Connect with us

California

California Supreme Court Justice Edward Panelli dies at 92

Published

on

California Supreme Court Justice Edward Panelli dies at 92


Justice Edward Panelli, who rose from a hardscrabble childhood in Depression-era Santa Clara Valley to the state’s highest court, died Saturday evening in Saratoga at the age of 92.

Panelli’s illustrious legal career spans six decades, beginning as a lawyer in the 1950s, then serving as a Superior Court judge before his appointment to the California Supreme Court in 1985. After retiring, he continued to work as an arbitrator, mediator, legal scholar and educator.

Panelli’s son, Jeff, told this newspaper he would like his father to be remembered as a “hardworking and humble” man, the son of Italian immigrants.

“He was a fair, hardworking man who came from very humble roots. He always kept his immigrant roots close to his heart and kept that as the driving force in his life,” Jeff said. “English was his second language. He never forgot his community and transcended political and idiological thought with common sense. He was a common man.”

Advertisement

In a previous conversation, Edward Panelli talked about his understanding of the human condition and how that affected his judicial career.

“I’ve kinda seen life from the street,” Panelli told Mercury News staff writer John Hubner in a 1986 interview for West magazine. “I know when to zig and when to zag, when to duck and when not to duck. I may not be Oliver Wendell Holmes, but I know what makes people tick. I know how they hurt and why they hurt. I’ve got a much broader feel of the world than if I’d come from a cloistered or protected environment.”

Panelli brought to his career the lessons of living without much.

He was born at home in Santa Clara to Italian immigrants. Pidale Panelli wrestled 100-pound gunnysacks of prunes; Natalina Panelli toiled in the packing sheds, sometimes two shifts a day. Young Edward learned the value of his own work in a field of onions, pulling them for 40 cents an hour.

He earned a tuition scholarship to Santa Clara University in 1949 and graduated with honors. After moving on to SCU’s law school, he finished at the top of his class. His father, who was 54 when Edward was born, died 10 days after his son passed the bar exam in 1955. The new lawyer married Lorna Mondora in 1956, and they had three sons. His mother was 95 when she died in 1990.

Advertisement

Panelli is survived by his sons, Tom, Jeff and Mike, and three grandchildren. Panelli’s wife died in 2019.

Panelli’s mentor at the university was the Rev. Patrick Donohoe, a Jesuit political science professor. When Donohoe later became SCU president, he directed some legal work to his former student, then practicing with cousin Louis Pasquinelli. Panelli later became an SCU trustee and chairman of the board in the 1980s.

His first appointment to the bench was in 1972 by then California Governor Ronald Reagan, and he served all manner of duty in 11 years as a Santa Clara County Superior Court judge: juvenile, civil, probate, family, and criminal courts.

“When I was a juvenile judge, I used to walk out of the courtroom and go around and talk to people,” Panelli said in the 1986 interview. “People would say, ‘Gee, you don’t act like a judge.’ I’d say, ‘If I start to act like a judge, maybe somebody ought to kick me in the ass.’”

He got to use his one-on-one skills after serving on the 1st District Court of Appeal in San Francisco. He then was appointed in San Jose by former Gov. Jerry Brown as presiding judge of the new 6th District appellate branch. In a storied settlement between litigants whose demands had been stuck for 18 months at $2 million vs. zero, Panelli managed a settlement at $665,000 in two days.

Advertisement

His jurisprudence changed dramatically with his next appointment in 1985.

In his eight years on the state Supreme Court, the death penalty did not define Panelli’s tenure, but it certainly dominated his first year in 1986.

Panelli had joined the court late in 1985, the first of Gov. George Deukmejian’s appointments, and he had to stand for reconfirmation the following fall. On the ballot, too, were justices Rose Bird, the chief, and Cruz Reynoso and Joseph Grodin, as well as the court’s senior liberal, Stanley Mosk, and conservative Malcolm Lucas. Bird and the liberals had overturned numerous death penalty verdicts and were the targets of Deukmejian, a coalition of conservative politicians, and special-interest groups.

Panelli chose to distance himself from the battle — so much so that he chose to run in and complete the New York Marathon in under four hours two days before the November election. But he also acknowledged in the 1986 interview with Hubner that his tough upbringing didn’t forecast his stance:

“You would think that my background would incline me to be liberal because I’ve seen some injustices and had some economic difficulties. On the other hand, I tend to be conservative because I’ve been through it and I think, ‘By golly, if I can do it, why can’t everybody?’

Advertisement

“I tend to be a little bit more severe on punishment. I understand the impact environment has, but you can’t use that as an excuse. Growing up, I was always told that you are responsible for the consequences of your actions. If you break the law and get caught, you’re going to pay a price. To me, that’s how the criminal justice system works.”

He survived the 1986 vote, but Bird, Reynoso, and Cruz didn’t, and the court gradually turned into a bench full of Republicans, with Mosk still serving in his late 80s (Mosk was 86 on Sept. 4, 1998).

Panelli said friends had known for years that he would probably serve only about 20 years as a judge. He could have retired with full pension benefits in March 1993 when he was 61 but said he delayed his departure until February 1994 after Chief Justice Malcolm Lucas asked him to stay on.

He was succeeded by Kathryn Mickle Werdegar, an appellate justice who had been Justice Panelli’s senior staff attorney during his first six years on the Supreme Court.

Panelli’s tenure in the California Supreme Court marked several noteworthy majority opinions. Chief among them was the ruling that surrogate-motherhood arrangements did not exploit poor women. “A surrogate’s agreement to bear another woman’s child is a valid contract,” he wrote.

Advertisement

There will be a memorial open to the public on Aug. 16 at 2 p.m. at Mission Santa Clara de Asis at 2 p.m.

Staff writer Ryan Macasero contributed to this story

Originally Published:



Source link

Advertisement

California

Mysterious puzzle on California building finally solved

Published

on

Mysterious puzzle on California building finally solved


At first glance, it looked like a decorative art installation. Look closer (much, much closer), and you may have realized the spinning circles at the top of Adobe’s headquarters in downtown San Jose were a puzzle waiting to be solved.

After three years of playing on repeat, the code has been finally cracked. Software engineer Brian Vincent solved the semaphore this spring, Adobe announced, staring at and analyzing the circles’ rotations until he ultimately realized it was conveying an image from the “Birth of Venus” painting by Italian Renaissance painter Sandro Botticelli.

A semaphore is a way to send a visual message. It can be done with waving flags, fire or flashing lights. Think of Paul Revere’s famous example, when he used lanterns to signal the British were coming.

In the case of the San Jose Semaphore, there are four circles that can each appear in four positions, making a total of 256 possible combinations between them. The puzzle first debuted in 2006, transmitting a message on a loop. The circles take a new position every 7.2 seconds.

Advertisement

This version of the puzzle has been playing repeatedly since May of 2023, waiting for someone to figure out its message.

“I wanted to create a code that was impossible for me to solve,” said its creator and artist Ben Rubin.

The semaphore puzzle is seen on the Adobe building in downtown San Jose as codebreaker Brian Vincent walks by. (Photo: Adobe)

The first-ever San Jose Semaphore from 20 years ago broadcast the full text of the novel “The Crying of Lot 49” by Thomas Pynchon. The second was broadcasting an audio file instead: the the famous Neil Armstrong quote “One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind.”

This puzzle, the third in the semaphore’s history, was transmitting a visual medium: a small segment of a Renaissance painting.

How is that possible? Well, it turns out it’s extremely complicated. It took years for someone to solve it, after all.

Advertisement

In the simplest terms, the circles were essentially transmitting a code for colors in the pixels of a digital image. Vincent spent years agonizing over the four circles’ rotations until he finally discovered the solution. It was a code for one small rose from the “Birth of Venus.” (Hear more about how Rubin crafted the tricky puzzle and how Vincent cracked the code in the video at the top of this story.)

“Birth Of Venus” by Sandro Botticelli (1445 – 1510), one of the most important Italian painters and draftsmen of the early Renaissance. (Photo by: Bildagentur-online/Universal Images Group via Getty Images)

“I want to say that the difficulty level on this puzzle is probably perfect,” Vincent said. “In some ways it seems a little bit simple, but at the same time it takes a lot of work and a lot of effort, and it stands for years before anyone solves it.”

Now that the code has been cracked, it’s time for a new puzzle. A fourth semaphore is planned for the San Jose building, Adobe said. Whoever solves the next one will get a two-year subscription to Adobe Creative Cloud and major bragging rights.



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

California

Should billionaires pay a wealth tax? California will be a big test.

Published

on

Should billionaires pay a wealth tax? California will be a big test.


Widening income inequality and a growing number of U.S. billionaires is supercharging the political debate around wealth taxes, at both the national and local level. Democratic lawmakers and candidates, including some from the party’s energized democratic socialist wing, are promising to impose new levies on the über-wealthy should they win control of Congress, citing both fiscal and moral imperatives. Many blue states and cities are exploring similar measures, even as critics warn of high-income residents fleeing to lower-tax red states.

A key test will come this fall in California, where voters will decide whether to impose a one-time 5% tax on the state’s billionaires. The Golden State has a history of pioneering policy ideas via ballot initiatives.

Supporters say the ballot measure, sponsored by a healthcare workers union, would generate needed funds to cover rising healthcare costs for low-income people. Critics – including Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom – say it could decimate the state’s tax base by driving wealthy people away. Opposition groups, funded in large part by Google co-founder Sergey Brin, have spent over $100 million to try to defeat the initiative. They are backing two counterinitiatives that would undercut the billionaire tax and that will also appear on this November’s ballot.

Why We Wrote This

With the top 1% holding nearly one-third of household wealth in the United States, efforts to impose new levies on the wealthy have been gaining traction. A key test will come this fall in California, where voters will decide whether to impose a one-time 5% tax on the state’s billionaires.

Advertisement

“What happens in California is going to determine the course of what happens in this country on this issue,” said California Rep. Ro Khanna, who supports the billionaire tax, on a call with reporters last month. “This fight is defining, for what type of Democratic Party we’re going to be.”

Taxing the rich has long been a familiar refrain among Democrats. Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders has been calling for wealth taxes for decades, and President Joe Biden proposed a billionaire tax in 2024. With the top 1% holding nearly one-third of household wealth in the United States, efforts to impose new levies on high-net-worth individuals have been gaining traction.

Katie Godowski/MediaPunch /IPX/AP

Advertisement

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders holds a “Tax the Rich” Rally at Lehman College in New York City, March 29, 2026.

In Washington state, which historically has not had an income tax, legislators this spring passed a 9.9% tax on incomes over $1 million. Opponents there are mobilizing behind a referendum to repeal the measure, which appears headed for the November ballot. Maine’s governor this spring signed into law a new income tax surcharge on incomes exceeding $1 million, and legislatures in Minnesota and Rhode Island have passed similar measures.

Advertisement

In New York, Mayor Zohran Mamdani won a historic victory last fall with a campaign that promised to impose new taxes on the wealthy while making life more affordable for ordinary New Yorkers. While New York legislators have not moved ahead on Mr. Mamdani’s biggest tax proposals, in May they passed a tax on second homes worth more than $1 million.



Source link

Continue Reading

California

Exclusive: Paramount weighs leaving California over Warner Bros. rift

Published

on

Exclusive: Paramount weighs leaving California over Warner Bros. rift


Paramount has made repeated entreaties to Bonta to strike a deal that would allow its merger with Warner Bros. to close.

The studio proposed a firm commitment, via a consent decree, to produce 30 films annually, with a 45-day theatrical release window and a 90-day streaming window, alongside promises to keep both Paramount and Warner Bros. lots open in California, the people said.

Privately, Ellison and other Paramount executives have expressed frustration at Bonta’s refusal to engage, and have pointed to the commitments around content spending — some $30 billion annually — and employment that would flow into California. Already, the region has faced a production exodus to other states — even to Canada — with thousands of entertainment jobs lost in recent years. Ellison and his executives have said that the combined Warner Bros.-Paramount would create jobs in California, helping to stymie that outflow.

But Paramount believes Bonta’s office has rebuffed its overtures, creating what one Ellison adviser said is an “inhospitable” environment for Paramount to operate in. If Bonta sues, the adviser said, the state’s hostility would push the company over the edge.

Advertisement

Bonta’s office did not respond to a request for comment. Last month, he told MSNOW that there were “red flags in the air everywhere,” and that he was “concerned about job loss and prices being increased.”

In a statement, Paramount said, “We continue to engage constructively with the remaining few regulators around the world still considering the merger, including State Attorneys General, and are prepared to address any legitimate antitrust issues.” It added: “We are confident this transaction raises no such concerns, as demonstrated by the dozens of antitrust authorities around the world that have carefully reviewed the transaction.”



Source link

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending