在河北做个腹膜外剖宫产多少钱郑州六个月能查四维彩超,江苏哪个医院腹膜外剖宫产,郑州去做四维多少周最好,郑州打掉要孩子多少钱,河北在哪个医院腹膜外剖宫产比较好,郑州孕几周时可以做四维,郑州怀孕多久做思维彩超可以

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — A former Democratic California lawmaker was fined 0,000 Thursday after an audit found he spent political contributions on a vacation in Asia, personal plane tickets and remodeling his vacation home in Hawaii.The Mercury News of San Jose reports that the Fair Political Practices Commission found Joe Canciamilla violated campaign finance laws at least 30 times, used 0,529 in campaign funds from 2011 to 2015, and falsified state filings to cover it up.Canciamilla, 64, resigned as Contra Costa elections chief last month. He was the youngest public official in state history when he was elected at age 17 to the Pittsburg school board. He later served on the Pittsburg City Council and Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors before winning three terms in the state Assembly as Democrat in 2000.He opened a campaign account for a county judge seat in 2011 but ultimately did not run. He was appointed clerk-recorder in 2013 and won election to the office twice.An investigation by the commission’s enforcement staff found that Canciamilla repeatedly mixed campaign contributions with his personal funds starting in 2011. He spent ,000 from campaign funds on a vacation to Asia and bought plane tickets for a trip to London and Washington, D.C. for him and his spouse and used campaign money to pay off credit card charges incurred from remodeling his house in Hawaii.The commission’s enforcement staff recommended a maximum fine of ,000 per count, or a total of 0,000 for 30 counts. Canciamilla agreed to the settlement earlier this month, which the commission formally approved Thursday.Canciamilla’s lawyer Andy Rockas said in a statement that Canciamilla has paid back the disputed amounts and the fine, takes full responsibility for his actions and hopes the fines won’t severely overshadow his 46 years of public service.The commission has also referred the matter to the county district attorney’s office, which is conducting a review and could bring criminal charges. 2024

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — A ballot initiative led by business giants Uber, Lyft and Doordash is now set to go before California voters in November. It is a multimillion-dollar attempt to shield app-based drivers in the state from a labor law, known as AB5, that makes companies give more benefits and wage protections to their workers. California approved the labor law last year, the strictest in the country on when employers can classify workers as independent contractors. The law, while praised by many labor groups, set off lawsuits from independent contractors who said it put them out of work.All three companies plan to spend at least million each promoting the measure to keep their drivers as independent contractors. “At a time when California’s economy is in crisis with 4 million people out of work, we need to make it easier, not harder, for people to quickly start earning,” a statement from Uber said.The result could set a national precedent if successful. 986

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) -- A bill that would allow “bad officers” to be permanently stripped of their badges failed to pass the California Legislature.The measure was one of the year's top policing reform bills after the death of George Floyd while in police custody earlier this year.Law enforcement organizations opposed the bill because they said the proposed system is biased and lacks basic due process protections.The Legislature gave final approval to bills that would ban police officers from using choke holds and carotid holds and require independent investigations when police kill unarmed civilians.Those bills now go to Gov. Gavin Newsom's desk. 666

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) -- A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has thrown out California's ban on high-capacity ammunition magazines.The panel's majority ruled Friday that the law banning magazines holding more than 10 bullets violates the constitutional right to bear firearms. California Rifle & Pistol Association attorney Chuck Michel calls it a huge victory.The ruling has national implications because other states have similar restrictions.California Attorney General Xavier Becerra did not immediately say if he would ask for a full court review or appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.He also did not say if the state would seek a delay to prevent a buying spree. 705

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — Law enforcement agencies in California must release police misconduct records even if the behavior occurred before a new transparency law took effect, a state court of appeals has ruled.The 1st District Court of Appeal's decision released Friday settles for now a debate over whether records created before Jan. 1, when the law took effect, were subject to disclosure. Many police unions have sued to block the records release, while public information advocates argued the records should be disclosed.The ruling applies to police agencies statewide, including the attorney general's office, unless another appellate court steps in and rules differently, said David Snyder of the First Amendment Coalition."These records are absolutely essential for the public to be able to see what the police departments are doing with respect to police misdoubt," said Snyder, whose group intervened in the case. "These agencies have enormous power over Californians and so transparency of those agencies is absolutely essential in order to be able to hold them accountable."At least one agency reversed its prior decision to deny access to old records after the ruling came in. Sacramento County Sheriff Scott Jones said he would release records dating back five years after reading the court of appeal's decision, the Sacramento Bee reported.Mike Rains, an attorney for the Walnut Creek Police Officers Association and other police agencies seeking to block the disclosure, said he doesn't see the decision as setting precedent on the merits of the case but that agencies are likely to take guidance from it unless another court rules differently.His clients do not have an issue with releasing records of misconduct produced after Jan. 1, Rains said, but see the release of old records as a privacy violation."Police officers used to have a privacy right," he said. "We don't believe it changes the rights of privacy to those records that were created prior to Jan. 1."California lawmakers voted last year to require police agencies to release records on police shootings and officer misconduct to the public. Police unions had sought to block old records, with some law enforcement agencies even destroying them. Attorney General Xavier Becerra also declined to release records from his office, saying the intent of the law need to be clarified by the courts.The appeals court ruled on March 12 but only made the opinion public Friday.The rulings by a panel of three justices said the old records can be released because the action triggering their release — a request for public information by reporters or others — occurs after Jan. 1. The justices also noted the release of the records does not change the legal consequences for officers already found to have engaged in misconduct."The new law changes only the public's right to access peace officer records," the justices wrote. 2908