Judge Rejects Port Official’s Request in Slander Case

A Ventura County judge refused Thursday to issue an order restraining a port commissioner from making slanderous remarks about the overturned 1968 bribery conviction of fellow Commissioner Robert (Nick) Starr.

Starr and a co-defendant were convicted of bribery 24 years ago for accepting $6,500 in furniture from a developer who wanted their votes for a $12-million project while they were Los Angeles Harbor commissioners. An appeals court later overturned the verdict, ruling that the jury had been improperly instructed.

Starr’s attorney filed a slander suit Tuesday against Richard N. Hambleton, chairman of the Ventura Port District Board of Commissioners, alleging that Hambleton had told a Ventura councilman that Starr is a convicted felon.

Starr’s attorney, Kirk Grossman, then sought a temporary restraining order on Thursday to prevent Hambleton from repeating the alleged statement.

Superior Court Judge Edwin M. Osborne, however, denied the motion in a closed-door session, said Grossman and attorney Timothy Gosney, who represents Hambleton.

“We were turned down,” Grossman said upon emerging from the half-hour meeting in Osborne’s chambers, which was closed to the public.

Gosney said, “He was concerned about Mr. Hambleton’s First Amendment rights being infringed” by such an order.

Osborne could not be reached for comment on the closed session.

The attorneys said the judge also brushed aside Grossman’s concern that Gosney, whose law firm represents the Port District, has a conflict of interest in Starr vs. Hambleton by defending one harbor commissioner against a lawsuit by another.

“He said that in these cases, it’s not uncommon for attorneys of public boards and commissions to represent members of those boards,” Grossman said.

Starr’s lawsuit contends that Hambleton told Ventura Councilman Jack Tingstrom on Aug. 21 that Starr was a convicted felon.

It also alleges that Hambleton confronted Starr on Aug. 4 after learning of the case and threatened to release information about it to the City Council unless Starr resigned.

Hambleton told Starr that the conviction was overturned on a technicality, and that he still believed that Starr was a felon, the suit alleges.

On Thursday, Hambleton filed a Superior Court declaration denying the charges.

“I met with plaintiff on August 13, 1992,” Hambleton’s declaration says. “I requested that he consider resigning his position on the Board because, even though the conviction was overturned, I was concerned about the public perception of this matter and its possible effect on the credibility and integrity of the Port District.

“I did not threaten him, nor did I threaten to publicly disclose the fact of this criminal proceeding,” Hambleton’s declaration says.

Starr then said he would consider the request to resign, Hambleton’s declaration alleges.

The declaration states that Hambleton then received a phone call on Aug. 21 from Tingstrom, but never said that “Starr ‘is still a convicted felon,’ or that his conviction ‘still stands,’ or words to that effect.”

Said Grossman: “His whole statement is diametrically opposed to Mr. Starr’s version of the facts.”

The revelation on Starr’s closed, 24-year-old bribery case has split City Council members, some of whom say they want him to resign and some of whom, such as Tingstrom, have said he should stay on the Port District Board of Commissioners.

At least two of the four other commissioners have said they will resign if Starr is not removed by resignation or council action. It would require at least a 5-2 vote by the City Council, based on just cause, to remove a commissioner from the Port District board.