Montoya Takes the Stand, Points Finger at Robbins

Taking the witness stand in his own defense, state Sen. Joseph B. Montoya said Tuesday that he broke no laws in taking $3,000 from a federal undercover agent but implicated one of his colleagues, Sen. Alan Robbins, in a separate bid to solicit funds.

Montoya, attempting to clear himself on a dozen political corruption charges, testified that he was “rather upset” when Robbins raised the subject of money and said he wanted a campaign contribution from a group of osteopathic surgeons.

“He (Robbins) indicated the organization ought to contribute and I ought to send them to talk to him directly,” said Montoya, who was carrying a bill on behalf of the group.

At the same time, Montoya said, he was not influenced by the $3,000 honorarium he received from a federal agent who was pushing legislation to help a bogus shrimp company. In fact, the Whittier Democrat said, he was already on record in support of the legislation.

“I voted for that bill before and I was going to vote for it again regardless of whether there was an honorarium,” Montoya told the jury. “I did not believe I had done anything wrong. I received a legal honorarium.”

Montoya took the stand on the 20th day of his federal trial on 12 counts of extortion, racketeering, bribery and money laundering stemming from a four-year investigation of corruption in the state Capitol.

Appearing subdued and somewhat apprehensive, Montoya sought to explain his role in each of 11 episodes in which he or his staff is accused of acting improperly to raise money for the senator’s personal benefit.

In some cases, Montoya attempted to deflect the responsibility to members of his staff, who he suggested were acting independently. And in the case involving the osteopathic physicians, the senator said it was Robbins who solicited money.

Montoya told the jury that he was carrying a bill on behalf of the Osteopathic Physicians & Surgeons of California, which was seeking to ban discrimination by health maintenance organizations and other groups.

Montoya said he was “lobbying” Robbins when the Democrat from Tarzana expressed his interest in a contribution. Montoya said he directed one of his staff members “to warn” Matthew Weyuker, a lobbyist representing the osteopaths, that Robbins expected a political donation.

Earlier in the trial, Weyuker himself testified that a Montoya aide told him that he would have to give Robbins a contribution in order to get the bill out of the Senate Finance and Insurance Committee, which Robbins chairs. Weyuker refused to make the contribution but Robbins later voted for the bill anyway.

On Tuesday, Robbins declined to comment, citing the advice of his attorney. But earlier he told The Times, “I can tell you that I never asked Montoya or any other member of the Senate to raise money for me. . . . I have a large base of San Fernando Valley contributors. . . . We don’t have any trouble raising money.”

Under questioning by his attorney, Michael Sands, Montoya discussed in detail his acceptance of the $3,000 payment from undercover agent George Murray, who was posing as a Southern businessman seeking special help from the state in setting up a shrimp processing plant in California.

Montoya said Shahabian, a Senate staff member turned informant, first raised the question of money with him when he suggested that the shrimp company--a dummy firm set up by the FBI--could be “helpful” to the senator.

During the tape-recorded conversation, Shahabian suggested that the company could deliver Montoya an honorarium check to his office without the senator having to make an appearance. But Montoya testified that he rejected the offer because it is illegal for a legislator to accept payment in the Capitol.

Instead, Montoya agreed to meet for breakfast with Shahabian and Murray, where the senator was videotaped accepting the $3,000 check.

“I thought going to a breakfast meeting, a lunch meeting or whatever we set up, would meet the legal definition of what an honorarium was,” he said.

At the breakfast, Montoya said, he never agreed to vote for the bill to benefit the shrimp company--or take any other action--in exchange for the money.

“I was there to discuss whatever they wanted to discuss,” he said. “We talked about everything but money.”

Ultimately, when the bill came up in the Senate, Montoya said he was not actually on the floor for the vote. Because there was no opposition to the measure, Montoya was recorded voting for the measure as part of a standard Senate procedure of using a roll call vote from earlier in the day.

Montoya said when the vote on the shrimp bill was taken, he was actually in the Senate lounge making a phone call.

Montoya, in disputing one of the extortion counts against him, denied that he ever suggested that actor Ed Asner, then-president of the Screen Actors Guild, should give him a campaign contribution in order to sway his vote.

Asner and lobbyist George Miller testified earlier in the trial that they went to see Montoya in an attempt to win the senator’s opposition to a bill affecting the contracts of recording artists.

When the veteran actor raised the issue, they testified, Montoya pointed out that the actors’ group had not given him any campaign contributions--a statement Asner interpreted as a demand for money.

But in his testimony, Montoya said he never raised the question of a contribution. Rather, he said, he complained that Asner had come to see him so late in the process--the morning before a Senate committee was scheduled to take up the bill. It was this statement, the senator said, that Asner misinterpreted as a demand for money.

“I was a little upset that this was the morning of the committee hearing and this was the first time I’d seen them,” Montoya told the jury. “He was assuming I had to have a contribution to vote with him and that was not the issue.”

Times staff writer Mark Gladstone contributed to this story.