Los Angeles, California
December 18, 2013****
(Today's date)
June 27, 2013
(Original date)
*This is not the actual word that I wish to use, but I realize that the actual word, "bullshit", might be offensive to or for some readers, so I chose not to use the word in the title of the blog, and substituted "rubbish" instead. However, I will likely use the actual word in the text of the blog, because it*'s the word which best represents my sentiment or feeling for the so-called Dorner Report. My offended readers get an advanced apology here.
**UPDATE (Denotes NEW material or information added to the blog after original publication)
*(Denotes new information added to the original blog)
***This blog is submitted and contributed as part of the War on Racial Discrimination (WRD) in California; and it is especially dedicated to Christopher Dorner, the first leader of the WRD.
****This re-publishing of the blog is done specifically in response to an L.A. Times series of articles, published last week, entitled "The Manhunt" (with separate sub-titles for each individual article), which was about Christopher Dorner and his journey to clear his name. Even though the articles are supposed to be merely a "reconstruction" of "the events behind the story", the articles clearly have a pro-police slant, even in its description of Dorner's journey, i.e., "the vengeful rampage of a former LAPD officer", and "the ensuing police manhunt". Therefore, the re-publishing of this blog here is meant to re-assert and maintain a different view with respect to some of the events identified in the Times' articles.
Last Friday, the LAPD produced a so-called Dorner Report, in which it concluded that the LAPD's firing of Christopher Dorner, the Black, and now deceased, former LAPD officer, was justified. Clearly, from my past writings on the Dorner case, I would disagree with the Report, even without reading the entire Report. And, my disagreement would be based in large part on the subsequent Court rulings (and my assessment of those rulings) following the Board of Rights decision. It also would be based on Chris Dorner's "manifesto", which I give much credit to. I am confident that reading the entire Report will not sway me one way or the other (because it appears, from the parts that I have read--from various sources, that it is totally one-sided); but, what it will do is provide me with additional ammunition and answers as to why Dorner was unjustly treated and terminated by the LAPD. Thusfar, I have been unabled to obtain a copy of the report online, so I'll have to try and get a copy otherwise.
But, in order to try and be fair in responding to the Report, I should at least try and read the entire Report (or at least most or a substantial portion of it), even if I know what my response will be (based on the bits and pieces of the Report that I've read already). I will also respond to an *article written by Connie Rice with respect to the Report ("Dorner's web of lies about the LAPD", L.A. Times, June 26, 2013). But, I'll need to read the Report to adequately respond to her *article as well. Nevertheless, I have no doubt that the title of this blog will remain the same, even after I read the Report.
The purpose of this writing is simply to let my readers know that I know about the Report, and that I will respond to it.
So, until next time.
UPDATE--July 23, 2013
I have now read the entire Dorner Report, so I can now fairly assess the Report.
As I stated above, and as I anticipated from the parts of the Report that I had read about before reading the entire Report, my position has not changed: the Dorner Report is absolute bullshit. And, the reason it's bullshit is because its purely subjective in favor of the LAPD (providing no positive information favoring Dorner--and as you will see in my discussion of the Report, there is significant positive information favoring Dorner provided by the Office of Inspector General (OIG) of the Police Commission); its totally conclusory (providing no documentation to support the position of the writer, Gerald Chaleff, Special Assistant for Constitutional Policing, *LAPD); it's unilateral rather than bi-lateral; and its sole purpose is to justify the firing of Dorner rather than to provide some insight into whether Dorner was fairly and justifiably fired.
Before I actually get into the discussion of the Report, I will provide some insight into the mechanics of my obtaining the Report. Initially, I tried to obtain the Report online, but was unsuccessful. Then I visited the police department building in downtown Los Angeles to try and get a copy. But, it was on a Friday, and the desk officer told me that the LAPD (or the Police Commission) do not conduct public business on Friday, and that I would have to try and get the Report Monday-Thursday. So I left. I then subsequently tried another source (that source will remain unidentified for now) and was successful in obtaining a copy of the Report and a copy of the OIG Report (both items were submitted as part of the Report). However, in a L.A. Times article, the Times had stated that the Report was 39 pages, and the Report I had obtained was only 22 pages (the actual Report, excluding the introductory pages), so I thought perhaps I had not obtained the entire Report. So, I decided to visit the LAPD downtown building again, this time on a Thursday, to make sure that I received the entire Report. After a lady was summoned from the *L.A. Police Commission office, she first told me to write down my information, i.e., name, address, etc., and told me that she didn't know if I could get a copy that same day, and perhaps it would have to be mailed to me. But, I told her that I only wanted a copy the same day (and not a mailed copy). She left and returned and told me that I could get a copy, but that I would have to pay for it. I said that was fine, I would pay for it. Nevertheless, she still took the information that I had written down at her request. Eventually, I paid for the Report and received a copy, but, the Report did not include the OIG Report that I had received from my other source. So, the copy of the Report that I received from the Commission excluded or did not include the Commission's OIG Report and, but for my other source, I would not have known anything about the OIG Report, which as you will see later in this blog, is absolutely crucial and significant, because it addresses the Report findings. Moreover, the Report contained a total of 29 pages, including the introductory pages (22 actual report pages and 7 pages of introduction). So, that still didn't add up to the 39 pages mentioned in the L.A. Times article. And, I mentioned this to the Commission lady that was helping me. She said that she didn't know about the rest or any other pages--she acknowledged the total 29 pages. Then I mentioned the OIG Report, and suggested that maybe that accounted for the remaining missing pages. She said perhaps. But she never submitted the OIG Report to me as part of the Report (and I didn't tell her that I was in possession of it, I just mentioned it to let her know that I was aware that there was one). So, if I hadn't obtained a copy from my source, which is not the L.A. Times, I would not have been aware of the OIG Report and would not have been able to rely on it in responding to the Report. (This is why I am not identifying my source, because if another Report is produced and the Commission decides not to provide the complete copy to the public, identifying my source here might jeopardize me obtaining a complete copy from the source (because the Commission would know who the source is)). And, as I mentioned previously, the OIG Report is crucial to and for Chris Dorner, in trying to "clear his name". So, the Commission personnel kept the OIG Report, and the information contained therein, from me as a citizen. And if, in fact, the OIG Report is considered a part of the LAPD Report, then the failure of the Commission to include the OIG Report was a coverup, and an intentional coverup of information critical to the LAPD's Report and information that the public should know and have a right to know. If this is true, I condemn the Commission for that action.
Anyway, as it turns out, out of the missing 10 pages that were unaccounted for in the Report (based on the Times' number of pages, 39, it said was contained in the Report), only seven pages were accounted for with the OIG Report. So, there is still 3 pages that remain unaccounted for as identified by the L.A. Times in its article (39 pages). But, it appears that the 39 pages identified by the L.A. Times most assuredly included the OIG Report. So that means that the L.A. Times also knew about the OIG Report when it reported its story, entitled, "Dorner firing is deemed justified", June 22, 2013; yet, it failed to publish any of the information in the Report which shade a positive light on Christopher Dorner, and which argued against the LAPD Report being justified. This would amount to an intentional biased story by the L.A. Times as well. If this is true (and I say "if" because I have not seen the Report that the L.A. Times received--but almost assuredly, it contained the OIG Report), I also condemn the L.A. Times for its biased and prejudicial reporting.
THE DORNER REPORT : WHY THE LAPD WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN FIRING CHRISTOPHER DORNER
As stated above, after reading the entire Dorner Report, I maintain my original position that the Report is bullshit. While I have summarized my most basic reasons above, I will go more in depth here. However, I will not perform an in-depth analysis of the entire Report, section by section, because it would require much more time than I have available for a pro bono project. Yet, if the time were available to me, I would counter and dispel each section of the Report. But, I will provide enough information for you the reader to determine that the Report was biased, conclusory, and unsupported by the relevant record, and that the Report did not justify the firing of Christopher Dorner. My main reason for responding to the Report at all, and for writing the past blogs on behalf of Christopher Dorner is to help "clear Chris Dorner's name" and to demonstrate that the LAPD was not justified in firing Chris Dorner, because , among other things, Chris Dorner was a good and decent man, who the LAPD made go bad by firing him because he was a Black male, knowing that the firing was unjustified.
The following buttress the reasons stated above :
First, the Report was unilateral or one-sided with the specific intent to justify the LAPD's firing of Dorner, rather than an objective two-sided decision in a search for fairness of the decision. The Report was written entirely by a LAPD Officer, assistant to Chief Charlie Beck, without any outside or independent view or support.
Second, there was no documentation attached to the Report to support any of the report-writer's assertions. Not even a copy of the Board of Rights decision, which was so instrumental to the firing decision. Although the Report contained a listing of a number of documents or items that were purportedly used in preparing the Report, glaringly, none of those documents were attached to the Report. So, the average citizen reading the Report must rely wholly on the writer's, Gerald L. Chaleff, opinions and conclusions with no documentation to support them. For instance, Dorner apparently claimed that someone, likely another police officer, had urinated on his jacket. The Report stated, "The Department sent the jacket to the Scientific Investigation Division for analysis, which revealed the stain on the jacket did not smell, look like or contain the constituents for urine." But, the results of the analysis, which would only have required a couple of pages to produce, was not produced. Another example, the Report stated the Consent Decree (which was court imposed on the LAPD) required "the creation of a early warning system, and the Department created such a system; RMIS." The Report then goes on to explain how the system works, and insinuates that Dorner should have used this system rather than filing a complaint against a lieutenant charging retaliation. The Report then states, "This was explained in detail to Dorner, and he indicated he understood." How does the reader of the Report know this to be true? He doesn't. Where is the evidence of this? Non-existent.
Third, the significant evidence surrounding the Report, butressed by the OIG Report, supra, clearly demonstrates that Christopher Dorner should not have been fired and the LAPD knew it. Even though the LAPD's Report attempts to justify the firing of Dorner, inadvertedly, it admits that he should not have been fired. Here's why, based on the Report:
1. From the Report: "In January 2009, the Los Angeles Police Department terminated Dorner for filing a false complaint against his training officer, in which he alleged his training officer kicked a suspect, and for making false statements on two occasions regarding these alleged kicks." At p. 2.
2. The only three people who witnessed or could have witnessed any kicking of the suspect or arrestee by the training officer, Teresa Evans, were Dorner, the arrestee, Christopher Gettler, and Evans.
While the LAPD pretended that there were four independent witnesses to the kicking incident, and in fact relied on this pretense to support their firing of Dorner (as did the Board of Rights (BOR)), it is clear that only Dorner, Gettler, and Evans actually witnessed the kicking (or non-kicking) of Gettler.
From the OIG Report: "In its review, the Department indicates that there were four witnesses that saw the entire episode and testified that they never saw the training officer kick the suspect. After reviewing the files and transcripts from the Board proceedings, the OIG believes that none of these witnesses saw the entire episode and that they may not have seen the relevant portions of the incident in the planter. These three witnessed (sic) recalled a struggle between the officers and the suspect near the planter. These witnesses. . . never saw the training officer fully enter into the planter and therefore they were unable to offer testimony about what actions, if any, the training officer took while she was in the planter." At pgs. 1-2 of 4. "The remaining witness was a police officer from another agency." And although, "This police officer stated that he did not see the training officer kick the suspect during this incident", "this officer only witnessed a portion of the incident and therefore could not conclusively prove whether or not any kicking occurred." (Incidentally, Dorner, in his "manifesto", charged these witnesses with lying; so the OIG Report backs him up).
3. Of the three people who actually witnessed the kicking (or non-kicking) of Gettler, two of them, Dorner and Gettler, testified that Evans kicked Gettler. Since Gettler was the one who was actually kicked (or subject to the kicking), he provided the best evidence of the kicking or non-kicking. And, Gettler testified through video and live testimony that he was kicked by a female officer. And, this evidence was admitted into evidence at the Board of Rights hearing.
From the Report: "(T)he Board allowed the video tape to be played and received into evidence." At 17. "He was then asked who kicked him and he answered 'an officer' and then if male or female, he responded 'female'". Id. And, "(T)he Board decided to allow the arrestee to testify in person." Id. at 16. This evidence, alone, was more than sufficient to prevent Dorner's firing, regardless of any other evidence to the contrary, e.g., Gettler's mental state or his "non-responsiveness" or "incoherency" (there was no evidence submitted that somehow Dorner conspired with Gettler to have Gettler intentionally lie or that Gettler had a motive to lie himself or on his own). Gettler testified under oath at the hearing, and that oath had to apply to the videotape testimony. So, based on the testimony and evidence of Dorner and Gettler alone, the LAPD could not have fairly fired Dorner.
4. Finally, although no other evidence is necessary to support a finding that the LAPD fired Chris Dorner intentionally and in bad faith, and therefore, unjustifiably, there is other evidence that support that lack of justification.
From the Report: "The father (of Gettler) testified that when his son was brought home four days after the incident, he noticed a slight puffiness and 'a line' on his face. When he asked his son what had happened, the son (Gettler) told him that he was 'kicked', and then related that it happened at 'a hotel down by the water'". Id. at 17. "His son told him he was kicked twice and pointed to his chest." Id. And, "The father also added at a later point in his testimony that. . . 'officers kicked me'". Id. This evidence, regardless of any evidentiary challenges to the contrary, was sufficient to prevent Dorner from being fired and to defeat any evidence that he was lying.
Moreover,
From the Report: "The evidence presented demonstrated that Dorner was concerned about receiving an unsatisfactory rating, and that on the last day his training officer and Dorner worked together, August 4, 2007, the training officer explained to him that if his performance did not improve she would give him an unsatisfactory rating." At 19. "Interviews conducted for this report with two supervisors who were at Harbor Division at the time verified that his trianing officer was discussing with her supervisor the performance of Dorner and the issuance of an unsatisfactory rating." Id.
But,
From the OIG Report: "One of Dorner's watch commanders also testified during the Board of Rights hearing. The watch commander had reviewed the training officer's evaluations of Dorner and believed he (Dorner) was progressing acceptably. In fact, the watch commander did not have any information that would indicate that Dorner's performance was unsatisfactory." At p. 2 of 4.
"The OIG's review of Dorner's performance rating sheets, which were offered as evidence at the Board of Rights, did not reveal any substantial problems or concerns with Dorner's performance nor did the ratings corroborate the training officer's testimony about Dorner's progress." Id. at p. 3 of 4. Dorner's testimony "indicated that he was not concerned about receiving such a rating. He testified that he occasionally received 'needs improvement' ratings from his training officers on particular areas, but that the bulk of his performance reviews were favorable." Id.
"In its review, the Department indicates that there were witnesses who had knowledge of the training officer's intent to adversely rate. These witnesses were not presented during the Board of Rights hearing and more importantly, their testimony would potentially have conflicted with the training officer's statement that she told only Dorner about the impending adverse rating." Id.
On Evans' (the training officer) Credibility
"Dorner accused the training officer of writing the portion of the arrest report that discussed the use of force and specifically omitted any reference to kicking the suspect. During the complaint investigation, the training officer denied writing any portion of the arrest report. At the Board of Rights hearing, however, the training officer testified that she did sit at a computer and edit portions of the report because Dorner failed to understand how important it was to be very 'specific and detailed' when recounting each and every action during the reported use of force. The training officer was never questioned during the complaint investigation and her later testimony during the hearing." Id.
"In the Use of Force portion of the arrest report, the training officer reported that she approached the arrestee in the planter during the struggle and took control of the arrestee's 'head and neck'. However, in her subsequent statements during the misconduct investigation and at the Board of Rights, the training officer said that she approached the arrestee to gain control of his arm, with no mention at all of the head and neck. The training officer was never asked during the Board of Rights to address which account of her actions was accurate, and why the accounts differed." Id. And, this helps explain why Dorner was so incredulous and angered about his attorney representative, Randy Quan, at the Board of Rights hearing. This is probably just one of the things that caused Dorner to become so angry that he decided to go after Quan's children.
Dorner stated, in his manifesto : "What you did was perjury, exactly what Evans did when she stated she did not kick Christopher Gettler. What they failed to mention in the BOR was Teresa Evans own use of force history during her career on the LAPD. She has admitted that she has a lengthy use of force record and has been flagged several times by risk management. She has a very well known nickname, Chupacabra, which she was very proud to flaunt around the division. She found it very funny and entertaining to draw blood from suspects and arrestees. Teresa Evans was also demoted from a senior lead officer rank/position for performance issues.
During my two months of working patrol with Teresa Evans, I found her as a woman who was very angry that she had been pulled from patrol for a short time because of a domestic violence report made by Long Beach Police Departmentbecause of an incident involving her active LAPD officer boyfriend, Dominick Fuentes, and herself. Dominick Fuentes is the same officer investigated for witness tampering. She (Evans) also was visibly angry on a daily basis that she was going to have to file for bankruptcy because her ex-husband, a former LAPD officer and not Dominick Fuentes, who had left the department, state, and was nowhere to be found had left her with atax bill and debt that she was unable to pay because of a lack of financial means.
Evans, you are a POS and you lied right to the BOR panel when Randy Quan asked you if you kicked Christopher Gettler. You destroyed my life and name because of your actions. Time is up. The time is now to confess to Chief Beck."
Has Evans confessed to Chief Beck ?
Does Chief Beck continue to believe that Chris Dorner's firing was justifiable?
Lastly : From the OIG Report: "The Superior Court ruled that the evidence presented at the Board of Rights failed to prove whether or not the alleged kicks occurred." At p.4 of 4. Therefore, based on the fact that the burden of proof lied with the government (to prove that Dorner made a false statement in stating that the training officer, Evans, had kicked Gettler), the Superior Court should have found that the government did not meet its burden, and therefore, could not fire Dorner. But, it didn't. Instead, it erroneously affirmed the Board of Rights decision, which found that the training officer, Evans, was more credible than Dorner, and, as I have demonstrated, this was not true.
SUMMATION
If the reader has followed this blog from its conception, you will note that I stated above that "I am confident that reading the entire Report will not sway me one way or the other. . . ." And that "what it will do is provide me with additional ammunition and answers as to why Dorner was unjustly treated and terminated by the LAPD." Well, my review of the entire Report has proven my statements to be true.
The Dorner Report is not credible. Therefore, it, necessarily, cannot demonstrate whether the firing of Christopher Dorner was justified or not. In fact, the significant evidence cited in the Report, buttressed by significant parts of the OIG Report, demonstrates that Dorner should not have been fired, and therefore, his firing was not justifiable.
Moreover, the combination of the Report and the OIG Report serves to prove that Chris Dorner was telling the truth when he stated and complained that Teresa Evans kicked Christopher Gettler, the arrestee in the Report.
Since both the Board of Rights and the OIG decisions were based on credibility of the material witnesses to the kicking incident, i.e., Teresa Evans and Chris Dorner, and the OIG found that : "the determination of whether the suspect was kicked ultimately rested on whether the Board of Rights found Dorner or his training officer to be more credible", at p. 3 of 4, the totality of the evidence (from the Report, and especially the OIG Report, and Dorner's "Manifesto"), supports the conclusion that Dorner was more credible than Teresa Evans.
The only reason why the OIG found Dorner was less credible than Evans, which was the basis of the OIG sustaining the BOR's decision, was that Dorner was late in reporting the kicking incidents ("The OIG concurs with the Department's opinion that Dorner's inability to clearly and consistently articulate why he failed to promptly report the kicks damaged his credibility"). But, the issue of Dorner reporting the kicking incident late, for whatever reasons, had absolutely nothing to do with whether or not he was telling the truth about Evans kicking Gettler. And, there was ample evidence to support the conclusion that Evans, in fact, kicked Gettler.
The problem was that the OIG, like the LAPD, disregarded the testimony of both Gettler and his father ("There appear to be no percipient witnesses or physical evidence to corroborate Dorner's accusation that the training officer kicked the suspect in the shoulder and head during the arrest", at p. 3 of 4), and this was gross error and inexcusable, and a source of bias against Dorner. Who were Gettler and his father, if they weren't "percipient witnesses"? And, what was "The father testified that when his son was brought home four days after the incident, he noticed a slight puffiness and a 'line' on his face. When he asked his son what had happened, the son told him that he was 'kicked' and then related that it happened at 'a hotel down by the water'"(Report, at p. 17), if its not "physical evidence"? Both the "percipient witnesses" (Gettler and his father) and the "physical evidence" (a slight puffiness and a line on his face) supported and corroborated "Dorner's accusation that the training officer kicked the suspect in the shoulder and head during the arrest"). They also supported the fact that Dorner was telling the truth. Therefore, Dorner should not have been fired, and there was no justification for doing so. At minimum, the evidence available was enough to create an issue as to whether Dorner was telling the truth (and it did, even for the Superior Court, which could not decide whether Evans kicked Gettler or not), and this was enough to prevent the valid or justified firing of Dorner. Perhaps, he could have received some other discipline, but the LAPD could not legally fire Dorner. Therefore, his firing was not only unjustified, but it was also illegal.
Because of the way or manner in which the Dorner Report was constructed and produced, i.e., one-sided and partial to the LAPD, it clearly demonstrates that the LAPD cannot police itself; and the Black community cannot depend on the LAPD to objectively police itself. Therefore, any future controversies involving the violation of citizens' rights, and especially Black citizens' rights, should involve a citizens' committee (which would not be selected by the LAPD) as part of the evaluation or Report writing team, to assure that the targeted police officer (who's conduct is being evaluated) has his or her position included in the Report, thereby assuring (or helping to assure) an objective and fair Report.
Captain Charlie Beck owes Dorner a public denounciation of the Dorner Report and a public confession that the LAPD was not justified in firing him. Whether Capt. Beck does it or not will be a measure of his integrity and honesty with the Black community.
Finally, Chief Beck has requested the Board of Police Commissioners to "REVIEW and ACCEPT" the Report. The Board of Police Commissioners should NOT ACCEPT the Dorner Report, for the reasons identified in this Rebuttal.
The next time : a response to Connie Rice's article.
cc: Board of Police Commissioners
UPDATE--July 27, 2013
THE CONNIE RICE ARTICLE ("Dorner's web of lies about the LAPD", LA Times, June 26)
Generally, Connie Rice's article mirrors the LAPD's Dorner Report in the sense that it is conclusory with unsubstantiated or uncorroborated allegations of a factual nature, which are attempted to be shielded by a dispersement of opinion. Thus, the article is included in the "Op-Ed" Section of the paper, to try and persuade the reader that the entire piece is strictly Rice's opinion. But, it utterly fails to do so. And, any astute reader can readily see that the article is nothing more than an attempt by Rice to make unsupported factual assertions about Dorner without adequate evidentiary backing, and immerse the factual assertions into the mix of opinion that persuades the reader to accept the entire article as educated opinion. But, it doesn't work. And, stripped of its opinion protection, it's nothing more than uncorroborated garbage.
Mind you, Rice does express opinion in her article, most of which I disagree with, and she does have that right. For instance, she states that Dorner's "manifesto" was a "rambling manifesto". I , like some other readers of the manifesto, if you search the internet, disagree with this; I found the manifesto to be clear, structured, and sensible, and it helped form my opinion about Dorner as a good and decent man. But, that clearly is opinion, and it needs no corroboration. Another example, Rice states, "The department (LAPD) had changed dramatically by the time Dorner joined it in 2000." That's Rice's opinion, and she has a right to express it. But, Chris Dorner disagreed with that opinion. In his manifesto, Dorner stated :
* "The department has not changed since the Rampart and Rodney King days. It has gotten worse. The consent decree should never have been lifted. The only thing that has evolved from the consent decree is those officers involved in the Rampart scandal and Rodney King incidents have since promoted to supervisor, commanders, and command staff, and executive positions."
"This department has not changed from the Daryl Gates and Mark Furman days. Those officers are still employed and have all promoted to Command staff and supervisory positions. I will correct this error. Are you aware that an officer (a rookie/probationer at the time) seen on the Rodney King videotape striking Mr. King multiple times with a
baton on 3/3/91 is still employed by the LAPD and is now a Captain on the police department? Captain Rolando Solano is now the commanding officer of a LAPD police station (West LA division). As a commanding officer, he is now responsible for over 200 officers. Do you trust him to enforce department policy and investigate use of force investigations on arrestees by his officers? Are you aware Evans has since promoted to Sergeant after kicking Mr. Gettler in the face. Oh, you Violated a citizens civil rights? We will promote you. Same as LAPD did with the officers from Metro involved in the May Day melee at MacArthur Park. They promoted them to Sergeant (a supervisory role)." "You can not police yourselves and the consent decree was unsuccessful."
I believe Dorner, and therefore, I disagree with Rice. And, Dorner's assertions can be proven or disproven. Was Evans promoted to Sergeant? Is the Rodney King officer now a Captain?
Now, let's get to examples of Rice's claims that can be tested by evidence or facts.
Rice states that Dorner "claimed" "that he was fired for reporting that his supervisor had illegally kicked an arrestee,(and, according to Rice) which simply wasn't true". Even the LAPD's Dorner Report itself proves that the first part of this assertion is in fact true (contrary to Rice's assertion), i.e., that Dorner "was fired for reporting that his supervisor had illegally kicked an arrestee". The Dorner Report states, in part,"In January 2009, the Los Angeles Police Department terminated Dorner for filing a false complaint against his training officer, in which he alleged his training officer kicked a suspect. . . .' So, even the LAPD admits that this assertion (that Dorner was fired for reporting that his supervisor had illegally kicked an arrestee) was true. And, even if the phrase is interpreted to mean that Rice is saying that Dorner's charge that Evans actually kicked the arrestee is not true; that statement is also false because, in fact, Evans did kick Gettler. And, I believe that I sufficiently proved or demonstrated that above, utilizing some of the LAPD's own evidentiary statements in its Report.
Rice states, "Nothing, of course, can explain or excuse Dorner's murderous rampage". Well, it's certainly debatable whether anything can "excuse" Dorner's killings, but, unquestionably, the killings can be "explained". And, the main explanation is that Dorner was not only unjustly fired, but, he was also illegally fired, e.g., the Superior Court did not invoke the proper standard (the burden resting with the LAPD to prove that Dorner made a false statement) in upholding the Board's decision.
Rice states, "After carefully examining the evidence (what evidence?), I've concluded. . . that he simply used race as a convenient excuse for his failings. Many black officers in the department have drawn the same conclusions." Who are these officers? Why weren't any of them named (besides Earl Paysinger, assistant chief for operations)? And, were there no officers who agreed with Dorner that there is a race problem in the LAPD ? ("A few former African American officers came forward to say that while they didn't support his violence, they too had problems with the way the department had treated them." L.A. Weekly, June 5, 2013, "Christopher Dorner 'Needed to Go,' Civil Rights Lawyer (Rice) Says")). And, the idea and assertion of a black man using race as an excuse for his failings, does that sound familiar? And, what group of people usually assert this contention? Would that be white people?
Rice states, "Dorner not only didn't make an official report of the alleged assault at the time, it appears that he told no one at all about the incident until after he learned that his training officer was giving him failing marks." Sounds familiar? But, the OIG Report stated, "Although Dorner was never specifically asked whether the training officer threatened him with an unsatisfactory rating, his testimony indicated that he was not concerned about receiving such a rating. He testified that he occasionally received "needs improvement" ratings from his training officers on particular areas, but that the bulk of his performance reviews were favorable." At p. 3 of 4. Therefore, Dorner's reporting of Evans' kicking Gettler had nothing to do with any threat of "failing marks". It had everything to do with Evans kicking Gettler, a mentally ill man.
Rice states that Dorner's reporting that Evans kicked Gettler was a "'story' that he was fired because he reported an officer for illegally kicking an arrestee." As I've demonstrated, it wasn't a story (or a lie), it was the truth. Evans kicked Gettler, and the pertinent evidence proves it.
Rice states,"I found that Dorner had a history of making excuses and telling lies to cover his failures in the Police Academy and on the force." What are some examples of that history "in the Police Academy and on the force"? Rice offers none. We, the readers, are supposed to just accept Rice's assertion (about what she found) at face value. I don't.
Rice states, "(D)orner's supervisor had no reputation for brutality or racism". However, Dorner, in his manifesto, states, "What they failed to mention in the BOR was Teresa Evans own use of force history during her career on the LAPD. She has admitted that she has a lengthy use of force record and has been flagged several times by risk management. She has a very well known nickname, Chupacabra, which she was very proud to flaunt around the division. She found it very funny and entertaining to draw blood from suspects and arrestees. At one point she even intentionally ripped the flesh off the arm of a woman we had arrested for battery. . . . Knowing the woman had thin elastic skin, she performed and (sic) Indian burn to the woman's arm after cuffing her. That woman was in her mid-70's, a mother and grandmother. . . . Teresa Evans was also demoted from a senior lead officer rank/position for performance issues." Dorner's statements directly contradict Rice's statement that Evans had no reputation for brutality. And, if one believes Dorner, then Rice's statement must be false, or a lie. I believe Dorner.
Finally, Rice states Dorner "was denigrating the very real changes to the department that have come since, changes that have continued under the city's current police chief, Charlie Beck, who works every day to reinforce racially tolerant and just policing." So, what are the changes? And, if Charlie Beck is working so hard to reinforce racial tolerance, why are young black boys continually racially profiled in Los Angeles? I see it every week and weekend, especially on weekend nights. They are always lined up against the wall, spread eagle, with bicycles nearby. Besides this though, Dorner himself poses questions to Beck:
"Chief Beck, this is when you need to have that come to Jesus talk with Sgt. Teresa Evans and everyone else who was involved in the conspiracy to have me terminated for doing the right thing. (And I now do believe that indeed there was a conspiracy to have Dorner fired--which is deserving of a federal criminal investigation). (Y)ou also need to speak with her attorney, Rico, and his conversation with the BOR members and her confession of guilt in kicking Mr. Gettler. I'll be waiting for a PUBLIC response at a press conference." (I'm now awaiting a public response from Beck as well in reference to the Dorner Report).
"Why didn't you charge me with filing a false police report when I came forward stating that Evans kicked Mr. Christopher Gettler? You file criminal charges against every other officer who is accused and terminated for filing a false report. You didn't because you knew I was innocent and a criminal court would find me innocent and expose your department for suppressing the truth and retaliation, that's why."
Dorner again, as previously stated above, specifically responds to Rice's assertion that there has been "very real changes to the department", "changes that have continued under the city's current police chief" : "This department has not changed from the Daryl Gates and Mark Furman days. Those officers are still employed and have all promoted to Command staff and supervisory positions" (Is this true?). Again, I believe Dorner. Especially where Rice offers no evidence of the so-called changes that have been made in or by the department.
Rice : "We still have a long way to go, but the LAPD's progress is nonetheless remarkable". Again, what progress? What are the significant changes that were made and that can be identified? We are left to accept Rice's word! And, I don't.
Rice, at the end of her article tries to show that the black community is closer to the LAPD by stating that some black residents of L.A.'s Nickerson Gardens vowed to protect some police officers that they knew (from the officers' work around the Gardens) from Dorner (because they were on on Dorner's Hit List). That's preposterous. That's like saying anyone who helped some innocent people, including police, during the Watts riot in 1965, showed progress between the police and the black community. There will always be some people with a "helping heart" who will reach out to help, even to an oppressor, regardless of the oppression. How many of those residents of Nickerson Gardens were rooting for Dorner and had hoped that Dorner had killed more cops? Or would not have volunteered to help the cops that they knew?
The bottomline is : Rice's article appears to have been written solely to support the Dorner Report. But, it fails for the same basic reasons the Dorner Report fails; it's conclusory, biased, and unsupported by relevant evidence or facts, where such is necessary. It's as much bullshit as the Report itself.
Connie Rice appears to be nothing but a "tool" for the LAPD and the L.A. Times when the two organizations need a "black voice" to support the LAPD's actions, and most times, misconduct in dealing with Black citizens. The fact that her positions are so biased in favor of the LAPD, rather than being objectively in favor of the LAPD, with respect to a Black man's claim of unjust treatment or racial discrimination by the LAPD (and his ultimate death), they bespeak of an "Aunt (Uncle) Tom" (speaking on behalf of the white man as if she was the white man speaking, knowing that there is a Black position in existence as well, but choosing to ignore the Black position to advocate for the white position because she feels some "masterful" obligation to do so for whatever her reasons may be).
From my understanding, Rice must have some history with the Black community, in order to be recognized as a civil rights leader in Los Angeles. I know she has said that she has a history of representing Black police officers against the LAPD back in the day. I was too young or perhaps not politically aware enough to have known about her or what she did. And I'm not going to attempt to dispute any legitimate and meaningful civil rights work she did in the past. And, I will assume it was meaningful and productive, because I first became of aware of Rice through the Tavis Smiley "State of the Black Union" Conference, which was televised. Rice was one of the guest speakers. She had apparently established her reputation by that time. So, I will give her her due.
However, since I've been in Los Angeles, having moved here from Ventura, California, where a white judge, Steven Hintz, racially, and with racism, caused the shutdown of my law office, I am not aware of any significant civil rights matters Rice has involved herself in, e.g., the Oscar Grant murder case, which was brought in Oakland, but tried in Los Angeles.
So, my evaluation of her as a civil rights leader in Los Angeles, as well as a Black lawyer in L.A., is based almost solely on her actions or writings in the Dorner case.
NOTE: I did a brief search of Rice so that I could get a better picture of who she is before I give my final assessment of her. In Wikipedia, it states, "As a litigator, Rice has filed class action civil rights cases redressing police misconduct, race and sex discrimination and unfair public policy in transportation, probation and public housing. She filed a landmark case on behalf of the Bus Riders Union that resulted in a mandate that more than $2 billion be spent to improve the Los Angeles Bus System." "In these and other cases, Rice has led multi-racial coalitions of lawyers and clients to win more than $4 billion of injunctive relief and damages."
So, I'm satisfied that Rice has a history of civil rights involvement and that she has fought on behalf of Black police officers before. I applaud her for her efforts and I will not do or say anything that will tend to detract from her efforts in the past.
However, my assessment of Rice now, is based on what I know about her as of my relocation to Los Angeles from Ventura and the years that I 've spent in Los Angeles since. Again, I'm just not aware of anything that I would consider significant that Rice has done on behalf of civil rights or Black people specifically since I've been here. Furthermore, when I was about to sue the Justice Department for violating my civil rights, I tried to contact Rice for either possible representation or a referral. I wrote Rice through her Advancement Project. I never received a response. Moreover, as alluded to above, after the murder of Oscar Grant, and now, Trayvon Martin, I haven't heard anything from Rice. And, I would expect any "real" or "authentic" civil rights leader to at least comment on the cases, one way or the other. But, she does comment on the Chris Dorner case; and my assessment of her will almost wholly be based on the Dorner case.
My assessment of Connie Rice is as follows:
I do not know what has caused or influenced it, but it appears to me that a change has taken place in Connie Rice, somehow, and for some reason. It doesn't appear to me that Rice is the same Connie Rice of yesteryear. Perhaps the years has brought about a change in her. Apparently, it has. What if Chris Dorner had lived? Do you think Connie Rice would represent him as a Black police officer charging the LAPD with racial discrimination (based on her article)? Yet, she is supposed to have a history of representing Black police officers charging race discrimination. Indeed, she says so in her article, "I represented many clients who worked for the department then, including a black lieutenant who was told 40 years ago by his white partner, 'Nigger, get in the car and don't say a thing. The officer then bellowed at him that 'niggers don't back you up!'" Any "real" or "authentic" civil rights lawyer, discounting any issue of expenses, would represent Chris Dorner, regardless of what he or she felt about the case personally. Johnnie L. Cochran Jr., had he lived, would represent Chris Dorner, had he lived.
Connie Rice, today, is not a "real" or "authentic" Black civil rights leader and lawyer (and that's my opinion). In fact, based on her article alone, she gravitates more towards an "Uncle Tom" leader. If one wouldn't know it, one would believe Rice's article was written by a white person. If that same article was issued under another name and the reader had never heard of the person before, I guarantee you the reader would assume that the person was white. This is because the article is so totally one-sided and biased in favor of the LAPD, in view of the LAPD's racial history. If Rice had just presented some favorable information supporting Chris Dorner, and clearly there was some, e.g., the Commission's OIG Report (and Rice doesn't mention the OIG Report in her article), it would have, at least, given the appearance of fairness in her article.
In any event, at this point in time, I believe Connie Rice has lost her way as a Black civil rights leader and lawyer. Thus, she has no credibility with me. Further, and sadly, I have no respect for her as a Black civil rights leader or lawyer.
UPDATE--August 7, 2013
I have now updated my latest blog announcing that Chris Dorner has got his name back.
**UPDATE--December 18, 2013
In the above-mentioned L.A. Times' articles called "The Manhunt", one article states that an LAPD investigation confirmed that Chris Dorner's firing was justified. This blog has specifically responded to the LAPD's Dorner Report, and I found it to be bullshit. Therefore, while the statement is true, because the LAPD's Dorner Report was(is) not credible, the evidence demonstrating that Dorner's firing was not justified remain the strongest, the most credible, and the best. Therefore, I continue to assert, based on much of the evidence advanced in the Dorner Report, that Dorner's firing was not justified, and was a result of racial discrimination by the LAPD.
Thursday, June 27, 2013
FLORIDA V. GEORGE ZIMMERMAN : TRAYVON MARTIN ALREADY HAS THREE STRIKES AGAINST HIM ON THE ROAD TO AN UNFAIR TRIAL
Los Angeles, California
August 9, 2013
(Today's date)
June 27, 2013
(Original date)
*(Denotes new information added to the original blog)
**UPDATE (Denotes NEW information added to and AFTER the original blog)
The second degree murder trial of George Zimmerman for the death of Trayvon Martin has just begun and Martin has three srikes against him already in his in absentia request for a fair trial. And, yes, although Trayvon Martin is the deceased victim of the killing at the hands of George Zimmerman, he also has a right to a fair trial. And the way things are looking, he's headed down the road towards an unfair trial :
First, strike one, the trial judge, Debra S. Nelson, rules that the prosecution can't use the term "racial" profiling. It can use the term "profiling", but only in reference to factors other than race, e.g., age or clothing. This strike is highly prejudicial to the deceased Martin (although Zimmerman successfully argued that it was prejudicial to him as well) because this is the crux of the prosecution's case. That is, the prosecution's central argument (as I see it) in charging Zimmerman with second degree murder, as opposed to manslaughter, is that Zimmerman intentionally killed Martin because of racial animus, and because Zimmerman didn't know Martin, the prosecution is arguing (I believe) that the racial animus stems from "racial profiling" or reacting to and/or approaching Martin simply because Martin was black and wearing a "hoody", which began at the moment Zimmerman discovered that Martin was Black.
If Martin was white under the same circumstances, the State of Florida might not have charged Zimmerman at all or if it did charge him, it would likely have only charged him with manslaughter. Therefore, race, necessarily, is a part of the case and a part of the trial. Yet, the trial judge, in her ruling, seems to be attempting to keep race out of the case and the trial. In any event, that's what her ruling has done or does (for future proceedings).
Zimmerman, through counsel, asserts that use of the word or term would be prejudicial to him, in terms of the affect on the jury. Judge Nelson bought this argument and excluded use of the word "race" as a type of profiling. Of course the term racial profiling may be prejudicial to Zimmerman, but, the entire trial is prejudicial to Zimmerman, because the entire trial is about racial profiling. So, is the State of Florida going to exclude the trial too, because it's prejudicial to Zimmerman? I think not, but excluding use of the term "racial profiling" is close to it. Moreover, even if the term is prejudicial to Zimmerman, as a matter of evidentiary law (for all of my lawyer readers), it is "more probative than prejudical".
I think prohibiting the government from using the term "racial profiling" is a gross abuse of the judge's discretion. So gross that the government SHOULD APPEAL THIS DECISION TO AN APPELLATE COURT. While ordinarily pretrial issues are not appealable during trial and must await the trial's end, this is a criminal trial, and if Zimmerman is acquitted at the end of trial, the government will not be able to appeal, so it will be too late. So, if the government is going to try and have this ruling reversed, it must do it now. Again, I believe that this is the government's central and most significant argument in the case, especially for charging Zimmerman with second degree murder, so if the government cannot argue this, "racial profiling", in my opinion, that's their case.
However, the State of Florida hasn't helped its case by conceding and arguing, "That is not a racially charged term unless it's made so, and we don't intend to make it a racially charged term.... We don't intend to say he was solely profiled because of his race". L.A. Times, "Judge in Zimmerman trial limits racial references", June 22, 2013. I may be wrong but I thought that's precisely what the government's case was all about, racial profiling. I admit, with this last passage by the prosecution, I'm confused. In my opinion, it's a mistake on the part of the government if their main or principle argument is not racial profiling, in charging Zimmerman with second degree murder. And, if they intend to charge Zimmerman with racial profiling, they must appeal the judge's decision immediately. If the State is not charging racial profiling, they need not appeal of course, but (based on my understanding--and I could be wrong regarding Florida law) if Zimmerman is acquitted, they won't be able to appeal. But, I haven't studied Florida law regarding the State's appellate rights in a criminal case, so I may be speaking out of place.
Second, and strike two, judge Nelson has barred the State from introducing and relying upon expert testimony regarding identifying and distinquishing the voices and screams on the 911 tape that captured Zimmerman's and/or Martin's voices during the physical confrontation and engagement between Zimmerman and Martin. "In her ruling, Nelson held that the 911 tape could be played in court, but that prosecutors would not be allowed to use the audio experts to identify the screams as Martin's voice." L.A. Times, "Zimmerman trial judge bars experts", June 23, 2013. It seems to me that voice experts are no different than handwriting experts, and handwriting experts are allowed to testify as to a person's handwriting as a matter of course (assuming as the prosecution argued that the science was found to be reliable, and I believe it has been). So, again, I think it was an abuse of the court's discretion not to let the experts testify, and its a second strike against Martin towards an unfair trial for him.
Finally, and the third strike against Martin, Zimmerman has received basically an all white female jury (with one juror being "non-white"). I'm sure Zimmerman is satisfied with this jury (although Zimmerman has identified himself as Hispanic, this will probably be one of those occasions when a Hispanic person finds it beneficial to characterize or label himself as white--so for the purpose of the jury Zimmerman has obtained, he likely considers himself white, thus, he has acquired a jury of his peers), but, I don't think it looks good for Martin. It certainly isn't a jury of Martin's peers. And, in a racially charged case such as this one, those seeking justice for Martin, as well as Zimmerman, must evaluate the jury makeup as well. This is the United States of America and race matters (even though there are those when its convenient try and pretend that it doesn't); otherwise, racial profiling wouldn't be an issue.
So, thusfar, things are not looking well for Martin.
*For my regular readers, I will be addressing the LAPD Dorner Report, I just haven't been able to obtain a copy of the report itself so far, only reports on the Report. Although, I know for sure, from some of the news reports that I've read, what my position is going to be. And, I think my readers know what my position is going to be.
**UPDATE--July 23, 2013
Well, the Zimmerman trial is now over. Zimmerman has now been found not guilty, by an all-white jury (one juror has been identified as a non-white or Hispanic female--but, likely for the purposes of this jury, she acted as a white female as well). Therefore, Trayvon Martin struck out at this trial, or put another way, on his road towards an unfair trial, he has arrived. He received an unfair trial. And, the all white jury was not the only or main reason (although it was a significant one).
*NOTE: The non-white juror has been identified as a Puerto Rican woman. I saw her and heard her speak in a television interview. In the passage above, I stated, "likely for purposes of this jury, she acted as a white female as well". I must now retract that statement; and I owe an apology to the non-white juror, and I do hereby apologize. I do not believe now that the juror "acted as a white female as well". I believe that she acted as a Puerto Rican, minority, or person of color female, or herself. And, I think it made a difference, even though it didn't change the result.
The main reasons Trayvon Martin received an unfair trial were biased judicial rulings and ineffective assistance of counsel on behalf of the State of Florida. The Justice Department should consider this in deciding whether to bring federal civil rights charges against George Zimmerman. Perhaps if Trayvon Martin had received a fair trial, the Justice Department's decision to bring a civil rights action against George Zimmerman would be less compelling.
But, because Trayvon Martin received an unfair trial and his case also meet the requirements for a federal civil rights or hate crime violation, the Justice Department must bring a federal criminal-civil rights complaint against George Zimmerman to provide both Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman with a fair trial and a fair adjudication of their respective positions; otherwise, George Zimmerman will get away with murder.
I will address the biased judicial rulings and ineffective counsel issues in a separate blog, where I will more fully explain why the Justice Department must bring civil rights charges against George Zimmerman.
August 9, 2013
(Today's date)
June 27, 2013
(Original date)
*(Denotes new information added to the original blog)
**UPDATE (Denotes NEW information added to and AFTER the original blog)
The second degree murder trial of George Zimmerman for the death of Trayvon Martin has just begun and Martin has three srikes against him already in his in absentia request for a fair trial. And, yes, although Trayvon Martin is the deceased victim of the killing at the hands of George Zimmerman, he also has a right to a fair trial. And the way things are looking, he's headed down the road towards an unfair trial :
First, strike one, the trial judge, Debra S. Nelson, rules that the prosecution can't use the term "racial" profiling. It can use the term "profiling", but only in reference to factors other than race, e.g., age or clothing. This strike is highly prejudicial to the deceased Martin (although Zimmerman successfully argued that it was prejudicial to him as well) because this is the crux of the prosecution's case. That is, the prosecution's central argument (as I see it) in charging Zimmerman with second degree murder, as opposed to manslaughter, is that Zimmerman intentionally killed Martin because of racial animus, and because Zimmerman didn't know Martin, the prosecution is arguing (I believe) that the racial animus stems from "racial profiling" or reacting to and/or approaching Martin simply because Martin was black and wearing a "hoody", which began at the moment Zimmerman discovered that Martin was Black.
If Martin was white under the same circumstances, the State of Florida might not have charged Zimmerman at all or if it did charge him, it would likely have only charged him with manslaughter. Therefore, race, necessarily, is a part of the case and a part of the trial. Yet, the trial judge, in her ruling, seems to be attempting to keep race out of the case and the trial. In any event, that's what her ruling has done or does (for future proceedings).
Zimmerman, through counsel, asserts that use of the word or term would be prejudicial to him, in terms of the affect on the jury. Judge Nelson bought this argument and excluded use of the word "race" as a type of profiling. Of course the term racial profiling may be prejudicial to Zimmerman, but, the entire trial is prejudicial to Zimmerman, because the entire trial is about racial profiling. So, is the State of Florida going to exclude the trial too, because it's prejudicial to Zimmerman? I think not, but excluding use of the term "racial profiling" is close to it. Moreover, even if the term is prejudicial to Zimmerman, as a matter of evidentiary law (for all of my lawyer readers), it is "more probative than prejudical".
I think prohibiting the government from using the term "racial profiling" is a gross abuse of the judge's discretion. So gross that the government SHOULD APPEAL THIS DECISION TO AN APPELLATE COURT. While ordinarily pretrial issues are not appealable during trial and must await the trial's end, this is a criminal trial, and if Zimmerman is acquitted at the end of trial, the government will not be able to appeal, so it will be too late. So, if the government is going to try and have this ruling reversed, it must do it now. Again, I believe that this is the government's central and most significant argument in the case, especially for charging Zimmerman with second degree murder, so if the government cannot argue this, "racial profiling", in my opinion, that's their case.
However, the State of Florida hasn't helped its case by conceding and arguing, "That is not a racially charged term unless it's made so, and we don't intend to make it a racially charged term.... We don't intend to say he was solely profiled because of his race". L.A. Times, "Judge in Zimmerman trial limits racial references", June 22, 2013. I may be wrong but I thought that's precisely what the government's case was all about, racial profiling. I admit, with this last passage by the prosecution, I'm confused. In my opinion, it's a mistake on the part of the government if their main or principle argument is not racial profiling, in charging Zimmerman with second degree murder. And, if they intend to charge Zimmerman with racial profiling, they must appeal the judge's decision immediately. If the State is not charging racial profiling, they need not appeal of course, but (based on my understanding--and I could be wrong regarding Florida law) if Zimmerman is acquitted, they won't be able to appeal. But, I haven't studied Florida law regarding the State's appellate rights in a criminal case, so I may be speaking out of place.
Second, and strike two, judge Nelson has barred the State from introducing and relying upon expert testimony regarding identifying and distinquishing the voices and screams on the 911 tape that captured Zimmerman's and/or Martin's voices during the physical confrontation and engagement between Zimmerman and Martin. "In her ruling, Nelson held that the 911 tape could be played in court, but that prosecutors would not be allowed to use the audio experts to identify the screams as Martin's voice." L.A. Times, "Zimmerman trial judge bars experts", June 23, 2013. It seems to me that voice experts are no different than handwriting experts, and handwriting experts are allowed to testify as to a person's handwriting as a matter of course (assuming as the prosecution argued that the science was found to be reliable, and I believe it has been). So, again, I think it was an abuse of the court's discretion not to let the experts testify, and its a second strike against Martin towards an unfair trial for him.
Finally, and the third strike against Martin, Zimmerman has received basically an all white female jury (with one juror being "non-white"). I'm sure Zimmerman is satisfied with this jury (although Zimmerman has identified himself as Hispanic, this will probably be one of those occasions when a Hispanic person finds it beneficial to characterize or label himself as white--so for the purpose of the jury Zimmerman has obtained, he likely considers himself white, thus, he has acquired a jury of his peers), but, I don't think it looks good for Martin. It certainly isn't a jury of Martin's peers. And, in a racially charged case such as this one, those seeking justice for Martin, as well as Zimmerman, must evaluate the jury makeup as well. This is the United States of America and race matters (even though there are those when its convenient try and pretend that it doesn't); otherwise, racial profiling wouldn't be an issue.
So, thusfar, things are not looking well for Martin.
*For my regular readers, I will be addressing the LAPD Dorner Report, I just haven't been able to obtain a copy of the report itself so far, only reports on the Report. Although, I know for sure, from some of the news reports that I've read, what my position is going to be. And, I think my readers know what my position is going to be.
**UPDATE--July 23, 2013
Well, the Zimmerman trial is now over. Zimmerman has now been found not guilty, by an all-white jury (one juror has been identified as a non-white or Hispanic female--but, likely for the purposes of this jury, she acted as a white female as well). Therefore, Trayvon Martin struck out at this trial, or put another way, on his road towards an unfair trial, he has arrived. He received an unfair trial. And, the all white jury was not the only or main reason (although it was a significant one).
*NOTE: The non-white juror has been identified as a Puerto Rican woman. I saw her and heard her speak in a television interview. In the passage above, I stated, "likely for purposes of this jury, she acted as a white female as well". I must now retract that statement; and I owe an apology to the non-white juror, and I do hereby apologize. I do not believe now that the juror "acted as a white female as well". I believe that she acted as a Puerto Rican, minority, or person of color female, or herself. And, I think it made a difference, even though it didn't change the result.
The main reasons Trayvon Martin received an unfair trial were biased judicial rulings and ineffective assistance of counsel on behalf of the State of Florida. The Justice Department should consider this in deciding whether to bring federal civil rights charges against George Zimmerman. Perhaps if Trayvon Martin had received a fair trial, the Justice Department's decision to bring a civil rights action against George Zimmerman would be less compelling.
But, because Trayvon Martin received an unfair trial and his case also meet the requirements for a federal civil rights or hate crime violation, the Justice Department must bring a federal criminal-civil rights complaint against George Zimmerman to provide both Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman with a fair trial and a fair adjudication of their respective positions; otherwise, George Zimmerman will get away with murder.
I will address the biased judicial rulings and ineffective counsel issues in a separate blog, where I will more fully explain why the Justice Department must bring civil rights charges against George Zimmerman.
Monday, June 24, 2013
MESSAGE FROM A BLACK LAWYER: THANKS GOV. BROWN FOR DOING THE RIGHT THING; IT PROVIDES SOME HOPE IN CALIFORNIA FOR THE FUTURE
Los Angeles, California
June 25, 2013
(Today's date)
June 24, 2013
(Original date)
*(Denotes new information added to the original blog)
**UPDATE (Denotes NEW information added to and AFTER the original blog)
While I do not have any children attending any California public schools, I, on behalf of African American or black children, and other disadvantaged children, give thanks to Governor Jerry Brown for his courageous and ingenious decision and action in formulating a strategy or plan for helping those students most in need of help or assistance in navigating through the public school system and receiving at least an adequate education, which hopefuly will at least provide disadvantaged students with a fighting chance to compete with the average student.
I once attended school in the L.A. Unified School District, during part of my junior high (now middle school) years and my high school years, attending Fremont High School. And while it would be a disservice to my stepfather, who worked hard doing construction work (cement finisher) to provide for my family, and mother to say that I was disadvantaged (I was as advantaged as the rest of my predominantly black--and other minority--classmates), because I generally was able to obtain whatever I needed to participate in the schools' programs and I didn't need a school lunch program. However, the greatest disadvantage was beyond my mother and stepfather's resourcefulness, and that was the quality of education. To that extent, I was as disadvantaged as the rest of my classmates. As long as I can remember, minority students, especially (and as always in America) Black students, have been disadvantaged in the California school systems in terms of quality of education. However, coming from the South (New Orleans, La.), I discovered that I had received a far more advanced education in the South than my classmates were receiving in California. When I entered my second year of junior high school here in California, I discovered that everything that I was being taught, I had already learned or already knew from elementary school *in the South. And, I don't mean that I was an advanced student, because I wasn't, I mean just the basics, i.e., reading, writing, and arithmetic. At that point, I knew that minority students in the L.A. Unified School District were disadvantaged, at least as to the quality of education.
From my reading and understanding, Gov. Brown's budgetary plan is a "new, simplified formula () based almost solely on the one factor that should matter: what students need." L.A. Times, "Gov. Brown leaves his mark", June 12, 2013(editorial). "Under Brown's plan, schools will receive a specified base payment for each student. Because disadvantaged students need more money -- for preschool, tutoring, campus security and other expenses -- to close the achievement gap, schools will receive 20% more (originally it was 35% more) for each student who is either poor enough to qualify for a subsidized school lunch or not fluent in English. There is an additional 'concentration' payment for districts in which more than 55% of the students are disadvantaged, which will be of special benefit to the Los Angeles Unified School District. And the state will give local school officals more freedom to decide how the money should be spent, though there will still be a pot of additional funds for special education." Id. Apparently, Gov. Brown's ability and authority to advocate and implement the new formula is based on "new revenue available this year." Id. And, pursuant to this new revenue, Gov. Brown saw where "He could afford to give more money to all schools while at the same time pressing the restart button on the funding formula." Id. Finally, because of his "stubborn insistence on fixing what was so badly broken, Brown will have helped the state's neediest children for decades to come." Id. And this is the most significant aspect of the new plan and formula for disadvantaged children in the L.A. Unified School District.
Let's be clear, this new formula proposed by Governor Brown could have been proposed by the previous two governors, but it wasn't. So, Gov. Brown's decision and plan in the area of civil rights for black and other disadvantaged children in the L.A. Unified School District can be said to be and is "landmark". From my knowledge, this is the first time a California governor, with the support of the Legislature of course, has specifically directed that a portion of the California budget be specifically assigned to and for disadvantaged children because the disadvantaged children has a greater need for the money. Other governors have known that disadvantaged children need the money more than advantaged and/or middle class or wealthy students *(for instance, take the suburb of Calabasas, CA, "Property values are rising as celebrity buyers raise housing prices. The city's finances are rock solid. Any time a school needs supplies, they are anonymously donated." L.A. Times, "Calabasas wrestles with the Bieber effect", June 20, 2013), for its simply common sense, but they haven't made the effort to try and secure a special means or method of getting the money to these students. At most, what has been done is to allocate more funds to specific school districts, for the school districts' distribution, based on purported need for the entire school district. But, here, Gov. Brown has not only budgeted funds to go to needy school districts, but he has gone beyond that, to directing money specifically for disadvantaged students at the expense of some wealthy and middle class students and school districts. This is what the recognition and demonstration of civil rights is all about. Some purported civil rights advocates and leaders talk that talk, but Gov. Brown is walking the walk. Action speaks louder than words. " 'This is a matter of equity and civil rights,' Brown told reporters last week." " 'Whatever we have to bring to bear in this battle, we're bringing it. So you can write that down in your notepads. I am going to fight as hard as I can. . . .' " L.A. Times, "Gov. Brown as Robin Hood", April 29, 2013. Thank you, Governor Brown, for being a drum-major for justice. "It could well become the great legacy of (Brown's) administration." Times, "Brown leaves mark".
Now, we get to the courageous part of Brown's decision and plan. First of all, it was courageous simply because Gov. Brown knew that when he proposed any plan that would not treat all school districts the same or "equally" that he would get resistance, especially from, if not entirely from, the white community, many of whom are racially biased, *if not outright racist (some of the same ones that voted for Proposition 209--I'll get to Prop 209 infra). Moreover, he knew that when he went further than just treating the school districts "unequally" (i.e., "Under Brown's plan, the poor kids and English strugglers would get at least an extra 35% (now 20% *after revision)in funding. Some would receive up to 70% more if their district had a heavy concentration of disadvantaged students", Times, "Robin Hood") to taking from wealthy school districts ("that would mean less than otherwise for middle-class and better-off districts where the vast majority of kids speak English at home", Id.) that this decision would not only be looked upon with disfavor, but, it would also be viewed as unfair, "It's like robbing Peter to pay Paul, with the robber fancying himself as a Robin Hood." Id. But, nevertheless, Gov. Brown forged ahead anyway. " 'You can have a small pocket in the middle of an affluent district'", but " 'That's very different than widespread despair and hopelessness that often shows up in these areas of. . . concentrated poverty'". Id. Probably, because even if there are some that may be treated "unequally" in some way because of the Brown Plan, disadvantaged students have been treated unequally for years, so the two unequals are cancelled out in the name of "equality" for all (at least as much equality that can be attained by Brown's plan).
Second, the courageous and ingenious part of the plan. When Brown had finalized his plan, he knew that his intention was primarily to help black and brown students in the neediest school districts (such as and especially the L.A. Unified School District), because it is black and brown students primarily that have been the most disadvantaged and left out when it comes to quality of education or anything else in California and the general society for that matter. And, between black and brown students, presently and historically, black students have carried the load of the most disadvantaged, not only in terms of quality of education, but also in such matters as suspensions from school, which further erode the quality of education (because during the suspension period, black students, generally, receive no education):
"The Los Angeles Board of Education took a step Tuesday that was long overdue. It banned suspensions for 'willful defiance.' Willful defiance was something that school districts made up to remove disruptive students from classrooms. It was supposed to be a remedial discipline solution. Somehow, over the years, the policy evolved as a selective engagement policy against African-American students, particularly Black males.
This came to light last year when it was discovered that several schools in the district, with less than 10 percent Black student enrollment, reported astronomical statistics on Black student suspensions and explusions (we can't forget about explusions).
It exposed a silent, covert secret that teachers in the district were using, disproportionately, against Black students (we might as well say Black males, because that is mostly who it is).
Stopping suspensions is good, but will it be enough? Are they going to make the students proficient for their grade levels, provide more resources to help them? Or just let Black students (and some Latino students) just sit in the classroom again (like they did in the 1970s and '80s during the busing era)." Samad, Anthony S., "LAUSD finally acts on suspensions", Los Angeles Wave, May 16, 2013.
But, Gov. Brown also knew that California citizens passed Proposition 209 in 1996, which states that "The state shall not. . . grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of. . . public education." So, how was Gov. Brown going to help black and brown students in the L.A. Unified School District, and other school districts, without violating Proposition 209? That's where Brown's ingenuity comes into play. Brown decided to designate those needing assistance as "disadvantaged", rather than black and brown, and Prop. 209 does not prohibit granting preferential treatment to the disadvantaged, because "disadvantaged" is based on one's circumstance in life, not on one's "race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin", which is prohibited by Prop. 209. But, Brown also knew, as we all know, that while there clearly are disadvantaged students (and people) of all races, sexes, color, ethnicities (e.g., Vietnamese, Cambodians, etc.), national origin (e.g., Thailand, Philipines, etc.), the most disadvantaged students (or people in California, and the United States), are African Americans or Black people. So, Gov. Brown achieved his goal of helping black and brown students anyway, without violating Prop. 209. Ingenious!
Thanks again, Gov. Brown, on behalf of all the needy and disadvantaged students of the State of California, but particularly on behalf of the black and brown students of the L.A. Unified School District District, and most particularly, on behalf of Black male students in the LAUSD, because Black males, as always, are the most neglected and discriminated against of any individuals in America.
Finally, while I'm giving thanks on behalf of some Black Americans who have benefited from the specific actions of a white official, i.e., here Gov. Brown, in particular, I would like to give thanks to medical receiver J. Clark Kelso for acting to protect African Americans from contracting Valley Fever in California prisons. Kelso "issued a directive this week that Avenal and Pleasant Valley state prisons relocate some 3,200 inmates deemed at increased risk of developing a fatal reaction to the fungus, including all African Americans and those over 55." L.A. Times, "CDC probing state outbreaks of valley fever", May 2, 2013. Prior to Kelso's directive, "The national Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has stepped in to investigate outbreaks of valley fever in two California prisons where more than three dozen inmates have died after contracting the fungal disease." Id. Earlier a Kelso spokeswoman had stated, "Immediate steps are necessary to prevent further loss of life." L.A. Times, "State to move at-risk inmates", April 30, 2013.
" 'It is not clear why certain populations are more prone to the infection than others. But from 2008 to 2010, at least 355 prisoners required hospitalization, and the receiver reported 34 deaths related to valley fever from 2006 to 2011, most of the victims African Americans.'" Id. "'Health officials say they don't know whether African Americans are more apt to contract the fungus, or more likely to become seriously ill when they do.'" It appears that Kelso's actions were taken in part because "Prisoners' rights lawyers who have been battling the state over conditions in its crowded prisons, meanwhile, filed a motion last month asking U.S. District Judge Thelton Henderson to force officials to protect inmates from the disease.'"(* this passage is injected in order to assess and give proper credit for the entire or cumulative action *taken on behalf of African American prisoners in California's prison system with respect to valley fever).
I mentioned the fact that Gov. Brown is white because it seems that with all the so-called Black public politicians and other officials we have around, its always a white official, as opposed to a Black one, who acts courageously on behalf of disenfranchised Black people, in this case, black and brown students, to try and protect an essential right, in this case, equal protection, of black people as citizens of this country. The Brown Plan *(as an idea, i.e., disadvantaged children need specific help) should have been initiated by a Black Los Angeles' Councilman ( or woman) a long time ago; and it should have been propounded and urged upon the previous governors (and the Legislature)*(as an idea) by the City Councilperson because he or she is the first line of defense (not counting Board of Education positions) in the real political arena for Black children in the LAUSD. But it wasn't (if it was, it wasn't made public,*to my knowledge ). *Black and brown children didn't suddenly become disadvantaged when Gov. Brown took office. As always, it's sad. When Black people vote for these Black politicians, the least that they expect is that the Black politicians will protect their interests as Black people. Sadly, and invariably, it doesn't happen, even with the *current (and Black) President of the United States.
**UPDATE--June 25, 2013
It is now up to the PARENTS of disadvantaged black and brown children to make sure that the Brown Plan is implemented. It is their responsibility to go to the respective schools and inquire and get assurance that the money amount which is supposed to be allocated to disadvantaged students truly is spent on those disadvantaged students, even if the parents must demand an accounting from principals as to how the specific amounts were spent on the parents' individual child or children. The parents must demand and get feedback from their children as to whether or not they are receiving specific services that should be provided by the Brown Plan money, e.g., tutoring. Without the PARENTS involvement and insistence, I can assure you that the Brown Plan will not work as planned, i.e., providing specific help and services to disadvantaged black and brown children. If the parents do not do their part, what will happen is that the money intended to be spent on disadvantaged children will be spent on either advantaged children (who don't really need it) or on other school services or programs, including salaries, which the money was not intended to be used for. So, the Brown Plan will require parents to be GOOD PARENTS and follow-up on the supervision, administration, and implementation of the Brown Plan. Gov. Brown has done his part, now its up to the parents of these children to do their part.
The first thing the parents need to do is find out from the LAUSD when the Plan initially goes into effect or when does it start. When will the LAUSD actually get the money? And, when will the LAUSD began to distribute the money in terms of the services that it will provide (i.e., when will the services first be provided)? And, finally, what type of services will be provided to the individual student with the money? The parents should demand an answer to these basic questions by a certain date before the next school year begins (after summer break), so when they take their children to school this Fall, they will know what to expect (either the Plan will start or it won't, and if not, why not?). That means that parents must start their parenting regarding the Brown Plan during the summer break. That will be the start of GOOD PARENTING!
June 25, 2013
(Today's date)
June 24, 2013
(Original date)
*(Denotes new information added to the original blog)
**UPDATE (Denotes NEW information added to and AFTER the original blog)
While I do not have any children attending any California public schools, I, on behalf of African American or black children, and other disadvantaged children, give thanks to Governor Jerry Brown for his courageous and ingenious decision and action in formulating a strategy or plan for helping those students most in need of help or assistance in navigating through the public school system and receiving at least an adequate education, which hopefuly will at least provide disadvantaged students with a fighting chance to compete with the average student.
I once attended school in the L.A. Unified School District, during part of my junior high (now middle school) years and my high school years, attending Fremont High School. And while it would be a disservice to my stepfather, who worked hard doing construction work (cement finisher) to provide for my family, and mother to say that I was disadvantaged (I was as advantaged as the rest of my predominantly black--and other minority--classmates), because I generally was able to obtain whatever I needed to participate in the schools' programs and I didn't need a school lunch program. However, the greatest disadvantage was beyond my mother and stepfather's resourcefulness, and that was the quality of education. To that extent, I was as disadvantaged as the rest of my classmates. As long as I can remember, minority students, especially (and as always in America) Black students, have been disadvantaged in the California school systems in terms of quality of education. However, coming from the South (New Orleans, La.), I discovered that I had received a far more advanced education in the South than my classmates were receiving in California. When I entered my second year of junior high school here in California, I discovered that everything that I was being taught, I had already learned or already knew from elementary school *in the South. And, I don't mean that I was an advanced student, because I wasn't, I mean just the basics, i.e., reading, writing, and arithmetic. At that point, I knew that minority students in the L.A. Unified School District were disadvantaged, at least as to the quality of education.
From my reading and understanding, Gov. Brown's budgetary plan is a "new, simplified formula () based almost solely on the one factor that should matter: what students need." L.A. Times, "Gov. Brown leaves his mark", June 12, 2013(editorial). "Under Brown's plan, schools will receive a specified base payment for each student. Because disadvantaged students need more money -- for preschool, tutoring, campus security and other expenses -- to close the achievement gap, schools will receive 20% more (originally it was 35% more) for each student who is either poor enough to qualify for a subsidized school lunch or not fluent in English. There is an additional 'concentration' payment for districts in which more than 55% of the students are disadvantaged, which will be of special benefit to the Los Angeles Unified School District. And the state will give local school officals more freedom to decide how the money should be spent, though there will still be a pot of additional funds for special education." Id. Apparently, Gov. Brown's ability and authority to advocate and implement the new formula is based on "new revenue available this year." Id. And, pursuant to this new revenue, Gov. Brown saw where "He could afford to give more money to all schools while at the same time pressing the restart button on the funding formula." Id. Finally, because of his "stubborn insistence on fixing what was so badly broken, Brown will have helped the state's neediest children for decades to come." Id. And this is the most significant aspect of the new plan and formula for disadvantaged children in the L.A. Unified School District.
Let's be clear, this new formula proposed by Governor Brown could have been proposed by the previous two governors, but it wasn't. So, Gov. Brown's decision and plan in the area of civil rights for black and other disadvantaged children in the L.A. Unified School District can be said to be and is "landmark". From my knowledge, this is the first time a California governor, with the support of the Legislature of course, has specifically directed that a portion of the California budget be specifically assigned to and for disadvantaged children because the disadvantaged children has a greater need for the money. Other governors have known that disadvantaged children need the money more than advantaged and/or middle class or wealthy students *(for instance, take the suburb of Calabasas, CA, "Property values are rising as celebrity buyers raise housing prices. The city's finances are rock solid. Any time a school needs supplies, they are anonymously donated." L.A. Times, "Calabasas wrestles with the Bieber effect", June 20, 2013), for its simply common sense, but they haven't made the effort to try and secure a special means or method of getting the money to these students. At most, what has been done is to allocate more funds to specific school districts, for the school districts' distribution, based on purported need for the entire school district. But, here, Gov. Brown has not only budgeted funds to go to needy school districts, but he has gone beyond that, to directing money specifically for disadvantaged students at the expense of some wealthy and middle class students and school districts. This is what the recognition and demonstration of civil rights is all about. Some purported civil rights advocates and leaders talk that talk, but Gov. Brown is walking the walk. Action speaks louder than words. " 'This is a matter of equity and civil rights,' Brown told reporters last week." " 'Whatever we have to bring to bear in this battle, we're bringing it. So you can write that down in your notepads. I am going to fight as hard as I can. . . .' " L.A. Times, "Gov. Brown as Robin Hood", April 29, 2013. Thank you, Governor Brown, for being a drum-major for justice. "It could well become the great legacy of (Brown's) administration." Times, "Brown leaves mark".
Now, we get to the courageous part of Brown's decision and plan. First of all, it was courageous simply because Gov. Brown knew that when he proposed any plan that would not treat all school districts the same or "equally" that he would get resistance, especially from, if not entirely from, the white community, many of whom are racially biased, *if not outright racist (some of the same ones that voted for Proposition 209--I'll get to Prop 209 infra). Moreover, he knew that when he went further than just treating the school districts "unequally" (i.e., "Under Brown's plan, the poor kids and English strugglers would get at least an extra 35% (now 20% *after revision)in funding. Some would receive up to 70% more if their district had a heavy concentration of disadvantaged students", Times, "Robin Hood") to taking from wealthy school districts ("that would mean less than otherwise for middle-class and better-off districts where the vast majority of kids speak English at home", Id.) that this decision would not only be looked upon with disfavor, but, it would also be viewed as unfair, "It's like robbing Peter to pay Paul, with the robber fancying himself as a Robin Hood." Id. But, nevertheless, Gov. Brown forged ahead anyway. " 'You can have a small pocket in the middle of an affluent district'", but " 'That's very different than widespread despair and hopelessness that often shows up in these areas of. . . concentrated poverty'". Id. Probably, because even if there are some that may be treated "unequally" in some way because of the Brown Plan, disadvantaged students have been treated unequally for years, so the two unequals are cancelled out in the name of "equality" for all (at least as much equality that can be attained by Brown's plan).
Second, the courageous and ingenious part of the plan. When Brown had finalized his plan, he knew that his intention was primarily to help black and brown students in the neediest school districts (such as and especially the L.A. Unified School District), because it is black and brown students primarily that have been the most disadvantaged and left out when it comes to quality of education or anything else in California and the general society for that matter. And, between black and brown students, presently and historically, black students have carried the load of the most disadvantaged, not only in terms of quality of education, but also in such matters as suspensions from school, which further erode the quality of education (because during the suspension period, black students, generally, receive no education):
"The Los Angeles Board of Education took a step Tuesday that was long overdue. It banned suspensions for 'willful defiance.' Willful defiance was something that school districts made up to remove disruptive students from classrooms. It was supposed to be a remedial discipline solution. Somehow, over the years, the policy evolved as a selective engagement policy against African-American students, particularly Black males.
This came to light last year when it was discovered that several schools in the district, with less than 10 percent Black student enrollment, reported astronomical statistics on Black student suspensions and explusions (we can't forget about explusions).
It exposed a silent, covert secret that teachers in the district were using, disproportionately, against Black students (we might as well say Black males, because that is mostly who it is).
Stopping suspensions is good, but will it be enough? Are they going to make the students proficient for their grade levels, provide more resources to help them? Or just let Black students (and some Latino students) just sit in the classroom again (like they did in the 1970s and '80s during the busing era)." Samad, Anthony S., "LAUSD finally acts on suspensions", Los Angeles Wave, May 16, 2013.
But, Gov. Brown also knew that California citizens passed Proposition 209 in 1996, which states that "The state shall not. . . grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of. . . public education." So, how was Gov. Brown going to help black and brown students in the L.A. Unified School District, and other school districts, without violating Proposition 209? That's where Brown's ingenuity comes into play. Brown decided to designate those needing assistance as "disadvantaged", rather than black and brown, and Prop. 209 does not prohibit granting preferential treatment to the disadvantaged, because "disadvantaged" is based on one's circumstance in life, not on one's "race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin", which is prohibited by Prop. 209. But, Brown also knew, as we all know, that while there clearly are disadvantaged students (and people) of all races, sexes, color, ethnicities (e.g., Vietnamese, Cambodians, etc.), national origin (e.g., Thailand, Philipines, etc.), the most disadvantaged students (or people in California, and the United States), are African Americans or Black people. So, Gov. Brown achieved his goal of helping black and brown students anyway, without violating Prop. 209. Ingenious!
Thanks again, Gov. Brown, on behalf of all the needy and disadvantaged students of the State of California, but particularly on behalf of the black and brown students of the L.A. Unified School District District, and most particularly, on behalf of Black male students in the LAUSD, because Black males, as always, are the most neglected and discriminated against of any individuals in America.
Finally, while I'm giving thanks on behalf of some Black Americans who have benefited from the specific actions of a white official, i.e., here Gov. Brown, in particular, I would like to give thanks to medical receiver J. Clark Kelso for acting to protect African Americans from contracting Valley Fever in California prisons. Kelso "issued a directive this week that Avenal and Pleasant Valley state prisons relocate some 3,200 inmates deemed at increased risk of developing a fatal reaction to the fungus, including all African Americans and those over 55." L.A. Times, "CDC probing state outbreaks of valley fever", May 2, 2013. Prior to Kelso's directive, "The national Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has stepped in to investigate outbreaks of valley fever in two California prisons where more than three dozen inmates have died after contracting the fungal disease." Id. Earlier a Kelso spokeswoman had stated, "Immediate steps are necessary to prevent further loss of life." L.A. Times, "State to move at-risk inmates", April 30, 2013.
" 'It is not clear why certain populations are more prone to the infection than others. But from 2008 to 2010, at least 355 prisoners required hospitalization, and the receiver reported 34 deaths related to valley fever from 2006 to 2011, most of the victims African Americans.'" Id. "'Health officials say they don't know whether African Americans are more apt to contract the fungus, or more likely to become seriously ill when they do.'" It appears that Kelso's actions were taken in part because "Prisoners' rights lawyers who have been battling the state over conditions in its crowded prisons, meanwhile, filed a motion last month asking U.S. District Judge Thelton Henderson to force officials to protect inmates from the disease.'"(* this passage is injected in order to assess and give proper credit for the entire or cumulative action *taken on behalf of African American prisoners in California's prison system with respect to valley fever).
I mentioned the fact that Gov. Brown is white because it seems that with all the so-called Black public politicians and other officials we have around, its always a white official, as opposed to a Black one, who acts courageously on behalf of disenfranchised Black people, in this case, black and brown students, to try and protect an essential right, in this case, equal protection, of black people as citizens of this country. The Brown Plan *(as an idea, i.e., disadvantaged children need specific help) should have been initiated by a Black Los Angeles' Councilman ( or woman) a long time ago; and it should have been propounded and urged upon the previous governors (and the Legislature)*(as an idea) by the City Councilperson because he or she is the first line of defense (not counting Board of Education positions) in the real political arena for Black children in the LAUSD. But it wasn't (if it was, it wasn't made public,*to my knowledge ). *Black and brown children didn't suddenly become disadvantaged when Gov. Brown took office. As always, it's sad. When Black people vote for these Black politicians, the least that they expect is that the Black politicians will protect their interests as Black people. Sadly, and invariably, it doesn't happen, even with the *current (and Black) President of the United States.
**UPDATE--June 25, 2013
It is now up to the PARENTS of disadvantaged black and brown children to make sure that the Brown Plan is implemented. It is their responsibility to go to the respective schools and inquire and get assurance that the money amount which is supposed to be allocated to disadvantaged students truly is spent on those disadvantaged students, even if the parents must demand an accounting from principals as to how the specific amounts were spent on the parents' individual child or children. The parents must demand and get feedback from their children as to whether or not they are receiving specific services that should be provided by the Brown Plan money, e.g., tutoring. Without the PARENTS involvement and insistence, I can assure you that the Brown Plan will not work as planned, i.e., providing specific help and services to disadvantaged black and brown children. If the parents do not do their part, what will happen is that the money intended to be spent on disadvantaged children will be spent on either advantaged children (who don't really need it) or on other school services or programs, including salaries, which the money was not intended to be used for. So, the Brown Plan will require parents to be GOOD PARENTS and follow-up on the supervision, administration, and implementation of the Brown Plan. Gov. Brown has done his part, now its up to the parents of these children to do their part.
The first thing the parents need to do is find out from the LAUSD when the Plan initially goes into effect or when does it start. When will the LAUSD actually get the money? And, when will the LAUSD began to distribute the money in terms of the services that it will provide (i.e., when will the services first be provided)? And, finally, what type of services will be provided to the individual student with the money? The parents should demand an answer to these basic questions by a certain date before the next school year begins (after summer break), so when they take their children to school this Fall, they will know what to expect (either the Plan will start or it won't, and if not, why not?). That means that parents must start their parenting regarding the Brown Plan during the summer break. That will be the start of GOOD PARENTING!
Tuesday, June 18, 2013
CHRISTOPHER DORNER: A BLACK MALE L.A. AIRPORT POLICE DEPARTMENT *OFFICER IS A BENEFICIARY OF THE "DORNER EFFECT"
Los Angeles, California
June 20, 2013
*This blog is submitted and contributed as part of the War on Racial Discrimination in California.
*Denotes new information has been added to the original blog
***The facts for this blog are based on the L.A. Times article, "L.A. airport police officer wins job back", March 11, 2013. I thank the L.A. Times for publishing this article, for I would not have known of this case and situation but for the article.
When Officer Rodney J. Rouzan, a 12-year veteran of the Los Angeles Airport Police Department got his job back after being terminated for an alleged assault with a deadly weapon, it was the result of the "Dorner Effect". That is, it was probably the result of the city's Board of Civil Service Commissioners (BCSC), and in particular, Judy Gust, the commission's Hearing Examiner, being aware of the Christopher Dorner case, whereby Chris Dorner,a Black former LAPD officer, through his "manifesto", declared that he was wrongfully fired from his position as a police officer with the L.A. Police Department through an unfair decision by the Board of Rights(BOR)(the administrative board governing LAPD police firings that would be similar to the Board of Civil Service Commissioners here) and that the wrongful firing had ruined his good name and his life. And, he cited this unfair decision combined with other decisions as reasons for his "war" (I have designated and proclaimed this his "war on racial discrimination"--WRD), which resulted in his death.
I believe that as a result of the serious damage caused by Dorner's war, including the loss of lives, and the merits of his claims, e.g., that the BOR had unfairly fired him, the BCSC and Commissioner Gust took a closer look at Mr. Rouzan's case, and were more meticulous and fair in reaching a decision. Of course, it required Gust being a reasonably fair person or adjudicator from the outset in order for the push of the "Dorner Effect" to produce the fair outcome for Rouzan. But, I believe it was the Dorner effect that assured Rouzan a positive and fair outcome, and ultimately, the return of his position with the L.A. Airport Police Department.
Briefly, (based on facts identified in the above-entitled L.A.Times article; which is the primary source for the facts of this blog), the case before the BCSC was centered on a complaint filed with the airport police department whereby there were allegations that Rouzan had pulled a gun on several men (one of which was a former business partner-neighbor with whom Rouzan had a conflict) during a confrontation at or outside his(Rouzan's) home regarding the former business partner attempting to serve Rouzan with legal papers. Rouzan apparently denied that the scenario of the gun-pulling actually happened (that is, he denied pulling a gun on anyone). Pursuant to an investigation by the Airport Police Department (APD), the APD found that Rouzan's actions "conflicted with his duties as a police officer and violated policies forbidding illegal behavior" and "fired Rouzan on May 22, 2010."
However, unlike Dorner's case, where the BOR chose to believe the evidence of the accused (the woman Dorner accused of kicking a mentally-ill man)and the LAPD, even though Dorner had testimony from the victim and his father(whom had no motive to lie) (in addition to Dorner himself) contradicting the accused's testimony and other LAPD evidence, Commissioner Gust "said she was not persuaded by the police department's witnesses because of their inconsistent descriptions of the incident and because they had hostile motives stemming from Rouzan's earlier court victory (in Dorner's case, the hostile motives would be snitching on a colleague in defense of a suspect). She noted that the men did not tell sheriff's deputies that Rouzan had pointed a gun at them -- something they later told airport police investigators."
The facts or findings in Rouzan's case in some ways mirror the facts or findings in Dorner's case, e.g., "inconsistent descriptions of the incident" and "hostile motives" on behalf of police department witnesses. The difference , in Dorner's case, is that Dorner received a racially-motivated and biased interpretation of the facts and evidence, while Rouzan received a honest and fair interpretation, based in part, in my opinion, on the Dorner Effect and a fair judge (an unfair and dishonest judge would not have found in Rouzan's favor, and there would not have been a "Dorner effect", because a dishonest or biased judge would not consider the Dorner Effect. The Dorner Effect can only influence a potentially fair judge who truly may be indecisive about the outcome of a case based on certain facts. The Dorner Effect causes a potentially fair judge to perform "strict scrutiny" of a close case involving an African American male or other black male, and assure his or herself that he or she is being unbiased in his or her assessment of the case. In other words, the Dorner Effect will assure that a case which ordinarily should be ruled in favor of an African American male or other black male, will, in fact, be ruled in the black male's favor).
Finally, in the Times article referred to above, it was stated that "Gust further ruled that there was nothing to support Rouzan's assertions that he was fired because of his race -- he is African American. . . ." This is absolute nonsense. And it's just another person, black or white (although I believe Gust is white--but, I don't know for sure) who refuses to face the reality of racism and racial discrimination in America. The only reason Gust could make this ruling was because she did not review the case as a racial discrimination case; rather, she reviewed and treated the case as an ordinary wrongful termination case, without an examination of the racial component or the criteria for proving racial discrimination in an employment termination case. Rouzan, like Chris Dorner, can clearly support his assertions that he was fired because of his race by referring to and relying upon the McDonnell-Douglas *Corp v. Green, *411 U.S. 792(1973) formula for proving race discrimination based on circumstantial or indirect evidence, as opposed to direct evidence. And, based on the McDonnell-Douglas' prima facie case for proving racial discrimination in termination, discharge, or firing, as altered, i.e., (1) membership in a protected class; (2) qualification for the position and satisfaction of its normal requirements; and (3) the defendant employer discharged the plaintiff under circumstances that gives rise to an inference of discrimination, Rouzan's assertions that he was fired because of his race was clearly supported by the record. *"If established, the prima facie case creates a rebuttable presumption that the employer unlawfully discriminated against the plaintiff." Dominquez-Curry v. Nevada Transp. Dept., 424 F.3d 1027, 1037 (9th Cir. 2005)
For Rouzan, being African American, he was a member of a protected class; there was no dispute regarding Rouzan's qualifications for the position of police officer, therefore it can be assumed that Rouzan was qualified to be a police officer with the APD, having worked for the Department for 12 years; and Rouzan was fired based on the assertions of a former business partner-neighbor that he had earlier had a conflict with and who had a motive to lie, and Rouzan's firing was not based on his qualifications as a police officer or his abilities to perform police officer duties. Thus, satisfaction of the McDonnell-Douglas' prima facie case was sufficient "to support Rouzan's assertions that he was fired because of his race", *because Rouzan's assertions created a rebuttable presumption that the APD unlawfully discriminated against him because of his race (African American).
In sum, and for clarity, I believe that Officer Rodney J. Rouzan was a beneficiary of the "Dorner Effect" in having his firing from the APD overturned by the BCSC. I believe the Dorner Effect caused the hearing examiner to examine Rouzan's case (an African American male fired by a Los Angeles Police Department--in this case, the Airport Department) more closely than she ordinarily would have and with more care and fairness than she ordinarily would have. I believe without the Dorner Effect, the hearing examiner would have reviewed the case as just another officer firing case brought by a disgruntled black officer (who charged the department with racial discrimination only to mask his misconduct), and it is likely that Rouzan would have lost the case (like Chris Dorner did) or the hearing examiner would have ruled against him based on the Department's investigators' report and the Department's evidence. But, it is also possible that Rouzan might still have prevailed without the Dorner Effect. However, I believe that the Dorner Effect "sealed the deal" or assured the reversal of the firing by the hearing examiner.
The reason I believe that it is possible that Rouzan might have prevailed without the Dorner Effect is because I believe that Commissioner Gust was a fair hearing examiner; and with a fair adjudicator, there is always a good chance that there will be a fair outcome. Nonetheless, even fair adjudicators sometimes feel pressured to rule against a complainant in close cases because they are still employed by the government and feel some sense of loyalty to the government. So, what the Dorner Effect did was remove the pressure that Gust might have felt and allowed her to be completely fair. And, when Rouzan's case was adjudicated fairly, as evidenced by Gust's assessments or analysis, he had to prevail. *But, even though Gust was fair, she nontheless found that Rouzan's assertion that he was racially discriminated against unsupported by the record. I believe this conclusion was wrong, misguided, and a refusal to face reality.
Mr. Rouzan was fired, at least in part, because he was a Black male (like Christopher Dorner). So Mr. Rouzan was correct in asserting that he was fired because he was Black.
Thank you, Mr. Rouzan for asserting a claim of racial discrimination where it was warranted, and thank you for being a soldier in the War on Racial Discrimination in California.
A PROPOSAL FOR A "DORNER DOCTRINE"
I propose that there should be a "Dorner Doctrine", which should be implemented or instituted during all police firing cases involving African American or black males as firees or complainants. The Dorner Doctrine dictates that in every police firing case where an African American or black male is the person being fired, the decisionmaker or the decisionmaking body must examine the evidence and the entire case with "strict scrutiny" and fairness, and this strict scrutiny must be performed throughout the administrative (Board) process and the California court process (to include the Superior Court and the Appellate Courts). Further, there must be a clear and reasoned assessment and description of how the respective police department met its burden of proof if the police department prevails and the black male police officer is fired. Finally, if, during the administrative process or the Superior Court of California process, the decisionmaker determines that he or she is unsure whether an accused police officer or a critical witness for the department actually committed an identified act asserted by the Department, that "unsure" decision will be undisputed evidence that the police department did not meet its burden of proof (or *of proving that the police officer committed the act that he is accused of) by a preponderance of the evidence, *thereby preventing the black male police officer from being fired as a matter of law.
June 20, 2013
*This blog is submitted and contributed as part of the War on Racial Discrimination in California.
*Denotes new information has been added to the original blog
***The facts for this blog are based on the L.A. Times article, "L.A. airport police officer wins job back", March 11, 2013. I thank the L.A. Times for publishing this article, for I would not have known of this case and situation but for the article.
When Officer Rodney J. Rouzan, a 12-year veteran of the Los Angeles Airport Police Department got his job back after being terminated for an alleged assault with a deadly weapon, it was the result of the "Dorner Effect". That is, it was probably the result of the city's Board of Civil Service Commissioners (BCSC), and in particular, Judy Gust, the commission's Hearing Examiner, being aware of the Christopher Dorner case, whereby Chris Dorner,a Black former LAPD officer, through his "manifesto", declared that he was wrongfully fired from his position as a police officer with the L.A. Police Department through an unfair decision by the Board of Rights(BOR)(the administrative board governing LAPD police firings that would be similar to the Board of Civil Service Commissioners here) and that the wrongful firing had ruined his good name and his life. And, he cited this unfair decision combined with other decisions as reasons for his "war" (I have designated and proclaimed this his "war on racial discrimination"--WRD), which resulted in his death.
I believe that as a result of the serious damage caused by Dorner's war, including the loss of lives, and the merits of his claims, e.g., that the BOR had unfairly fired him, the BCSC and Commissioner Gust took a closer look at Mr. Rouzan's case, and were more meticulous and fair in reaching a decision. Of course, it required Gust being a reasonably fair person or adjudicator from the outset in order for the push of the "Dorner Effect" to produce the fair outcome for Rouzan. But, I believe it was the Dorner effect that assured Rouzan a positive and fair outcome, and ultimately, the return of his position with the L.A. Airport Police Department.
Briefly, (based on facts identified in the above-entitled L.A.Times article; which is the primary source for the facts of this blog), the case before the BCSC was centered on a complaint filed with the airport police department whereby there were allegations that Rouzan had pulled a gun on several men (one of which was a former business partner-neighbor with whom Rouzan had a conflict) during a confrontation at or outside his(Rouzan's) home regarding the former business partner attempting to serve Rouzan with legal papers. Rouzan apparently denied that the scenario of the gun-pulling actually happened (that is, he denied pulling a gun on anyone). Pursuant to an investigation by the Airport Police Department (APD), the APD found that Rouzan's actions "conflicted with his duties as a police officer and violated policies forbidding illegal behavior" and "fired Rouzan on May 22, 2010."
However, unlike Dorner's case, where the BOR chose to believe the evidence of the accused (the woman Dorner accused of kicking a mentally-ill man)and the LAPD, even though Dorner had testimony from the victim and his father(whom had no motive to lie) (in addition to Dorner himself) contradicting the accused's testimony and other LAPD evidence, Commissioner Gust "said she was not persuaded by the police department's witnesses because of their inconsistent descriptions of the incident and because they had hostile motives stemming from Rouzan's earlier court victory (in Dorner's case, the hostile motives would be snitching on a colleague in defense of a suspect). She noted that the men did not tell sheriff's deputies that Rouzan had pointed a gun at them -- something they later told airport police investigators."
The facts or findings in Rouzan's case in some ways mirror the facts or findings in Dorner's case, e.g., "inconsistent descriptions of the incident" and "hostile motives" on behalf of police department witnesses. The difference , in Dorner's case, is that Dorner received a racially-motivated and biased interpretation of the facts and evidence, while Rouzan received a honest and fair interpretation, based in part, in my opinion, on the Dorner Effect and a fair judge (an unfair and dishonest judge would not have found in Rouzan's favor, and there would not have been a "Dorner effect", because a dishonest or biased judge would not consider the Dorner Effect. The Dorner Effect can only influence a potentially fair judge who truly may be indecisive about the outcome of a case based on certain facts. The Dorner Effect causes a potentially fair judge to perform "strict scrutiny" of a close case involving an African American male or other black male, and assure his or herself that he or she is being unbiased in his or her assessment of the case. In other words, the Dorner Effect will assure that a case which ordinarily should be ruled in favor of an African American male or other black male, will, in fact, be ruled in the black male's favor).
Finally, in the Times article referred to above, it was stated that "Gust further ruled that there was nothing to support Rouzan's assertions that he was fired because of his race -- he is African American. . . ." This is absolute nonsense. And it's just another person, black or white (although I believe Gust is white--but, I don't know for sure) who refuses to face the reality of racism and racial discrimination in America. The only reason Gust could make this ruling was because she did not review the case as a racial discrimination case; rather, she reviewed and treated the case as an ordinary wrongful termination case, without an examination of the racial component or the criteria for proving racial discrimination in an employment termination case. Rouzan, like Chris Dorner, can clearly support his assertions that he was fired because of his race by referring to and relying upon the McDonnell-Douglas *Corp v. Green, *411 U.S. 792(1973) formula for proving race discrimination based on circumstantial or indirect evidence, as opposed to direct evidence. And, based on the McDonnell-Douglas' prima facie case for proving racial discrimination in termination, discharge, or firing, as altered, i.e., (1) membership in a protected class; (2) qualification for the position and satisfaction of its normal requirements; and (3) the defendant employer discharged the plaintiff under circumstances that gives rise to an inference of discrimination, Rouzan's assertions that he was fired because of his race was clearly supported by the record. *"If established, the prima facie case creates a rebuttable presumption that the employer unlawfully discriminated against the plaintiff." Dominquez-Curry v. Nevada Transp. Dept., 424 F.3d 1027, 1037 (9th Cir. 2005)
For Rouzan, being African American, he was a member of a protected class; there was no dispute regarding Rouzan's qualifications for the position of police officer, therefore it can be assumed that Rouzan was qualified to be a police officer with the APD, having worked for the Department for 12 years; and Rouzan was fired based on the assertions of a former business partner-neighbor that he had earlier had a conflict with and who had a motive to lie, and Rouzan's firing was not based on his qualifications as a police officer or his abilities to perform police officer duties. Thus, satisfaction of the McDonnell-Douglas' prima facie case was sufficient "to support Rouzan's assertions that he was fired because of his race", *because Rouzan's assertions created a rebuttable presumption that the APD unlawfully discriminated against him because of his race (African American).
In sum, and for clarity, I believe that Officer Rodney J. Rouzan was a beneficiary of the "Dorner Effect" in having his firing from the APD overturned by the BCSC. I believe the Dorner Effect caused the hearing examiner to examine Rouzan's case (an African American male fired by a Los Angeles Police Department--in this case, the Airport Department) more closely than she ordinarily would have and with more care and fairness than she ordinarily would have. I believe without the Dorner Effect, the hearing examiner would have reviewed the case as just another officer firing case brought by a disgruntled black officer (who charged the department with racial discrimination only to mask his misconduct), and it is likely that Rouzan would have lost the case (like Chris Dorner did) or the hearing examiner would have ruled against him based on the Department's investigators' report and the Department's evidence. But, it is also possible that Rouzan might still have prevailed without the Dorner Effect. However, I believe that the Dorner Effect "sealed the deal" or assured the reversal of the firing by the hearing examiner.
The reason I believe that it is possible that Rouzan might have prevailed without the Dorner Effect is because I believe that Commissioner Gust was a fair hearing examiner; and with a fair adjudicator, there is always a good chance that there will be a fair outcome. Nonetheless, even fair adjudicators sometimes feel pressured to rule against a complainant in close cases because they are still employed by the government and feel some sense of loyalty to the government. So, what the Dorner Effect did was remove the pressure that Gust might have felt and allowed her to be completely fair. And, when Rouzan's case was adjudicated fairly, as evidenced by Gust's assessments or analysis, he had to prevail. *But, even though Gust was fair, she nontheless found that Rouzan's assertion that he was racially discriminated against unsupported by the record. I believe this conclusion was wrong, misguided, and a refusal to face reality.
Mr. Rouzan was fired, at least in part, because he was a Black male (like Christopher Dorner). So Mr. Rouzan was correct in asserting that he was fired because he was Black.
Thank you, Mr. Rouzan for asserting a claim of racial discrimination where it was warranted, and thank you for being a soldier in the War on Racial Discrimination in California.
A PROPOSAL FOR A "DORNER DOCTRINE"
I propose that there should be a "Dorner Doctrine", which should be implemented or instituted during all police firing cases involving African American or black males as firees or complainants. The Dorner Doctrine dictates that in every police firing case where an African American or black male is the person being fired, the decisionmaker or the decisionmaking body must examine the evidence and the entire case with "strict scrutiny" and fairness, and this strict scrutiny must be performed throughout the administrative (Board) process and the California court process (to include the Superior Court and the Appellate Courts). Further, there must be a clear and reasoned assessment and description of how the respective police department met its burden of proof if the police department prevails and the black male police officer is fired. Finally, if, during the administrative process or the Superior Court of California process, the decisionmaker determines that he or she is unsure whether an accused police officer or a critical witness for the department actually committed an identified act asserted by the Department, that "unsure" decision will be undisputed evidence that the police department did not meet its burden of proof (or *of proving that the police officer committed the act that he is accused of) by a preponderance of the evidence, *thereby preventing the black male police officer from being fired as a matter of law.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)