge Lamb threw out Rivero’s suit against Anderson, who in April had filed an anti-SLAPP motion in response to Rivero’s suit.

Anti-SLAPP refers to the legal defense to “strategic lawsuits against public participation.” They protect against malicious prosecution and abuse of process, defamation, libel and slander, and require a plaintiff to prove at the start of the proceedings that they can win the case if it is to proceed.

Anderson used it to successfully argue that Rivero was trying to prevent him from exercising his free speech rights and limit his disclosure of matters in the public interest. Lamb subsequently threw out the remaining case actions based on the anti-SLAPP provisions.

According to Anderson, the fees in that action could range between $3,500 and, if the Lodestar method for determining legal fees is used, as much as $15,000 in fees that are mandatory under California’s anti-SLAPP statute. Anderson said how much Rivero might pay would be up to a judge.

Immediately after Lamb’s ruling, when it was unclear whether it would be Rivero or the county paying the anti-SLAPP bill, Anderson had not been certain if he would proceed to collect the fees.

As to how Henderson’s ruling has affected his decision, Anderson said Thursday, “I’m leaving it up to the county, whether they want to or not,” explaining that the county is the ultimate beneficiary of the funds.

He said he spoke earlier this week with both Grant and County Administrative Officer Matt Perry about the fees issue.

While Henderson’s Tuesday order appears to settle the matter, Coble indicated that an appeal or other avenues are still being explored by Rivero’s legal team, which is trying to determine how to proceed.

“We’re looking at what our options will be from this point forward,” Coble said.

Email Elizabeth Larson at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. . Follow her on Twitter, @ERLarson, or Lake County News, @LakeCoNews.

051413 Rivero v. Board of Supervisors Clarification Ruling

031513 Rivero v. Board of Supervisors - Clarification Motion

030413 Lake County District Attorney's Final Report Regarding Sheriff Rivero Brady determination by LakeCoNews

LAKE COUNTY, Calif. – The committee leading the effort to remove Sheriff Frank Rivero from office said it has raised nearly half the signatures needed to place a recall on the ballot.

The Committee to Recall Rivero and Restore Integrity, www.recallrivero.com , reported that signatures continue to be gathered at a steady pace.

The group so far has collected more than 3,400 signatures, with an exact count pending.

Registrar of Voters Diane Fridley said approximately 7,026 signatures of registered Lake County voters are required to quality for a recall election of Rivero.

The recall committee has been collecting signatures for nearly a month. While they have a total of 120 days – with an Aug. 15 deadline – Fridley said they should have all of the signed recall petitions submitted by June 17 if they are to be able to consolidate the recall with the general district election on Nov. 5.

This weekend, the committee plans to focus on gathering signatures in the Middletown and Hidden Valley Lake areas.

They’ve also expanded their efforts to include paid signature gathers. Anyone who may be interested and willing to assist in gathering signatures throughout Lake County can contact them at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. or call 707-671-5569.

CLEARLAKE, Calif. – A Clearlake man who was stabbed Thursday night has died, and the suspect in the fatal assault has been taken into custody.

Brad Beaudion, 43, died late Thursday after being stabbed in the stomach, according to Sgt. Nick Bennett of the Clearlake Police Department.

Police have arrested Darrell Sidwell, 57, in connection to the stabbing, Bennett said.

Bennett said Clearlake Police officers were dispatched to Park Street at approximately 8:18 p.m. Thursday on the report of a stabbing.

When officers arrived they found Beaudion outside his residence with a stab wound to his abdomen, Bennett said.

Beaudion told the officers he had been stabbed by “Darrell,” then was unable to speak further, according to Bennett. Beaudion then was transported to St. Helena Hospital in Clearlake by medical personnel.

Witnesses in the area directed officers to an address on Park Street where they located Sidwell in his residence. Sidwell initially was taken into custody for assault with a deadly weapon, Bennett said.

Clearlake Police detectives were called in to conduct the investigation, which Bennett said revealed that Beaudion and Sidwell had argued earlier in the evening over a boat located near Sidwell’s residence. The argument later escalated into a physical confrontation resulting in Beaudion getting stabbed by Sidwell.

At approximately midnight Clearlake Police were informed that Beaudion had succumbed to his injuries, Bennett said.

Bennett said Sidwell was booked into Lake County Jail for homicide.

Any person with information related to this case is encouraged to contact Det. Travis Lenz at Clearlake Police by calling 707-994-8251, Extension 315.