Los Angeles, California
January 20, 2026
(Today’s Date)
October 18, 2021
(Original Date)
**UPDATE (Denotes NEW information added after publication of the original blogpost)
*Denotes some change was made in or to the original blog, either added information or deleted information
This blog is submitted and contributed as part of the War on Racial Discrimination (WRD) in California (and the United States)
Last week, Councilman Mark Ridley-Thomas was indicted by a grand jury on charges which include conspiracy, bribery, and wire fraud, a 20-count indictment. The charges were initially brought and presented to a grand jury by the Acting U.S. Attorney for Los Angeles, Tracy L. Wilkison .
Ridley-Thomas should not resign his office, contrary to what the L.A. Times has suggested, so that he can “continue the work (he) was elected to do—most importantly, addressing the homeless and housing crisis”, as he has said. If Ridley-Thomas resigns now, he may as well plead guilty and save the taxpayers some money.
The public must realize that this indictment was initiated by an acting U.S. Attorney , who is still a part of former President Donald Trump’s administration * (and I have charged the Los Angeles U.S. Attorney’s Office under Trump and prior thereto with racial discrimination or racism through a separate blog, where I pointed out Ridley-Thomas was being investigated based on a complaint brought by a white lawyer, yet, the Office would not investigate a complaint against white officials brought by a Black lawyer, yours truly) who knows that she is on her way out, so this is her (or the Office’s) last opportunity to prosecute another minority, e.g., Jose Huizar, and, in this case, a Black man, before she is replaced by a President Joe Biden selection for the U.S. Attorney post. I do not know if Ridley-Thomas is actually guilty of the offenses he has been charged with or not. But, *even if he is, he still has at least one defense : selective prosecution. I hope, for the community’s sake, he is , at least, not guilty of the offenses. One can be not guilty of committing a criminal offense, yet, not be completely innocent.
I will comment further on the selective prosecution defense at a later time, but, I will offer at this time that the U.S. Attorney’s prosecution of Marilyn Flynn, *former dean of the USC School of Social Work, who is white, does not factor into the selective prosecution analysis, because she is simply a necessary player in order to charge Ridley Thomas.
UPDATE—October 20, 2021
THE SUSPENSION OF COUNCILMAN MARK RIDLEY-THOMAS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL : A CONTRADICTORY DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS, FOR WHICH, TOGETHER WITH THE SUSPENSION OF HIS PAY BY CITY CONTROLLER RON GALPERIN, RIDLEY-THOMAS SHOULD BRING HIS OWN ACTION IN FEDERAL COURT.
The Los Angeles City Council has now suspended City Councilman Mark Ridley-Thomas from the City Council ( which includes his city council duties), as of today, on a vote of 11 to 3, with Councilmen Marqueece Harris-Dawson, Curren Price, and Mike Bonin opposing the suspension. In addition to the suspension, Ridley-Thomas will lose his salary and benefits, based on the suspension, and based on the current position of City Controller Ron Galperin, who has stated that Ridley-Thomas’s salary and benefits will be discontinued with the suspension.
The motion to suspend was brought by Council President Nury Martinez and seconded by Councilman Mitch O’Farrell, the council president pro tem. According to news accounts, the motion, in part, stated, “ ‘The trial on the indictment has yet to take place and a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty; however, a council member who has been charged with public corruption cannot continue to exercise the powers of city office and preserve public trust’.” Emphasis added. KFI AM 640. But, to state that one is presumed innocent until proven guilty, and simultaneously suspend him without that proof, is an inexplicable contradiction and denial of due process. Clearly, that innocent until proven guilty language was nothing more than an attempt to add some credibility to an inexplicable and obvious denial of due process of law.
To my knowledge, Ridley-Thomas is not a rich man, so who is going to pay for his subsistence and attorney fees while he undergoes his defense of the charges against him ? Even if he was rich, it still would be a violation of due process (in the law, it would be substantive due process) to terminate his pay without him having been found guilty of a crime. It is taxpayers that pay Ridley-Thomas’ salary and benefits, to represent his constituents, and as long as he’s performing the job he is being paid to do, he should continue to receive that pay, unless and until he is found guilty of a federal felony, at which time, he would no longer have the capability to perform the job, especially if he receives jail time (which is likely). But, until he is found guilty of a crime, he is presumed to be INNOCENT. President Martinez said that Ridley-Thomas , who is charged with “public corruption”, supra, “cannot continue to exercise the powers of city office and preserve public trust”. Well, I am a member of the Los Angeles city and county public, and I continue to TRUST Ridley-Thomas, until proven otherwise.
While I realize that some of the council members may have felt compelled to vote for Ridley-Thomas’ suspension because they had voted for Jose Huizar’s suspension, I don’t think either one of them should have been suspended without pay prior to a finding of guilt, unless the City Council could show that the charges alone somehow cause either Huizar or Ridley-Thomas to be incapable of performing their council duties. An indictment is not a conviction. But, like councilman Bonin is said to have said, the City Council’s suspension of Ridley-Thomas is a “political” one.
It has been reported that Ridley-Thomas’ attorney, Michael Proctor, has said that “he would explore ‘any and all legal action’ challenging a suspension”. He should follow through.
UPDATE—April 7, 2022
RE : U.S. ATTORNEY TRACY L. WILKISON: I WAS WRONG
In the original blogpost herein above, I stated “The public must realize that this indictment was initiated by an acting U.S. Attorney, who is still part of former President Donald Trump’s administration. . . who knows that she is on her way out, so this is her (or her Office’s) last opportunity to prosecute another minority, e.g., Jose Huizar, and in this case, a Black man, before she is replaced by a President Joe Biden selection for the U.S. Attorney post.” I WAS WRONG. I’ve now discovered that Wilkison is, in fact, a Biden administration appointee. She is not a part of the Trump administration. And, therefore, she is not on her way out, rather, she’s just coming in; and, it is likely not her last opportunity to prosecute another minority, and, she will not be replaced by a Biden selection because she is a Biden selection.
However, the investigation of Mark Ridley-Thomas did begin during the Trump administration, and, together with Wilkison’s “acting” title, I was thrown off. But, I still believe the investigation of Ridley-Thomas was racially-motivated. Nonetheless, I realize that Wilkison, if the case has merit, is obligated to continue to prosecute it.
Because Wilkison is a Biden administration appointee, henceforth I will assign more merit to the case than I would have under the Trump Administration. Nonetheless, like any other new U.S. Attorney, Democratic or Republican, I will wait to see if Wilkison is FAIR, and, if so, how FAIR she is. And, she will be tested. L.A. District Attorney George Gascon, who is supposed to be “progressive”, proved not to be fair, among other things, so he failed the fairness tests. I now support his recall.
UPDATE—April 13, 2022
WILKISON’S FIRST TEST : A FEDERAL CRIMINAL-CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT FILED AGAINST MULTIPLE INDIVIDUALS BY A BLACK MALE
Yesterday, I filed or submitted a federal criminal-civil rights Complaint against multiple individuals involved with my criminal misdemeanor conviction for violating a restraining order and with my conservatorship hearing and appeals. This Complaint has lingered awhile because of others matters, such as the theft of my mother’s home, which has taken precedent in my life’s affairs. But, the Complaint is done now, and it’s more than a telephone call (to initiate an investigation). Most of the evidence for the crimes is Record evidence, so an investigation will not be extraordinary . Therefore, it should not take much time to investigate the Complaint and bring charges.
I, initially, submitted the Complaint in Washington, D.C., because I had no confidence in the U.S. Attorney’s Office here in Los Angeles. And, I’m not fully confident now. But, I owe Tracy Wilkison the opportunity to show that she is different from the last U.S. Attorney, and that she will fairly execute the law. This Complaint presents her with that opportunity. So, I have now filed or submitted the Complaint in the Los Angeles Office. I will attach a copy to this blogpost in the near future, *minus the exhibits.
This Complaint, filed by a Black man, will present Wilkison, who is white, with her first fairness test. Clearly, the Complaint contain sufficient allegations of misconduct to warrant an investigation by the FBI or a prosecutorial investigator, and I should be contacted regarding the progress of the investigation.
Another reason for submitting the Complaint in Los Angeles is that it is now pitted against Mark Ridley-Thomas’s case, and by the time his case is tried, there would have been sufficient time for my Complaint to have been investigated and the accuseds charged, if they are charged (as they should be). If the accuseds are not charged, it will present Ridley-Thomas with important revelations and/or considerations at the time of his trial: first, he will know what type of prosecutor he’s dealing with; and second, he will have a decision to make as to how he wants to proceed. Let’s see what happens.
THE ACTIONS OF WILKISON’S RECEPTIONIST DOES NOT BODE WELL FOR AN INDICATION OF WILKISON’S FAIRNESS
When I went to submit the Complaint to the U.S. Attorney’s Office in downtown L.A., I was met by a receptionist who would refuse to date-stamp a copy of the Complaint, refuse to summon a supervisor, refuse to give her name, and called for security when I asked for her name.
First of all, I arrived at the USAO at about 12: 50 p.m. or near the end of the 12 to 1 lunch break , so I had to wait for the receptionist to return from lunch break at 1: 00 p.m. When she arrived, she inquired as to why I was waiting. I responded that I was waiting for the receptionist, and she indicated it was her.
Next, I had to assure her a couple of times that I knew that I was in the right office, for a FEDERAL matter. Then after we got through the fact that I could not complain about multiple defendants on a single page form document, she accepted the complaint. Then I requested a date-stamped copy for myself. She said that was for clerks. She said she didn’t do that. I responded that I had had it done before at this office. She said she would only give me a slip with “citizen complaint receipt” on it. That’s when I requested to speak with a supervisor. She said that no one was around. This was a lie. Because as we were talking, I saw a middle-aged to older white woman, who appeared to be an attorney, walking from one side to the other (behind the receptionist—she could not see the woman). And, from this woman’s expression, she seemed to detect that there was some type of controversy going on; but, she just kept walking, out of view. At one point, I told the receptionist that I was an attorney. It made no difference.
Finally, I asked the receptionist for her name. She refused to give it. Then, she informed me that she was calling security. I asked again for her name. She refused. So, I left. Why would I wait for someone to come up 12 floors , just to go back down with them?
Do I think her call for security was because I am Black ? Yes. She appeared to be Hispanic. The reason I wanted her name, and the reason she wouldn’t give it , is because we both knew that I intended to complain about her conduct, and I will. To Wilkison, with a copy to Attorney General Merrick Garland. The receptionist name will be Jane Doe.
This scenario with the receptionist did not create a good first impression for Wilkison’s Office, if Wilkison cares. If she doesn’t care, it doesn’t matter. And, it may be an indication of her intended fairness to Black people.
LAURACK D.
BRAY
P.O.
BOX 611432
LOS
ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90061
TEL. : 805 -901 -2693
DATE
: April 12, 2022
SUBJECT
: FEDERAL CRIMINAL CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT
OF VIOLATIONS BY VARIOUS CALIFORNIA STATE GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES OR OFFICIALS,
INCLUDING JUDGES
This Complaint is based on a criminal trial and appeal, and a civil conservatorship hearing and
appeal. In the criminal trial, I was
charged with violating a restraining order (which I did not do—and I contend
there was no legal or factual basis for issuance of the restraining order in
the first place) and in the conservatorship matter (with my 100 year-old Black
mother as conservatee), I contested the conservatorship in favor of my sister,
who the trial judge appointed
conservator, over my objection. Both proceedings involved my sister, Dianne
Jackson, as victim and petitioner, respectively. This Complaint has lingered for awhile, so I am going to try
and get to the point regarding the allegations. Most of the charges I am complaining about
are based on violations of 18 U.S.C.
secs. 241 and 242. Again, your office
may determine that other crimes have been committed, such as mail or wire
fraud.
THE CRIMINAL TRIAL AND APPEAL DEFENDANTS/SUSPECTS
The first set of defendants/suspects
are based on actions which took place during my criminal trial, where I was
being tried for violating a civil
restraining order, a misdemeanor. The
case number for the trial proceedings is NO. 9CJ01654, and the case number for
the criminal appeal is BR054623. The
trial proceedings, including pre-trial proceedings, took place between
February, 2019 and July 5, 2019 (sentencing).
1. Susan Kolahi, Deputy City Attorney and
lead prosecutor for the criminal case.
Kolahi knowingly and willfullly
submitted false evidence, i.e., the document that I was charged with violating,
in court and to the jury. Further, the
false evidence or document was subsequently edited, and I believe submitted to
the jury in the altered form. I was not allowed by the court to see the
documents which were submitted to the jury.
I asked to do so (I proceeded pro se) , but the trial judge,
Kimberly Baker Guillemet, infra, refused to allow me to do so.
I also charge Kolahi with conspiring
with judge Guillemet to submit false evidence in court and to the jury.
I also charge Kolahi with altering an
already fraudulent document and offering it as the true false or fraudulent
document. And this is the final
document I believe was submitted to the jury.
This document was offered during my testimony, i.e., I testified on my
own behalf, as the original fraudulent document. I stated on the witness stand that it wasn’t
the original fraudulent document, i.e., the restraining order that I was
charged with violating.
Finally, I charge Kolahi with
conspiring with Brian Cheng, infra, and other members of the city attorney’s
office to have me convicted, knowing that I was innocent.
2.
Judge Kimberly Baker Guillemet, Superior Court of Los Angeles
Judge Guillemet conspired with Susan
Kolahi in having the false evidence offered in court and in submitting false
evidence to the jury. The document,
i.e., the restraining order that I was charged with violating, was false and
fraudulent on its face, that is, it contained false information, or information
that the judge issuing the order, A. Veronica Sauceda, had taken from another
judge’s restraining order, and included that information in her so-called
“amended” order (the restraining order that I was charged with violating). See, infra. I
also charge judge Guillemet with showing bias and/or
discriminating against me as a Black male during the trial, thereby denying me
due process and equal protection of the law, under color of law. Guillemet is Black.
3.
Brian I. Cheng, Deputy City Attorney
I charge Cheng with altering a document (the same fraudulent restraining order that I was charged with violating) and submitting the document to the court during pre-trial proceedings. Cheng removed the false date that was included in the fraudulent restraining order when he submitted an Opposition to my motion to Dismiss during pre-trial proceedings. The false document was attached to his Opposition as an exhibit. The trial judge denied the motion. I also charge Cheng with conspiring with Kolahi, supra, and other members of the city attorney’s office in submitting false or fraudulent evidence to the Court with the intent to have me convicted, knowing that I was innocent, thereby denying me due process under color of law.
4. A. Veronica Sauceda, Judge Pro Tem, Superior
Court of Los Angeles (Compton)
Judge Sauceda was the author of
the fraudulent document or restraining order that I was charged with
violating. That is, Sauceda issued a
false and fraudulent restraining order that she designated in a handwritten
title as “amended” order. See Exhibit #1.
She captured some information from an original and valid restraining
order (that I charge should not have been issued, based on a lack of true facts
to support it) issued by judge Dianne Gould-Saltman (that I opposed, but, it
was valid) and placed some of that information (such as P. 2, No. 5, a.
“There was a hearing on (date)
6/22/2016”—when the true date of her hearing was 7/2/2018, and “(name of
judicial officer): D. Gould-Saltman”, when the name should have been hers, i.e., Sauceda’s) into her (Sauceda) “amended” restraining order
and issued the order to the victim (my sister, Dianne Jackson) in my
absence, or ex parte. And,
Jackson and the City Attorney relied on this restraining order to charge me
with violating it. Further, Sauceda
could not issue the order she issued, a 100 yard stay away order, without a
proper motion from Jackson, which was not forthcoming. Sauceda issued the illegal restraining order
after
the hearing on a Petition to renew the valid restraining order had
ended, in my absence, thereby denying me due process, under color of
law.
Sauceda also exhibited bias or racial
discrimination during her hearing on renewal of the original restraining order.
For example, during her hearing, I
pointed out that Jackson had charged me with something that I didn’t do, and
that she could probably look into it with a city department and confirm that I
did not perform the act, i.e., filed a complaint against Jackson. Sauceda stated “That’s not my job”. She is Hispanic. And, I allege that she knew, or should have
known, that some of the information contained in the so-called “amended” order
was false. Sauceda denied me due
process and equal protection of the law.
5. Judge
Sanjon Kumar, Appellate Division, Superior Court of Los Angeles
Judge Kumar submitted a legal
document, an appellate opinion, that
contained multiple lies. The document
was an appellate Opinion for my criminal appeal of the restraining order
conviction. There were at least 7 lies
or false statements in his Opinion, which is a public document. And, he denied me relief on appeal (affirming
the conviction) based on the lies. I will attach a copy of the seven lies to this Complaint. See Exhibit #2 (as outlined in a blogpost). And, his decision was sent by mail.
6.
Judge Francis Bennet, Superior Court of Los Angeles
Judge Bennett was made aware of the
false and fraudulent “amended” order during pre-trial. But, he chose to ignore the fraud and
illegality of the document. Even though
I argued the document was fraudulent and denied me constitutional rights, e.g.,
due process, based on a lack of notice and a hearing (based on the “amended” document), judge
Bennett never addressed the fraud or made a determination as to whether the
document was fraudulent or not. Moreover,
I filed motions, to dismiss and to suppress,
where I raised the issue, but no determination was made. His determination as to fraud would have
prevented me from having to undergo a trial and conviction. So, basically, he intentionally allowed a
fraudulent document to proceed to trial, and at the same time denied me due
process, under color of law.
CIVIL HEARING AND APPEAL DEFENDANTS
This set of Defendants/accuseds are
persons who I allege committed crimes pursuant to secs. 241 and/or 242 during
civil proceedings surrounding a conservatorship.
1.
Armen D. Gregorian ,
Court-appointed Attorney for Conservatee
Gregorian offered false written
evidence in a PVP Report in order to assist in denying me a conservatorship
over the care of my mother (both her estate and her person) and, even though he
was appointed by Judge David J. Cowan, infra,
to represent my mother, conservatee
Helen H. Davis, he really worked to represent my sister, Jackson). Gregorian conspired with judge Cowan, see infra, to include and rely on the false statement in the court’s
decision to deny me the conservatorship.
The false statement was brought to the attention of Gregorian and judge
Cowan during a court hearing, yet, he
(Cowan) continued to rely on the false statement (basically, that I was
attempting to steal money from my mother;
more specifically, he (Gregorian) stated, in part : “Most significantly,
he (me) recently went to a care facility and removed the proposed Conservatee and took her to her
bank to withdraw money.”) in his decision for the case, and Cowan denied me the
conservatorship, with prejudice (and there was no factual or legal basis for this holding). The entire statement by Gregorian was false,
and the conservator, Dianne Jackson, my sister (who I opposed during the
litigation), provided corroboration (unintentionally) that part of the
statement, that I “removed the conservatee from the care facility”, was false. These actions were done under color of law.
2. Judge David J. Cowan, Superior Court of Los
Angeles
I charge that Judge Cowan willfully deprived me of a
conservatorship judgment and appointment without due process of law and under
color of law by relying on the above-stated false statement as part of his reasons or
decision to deny me relief with
prejudice.
And, I charge that judge Cowan
conspired with Armen Gregorian to rely on the false statement, that they both knew was false at the time of Cowan’s written decision, to decide the case
against me. NOTE : I previously filed a complaint against Gregorian and Cowan
with the Los Angeles U.S. Attorney’s
Office, and there was no investigation.
I am re-filing it now because of the lack of an investigation in my case
and because there is evidence of judge Cowan relying on false or inaccurate information
to deny a plaintiff in another and different case, Lund v. Cowan, No. 20-55764 , July 15, 2021 ,
9th Cir., relief, and I contend
that the Lund case indicate a pattern
of judge Cowan relying on false or
inaccurate information or statements and/or discriminatory conduct, i.e., I
believe that judge Cowan discriminated against me as a Black male in his
decision-making, in denying litigants
relief. In Lund, Cowan denied a plaintiff relief based on the false
information (and assumption) that the plaintiff had Down Syndrome, when, in
truth , the plaintiff did not have Down Syndrome. Cowan, as in my case, refused to retract the
false statement, see Lund, at p. 5, and used the false information in his
decision. Cowan denied the plaintiff relief
(rejected a settlement) .
3.
Judge Laurie D. Zelon, Second District Court of Appeal, now retired
I charge judge Zelon with willfully
relying on a false statement of facts to deny me relief on appeal of the
aforementioned conservatorship, under color of law. Specifically, the statement by Zelon was (is)
: “(T)here was testimony, apparently
believed by the court, that Bray had not been involved in assisting his mother. . . .” The statement is false because the testimony (of
both Dianne Jackson, the petitioner, and myself---the only testimony , under oath, below) in fact
revealed that I had been involved in assisting my mother. Zelon relied on this false statement or
information to deny me relief on appeal.
Judge Zelon made another false
statement in another separate appeal, NO. 5290858, regarding verification of consent
provided in a petition . She stated, in
her written Opinion for the case, that I
did not cite authority to support a position, when in fact and truth, I did. More
specifically, Zelon stated in her Opinion, that I “asserted that Davis’s
consent and the PVP report were not
verified, without citing any legal authority that verification of that
documentation was required.” Emphasis added. This statement was (is) false because I did
cite to legal authority in my Reply Brief that verification of the
documentation is required. In my Reply
Brief, I stated, “the un-verified petition also failed to comply with or violated Probate Code Sec.
1021(a)(1) which states ‘All of the
following shall be verified : (1) A
petition, report, or account filed pursuant to this Code.’ ” This is a SIGNIFICANT false statement made by
Zelon because the main issue in a subsequent appeal (for confirmation of the
sale ), NO. B307116, was whether my sister and her attorneys could sell my 100
year-old Black mother’s home WITHOUT her VERIFIED CONSENT. Had Zelon not made this false statement, my
mother’s home could not have been sold, based
on a lack of verified consent by my mother. Now, I will have to try and undo an illegal
and unconstitutional sale (I believe) of my mother’s home (she lives in a
nursing facility presently, per my sister, Dianne Jackson). NOTE : I have previously filed a complaint
against Zelon with the USAO, and the
Complaint was not investigated. I am
re-filing it now, with additional allegations from subsequent appeals before
her and her Division, 7.
4.
Judge Dennis Perluss, Second District Court of Appeal
I charge that judge Perluss made material
omissions amounting to fraud in his unpublished Opinion, and he also made false
statements. One major omission was my constitutional
argument in my brief (both due process and equal protection—I charged was denied
me by a clerk in reference to a default).
The argument was briefed and it was referred to at oral argument. Yet, it was not ever mentioned in Perluss’s
decision. “Holly began her questioning
by demanding the accuser define a ‘lie of omission’ , then proceeded to point out Instagram and
text message threads the accuser failed to include in her June 28 request for a
restraining order.” L.A. Times, “Bauer Lawyer Presses On Key Details”, August
18, 2021. “Holly asked why the accuser
‘omitted dozens of key facts in your request for a restraining order,’ and the
woman had a lengthy pause before saying, ‘I don’t know’ ”. Id.
“Holley: Did you not think it was
of critical importance to tell the judge that you asked for [rough sex] ? Id.
He also omitted facts showing Dianne
Jackson had defaulted 3 times (and my legal argument on appeal was that she
defaulted , and I sought a default
judgment).
Perluss also made a false statement
when he stated that a home owned by my mother, Helen H. Davis, was owned in
part by Jackson. And, it isn’t. To my knowledge, the home is solely owned by Davis, our mother. The statement made a difference as to
Jackson’s authority to have me evicted from my mother’s home, and her authority
to charge me rent (at the time I was living with my mother; Jackson also lived
with my mother for a substantial time, along with me ), and, for an abuse of
process claim that I made against Jackson, it would provide her with a greater
legal argument and defense.
In another appeal, Perluss omitted
an essential statutory provision or law in his Opinion for the case that I had cited in my brief to avoid losing the
appeal . This was fraud by omission. And, his opinion, as all appeal decisions
are, was served by mail, which I believe would constitute mail fraud. Therefore, with the two appeals in which
judge Perluss omitted facts, allegations or law, a pattern of misconduct has
been formed. And, the Second District
Court of Appeal, over my objection, continues to allow Perluss to preside over my appellate
cases assigned to his Division, 7.
Finally, based on a recent appellate
action, November, 2021, I charge Perluss with conspiracy to deny me due process
of law, under color of law, by conspiring with a deputy clerk, C. Lynch, to
refuse to file a motion (which charged him with racial discrimination directed
at me and my 100 year-old Black mother) I filed to recall the remittitur or
mandate in the appeal case. He and the clerk relied on false or fictitious reasons for not filing the motion.
5.
C. Lynch, Deputy Clerk, Second District court of Appeal
Lynch conspired with Perluss to
submit a letter or form refusing to file a motion to recall the remittitur or
mandate in the case, based on false, fictitious, or fake reasons for refusing to do so, thereby denying me due
process.
I believe the only way the Defendants in
my Complaint will be deterred from committing similar acts in the future, or
will receive actual punishment for their conduct is to prosecute them like
other people or citizens, otherwise, they will be held above the law, because
they would not have been prosecuted and given punishment, and they would know
that will always be the case. And, I
will not receive any restitution or other relief, such as vacation
of the decisions of the various judges charged. And, I had multiple appeals before Defendants
Zelon and Perluss. If the judges are
charged and convicted, the Justice Department could move to have the decisions
in my cases, which were brought before the respective judges, set aside. And, I believe my criminal conviction should
result in an acquittal. And I would not
have to go through federal habeas corpus
proceedings to prove it. I will
have exhausted my state court habeas
proceedings by April 18, 2022. If the Justice Department brought the matter
before a judge to vacate the conviction, I could move for an acquittal.
I believe the conduct of judge Sanjon
Kumar, of the Appellate Division of the L.A. Superior Court, should be a major
focus of your decision in determining whether the Defendants should be
prosecuted for making false statements causing the deprivation of my civil and
constitutional rights, under color of law.
I believe it will be a gross injustice not to prosecute Kumar,
especially, and the other Defendants, because it will send a message that they can
continue to deny people , especially
Black people, and other people of color, and others, their constitutional rights without paying a
price. I do believe the actions of all
the Defendants, at least in part, were racially-motivated.
I believe that the judges should be
prosecuted and not allowed to just retire, with no consequences other than an
early retirement. Otherwise, I, as a
victim, receive no relief or justice for the criminal conduct of the
judges. Their decisions should at least
be vacated. And, I should receive
restitution.
CRIME VICTIMS’ RIGHTS ACT
I am filing this Complaint pursuant
to the Crime Victims’ Rights Act or 18 U.S.C. sec. 3771.
I am particularly seeking enforcement of
Sections (a)(5), (6)(especially),
(7), (8), and (9) and (10); but
also, Section (c)(1).
As to subsection (a)(9), I believe allowing a judge to retire
rather than face prosecution is a form of plea bargain or deferred prosecution
agreement, whereby a crime victim is
still awarded restitution, and a crime victim should be informed or noticed.
Date :
April 11, 2022 ______________________________
LAURACK D. BRAY
Attachments
UPDATE—June 11, 2022
A FLIP BACK : I WAS RIGHT INITIALLY RE: TRACEY WILKISON
Initially, I stated, at the April 14, 2022 blogpost above that Wilkison was an Acting U.S. Attorney who knows she is on her way out and is trying to accomplish her last prosecution of a minority, Mark Ridley-Thomas, before she is replaced by a permanent U.S. Attorney.
Then, in a subsequent blogpost, I stated that I was wrong (and it was based on my misunderstanding that President Biden’s appointment of Wilkison was a permanent one) without recalling and realizing that a permanent U.S. Attorney had to be nominated by the President and confirmed by the U.S. Senate. This fact escaped me earlier, but was brought to my attention by President Biden’s recent nomination of E. Martin Estrada as the next U.S. Attorney for the Central District of California (I’ll comment on the Estrada nomination at a later time).
Therefore, I WAS RIGHT in my initial assessment of Wilkison’s motivation for prosecuting Ridley-Thomas, and was NOT wrong, as I stated in my April 7, 2022 blogpost above. Wilkison is a career prosecutor, so she was a part of the Trump Administration during Trump’s time in office (as she will be part of Biden’s administration while Biden is in office). She IS on her way out as Acting U.S. Attorney; she IS going to be replaced by a permanent U.S. Attorney, Estrada, if confirmed; it is likely *that the prosecution of Ridley-Thomas is her last opportunity to prosecute a minority as a U.S. Attorney in the near future; and, finally, she will be and/or IS being replaced by a Biden selection, Estrada, if confirmed.
Furthermore, I stated that since Wilkison was a Biden appointee, that I would assign more merit to the Ridley-Thomas case than I would if it was a Trump Adminstration case. But, now that I know that Wilkison was in fact a Trump administration holdover (as opposed to an independent prosecutor not part of the Trump Administration, which I wrongly believed), I will NOT assign more merit to the Ridley-Thomas prosecution. In fact, since the investigation began during the Trump Administration, I will assign LESS merit to it, since I believe the investigation was racially-motivated; and, now, I believe the prosecution is racially-motivated.
UPDATE—August 23, 2022
MARK RIDLEY-THOMAS, HIS BLACK CITY COUNCIL COLLEAGUES, AND THE GALPERIN PAY DECISION: AN EXAMPLE OF HOW BLACK POLITICIANS CAN BE INFLUENCED AND LEAD BY THE L.A. TIMES . BUT, FOR THE RECORD, I WAS THE FIRST TO SUGGEST THAT GALPERIN’S PAY DECISION SHOULD BE CHALLENGED.
Recently, Councilman Mark Ridley-Thomas and later his Black City Council colleagues, Curren Price and Marqueece Harris-Dawson, have decided to challenge a decision by City Controller Ron Galperin to suspend Ridley-Thomas’s pay during his suspension from the city council . That action follows, and is apparently based on, a statement by the L.A. Times in a Times’ article which stated “Neither Ridley-Thomas nor Huizar challenged the pay freeze,” published last month (July 27, 2022). Ridley-Thomas’s lawsuit challenging the pay suspension was filed at least by August 4, 2022, and on August 9th , “Price filed a motion, seconded by Harris-Dawson, asking City Attorney Mike Feuer to report to the council within 10 days whether Galperin could legally suspend Ridley-Thomas’ pay.” “Price’s motion claims that Ridley-Thomas is suffering an ‘extreme personal financial burden. . . .” L.A. Wave, “Ridley-Thomas’ pay suspension being challenged”, August 11, 2022.
However, as you can see from my blogpost above, OCTOBER 20, 2022 UPDATE, I suggested that Ridley-Thomas challenge Galperin’s pay suspension 10 MONTHS AGO, “Together with the suspension of his pay by city controller Ron Galperin, Ridley-Thomas SHOULD BRING HIS OWN ACTION IN FEDERAL COURT”. And why did I suggest he do it ? “To my knowledge, Ridley-Thomas is not a rich man, so who is going to pay for his subsistence and attorney fees while he undergoes his defense of the charges against him ? ”
So, for nine months after I, a Black civil rights lawyer and member of the Black community, suggested that he challenge Galperin’s suspension of his pay, Ridley-Thomas and his Black city council colleagues did and said nothing. But, within DAYS after the white (and sometimes racist) L.A. Times notes that Ridley-Thomas has not challenged the pay freeze, Ridley-Thomas and his Black colleagues jump into action to challenge the pay suspension. When I led, they refused to follow. When the L.A. Times led, they followed. That’s the state of the Black mentality of our Black politicians in Los Angeles County. And that is part of the reason why Black Angelenos are in the state that they are in, especially the homeless, and most especially, the Black homeless, e.g., Skid Row.
Earlier, at one point, I wrote a letter to Ridley-Thomas, when he was a County Supervisor, to offer some pro bono assistance in trying to solve the homeless problem in Los Angeles County. I never received a response. Even if he could not utilize my help for whatever reasons, common courtesy and decency required a response of some kind, if for no other reason because I am (were) a citizen of Los Angeles County. And , offering assistance to the County no less.
Thus, henceforth, I will not offer any suggestions to Ridley-Thomas regarding his case. I’ll let him get his suggestions from the L.A. Times. I might , and probably will, comment on his case, because it’s both a criminal and civil rights case, and my comments may be beneficial and/or enlightening to some of my readers and others; but, I won’t suggest anything to Ridley-Thomas. I’ll leave that to the L.A. Times and his attorneys.
UPDATE—September 16, 2022
A NEW ACTING U.S. ATTORNEY: STEPHANIE S. CHRISTIAN : WHY ?
The U.S. Attorney’s Office now has a NEW acting U.S. Attorney, Stephanie S. Christensen. I don’t know how long she’s been in place, but I’ve just become aware of it within the last two weeks. The question is why at this point ? Before Mark Ridley-Thomas’s trial. Could it be to somehow lessen the racial and racist overtones of Ridley-Thomas’s investigation and prosecution by the former acting U.S. Attorney, Tracy Wilkison ? It certainly points to that. But, it won’t work. Ridley-Thomas has already been investigated and is currently being prosecuted, and the motivation behind the actions is irreversible.
UPDATE—September 18, 2022
MARILYN FLYNN GUILTY PLEA : UNDER THE NEW ACTING U.S. ATTORNEY; HOWEVER, EXCEPT FOR THE BLIND, WE CAN SEE WHAT THE OBJECTIVE IS; BUT, THE BELL HAS BEEN RUNG
According to news reports, Mark Ridley-Thomas’s co-defendant Marilyn Flynn has coped a plea of guilty to the charge of bribery. And, technically, the plea agreement was made with new Acting U.S. Attorney Stephanie S. Christensen, who is not supposed to be connected to the original racially-motivated prosecution of Ridley-Thomas and Flynn. But, the bell has been rung. Plus, so far , I can’t see any difference between Wilkison and Christensen. Until a difference is shown between the two, I will conclude that Christensen is no different than Wilkison. And, I have a little evidence to support that notion (regarding another federal criminal case).
“The charge (bribery) to which Flynn has agreed to plead guilty carries a maximum sentence of ten years in federal prison but prosecutors agreed to recommend that she be confined to her home in Los Felix and fined no more than $150,000.” The plea agreement included Flynn admitting to “a complex bribery scheme that involved funneling $100,000 from a Ridley-Thomas campaign committee through USC in 2018”. The plea still has to be accepted by a judge, and the judge must thereafter sentence Flynn according to what he or she believes is a fair sentence. He or she is not bound by the prosecutor’s sentence recommendation , although normally, the prosecutor’s recommendation is honored.
Flynn’s guilty plea certainly will impact Ridley-Thomas’s case and trial, especially regarding jury selection and the conspiracy charge against Ridley-Thomas.
More next time on how Flynn’s guilty plea will affect Ridley-Thomas’s trial decisions.
UPDATE—September 27, 2022
RIDLEY-THOMAS’S NO PLEA : A STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION IN PROVING HIS INNOCENCE ; AND, A MUST IF HE TRULY BELIEVES HE’S INNOCENT. ONE OF HIS MAJOR DECISIONS , AND THE CORRECT ONE, REGARDLESS OF THE OUTCOME OF THE TRIAL
Even though co-defendant Marilyn Flynn, not surprisingly, has coped a plea, Ridley-Thomas, through his attorney, Galia Amram, has indicated that he is not open to plea bargaining, and that he will go to trial. “While Ms. Flynn accepted a plea deal deal, that in no way means Mr. Ridley-Thomas intends to accept a deal. We look forward to our day in court and clearing Councilmember Ridley-Thomas’ good name.” Let’s hope Ridley-Thomas maintains that position. Sometimes, minds change as a trial approaches. Hopefully, Ridley-Thomas’s mind won’t. Flynn’s deal, no jail time (if accepted by the Court) is a “sweet” deal , and is inviting. If the USAO offered Ridley-Thomas a deal, it could be no harsher than Flynn’s deal, otherwise , the USAO would be treating Ridley-Thomas differently. And that wouldn’t look good. While I doubt that the USAO will offer Ridley-Thomas a deal at this point, especially with his attorney’s assertions, I wouldn’t be surprised if it did either.
RIDLEY-THOMAS’S NEXT MAJOR DECISION : SELECTIVE PROSECUTION : RELY ON IT OR NOT ?
If Ridley-Thomas had decided to plead guilty, it would have precluded a trial and a selective prosecution defense. But when Ridley-Thomas’s counsel asserted that Ridley-Thomas will be going to trial, she left the door open for a selective prosecution defense as a backup defense against an unfair trial or a conviction. But, it will be up to Ridley-Thomas to exercise his constitutional rights and rely on it. He could have used it before trial to challenge his indictment (front end), but, apparently, he and his counsel has chosen to go straight to trial, without challenging the indictment (which would have precluded a trial if he prevailed), so he is left with a post-conviction motion (back end), if necessary. I would have challenged the indictment before trial, especially since I believe Ridley-Thomas’s investigation and indictment were racially-motivated.
However, if Ridley-Thomas is found not guilty at trial, it would preclude any need or consideration of the selective prosecution defense. For the sake of his constituents, I hope Ridley-Thomas won’t need it. But, if he does need it, I hope he will have the courage to rely on it.
UPDATE—October 26, 2022
RIDLEY-THOMAS TRIAL : MOVED AHEAD TO MARCH 7, 2023
Through agreement between the government and Ridley-Thomas, and thereafter ordered by the Court, District Judge Dale S. Fischer, Ridley-Thomas’s trial has been moved ahead to March 7, 2023.
UPDATE—October 31, 2022
COUNCILMEMBERS MARTINEZ, DE LEON, AND CEDILLO : CAUGHT UP IN THE L.A. TIMES’ RACIST AND PURPOSEFUL PITTING MINORITY AGAINST MINORITY. AND, GUESS WHAT ? IT’S WORKING. WHO INTRODUCED THE TAPE TO THE MASS PUBLIC ? THE L.A. TIMES. WHO WAS AMONG THE FIRST, IF NOT THE FIRST, TO LABEL OR CHARACTERIZE THE LANGUAGE UTILIZED BY THE COUNCILMEMBERS AS “RACIST” ? THE L.A. TIMES . AND, WHO HAS PRODUCED MULTIPLE ARTICLES FOR THE BLACK AND BROWN MASSES , AS WELL AS OTHERS, STRESSING THE “RACIST” DIALOGUE OF THE COUNCILMEMBERS DURING THE TAPED CONVERSATION ? THE L.A. TIMES.
BUT, THE MAIN QUESTION IS : WAS THE LANGUAGE “RACIST”, DESPITE THE L.A. TIMES CHARACTERIZATION ?
AND, IF THE TAPED CONVERSATION WAS NOT “RACIST”, SHOULD DE LEON AND CEDILLO RESIGN ?
By now, most Angelenos have probably heard about the so-called “racist” tape or “racist” language contained or used by or within the taped conversation of the three City Council members, former President Nury Martinez, member Kevin de Leon, and member Gil Cedillo (along with Ron Herrera, President of the Los Angeles County Federal of Labor). And because of that “racist” labeling or characterizing of certain language or acts contained within the taped conversation and the publishing of this “racist” labeling of the taped conversations by the media, broadcast and print, especially the L.A. Times, members of the community began protesting against the three councilmembers and calling on them to resign. The protests included protesters camping out at De Leon’s home, while calling on him to retire. Martinez voluntarily retired, apparently accepting the “racist” characterization, or at least, deciding not to fight it. De Leon and Cedillo decided not to resign. Cedillo only have a couple of months before he must leave office, that is, his time is up, based on not being re-elected. But De Leon has two more years left in his term. Both Cedillo and De Leon has refused to resign, even with the protests. Lately, both Cedillo and De Leon has been censured by the City Council, and now, some citizens have initiated the steps of a recall process to try to get De Leon recalled.
Here, I will give my views of the “racist” characterization of the taped discussion, and whether I think Cedillo and De Leon should resign.
Before I begin, I want to say that I respect and thank Councilman Mike Bonin for his efforts and actions on behalf of black and brown people. There were times during his tenure that he was the only councilman to stand up for black and brown people, *and, he’s white. I specifically recall his vote against the anti-camping laws established by the council. He was the only one (and that includes the so-called Black councilmen, Curren Price and Marqueece Harris-Dawson) to vote against the legislation. For that, I thank Bonin.
Next, I want to thank the protesters, mostly brown people (but also some Black people), protesting on behalf of Black people and brown people, including the Oxacan people. They are protesting because they truly believe the conversation was racist, with the most racist words directed at Black people, *based on racist propaganda, put out, at least in part, by the L.A. Times. And whether they are right or wrong in their beliefs, it’s the thought that counts, and, on behalf of this Black Angeleno, I thank them. *It’s just unfortunate that their efforts are misguided.
NOW : MY VIEWS
As a starting point, anyone who has the intention of fairly judging the three councilmembers regarding the taped conversations MUST listen to the ENTIRE tape , or at least most of it (I listened to the version put out by the L.A. Times several times and I still did not hear some parts that have been reported by the Times as being part of the conversation, for example, the part that’s suppose to record Martinez saying about D.A. George Gascon that, “F— that guy. . . He’s with the Blacks” —BUT, for the purpose of this discussion, I am accepting the fact that ALL of the numerous reported statements that are attributed to Martinez and De Leon by the L.A. Times were said on the recording). No one can fairly judge Martinez or her “racist” words or statements without hearing the entire tape. Otherwise, any judgment of her will be COMPLETELY out of context. And, I believe a substantial number of the protesters began protesting without having heard the entire taped conversation of the four individuals (including Ron Herrera—but, my discussion here will only involve the councilmembers , not Herrera). *Rather, they relied upon the “cherry-picked” portions of the tape selected by the L.A. Times.
Moreover, I was neither “shocked” nor “surprised” by the nature of the conversation among the four individuals, it likely goes on all the time with similar groups *of all races or any race. These four JUST GOT CAUGHT ON TAPE.
First, my theory about the taped conversations: The L.A. Times , which first reported the leaked tape (“a political maelstrom set off by a leaked recording first reported by the Times on Oct. 9”, The Times) reported the tape with the specific intention of causing friction between black and brown people of Los Angeles County, with the hope that by characterizing the language and/or conduct as “racist”, it would lead to an uproar by the people of L.A. County and some type of action being taken by or against the individuals, including resignations. With the resignations of three Latino members of the City Council, *and the status of a Black member, Mark Ridley-Thomas, in jeopardy, that would cause the mostly white City Council to be even whiter. And guess what ? It’s working ! The President of the United States is even calling for all three of the Latino council people to resign. *I suggest and believe that if the participants in this taped conversation were WHITE rather than Latino, and the derogatory or offensive language were about minorities, the Times would NEVER have reported the tape. The same way that it has failed to report racist conduct by white public officials to the public in the past. And, the Bruce Beach matter doesn’t count because those white public officials are DEAD, so they cannot be CONFRONTED.
MY VIEW ON THE CHARACTERIZATION OF THE RECORDED LANGUAGE AS “RACIST”
Of course, the Times , in support of its mission, has consistently referred to the recorded remarks as “a secretly recorded conversation during which racist and disparaging remarks were made.” And, “The forgotten victim of city’s racist tape scandal”. Well, I, as a Black man living in Los Angeles County, do not view any of the statements as “racist“. At minimum, the remarks *may be “offensive”; and, at most, the remarks can be said to be “racial” or racially-related, but not racist.
From my reading of the excerpts of the tape (the L.A. Times produced version) the phrases that must be relied upon by the Times to characterize the tape as racist must be : 1. The statement purportedly made by Martinez, to the effect that D.A. Gascon is “with the Blacks”. Martinez apparently feels that Gascon favors Black people over Latinos (based on Gascon’s favorable “perks” for some Black defendants). But, I heard on the tape where Martinez referred to Black people, several times, as “the African Americans”, one time saying “the African Americans in East L.A.”. In this context, if she did say “with the Blacks”, it was mere frustrated prejudice and not racism. But, I admit, that some Black people, including me, may consider the use of “the Blacks” offensive. 2. Martinez referring to Bonin’s son as “like a monkey” in Spanish. I think this was frustrated and offensive name-calling. Bonin’s son, who is Black, had been unruly (at an M.L. King affair?) and Martinez was trying to control him (and likely was pissed off because Bonin was not controlling him, as Bonin should have). Clearly, the reference could be interpreted as being derogatory and offensive, especially by Bonin. But, I believe if Bonin’s son was Latino, Martinez would have called him a name too, in Spanish, and would have used a derogatory term that Latino people might use to name-call an unruly child, i.e., it might be a monkey or another type of animal, or other. “ ‘It comes down to context,’ Sanchez said. ‘I never heard her disparage the child’s race. She was directly referring to his behavior, which leads to the possible if not reasonable conclusion that she used the term to describe his hyperactive nature.’ Sanchez added, ‘If he was a Latino kid, she would have used the same word.’ ”, The Times. 3. Martinez referring to Oxacan people as “little, short, dark, people”. At most, this is just offensive comments, directed to Oxacan people. And, some may consider it prejudiced language. But, both the Oxacans and Martinez are Latino or Hispanic, so Martinez’s comments might have been racial or racially-related, but they weren’t racist, *both Martinez and the Oxacan people are of the same race.
NOTE : If Martinez , instead of stating “with the Blacks”, *had stated “with the niggers”, then, that would be racist. But, she didn’t say that, and what she did say, was not racist. *Offensive, *to some, yes; but, racist, no.
GENERAL COMMENTS REGARDING THE REDISTRICTING MATTER
Much ado has been made about the three Latino councilmembers getting together to discuss redistricting and some choosing to charge that the session was an attempt to formulate a plan to intrude upon Black districts or districts represented by Black councilmembers, which I believe is mere propaganda. I believe the three Latino councilmembers got together to try and assure that Latino interests are protected, as they should. The same way so-called Black politicians are supposed to be doing for Black people. *But, they DON’T ( my 100 year-old Black mother’s home, located in Black Councilman Curren Price’s District, was taken or stolen without her consent by the actions of white racist public officials, similar to the actions and/or tactics of the Bruce Beach public officials; but, Curren Price took no action to intervene on behalf of my mother, and he knew or should have known of the action).*** *Black politicians in Los Angeles city and county don’t do a DAMN thing for Black people. Not one damn thing. The Latino councilmember meeting was in the nature of a minority caucus, such as the U.S. Congressional Black Caucus or the U.S. Hispanic Caucus. Since the City Council do not have caucuses, the three Latino councilmembers formed their own caucus in an effort to assure that Latino rights are protected. There is nothing nefarious about that. And when one listens to the ENTIRE tape, one can hear where Martinez says she “likes Maxine” and De Leon saying “I like her too” (and I believe they are referring to U.S. Rep. Maxine Waters, who is Black, and who is a Congressional voice for the Black community; and Martinez consistently refer to Councilman Mark Ridley-Thomas as “Mark”, * rather than Ridley-Thomas, when referring to him during the conversation * (which bespeaks of a friend rather than a foe, whose District line she is intending to invidiously intrude upon), and she also mentions Harris-Dawson, and refers to him as “Marqueece”, and there’s nothing said that claims they are trying to capture Black districts for Latinos, *as opposed to making sure that Latinos are protected.
***NOTE : In a recent Times article, a writer/reporter, Jean Guerrero, states “Latinos in L.A. have experience with Black leaders who fight harder for them than others. One of the strongest advocates for undocumented Angelenos, who include some of the most marginalized Latinos, is City Councilmember Curren Price, who is Black”. That’s fine, but where was Price when my Black mother *(who had her home stolen by racist public officials) needed him ? *NOWHERE!
MY VIEW ON RESIGNATIONS BASED ON THE ENTIRE RECORDED CONVERSATION
NURY MARTINEZ
Martinez voluntarily resigned so I need not offer an opinion regarding her. But, I will say, as for me, a REQUIRED apology, made to the Black community, the Latino community, the Oxacan community, and to councilman Bonin on behalf of his son for the “monkey” comment would have been enough. However, there is just enough there in total to support some members of the community finding that Martinez should have resigned.
KEVIN DE LEON
The only thing the L.A. Times, in its mission, can point to in advocating that De Leon resign is his comparing Bonin’s son to an accessory such as a handbag, “De Leon appeared to compare Bonin’s handling of his child to Martinez holding a Louis Vuitton handbag”, The Times. This is my interpretation of the comment as well. And as such, it would mean that De Leon was not directing his comment at Bonin’s Black son, rather, he was directing his comment at Bonin. In other words, De Leon was saying, jokingly, that Bonin was holding out his son as an ornament, the way a man might hold out a good-looking woman on his arm, or the way a woman might hold out a good-looking handbag on her arm, with pride. So, what makes that comment racist or derogatory ? It’s not. And, it’s certainly not enough for De Leon to resign over.
Recognizing this, the L.A. Times and others have apparently relied on the premise of guilt by association (with Martinez), or that De Leon had a duty to speak up and didn’t (even De Leon himself suggests that he should have spoken up, *but, many in his position would not have, and still would not have been part of a “racist scandal”). I don’t buy into it as reasons for De Leon to resign. When it comes to whether De Leon should resign or not, I judge De Leon individually and based on his comments in the meeting. And, based on his comments alone, it’s not enough for him to resign over. I believe an apology is sufficient and it should be sufficient for all concerned. The L.A. Times uses a Black reporter, Erika D. Smith, to castigate and humiliate De Leon for apologizing , “Welcome to the Kevin de Leon Apology Tour. It’s short on substance and sincerity. Not to mention self-awareness. But long on martyrdom, delusions of grandeur and self-serving spin. . . .” The Times; but, for this Black lawyer, De Leon’s multiple apologies for his comments are sufficient. If De Leon voluntarily resigns under these circumstances, it would only play into the hands of the L.A. Times, *and its supporters, and its mission. Further, it would be a disservice to De Leon’s constituents. It would be like quitting on them. If De Leon is to depart from the Council at this time, it should be by a vote of his constituents, *who are also members of “the public”. The same constituents who voted him into office.
Moreover, there are now actions being taken to recall De Leon. If his constituents do not support his removal from office, this will be their first opportunity to demonstrate it by not signing a recall petition.
Therefore :
COUNCILMAN DE LEON : DO NOT RESIGN.
GIL CEDILLO
Those calling for Cedillo to resign apparently are relying solely on guilt by association (with Martinez). *I don’t see any other reason that the protesters or anyone else could be relying upon. And, clearly, if I don’t believe that De Leon should resign for that reason, I don’t think that Cedillo should resign *for that reason either. Therefore :
COUNCILMAN CEDILLO : DO NOT RESIGN
UPDATE—November 22, 2022
CLM. KEVIN DE LEON : DE LEON MUST ATTEND COUNCIL MEETINGS AND PARTICIPATE IN COUNCIL BUSINESS AS USUAL; OTHERWISE, RESIGN. THERE IS NO IN BETWEEN CHOICE, ONLY A COWARDLY ONE.
The L.A. Times has now produced another article regarding the so-called taped “racist”scandal, and in this article, “After tape, De Leon’s district is ‘in the dark,’ ” the Times is basically trying to persuade readers that De Leon should resign, and that by not resigning, he is neglecting his district, leaving his constituents out in the cold. Again, this is nothing but the Times’ racist propaganda, as has been the case with most of its articles since it introduced the tape and pursued its racist course of causing a separation and/or friction between minority groups in Los Angeles County. The Times has enlisted a Black voice in support, Earl Ofari Hutchinson, President of the Los Angeles Urban Policy Roundtable, who the Times points out “was among the first to call for (De Leon’s) resignation and although his mind wasn’t changed, he said De Leon must now work to prove himself going forward.” And, a community religious voice, one Msgr. John Moretta, “the longtime pastor of Resurrection Catholic Church in Boyle Heights”, who is quoted as saying about De Leon, “He is in absentia; we don’t have any representation. And, that’s on his shoulders. That’s on his conscience.”
Again, this is nothing more than propaganda put forth by the L.A. Times (not the speakers themselves) in its racist mission of causing minority friction among the groups in the direction of a resulting majority white City Council, made more whiter by the extraction of minority members, one way or the other. In the article, the Times says De Leon said “the biggest threat to Latinos was not ‘those crazies in Orange County who are pro-Trump.’ ” “ ‘It’s the white liberals. It’s the L.A. Times’”. Well, when it comes to a threat to Black people, I can’t *and won’t categorize a *generalized group of “white liberals” as a threat to Black people, because it was white liberals who were a part of the Freedom Riders of the South , and who marched with Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. in his *poor people’s March on Washington, *and, who, along with people of color, worldwide, protested and marched for justice for George Floyd; but, I certainly would agree, *in part (“a” biggest threat *to Black people) about the L.A. Times. My regular readers can attest to the fact that I have occasionally said that the L.A. Times is a “schizophrenic” newspaper, with half of it being “liberal” and the other half being racist. But, because the racist half is the damaging half, e.g., shielding white racist public officials from liability, *and from condemnation by California’s citizinry for their racist conduct, *while exposing minorities for the same conduct, it predominates the liberal half, which results in *the Times being a racist newspaper. And, its labeling of the the taped conversation as a “racist” scandal , together with its supportive racist propaganda is indicative of its racism.
However, to its credit, the Times provided some information about De Leon in its article which tends to contradict any feelings or support of racism against Black people by De Leon. “Hutchinson , who met with him (De Leon ) for about an hour, said De Leon agreed to reach out to those who would listen and share with them his record in Sacramento, where he named the first Black sergeants-at-arms to the state Senate and allied with Black political leaders.”
De Leon’s Necessary Option
After reading the Times article, it caused me to reflect on what I believe is the best move for De Leon to make at this time for his own standing in the community and on behalf of his constituents. I continue to urge De Leon NOT to resign. However, in addition to not resigning, I believe De Leon MUST return to acting as a full-fledged councilman, which means attending council meetings and performing all other duties of a councilman. I believe he did the right thing initially, after the uproar and protests, to recuse himself from council meetings, because *attending the meetings would only have made things worst. But, now, after a “cooling off period”, it’s time for him to return. If he continues to stay away from council meetings, it would be a form of “hiding”, which would be a cowardly act. So, as I see it, on behalf of himself and his constituents, De Leon has two options, (1) began acting, once again, as Councilman of the 14th District, which includes attending council meetings, or (2) resign. If De Leon wants to maintain his own integrity in the community and, simultaneously, represent his constituents, the ONLY real option he has is option (1). Option 2, *resignation, would reveal : *(1) *his acceptance of the characterization of the taped meeting as a “racist scandal”, which he participated in; (2) a lack of integrity; (3) no desire to represent his constituents; and (4) cowardice.
If De Leon returns to council meetings, and there are protesters, he will have to take the “heat”; that may be the price he must pay for his integrity and his obligation to his constituency *(perhaps, there will be counter-protesters on his behalf); and if his fellow councilmembers want to get up and walk out when he attend the meetings, let them. They will have to face their own constituents about their absence from the council meetings. De Leon should concern himself with his responsibilities to his constituents . But, he will be present to defend himself in the event the council attempt to take any harmful or negative actions against him. “Members are also conferring over how to limit De Leon’s ability to make motions, approve contracts and access the discretionary funds given to each council office for projects like holiday giveaways or movies at the park.”
Finally, if De Leon exercises Option 1, he should attend the first council meeting, tell the Council that he doesn’t agree with the “racist scandal” characterization of the meeting as put out by the L.A. Times, and that the purpose of the meeting to him was to protect his constituents’ interest, not to “hoard power by chopping other groups off at the knees” (unless it’s true, then, he should resign). He should apologize “again” if anything he said was offensive to anyone, especially Cln. Mike Bonin, and from this point on, he will be representing his Council District. He shouldn’t *voluntarily accept any attempted sanctions as part of his apology, and move on.
GIL CEDILLO SHOULD ALSO RETURN TO ATTENDING MEETINGS; OTHERWISE, HIS LEGACY ON THE COUNCIL WILL BE ONE OF A DISGRACED COWARD WHO PARTCIPATED IN A RACIST SCANDAL
Even though Gil Cedillo lost the election and will be leaving office anyway, IF he didn’t participate in so-called “racist talk” as advocated by the L.A. Times, and he didn’t “join( ) the others in asserting that the way to protect Latino representation was to chip away at Black representation” as asserted by the Times, he MUST return to attending council meetings as well; otherwise, his continued absence will be an admission that what the Times has said is true. Moreover, unless he did what the Times said he did and said what the Times said he said , “The seats on this [South L.A. ] corridor, historic African American, which I could support, one, maybe two [Black councilmembers] —those are Latino seats,” and “Fifty-seven out of 60 seats that African Americans are in. . . are Latino seats”, he MUST reappear and explain that it wasn’t meant to be a “chipping away of Black representation”. *Otherwise, it is an admission that it was.
While I also urged Cedillo not to resign , there has been a sufficient “cooling off time” for him as well. And, I believe his continued absence at this point is a form of “hiding”, and a cowardly way of addressing the controversy over the taped conversation IF he is innocent of what he has been accused of. The ONLY way he can avoid his absence being interpreted as an admission of the conduct he is accused of is to appear and explain, while he is STILL in office. Otherwise, if he waits until he leaves office automatically, his city council legacy will be one of a disgraced, cowardly public official who participated in a racist scandal aimed at “chipping away (at) Black representation”.
UPDATE—December 10, 2022
CLM. KEVIN DE LEON : A SHOW OF INTEGRITY, REPRESENTATION OF HIS CONSTITUENTS, AND, UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, COURAGE. AND, IN THE END, DE LEON SHOWED MORE CONCERN FOR COUNCIL FUNCTIONING THAN THE OTHER COUNCILMEMBERS
Yesterday, there was a City Council meeting, and, Councilmember Kevin De Leon appeared at the meeting. By just showing up, De Leon accomplished three things : one, he has integrity, in that he has steadfast said that he would not resign, and now has taken a step further and actually reported “for duty” in his position as a city councilman, as he should; two, he has shown his constituents that he is there for them, and that he intends to represent them in the future; and three, he has displayed some courage in not yielding to the pressures of the L.A. Times’ white racist mission and propaganda, of the misguided protesters interrupting the council meeting, while calling for his resignation, and, of his fellow councilmembers’ threat to walk-out and further disrupt council business.
And, when Council President Paul Krekorian “asked De Leon to leave the chamber, in part because other council members were going to walk out of the room, causing the council to lose a quorum needed to cast votes”, De Leon, thinking of the council business as opposed to his individual concerns, accommodated Krekorian and left the chamber. This raised him above the councilmembers who had threatened to walk out, in his concern for proper council process and functioning. He didn’t have to leave and Krekorian could not legally make him leave. In fact, he had an ABSOLUTE right to be there. It was the protesters who Krekorian should have DEMANDED to leave for disrupting the council meeting. So De Leon , in good faith, accommodated Krekorian for the betterment of smooth council procedure. Yet, the broadcast media and the L.A. Times tried to capitalize on De Leon’s consideration as a sign of defeat; from the Times, “De Leon’s return lasted only a few minutes. Council President Paul Krekorian immediately called for a recess, with protesters shouting and police officers filling the room. When the council meeting resumed De Leon did not return.” And, “The meeting restarted about 45 minutes later with De Leon nowhere in sight.” PURE PROPAGANDA. De Leon stated, “I remained out of the room after the outbursts by agitators to give the council president the opportunity to regain control of the meeting and allow public comment to continue since so many of those present were my constituents”. “Unfortunately, neither of those things happened”.
SO WHAT’S NEXT ?
The next council meeting is scheduled for Tuesday. I believe De Leon will attend the meeting. I continue to urge De Leon NOT to RESIGN, therefore, I continue to believe that he should attend the next meeting.
However, this time, I think De Leon should make clear at the beginning of the meeting that he will NOT BE LEAVING the meeting until it’s conclusion. So that if any of the other councilmembers wish to leave, they can do so. Again, De Leon must proceed in representation of HIS council district and his constituents, and the other councilmembers can do the same. If the other councilmembers want to walk out of the meeting , they can explain to their constituents about their absences and why city business was not carried out (because of a lack of a quorum). *Moreover, they can also explain to the CITIZENS of the City of Los Angeles why their *(councilmembers’) conduct wasn’t the major source of council business being halted. But, this time, at this meeting, De Leon should “stand his ground” and rely on his ABSOLUTE right to attend the meeting, not to mention his DUTY to do so.
Perhaps, this time, Krekorian will carry out his OBLIGATION and DUTY to maintain order at the meeting, even if it means having the protesters REMOVED from the council chamber. If anyone should be asked to leave, it should be the protesters, not De Leon. De Leon has an absolute right to be there, while the protesters only have a limited one, *as members of the public. It seems to me that after three people are individually removed for disrupting the meeting, the council would just clear the chamber and conduct the council’s business. It would be preceded by a warning, but, it seems to me that protesters should not be allowed to indefinitely disrupt council meetings as part of their protests. *If they want to protest, which is their right, it should be outside the council meeting room and City Hall.
UPDATE—December 13, 2022
DE LEON ATTENDS THE MEETING; AND, ONCE AGAIN, HE ACCOMMODATES KREKORIAN
Today, Councilman Kevin De Leon attended the City Council meeting again. And, again, he accommodated President Paul Krekorian and deviated from his usual and expected action, that is, voting from his seat at the table, and voted for Mayor Karen Bass’s emergency homeless legislation from a back or side room. He also wasn’t present to vote for Council President. Krekorian was unanimously selected.
Yes, there were protesters, inside and outside of the council chamber, and in front of City Hall. The inside crowd was loud and disruptive, and multiple people had to be removed or escorted from the council meeting. There were both supporters and opponents of De Leon, and both made comments, and most of the opponents used the foul language. I agree with Councilwoman Monica Rodriguez regarding a lot of the protestors. Their conduct is “intended to incite fear and wield intimidation to larger swaths of people, to elected officials and intimidate them into adopting whatever their beliefs are.”
Like the last council meeting, Krekorian, who is a white Armenian American (“Krekorian, who penned an open letter in October asking for the ‘immediate resignation’ of his colleague”, De Leon) , “pulled De Leon to the side” and convinced him, once again, to withdraw from council chambers and vote in another room, *a backroom. Again, De Leon, acting in good faith, agreed to deviate from normal council procedure. I don’t see why De Leon could not have voted from the table, since he was already in the council chamber and seated. In essence, by voting in a back room, he was still absent from the council meeting, even though he showed up. But, I give De Leon credit for appearing and taking his seat at the table. However, I still believe that De Leon should have “stood his ground” and performed his council duties as usual, which meant voting in chamber. But, I realize that De Leon is undergoing pressures from different angles and he didn’t want to appear to make things worse. But, hopefully, for future council meetings, De Leon can see that a pattern has formed and that he must act accordingly (to break that pattern), i.e., stand his ground. He may have to make matters worse, *i.e., no more accommodating guy, *rather, stand his ground, to protect his rights and his integrity.
Lastly, the Times, after using a Black reporter to disparage De Leon’s apologies, has now used a Latino reporter, Gustavo Arellano, to engage in name-calling De Leon, i.e., “a sinverguenza - a shameless scoundrel - like De Leon”, to provide some extra emphasis to the Times’ propaganda (a similar type of name-calling the Times accused former Councilwoman Nury Martinez of performing). I’m not moved by the attempted smearing. And only the uninformed will be.
THE CONFRONTATION WITH JASON REEDY
I’m not going to get into a deep discussion about De Leon’s confrontation with one Jason Reedy, a protestor, after the City Council meeting, at a separate event, on Friday. I will simply say this : The videoes speak for themselves. De Leon need not worry himself about liability for the physical exchange between he and Reedy based on the videos which I have seen. De Leon was followed, provoked, and partially blocked in his movement by Reedy. Again, the videos speak for themselves.
*GILL CEDILLO : CEDILLO’S CITY COUNCIL LEGACY IS ONE OF A DISGRACED COWARD WHO PARTICIPATED IN A “RACIST SCANDAL” FOR THE PURPOSE OF “CHIPPING AWAY AT BLACK REPRESENTATION”
Gill Cedillo , after his time in office has expired, has now released a statement entitled “Why I Did Not Resign”, which apparently (I haven’t read the letter—I’m relying on news accounts) attempts to explain away the negative connotations of the secret taped conversation of Martinez, Ron Herrera, De Leon, and Cedillo. That would be alright if Cedillo had produced the statement before he left office. But, as it stands, it’s TOO LATE. The credibility of the statement is minimal to nonexistent. For me, it would be nonexistent but for the fact that it provides some support for De Leon’s position and my blogposts, see infra.
Cedillo probably will be recognized as a coward (and I believe he is) for not appearing before the council and representing his Council District and/or constituents before he left office, and for waiting until he left office to make a statement regarding the taped conversation. It implies that he was fearful of either the other councilmembers or the protesters or both. *That is, a coward.
Moreover, Cedillo will probably be remembered as a member of the “racist” scandal participants, as portrayed by the L.A. Times, who aimed at “chipping away at Black representation”; and his post-council statement will be disregarded. And, while there will be those who will include De Leon in the mix, there will also be those who will note that De Leon stepped up to defend himself, by apologizing if it was true (and I do not believe that it was) and by resuming his council duties if it wasn’t.
According to news reports, Cedillo, in his statement, concludes that “ultimately he and his colleagues were just doing their jobs and working to ensure that Latinos were fairly represented in the redistricting process. Latinos make up about half of the city’s population, but at the time of the conversation held just four of 15 council seats.” This statement supports De Leon and my blog and blogposts, whereby I essentially stated the same thing. At the same time, it helps expose the L.A. Times’ racist propaganda which has lead to much or most of the protests and hostility.
But, the statement would have carried more weight if the statement would have been made at a council meeting before Cedillo left office. And Cedillo could have made the statement without resigning. It was cowardly for him to fail to do so.
UPDATE—December 27, 2022
THE L.A. TIMES’ RACIST MISSION : FAILING AT STAGE 1 , THE TIMES NOW MOVES TO STAGE 2 ; BUT, IT TOO, WILL FAIL
The L.A. Times, in its mission to cause the extraction of Latino City Councilmembers, for the purpose of making the mostly white City Council even whiter, while failing in Stage 1, to cause all three of the Latino councilmembers involved in the secretly taped conversation to resign (one, Nury Martinez, directly and voluntarily resigned at the outset of the reports of the conversation; and another, Gil Cedillo, indirectly resigned by not attending city council meetings after the conversation was reported *until his term in office automatically ended by not being re-elected. However, Kevin De Leon has not resigned and is attending city council meetings), has now moved to Stage 2, the recall of De Leon movement, to try and accomplish its mission.
The Times has now specifically supported the recall of De Leon by providing specific reasons, five, why the citizens of District 14 should recall De Leon. And, to try and assure that District 14 voters turn out in large numbers to vote to recall De Leon (if the recall movement reaches the ballot), it has published an article which informs Latino voters that Latino voter turnout , in the past, has been low, “(W)hile the total number of voters increased significantly across all demographic groups, the share of the electorate that was Latino did not. Latinos share of votes cast (in the last elections) was no larger this year than nine years ago.” L.A. Times, “L.A.’s political puzzle: Why is Latino voter turnout so low ?”, December 25, 2022. “Latinos make up about half the city’s population and about 35% of eligible voters but constituted less than a quarter of those who turned out. . . .” Id. “In part because of that relatively low voter turnout, Latinos’ representation in local elected office lags far behind their numbers”. Id. So District 14 Latino voters, indirectly, are encouraged to come out en masse to recall De Leon.
I believe the District 14 residents will see through this “get out the vote” to recall De Leon propaganda, notwithstanding one Pauline Atkins, a recaller, stating she is “one thousand percent confident” that she will be able to get enough signatures on the Petition to get the recall on the ballot. Here is :
MY PREDICTION : THE ATTEMPTED RECALL OF DE LEON WILL FAIL
Either at the signature stage, i.e., the Petition, or at any election if it makes it there. My prediction is based on the overall or complete process.
UPDATE—January 9, 2023
CLM. DE LEON : CARRY-OUT YOUR COUNCILMAN’S DUTIES AS REQUIRED AND DO NOT ENGAGE IN ANY BACKROOM VOTING : THAT IS, STAND YOUR GROUND
There is an upcoming council meeting scheduled for January 10, 2023. I believe Councilman Kevin De Leon should proceed as a regular councilmember. That means he should not vote from a backroom, rather, he should vote in the council chamber, on the council floor, as other councilmembers do. That is, he should stand his ground. If this causes trouble, then it’s “good trouble”, per former U.S. Rep. John Lewis. To do otherwise, would cave-in to the L.A. Times’ racist mission and propaganda.
UPDATE—January 10, 2023
CLM. DE LEON : THOUGH YOU MAY BE IN A PRECARIOUS POSITION, AND IT IS UNDERSTANDABLE, YOU MUST DEFEND YOURSELF, DURING THE COUNCIL MEETING; YOUR COLLEAGUES HAVE LEFT YOU NO CHOICE.
Today was the first council meeting after the Christmas-New Years holidays. Councilman De Leon again appeared at the meeting, as he should have, and as he is required to do as a city councilman. Again, there were the protesters who protested, individually in the beginning, and as a group near the end. But, they were eventually removed from council chamber. And, I must give council President Paul Krekorian credit for trying to maintain order in the meeting; and, for the most part, he succeeded.
But, while De Leon showed up at the council meeting, he did not take his seat at the “horseshoe” table. Rather, he “stood at the back of the chamber” and “none of De Leon’s colleagues approached him while he was standing in the back.” De Leon should have taken his seat at the table, even if he was late attending, e.g., because of the weather (which was bad). It only feeds into the propaganda to stand in the back of the chamber. And, instead of moving forward, it’s a step backward. But, I am not unmindful of De Leon’s precarious circumstance, whereby he must carry-out his council duties without appearing to be aggravating (which might threaten his public support). But, he has already taken a seat at the table in past meetings, so he doesn’t want to go backward. So, henceforth, he must take his seat at the table, otherwise what little respect he may have achieved, he will lose.
During the period of adjournment, two of De Leon’s colleagues, Eunisses Hernandez and Hugo Soto-Martinez, decided they would join in the message of the protesters by ostracizing De Leon by making statements during the adjournment period to that effect. Hernandez even stated that she would support a recall against De Leon.
In the 11/22/ 2022 UDATE above, I suggested that De Leon, at the first meeting he attended, make clear what his position was about the secretly taped conversation, i.e., the purpose of the meeting and conversation, and that he doesn’t agree with the L.A. Times’ interpretation of the meeting as a “racist scandal”, and that it was the intent of the L.A. Times to cause the resignation of the Latino councilmembers, which would result in an even whiter city council. But, thusfar, De Leon has not made that statement.
However, with the occurrence of the statements of Hernandez and Soto-Martinez, De Leon no longer has a choice, in order to maintain his integrity. He MUST make a statement on the council floor, as did Hernandez and Soto-Martinez, to DEFEND himself, otherwise, he will be defeated. Moreover, he must defend himself, not only for himself, but also for the people who in public comment defended him. One lady in particular who defended De Leon and said he was a help to the community. De Leon must defend her for defending him, for his own integrity. Based on Hernandez’s and Soto-Martinez’s comments, he has no choice.
NOTE : If De Leon really wants to defy the L.A. Times, he should state that he agrees with me, by name (Laurack D. Bray) that the L.A. Times’ mission in characterizing the secretly taped conversation as a “racist scandal” was to get rid of minority members of the council.
UPDATE—January 11, 2023
CLM. DE LEON : SOME PROGRESS, BUT NO CIGAR. THE NEXT REQUIRED STEP : A CHAMBER DEFENSE
At today’s council meeting, which was both informative and enlightening, especially regarding city-wide evictions (and this is while the moratorium is still in effect—what’s going to happen when the moratorium is lifted ?). The usual protestors, especially near the end of the meeting, conducted the usual protesting. But, for the most part, the meeting went along smoothly.
My main concern with this meeting was whether De Leon would defend himself against the condemnation of his two colleagues yesterday. He didn’t. While he made progress regarding taking his seat at the table, or the horseshoe (rather than standing in the back of the chamber), and regarding speaking to the councilmembers and the public as a councilmember from his seat at the table or standing, he didn’t defend himself against the accusation of making racist remarks during the secretly-taped conversation, and therefore, DID NOT defend himself against his colleagues’ accusations or the L.A. Times’ accusation of him participating in a “racist scandal”.
Even Gil Cedillo, through his belated , after-Office, statement, lacking in credibility because of that lateness, offered a defense against the accusation of participating in a racist scandal regarding the disenfranchisement of Black districts. “Ethnicity and income levels are major factors in drawing relatively balanced electoral maps, and we wanted to ensure that Latinos and all communities are represented fairly.”
So while De Leon did step up and speak on the council floor about why his discretionary funding should not be attacked (where he argued how he used the funds), that was NOT a DEFENSE to his colleagues’ accusations of his making racist statements and furthering the damage by not resigning.
For me, De Leon MUST defend himself on the council floor regarding his colleagues’ accusations (made on the floor) for him to maintain integrity and respect. Hopefully, he will do so at the next council meeting.
UPDATE—January 17, 2023 REST IN PEACE, M.L.K., JR.
CLM. DE LEON : THUSFAR , NO DEFENSE TO COLLEAGUES’ ACCUSATIONS: IS THERE MERIT TO *THE ACCUSATIONS ?
Councilman Kevin DeLeon, thusfar, has not responded to his colleagues’, Eunisses Hernandez and Hugo Soto-Martinez, accusations of his racism regarding the secretly taped conversations, made on the floor of the chamber. And, he has had the opportunity to do so. He has put forth a motion, and he has voted on several matters, but he has not DEFENDED himself on the chamber floor after being called out by his colleagues on the chamber floor. So, that begs the question, is there some merit to Hernandez’s and Soto-Martinez’s accusations ?
For me, their accusations cannot be ignored. They MUST be addressed, on the chamber floor, otherwise, it can be concluded that there is at least some merit to them; which means, there is at least some merit in the call for De Leon to resign. With each council meeting that passes without De Leon responding, my support *for his not resigning will gradually erode, and if he hasn’t done so by the end of *next week (1/27), it will completely erode.
*I have now had the opportunity to read Gil Cedillo’s complete 3-page Statement, “Why I did not resign”. I am impressed, with the statement and his defense (against the accusations of racism). But, why didn’t Cedillo make this statement on the chamber floor ? It would have added dignity and credibility to the statement. Because he did not do so, the message comes from a coward. And, sadly, that is how Cedillo will be remembered; not for the dignified statement, not for all he stated he had done on behalf of Latino and Black people, but as a councilman who was afraid to defend himself against charges of racism on the Council chamber floor. That should be regrettable.
De Leon, while exhibiting some courage in returning to the council and performing his council duties, is faced with a similar circumstance as Cedillo, because his colleagues has called him out on the chamber floor. Had they not done so, he likely could have gotten by (simply by ignoring the protestors or others calling for his resignation). But, they did do so.
So now, De Leon must complete his return to full councilman status by defending himself against his colleagues’ accusations of racism (made on the council chamber floor), in much the same way that Cedillo did away from the chamber floor. It may seem unfair that an additional burden is placed upon him, after he displayed courage in returning to the council, but, it’s necessary, in defense of himself and his constituents; and to maintain respect.
*NOTE TO MYSELF : At the January 24th council meeting, one Black lady during the public comment section of the council meeting called for the resignations of the Black councilmembers, Marqueece Harris-Dawson, Curren Price, and Heather Hunt, for not representing Black people in their districts or otherwise. She is ABSOLUTELY right! Thank you, ma’am.
UPDATE—February 1, 2023
CLM. KEVIN DE LEON : I WITHDRAW ANY SUPPORT FOR DE LEON NOT RESIGNING, BASED, NOW, ON A LACK OF RESPECT, AND SERIOUS QUESTION WHETHER THERE WAS ANY RACIST MOTIVATION FOR HIS CONDUCT OR WORDS DURING THE SECRETLY-TAPED CONVERSATION
Now that Councilman Kevin de Leon has been called out by two of his colleagues, Eunisses Hernandez and Hugo Soto-Martinez, on the chamber floor, accusing him of racism with respect to the secretly taped conversation involving he, former city council President Nury Martinez, former councilman Gil Cedillo, and former labor leader Ron Herrera, and he has refused to defend himself against the accusations, on the chamber floor, I cannot, in good conscience, continue to support him in not resigning, because I cannot respect him for not defending himself on the chamber floor. I think it was cowardice. Therefore, I no longer urge De Leon not to resign. Moreover, because of a lack of response by De Leon to his colleagues’ accusations, there is a serious question whether there was any racist motivation for any of his conduct or words used during the secretly-taped conversation.
So, does that mean that I now join the regular protestors in calling for De Leon’s resignation ? No, because I believe that most of the protestors were/are influenced by the L.A. Times’ racist mission and propaganda, and I denounce the same. I simply am indifferent to whether De Leon resign or doesn’t resign. *But, I do not live in his District, District 14. His constituents will have to determine for themselves how they feel about his not defending himself on the chamber floor.
Finally, I withdraw the prediction I previously made, that a recall of De Leon would fail, because the De Leon when I made the prediction is not the De Leon that I know now.
UPDATE—February 14, 2023
RIDLEY-THOMAS *PRE-TRIAL MOTIONS HEARING : EXPERT WITNESS OR NOT ?; GOOD ACTS OR NOT ? HEARSAY OR NOT ?
There was a *pre-trial hearing yesterday in Councilman Mark Ridley-Thomas’s case regarding various motions. But, I came away confused as to the outcome or what will be the court’s decision as to the pending motions. The government wants to keep a Ridley-Thomas expert, Ann Ravel, from testifying and to keep certain “good acts” of Ridley-Thomas from reaching the jury. And, Ridley-Thomas wants to keep certain hearsay statements (according to Ridley-Thomas) of defendant Marilyn Louise-Flynn or other evidence from reaching them either. But, I couldn’t decipher when and where these matters were discussed, although I think I heard Ravel’s name mentioned. I mean both sides certainly argued to the court, but I could not make out the main points that they were arguing about. But, it appears the Court understood. However, unless the Court made a decision during a brief break I took away from the courtroom, I don’t know how the Court decided the motions. So, I’ll have to await a written decision.
*Ridley-Thomas’s criminal trial, involving multiple counts including bribery, is to begin March 7, 2023.
*NOTE : Neither the local broadcast media nor the L.A. Times, thusfar, are giving much coverage to Ridley-Thomas’s case, including the pre-trial motions. I wonder why ?
UPDATE—March 5, 2023
COUNSEL OF YASIEL PUIG V. COUNSEL OF MARK RIDLEY-THOMAS : RE: SELECTIVE PROSECUTION DEFENSE
Former L.A. Dodger Yasiel Puig, who is Cuban-born and Black, is now facing federal criminal charges of making false statements to a federal investigator and obstruction of justice, based on what the Justice Department is charging was Puig’s involvement with illegal gambling. Pursuant to a plea agreement, Puig previously was only going to be charged with the false statements, but Puig bowed out of the plea agreement, and decided that he would plead not guilty and proceed to trial. The government then decided that it would tack on an additional charge, obstruction of justice.
Puig’s Counsel
Puig’s counsel, Keri C. Axel, a white female, and former prosecutor, has raised the issue of racial bias in the case, at the beginning or front end of the case (challenging the indictment) and pursuant thereto, has filed a motion for discovery (from the U.S. Attorney’s Office) to support a selective prosecution claim. Ben Crump, a Black civil rights lawyer associated with the George Floyd case, has also joined Axel in representing Puig. Although the L.A. Times has pointed out some missteps by Axel (and there were a couple) in pursuing the racial bias or discrimination aspect of the case, the important point is that SHE HAS RAISED THE CLAIM AND IS EARNESTLY PURSUING IT ON BEHALF OF HER BLACK MALE CLIENT. That alone is COMMENDABLE on Axel’s part. Because it demonstrates that she is pursuing ALL colorable avenues of defense for Puig, including racial bias or discrimination. And, it demonstrates that she is placing the interests of her client before her own; meaning she might otherwise not raise or pursue the issue of race in a case, but there appears to be a basis for doing so here. I have seen white lawyers representing Black or other minority defendants refuse to raise the issue of selective prosecution when they should have (based on a colorable case). And, the clients suffered for it. But, the final decision is always the client’s, who can demand it be raised. It’s the same as the decision whether to take the stand (and testify) or not. The client makes the final decision. NOTE : If Johnnie Cochran, who was Black, had not taken over the O.J. Simpson case, I surmise that Mark Furman’s racism would never have been raised and that Furman would never have been forced to testify about his racism.
Puig might not need discovery. Or, at minimum, can assure discovery is granted.
Ridley-Thomas’s Counsel
Ridley-Thomas’s Counsel, Galia Z. Amram, also a white female, of the law firm of Morrison and Foerster, LLP, (and joined by other lawyers), thusfar, has not raised nor given any indication of her position as to a selective prosecution claim for Ridley-Thomas. Clearly, she (or her team) has not raised the defense at the front-end or indictment stage of the case. And, Ridley-Thomas clearly has a colorable claim, and, based on my knowledge of the information that would support his claim, he has a very good claim. In fact, unlike Puig, Ridley-Thomas doesn’t NEED discovery to prove selective prosecution. Amram, if she chooses to, can still use it at the post-conviction or back-end stage, if necessary (without a reliance on discovery). But, hopefully, now (after counsel has passed on a front-end challenge), Ridley-Thomas won’t need it (with a not guilty verdict). But, what if he does need it ? Will counsel use it ?
UPDATE—March 13, 2023
THE MARK RIDLEY-THOMAS BRIBERY-FRAUD TRIAL
The Mark Ridley-Thomas federal bribery/fraud trial has now completed its first week. As much as time allows, I’ll give my assessment on parts of the trial.
The Judge : District Judge Dale S. Fischer, *white female
*The Jury : 2 Black men, 2 Latino men, 4 Latino women, 2 Asian women, 2 white women
Opening Statement
The government : Assistant United States Attorney (AUSA) Thomas Rybarczyk
Rybarczyk generally charged Ridley-Thomas with abusing his authority and the power of his office to commit criminal acts, and thereafter lying to get around the criminal behavior. I thought his argument was boring the way he presented it, which caused me to tune out to much of his argument. He continued to refer to his notes in delivery, and that was distracting to me.
The defense : Galia Amram
Amram’s main point was that Ridley-Thomas’s actions, even if there was an appearance of illegality, were performed in “good faith” or with good intentions, and therefore, “legal if performed in good faith”. She denied Ridley-Thomas sold his vote, and insinuated that much of the exchange between he and USC was done as a matter of customary procedural process. Amram’s argument was much better than Rybarczyk to me because she actually delivered her argument to the jury with less reference to notes.
The defense won the opening statement battle.
The Government’s Case-in-Chief
The Witnesses
Brenda Wiewel
The biggest thing I got from the questioning of this witness, besides the fact that she delivered a confidential letter to Ridley-Thomas’s office, which is purported to have been done “secretly”, is that the defense was mauled in cross-examination by the government and the Court, through objections by the government and by the objections being sustained by the Court. Multiple objections on grounds of relevance, beyond the scope, etc., were sustained by the judge. At one point, the judge asks, “what are you, doing ? I reluctantly name the counsel, but, it’s necessary to avoid the exchange being assigned to the wrong counsel. This was defense counsel Arturo Gonzalez. Sometimes, there may not be much to cross-examine a witness about. But, he comes back. See , infra.
John Clapp
Examination : Lindsey Dotson
The most important info/evidence derived from this witness was that a lot of actions done for Sebastian Ridley-Thomas (“SRT”) were “unusual”. Mainly, allowing SRT to act as faculty and student in the same School. The witness testified that this would create a conflict of interest. He said that he would have wanted to know about this. He was not informed about it. There was a “no confidence vote” for defendant Marilyn Flynn regarding fiscal status of Social Work School. SRT was admitted to a program that did not exist. Defendant Flynn told Clapp at one point that she would have to tell him about a “side deal”. SRT was treated like a VIP, a “special“ VIP, that is, getting more gifts than previous VIPs.
Cross-examination : Arturo Gonzales
Good cross-examination. At one point, after Gonzales had asked a question, the witness had to ask the Court to allow him to speak with his counsel (who was in the audience). He left the stand, spoke with his counsel and returned and answered the question. HOWEVER, Gonzales had forgot what the question was, and asked that it be read back. Judge Fischer seemed annoyed, and suggested that this should be the last time that he ask for a read-back. I think it was reasonable that Gonzales could forget the question.
Mike Nichol (Vice Provost-USC-Public Policy)
The biggest thing I got from this witness was that he was not aware of sexual harassment charges against SRT at the time of SRT’s hiring by USC. He said that he would have resigned his position at USC if the allegations proved true and USC had hired SRT. He also said he would have been concerned about a person being a faculty member and a student in the same school.
Cross-examination : Daralyn Durie
Effective cross : Got Nichol to admit that there are exceptions to the rule against a person being a faculty member and student in the same school. A provost can approve an exception. Got witness to admit that he “dropped the ball” in getting SRT approved for an exception.
NOTE : So why isn’t the L.A. T.V.broadcast media and the L.A. Times providing any in-depth coverage of the Mark Ridley-Thomas trial ? And, which side does that benefit ? *The government. Why ? Because by denying Ridley-Thomas coverage, the media helps in denying him a public trial.
UPDATE—March 15, 2023
THE GOVERNMENT’S CASE CONTINUES, AND THE E-MAILS CONTINUE
Since my return on Tuesday, the government has made several points through several witnesses, and mostly through e-mails. There were points made that: USC was expediting the professorship of SRT, and this had never been seen before, and Flynn requested that the professorship process be expedited; it was unusual to have a person began a professorship within 24 hours, usually it takes weeks. Witness never heard of a sponsorship where the purpose was to pay a salary. Flynn went into an employee’s office and said that if she (Flynn) didn’t get the check ($100,000) right away that she (Flynn) “would get in trouble”.
MRT and SRT were trying to get SRT’s sexual harassment investigation “to go away”. It was a California Assembly investigation. The usual hiring process has been waived. And, so many acts involving SBT’s faculty membership and student status were found to be “unusual” by an assortment of people.
Most of the major points were demonstrated through e-mails. It has been E-MAIL DAY for the last two days. In addition to being boring, it has pointed out that the government’s case, near the finish line, is almost wholly circumstantial. And, while the law gives equal weight to both direct and circumstantial evidence, circumstantial evidence requires more pieces than direct evidence to make the same point; which is why we have been inundated with so many e-mails the last few days. As an example, take the major league baseball player Trevor Bauer who was confronted with allegations of sexual assault by his female sex partner. There were a multitude of e-mails involved and relied upon by Bauer’s partner to try and show that Bauer had abused her, and to try and obtain a restraining order. But, Bauer only needed one e-mail to deflect her numerous e-mails, that’s the one where the sex partner said she liked “rough sex”. That one e-mail prevented both a restraining order against Bauer and a criminal charge of sexual assault.
We still have a few days left for the government to wrap-up, according to the parties exchange with the Court. And then we’ll see what the defense says.
*THE GOVERNMENT RESTS (MJOA DENIED)
UPDATE—March 21, 2023
RIDLEY-THOMAS TRIAL : THE DEFENSE HAS BEGUN; YET, WRAPPING UP SOONER THAN EXPECTED; THE DEFENSE LIKELY WILL CONCLUDE TOMORROW
Today, the defense went through six witnesses, and it appears that it will wrap-up tomorrow. It appears that the judge has put pressure on them to wrap up. Probably, because she‘s getting bored with the document presentations and evidence as well, even stating at one point, to a prosecutor, that she was bored .
The major points I got out of the witnesses and that I believe the defense was trying to show were : Sebastian Ridley-Thomas was actually suffering from a legitimate illness requiring surgeries and/or serious medical treatments when he resigned from the Assembly. He wasn’t just faking it. This was the testimony of a medical doctor who had treated SRT. Contracts could not be approved by a single supervisor; all supervisors had to approve the contracts, therefore, Mark Ridley-Thomas’s vote was minimal. Ridley-Thomas’s focus was goal-directed, especially towards racial diversity and such projects as the re-opening of the Martin L. King, Jr. hospital in South Central Los Angeles.
A couple of witnesses, I just didn’t get the point, either defense or cross-examination. It was just highlighting lines of a document by the defense, and by the prosecution in cross, and the audience trying to figure out the main point that was being made. I imagine, and hope, both sides will provide an explanation during closing argument, but, the document-based presentations during the trial are boring, by both sides.
I wonder why any of the other supervisors weren’t called by either side. It certainly would have helped Ridley-Thomas; but, it also could have helped the prosecution. Perhaps, the defense’s last few witnesses will concentrate on Ridley-Thomas and not documents.
UPDATE—March 22, 2023
THE LAST DEFENSE WITNESSES : THE SHORTEST WERE THE CLEAREST, AND MOST IMPACTFUL
The defense put on 11 witnesses today, with the last three being the most impactful.
To summarize : Most of the witnesses once again testified through interpretation or explanation of e-mails or other documents, e.g., letters. At one point, it was a group of administrators , rather than MRT, who recommended that there be a coordination with Flynn. Another important witness for the defense, finally, was L.A. County Supervisor Janice Hahn, who testified that MRT did not pressure her to vote on various items that the bribery charge was associated with. And, the last three witnesses, in addition to Hahn, were probably the most impactful : First, an expert, Ann Ravlin, testified that the $100,000 donation to School of Social Work was legitimate or good, and that SRT was not a dependent of MRT, so a donation could be made in reference to him. Ravlin was a good and colorful witness for the defense. Second, a former L.A. County supervisor, who was part of the controversial votes, Sheila Kuehl, who also testified that MRT did not pressure her to vote on the controversial items. And, third, MRT’s wife, Avis Ridley-Thomas, who testified that SRT had to undergo surgery and that she was concerned about his health. She believed that his health was declining.
THE DEFENSE RESTS
The defense rested, or finished presenting all of its evidence. So, all that is left now before the jury gets the case is rebuttal by the government, jury instructions and closing argument by the parties, not necessarily in that order.
UPDATE—March 23, 2023
CLOSING STATEMENTS/ARGUMENTS
Both parties gave closing statements before the day ended. There were no rebuttal witnesses preceding the argument to my knowledge. Unusual, to say the least. And, as the government was attempting to give its rebuttal closing, the judge decided to end the day at her usual time, so the government has to finish its argument tomorrow, rather than today.
The Government’s Closing : Lindsey Dotson (USAO)
Dotson’s closing was good. Although she used e-mails and graphic design to present her case, most of her presentation was speaking to the jury, and she delivered her presentation well. I wasn’t bored or distracted. She basically argued the same positions that the government offered during the trial, i.e., that Ridley-Thomas accepted a bribe to secure votes for various items. If any juror is truly on the fence, Dotson’s argument might be convincing.
The Defense’s Closing : Daralyn Durie
Durie started off too soft and quiet (she was speaking too far away from the microphone for one thing—*the judge had to tell her to get closer to the microphone) and too un-interesting, with periods of boredom, when she was explaining her points through e-mails and other documents. However, the very last part of her presentation was moving and convincing. She made good points and had good delivery. It was good enough to persuade some on-the-fencers and maintain the believers. Durie basically argued that Ridley-Thomas didn’t need to be bribed for his votes because he would have voted that way anyway, and the proof is in the actions maintained towards the items in question prior to the votes.
Overall, without the rebuttal argument to come, the prosecution won the closing statement*/argument battle, based on consistency throughout the argument. *The rebuttal argument by attorney Michael Morse (USAO) is also included as part of the government’s closing argument.
MY OPINION RE : THE VERDICT
Since this entry in the blog will be published before a verdict by the jury, I will offer my opinion regarding the verdict. I won’t make a prediction, because I know a jury can fool you. But, I believe the jury will find Ridley-Thomas NOT GUILTY. The government did not prove Ridley-Thomas guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. *There was lots of reasonable doubt, *that the U.S. Attorney’s Office did NOT go BEYOND. I think there was one key piece of evidence that, *together with some other evidence, provided the reasonable doubt necessary to defeat a conviction. The “Bauer” (e-mail) *type of evidence. The key piece of evidence would not have quite the damaging effect as the Bauer e-mail, but it would be in the same class. *But, I worry that the defense didn’t place enough emphasis on it. Nonetheless, it was mentioned.
MY OPINION RE : SELECTIVE PROSECUTION
Nevertheless, if the jury finds Ridley-Thomas guilty of the offenses, any offense *(a conviction of any one offense will be a felony conviction and will have the same effect as multiple convictions in terms of the effect on Ridley-Thomas’s life and career), he and his lawyers should immediately inform the Court that they will be asserting a selective prosecution defense, and would like time to prepare to present it. *Technically, it would be a motion to vacate the conviction, based on selective prosecution. I think that Ridley-Thomas owes it to his constituents, to the other people who believe in and support him, to the people who have suffered harm at the hands of the people who the government chose not to prosecute, to the people in the past, especially Black people, including men, women, and children, who suffered and sometimes gave their lives so that Ridley-Thomas could have the right to bring the claim, and to the people of the 2020 Racial Justice Movement *(evolving from the murder of George Floyd) who protested and demonstrated to continue the fight for racial justice.
An appeal of the conviction is personal to and for Ridley-Thomas himself only. But, the selective prosecution claim would be on behalf of so many more, including his constituents in his Council District, for some of them may have been harmed by the individuals who would be similarly-situated to Ridley-Thomas. Thus, I don’t think Ridley-Thomas will deserve to represent his Council District if he doesn’t do everything he can to represent his constituents and to maintain his office. That is, to fight the good fight, with all means and legitimate defenses available.
The jury’s decision will set the tone.
UPDATE—March 26, 2023
JURY DELIBERATION
The jury has now deliberated for part of one day.
*The jury has now deliberated for *two and a half days, with *12 jury notes. Remarkable!
A LAST WORD ON A SELECTIVE PROSECUTION DEFENSE FOR RIDLEY-THOMAS
While Ridley-Thomas may want to shift the burden of making the selective prosecution decision to his attorneys, he can’t. He has the final word. If he wants to assert a selection prosecution defense, his lawyers must do so or try and withdraw. So, if Ridley-Thomas does not raise the defense, it’s because Ridley-Thomas chose not to raise the defense, even if his lawyers also chose not to. But, it seems to me, if both Ridley-Thomas and his lawyers were really concerned about his welfare, there wouldn’t be a need for a blog to try and convince them to do so. The effect of a conviction on Ridley-Thomas’s life should be enough to convince them to do so.
Ridley-Thomas : Courage or Coward
It should not be an issue of courage for Ridley-Thomas to do what he needs to do to continue to be a councilmember and represent his constituents ; and to do what he needs to do to preserve his status and prestige in the community. But, if it takes courage for him to defend himself against a racially-motivated prosecution and conviction, if he is convicted, then he will be a COWARD to not bring a selective prosecution defense (if he is convicted). And, as a coward, he will join the other Black, and other minority, cowardly public officials who have refused to assert the defense, when they could and should have, and disappeared in SHAME and DISGRACE. If Ridley-Thomas is convicted, everything he has accomplished will be forgotten. His legacy will be that of a convicted felon, who was bribed by a USC official (offering his son, Sebastian, educational benefits) into providing votes, as a County Supervisor, for certain programs that the USC official, Dean Flynn, wanted.
I’m sure that is not the legacy that Ridley-Thomas wishes to leave. But, that is what it will be if he is convicted.
Let’s hope he is found not guilty.
*NOTE : The L.A. T.V. broadcast media and the L.A. Times continue to not provide coverage of the Ridley-Thomas trial. I continue to assert that it contributes to denying Ridley-Thomas a public trial, and they know it. The large number of jury notes (12 so far) is remarkable, regardless of the outcome of the trial. And that, alone, should be reported to the public. Is that part of the media’s discrimination/racism ? I think so.
UPDATE—March 30, 2023.
THE. VERDICT : GUILTY OF SEVEN COUNTS OF CRIMINAL CONDUCT
The jury found Ridley-Thomas guilty of seven (7) felony charges, including bribery , conspiracy. honest services mail fraud, and wire fraud. He was found not guilty of multiple (13) other mail and wire fraud charges.
MY VIEW OF THE CONVICTIONS
Ridley-Thomas needed better lawyers. His lawyers were fair, but, he needed good to very good lawyers. He needed a Johnnie Cochran, *for both skill and color. This was both a criminal case and a civil rights case. *And Ridley-Thomas needed a Johnnie Cochran-type lawyer to handle it. I’m not going to provide a wholesale critique of his lawyers, but, I will say this : they did not spend nearly enough time in their closing argument on the government’s burden of proof (beyond a reasonable doubt), if they spent any time at all. If they did, it was so brief, I missed it. A burden of proof argument was critical to the defense’s case. Another sign that Durie, who is a white female, did not feel any special closeness to the Black Ridley-Thomas is that she repeatedly referred to him as “my client” rather than Mr. Ridley-Thomas or, as one of the other team lawyers called him, Dr. Ridley-Thomas. I believe the jury could sense the disconnect.
Thus, the government won the closing argument battle (see above), and, thereafter, won the case. *And, conversely, the defense lost the closing argument battle, and thereafter, lost the case. The 13 not guilty verdicts for Ridley-Thomas , while substantial, are non-monumental under the circumstances.
*I am not a Johnnie Cochran, but, with the evidence that the defense team produced, including, but not limited to, the testimony of the expert Ann Ravel and the two County Supervisors, Janice Hahn and Sheila Kuehl, and with the majority-minority jury, I would have gotten Ridley-Thomas acquitted. *And, it would have been based on effective closing argument. Ridley-Thomas should have been found not guilty.
*After sitting through the trial and evidence, I continue to believe, even strongly now, that Ridley-Thomas was prosecuted because he is a Black male politician in Los Angeles County who the government believed they had a colorable case to prosecute. Were Ridley-Thomas white, the U.S. Attorney’s Office would have looked the other way. There was evidence presented at trial that U.S.C. had habitually granted VIPs “free rides” regarding scholarships. So why weren’t the other “free ride” VIP people prosecuted and charged with conspiracy and some other charge, e.g., bribery or honest services fraud ?
THE SELECTIVE PROSECUTION DEFENSE
I didn’t hear Ridley-Thomas’s legal team raise the selective prosecution defense after the verdicts were announced , *and after the Court had released the jury and asked if there were further business. Therefore, I must conclude that Ridley-Thomas and his legal team are not going to raise the defense. He didn’t raise it in the beginning of his case, and he didn’t raise it at the end. News reports have indicated that Ridley-Thomas’s team plans to appeal, but, as I have indicated above, an appeal is personal to Ridley-Thomas. He refused to fight the good fight that would have been for his constituents and others. Now, he CAN’T represent them. And, it’s his fault.
RIDLEY-THOMAS DIDN’T FIGHT THE GOOD FIGHT; INSTEAD, HE ENDED HIS CASE AS A COWARD, SO : HE GOT WHAT HE DESERVES. HE JOINS PAST, COWARDLY, BLACK POLITICIANS IN HIS POSITION
Ridley-Thomas had the opportunity to fight the good fight for his future freedom and status in the community, but, he chose not to fight. Therefore, he must accept the consequences. With all the people who came out to support him, it seems to me that he would have wanted to fight for them. But, he didn’t. Consequently, he got what he deserves. So, he joins the past cowardly Black politicians who refused to fight and disappeared into shame and disgrace, see esp., former Second District Court of Appeal judge Jeffrey Johnson. And, like those previous politicians , Ridley-Thomas will disappear the same way.
While Ridley-Thomas can still assert the defense, I doubt that he will. *But, maybe he will surprise me and be a real Black MAN.
UPDATE—April 4, 2023
THE RIDLEY-THOMAS CASE AND THE L.A. TIMES : THE TIMES TAKES ANOTHER HIT ON ITS CREDIBILITY, OR LACK THEREOF ; A FALSE ASSERTION AND/OR FACT.
The L.A. Times, in its Sunday paper, April 2, 2023, in an article entitled, “After verdict, tributes instead of scorn”, states, in pertinent part :
“To back up their case, they (Ridley-Thomas defense team) called as witnesses two of his (Ridley-Thomas) former colleagues : Supervisor Janice Hahn and former Supervisor Sheila Kuehl — both allies of Ridley-Thomas during his time on the board.
The defense team went through three items approved by the Board of Supervisors that were at issue in the case, asking Hahn each time : ‘Did our client, Dr. Mark Ridley-Thomas, pressure you in any way to vote for his proposal?’ ‘No,’ Hahn replied.
On the witness stand, Kuehl said she too did not feel pressure from Ridley-Thomas.
The brief questioning of Kuehl and Hahn was ultimately somewhat of a red herring — prosecutors did NOT claim that Ridley-Thomas pressured his colleagues on the board to vote one way or another.” *Emphasis, in italics, bold print, and capitalized print, added. (End of quoted passage by the Times)
*This statement in the italicized, bold print, and capitalized lettering is false. The truth is : prosecutors DID claim that Ridley-Thomas pressured his colleagues to vote one way or another.
The proof : the indictment itself. The indictment, at p.30, states, in pertinent part :
“b. In exchange for the bribes and kickbacks from defendant FYLNN and other co-schemers, defendant Ridley-Thomas would agree to perform and perform the following types of official acts, among others :
. . . (3) exerting pressure on other members of the Board of Supervisors to present, introduce, and vote on motions and agenda items; and (4) exerting pressure on other County officials to perform official acts with respect to the issuance of, and amendment to, County contracts with the University and Social Work School.” Emphasis in italics and bold print added.
The false statement further detracts from the Times’ credibility in fair news reporting and contributes to its BIAS news reporting. *The moral : Don’t believe everything you read in the L.A. Times. Some of it is likely false.
So, the Times should at least PUBLICLY inform the public of the false statement, and likely should *publicly apologize to the Ridley-Thomas defense team, especially to Arturo Gonzalez, who did the questioning of the Supervisors regarding the “pressure” issue. But, maybe the defense team don’t want an apology.
UPDATE—May 9, 2023
RIDLEY-THOMAS’ ONLY HOPE AND DEFENSE AGAINST A SUSTAINED CONVICTION OF BRIBERY, CONSPIRACY AND FRAUD IS SELECTIVE PROSECUTION
While Ridley-Thomas’s team has filed motions for judgment of acquittal and a new trial, Ridley-Thomas‘s only real hope is a motion to vacate the conviction based on selective prosecution. I believe the government clearly supplied enough evidence to overcome a judgment of acquittal, that is, the evidence was at least sufficient. Not overwhelming, but sufficient. The motion for a new trial will face, among other things, a concept called “harmless error”. Both of these motions are “ as of course motions”, that is, invariably raised, and invariably denied. They basically are asking the Court to overrule the jury, based on an evidentiary or legal basis. Courts are reluctant to do that. *However, there are exceptions. And, maybe this will be one. Judge Dale S. Fischer has scheduled the sentencing of Marilyn Flynn on the same day she is hearing the defense’s two motions, June 26, 2023. *If the Court grants either of Ridley-Thomas’s motions prior to sentencing Flynn, Flynn’s sentencing will end the case. But, if the Court denies the motions, Ridley-Thomas will be sentenced in August.
Ridley-Thomas’s only real hope, *on the face of the current record, for getting his convictions for bribery, conspiracy, and fraud set aside is a motion based on special circumstances, e.g., like Bill Cosby, conviction overturned based on a prosecutor breach of a prosecutor-defense agreement. The selective prosecution defense would be a Cosby-type defense for Ridley-Thomas, also based on government conduct, i.e., violation of Ridley-Thomas’s constitutional right to equal protection of the law.
If Ridley-Thomas’s lawyers placed his welfare above theirs, the decision to file the motion would be an easy one. We’ll see. There’s still time.
UPDATE—June 28, 2023
RIDLEY-THOMAS’S MOTIONS FOR JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL AND A NEW TRIAL: A LAST TRY
Councilman Mark Ridley-Thomas and his counsel , Monday, made their last ditch effort at overturning Ridley-Thomas’s conviction for bribery and other charges.
The defense’s argument was led by attorneys Galia Z. Amram and Daralyn Durie, and the government‘s by Ass’t U.S. Attorney Lindsey G. Dotson. A major argument for the defense was that the government did not prove an essential element, an ‘official act’ , for the honest services fraud convictions. The defense argued that there was “no evidence of an actual vote” by Ridley-Thomas, that is, “ ‘They did not show that he raised his hand” or “ ‘They did not show that he said “aye” ’”. The most impactful argument to me for the prosecution was that most of the things the defense was claiming were errors occurring during trial “were never objected to during trial”, which Dotson said were “forfeited errors”.
District Judge Dale Fischer said that she would issue her decision as as soon as possible.
Co-defendant Marilyn Flynn, upon information and belief, will be sentenced in July.
THE BOTTOMLINE: If judge Fischer grants either of Ridley-Thomas’s motions, it will result in a white female defendant ( who voluntarily pleaded guilty to the same or similar crimes as a black male co-defendant) being sentenced for commission of her crime or crimes; while the black male co-defendant *(who went to trial and was found guilty of multiple crimes by a jury of his peers) going free (if his acquittal motion is granted) or temporarily going free (on bond) until a new trial is held (if his new trial motion is granted). That places a heavy burden on judge Fischer to be fair and impartial in her decision making.
*But, what are the chances of judge Fischer granting either of Ridley-Thomas’s motions under the circumstances?
UPDATE—July 9, 2023
JUDGE FISCHER’S DECISION : BOTH MOTIONS DENIED
District Judge Dale Fischer has now denied both of Ridley-Thomas’s motions, judgment of acquittal and a new trial, on the merits. I haven’t read the decision yet, but, I generally agree with the reasons given by the judge as provided in news reports. I believe there was clearly sufficient evidence to deny a judgment of acquittal and the errors offered for a new trial were not substantial enough to grant one.
So, now, Ridley-Thomas must await sentencing in August, which will come after co-defendant Marilyn Flynn’s sentencing this month, July 24th. And, while he awaits sentencing, he will know that whatever Flynn’s sentence will be, his sentence will be tougher or harsher.
The Bottomline : Once Ridley-Thomas made the decision to plead not guilty, and I believe it was the correct decision, he and his lawyers should have made the commitment to fight the charges by all legal means necessary. Apparently, they did not do so. Therefore, Ridley-Thomas will now pay the price.
*I have now read judge Fischer’s 17-page written decision. It is well-written and well-reasoned. It clearly supports judge Fischer’s decision to deny both motions on the merits. At the same time, it provides some insight into Ridley-Thomas’s prospects of succeeding on appeal. It is not likely that the 9th Circuit will find any errors grave enough to overturn the jury verdict, especially when you consider that part of Ridley-Thomas’s appeal will be charging that judge Fischer’s decision on the motions for judgment of acquittal and for a new trial was wrong. *But, again, I could be wrong, especially because I’m not privy to all issues that the Ridley-Thomas team will raise on appeal.
Thus, Ridley-Thomas’s only hope to have his conviction set aside and salvage his career accomplishments remains the selective prosecution defense. And, it’s not too late to raise it. It’s Ridley-Thomas’s decision.
UPDATE—July 25, 2023
MARILYN FLYNN IS SENTENCED : THREE YEARS OF PROBATION WITH 18 MONTHS OF HOME CONFINEMENT
Co-defendant Marilyn Flynn was sentenced on Monday to three years of probation, and 18 months of home confinement including ankle bracelets for GPS monitoring (Flynn’s lawyer, Vicki Podberesky, tried to avoid the bracelets for Flynn, but District Judge Dale Fischer declined the suggestion). *After reading the Court’s decision, I believe that judge Fischer agreed to and ordered GPS telephonic monitoring rather than ankle bracelets. I believe that I misunderstood her decision (at the hearing)(so basically, she honored Podberesky’s request).
*I neglected to state that Flynn’s sentence also included an $150,000 fine. I mainly focused on the liberty constraints.
Flynn’s other lawyer, Brian Hennigan, in trying to obtain a lesser sentence for Flynn, laid the blame on Ridley-Thomas, i.e., “The one who pushed the idea was Mark Ridley-Thomas”. And, the prosecutors supported this idea, “Flynn acted , time and again, at the direction and request of Ridley-Thomas”.
Moreover, the prosecution even vouched for Flynn towards her obtaining a light sentence; per the L.A. Times, “Federal prosecutors have said that Flynn took responsibility ‘in a fulsome and extraordinary manner,’ noting that she pleaded guilty without filing ‘frivolous’ litigation and averting a trial, and that she even offered up evidence that incriminated herself”. “ ‘She didn’t point the finger at other people and play the victim’, Assistant U.S. Atty. Lindsey Greer Dotson said Monday in court.” *That’s contradicted by Hennigan’s statement above.
And so what should Ridley-Thomas expect at his sentencing ? Prison time. The best evidence : Judge Fischer , at Flynn’s sentencing, stated that she “seriously considered imprisonment” for Flynn. Further, “Prosecutors vowed to seek a prison sentence against Ridley-Thomas. . . .” And, if Flynn’s fine was $150,000, what do you think Ridley-Thomas’s fine will be , if there’s a fine?
So, will Ridley-Thomas fight or will he submit ? *He still has an opportunity to FIGHT for rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, and achieved by Black men, women, and CHILDREN *(sometimes with loss of lives) and others, of the 1950’s and ‘60’s.
UPDATE—August 7, 2023
COUNCILMAN MARK RIDLEY-THOMAS : TWO WEEKS TO BE A MAN, TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE, AND TO GARNER RESPECT FROM THE BLACK AND LATINO COMMUNITY
Clm. Mark Ridley-Thomas now has approximately two weeks or thereabouts before his sentencing, where he almost certainly will be sent to prison, based on a conviction obtained through selective prosecution by the U.S. Attorney’s Office (USAO). While there was clearly a colorable legal basis for the prosecution and conviction, the U.S. Constitution, per the Equal Protection Clause, requires that the USAO prosecute white and other non-Black public officials who have committed the same or similar crimes as Ridley-Thomas the same as they did Ridley-Thomas. But, the USAO did not do so, and is not doing so. And, by not prosecuting the white and other non-Black officials, the USAO is protecting those officials from prosecution. While, at the same time, denying Ridley-Thomas that same protection. Thus, the USAO is denying Ridley-Thomas equal protection of the law. Furthermore, some of the un-prosecuted white officials’ crimes were worst than Ridley-Thomas’s crimes. Ridley-Thomas, in committing his crimes, didn’t deny any citizens their constitutional rights; but, some of the white officials did.
But, only Ridley-Thomas can assert his selective prosecution defense (via a motion to vacate the conviction). And, it’s not too late to do so. He still has two weeks or thereabouts.
TWO WEEKS TO BE A MAN
Ridley-Thomas has got to be a man and take a stand. He’s got to fight back, and he is in a unique position to do so, based on his political position and the lack of a need for discovery (the un-prosecuted are already known). But, Ridley-Thomas can’t be a coward, he must break the cycle of Black and other cowardly minority officials in refusing to assert fundamental constitutional rights that others have fought, and sometimes died, to achieve. The bottomline is : it is Ridley-Thomas’s final decision, not his attorneys. And, as I’ve stated before, it’s similar to the decision to testify or not; Ridley-Thomas must make that decision for himself, after consultation with counsel (but, clearly, his counsels’ positions are apparent).
TWO WEEKS TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE
Ridley-Thomas has two weeks to make a difference in the civil rights movement, especially with respect to the civil rights of Black males in Los Angeles County. Ridley-Thomas was once head of the Los Angeles Chapter of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC), which was founded by Dr. Martin L. King, Jr. In leading SCLC, Ridley-Thomas was fighting for other people’s rights. Now, he must set an example by fighting for his own rights. And, if he does so, it will be impactful. What would Dr. King want him to do ? What would John Lewis want him to do ? This would be “good trouble”. Don’t let the conviction be in vain. In the spirit of Dr. King, this would be a non-violent fight and demonstration for civil rights on behalf of Black males in the County of Los Angeles.
Finally, unlike an appeal , Ridley-Thomas’s selective prosecution defense will also be for others, not just Ridley-Thomas himself, such as Ridley-Thomas’s constituents, many of whom who may have been victimized by the un-prosecuted individuals; and other Black males in Los Angeles County who have been the victims of some of the un-prosecuted white officials; and for other minority public officials, such as Curren Price (if only in an indirect way, e.g., some motivation for Price to fight for his rights).
TWO WEEKS TO GARNER RESPECT FROM THE BLACK AND LATINO COMMUNITY
Next time.
I will publish this blog every day until August 21 (the current date set for sentencing), with the hope that sentencing will be postponed pursuant to a motion to vacate the conviction.
*Update-August 8, 2023
Two Weeks to Garner Respect from the Black and Latino community (or communities)
If there are those in the black and brown community, or communities (for those who believe they are separate) who have lost respect for Ridley-Thomas based on the conviction itself without more, Ridley-Thomas’s fight for his constitutional rights might help him regain some of the lost respect. The community will have an opportunity to compare and contrast the conviction with a fight for civil rights that would serve to benefit both Ridley-Thomas and other members of the community, esp. black and brown males, who are the sons and grandsons of many Los Angeles city and county families. Without the fight for his constitutional rights, Ridley-Thomas will be left with the title of convicted felon who probably will be serving prison time, with many in the community believing that the conviction reflects Ridley-Thomas’s true character, rather than the character of the individual who fought for the reopening of the Martin Luther King, Jr. Community Hospital in Watts.
The Government’s Sentencing Recommendation
The government has recommended a sentence of 72 months (or 6 years) imprisonment with 3 years of supervised release, and a fine of $30,000 for Ridley-Thomas. Apparently, the amount of the fine is connected to the ability to pay, so Marilyn Flynn was found to be in a better position to pay $150,000 than Ridley-Thomas, so the government has only recommended $30,000 for Ridley-Thomas who is a government employee, while Flynn is in the private market, making more money. So, it’s not like the government is being more lenient with Ridley-Thomas than Flynn in its fine recommendation. It’s more a matter of financial position and the ability to pay the assessed fine.
*Ridley-Thomas’s defense is seeking probation, a portion of home confinement, community service, and a financial penalty. Realistic ? Especially, in view of the fact that this is basically what Defendant Flynn received, and she was not convicted of multiple felonies by a jury of her peers. *Ridiculous.
UPDATE—August 16, 2023.
BASICALLY, IF OR WHEN RIDLEY-THOMAS IS SENTENCED, HE WILL GO TO PRISON TO PROTECT SOME WHITE OFFICIALS (FROM GOING TO PRISON); AND, THIS IS THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF WHAT ROSA PARKS, A BLACK WOMAN, DID WHEN SHE REFUSED TO GIVE UP HER SEAT TO A WHITE PERSON ON A MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA BUS *IN 1955
If Councilman Mark Ridley-Thomas decides to forego his selective prosecution defense (per a motion to vacate his conviction) and appear for sentencing, he will go to prison to protect some white officials from going to prison (because, if he prevails with his motion, after setting aside Ridley-Thomas’s conviction, if the Court finds that the white officials should have been prosecuted, the Court can order them to be prosecuted, which would proceed through the normal proceedings beginning with an arrest, based on probable cause. And, they would probably end up like Ridley-Thomas, with a conviction and prison sentence).
And, Ridley-Thomas’s protection of white officials is just the opposite of what Ms. Rosa Parks did in the 1950’s , when she refused to give up her seat to a white person on a Montgomery, Ala. bus, which would have protected that white person from having to stand . And that took COURAGE, especially because Parks was violating segregation law, which prompted her subsequent arrest. And, there were two Black teenage girls, before Parks , who had also been arrested because they, like Parks, had refused to protect white persons from standing (through giving up their seats to those white persons). Again, that took courage (and these were teenage girls). *Mark Ridley-Thomas is a male. * But, will he be a boy or a man. Hopefully, he will be a MAN.
Thus, if Ridley-Thomas does not move to vacate his conviction on selective prosecution grounds, it will be the same as voluntarily (not because of a segregation law) giving up his seat on a crowded bus to a white official (to protect the white official from standing).
So, will Ridley-Thomas choose progress (in the spirit of the past and current civil rights movements, e.g., the 2020 Racial Justice Movement) or will he choose to regress (prior to the 1955 Montgomery Bus Boycott, 1963 March on Washington, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964) when Black people had little or no equal protection of the law ? Will he fight or will he submit ? He still has 4 days to decide.
UPDATE—August 20, 2023
RIDLEY-THOMAS HAS NOW VOLUNTARILY SUBMITTED TO THE USAO, JOINING THE CYCLE OF COWARDLY BLACK POLITICIANS OR PUBLIC OFFICIALS WHO REFUSE TO FIGHT FOR THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF BLACK MALES IN PARTICULAR, AND OTHERS, IN THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES; NOW, I WONDER WHAT HIS SUBMISSIVE STATEMENT WILL BE AT SENTENCING, IF HE DECIDES TO MAKE ONE ?
Councilman Mark Ridley-Thomas has now decided to refuse to assert his constitutional rights to due process of law and equal protection of the law, and, in doing so, has refused to fight for his rights and the rights of all Black males, including his constituent Black males, in the County of Los Angeles. He has failed us all.
The point is : Ridley-Thomas has been found guilty of bribery and other offenses by a jury of his peers, and that’s a fact *that will not change, regardless of his decision to fight for his rights or not; but, could he have made something positive come out of that determination and conviction ? Yes, he could have, but, he voluntarily chose not to (and I emphasize this again, the decision was HIS, not his attorneys. He cannot transfer the decision to his attorneys to try and shield his cowardice.) . It was a cowardly and selfish decision *not to fight for his constitutional rights and the constitutional rights of ALL Black males in the County of Los Angeles. *He continues the cycle of cowardly Black public officials who voluntarily (not because there is a segregation law requiring them to do so) refuse to fight for their constitutional rights, and in doing so, sets the civil rights movement back 68 years (on the weekend of the 60TH anniversary of the 1963 March on Washington—how insulting).
The United States Attorney’s Office (USAO) and the un-prosecuted white and other non-Black officials know that they have dodged a bullet. Ridley-Thomas has provided them with protection *from having to prosecute and from prosecution, respectively.
Now, after his submission, what will his submissive statement be at sentencing *?
Finally, you know that the L.A. Times and the broadcast media are not going to report anything about the selective prosecution issue that’s part of the Ridley-Thomas case (portraying the case as just a regular criminal case—and, it is not); and that’s part of the institutional racism in L.A. County. In the future, I hope to produce a blog on how the print media (especially the L.A. Times) and the broadcast media suppress and perpetuate racism in L.A. County.
UPDATE—August 21, 2023
THE SENTENCING OF CLM. MARK RIDLEY-THOMAS HAS BEEN POSTPONED OR CONTINUED TO AUGUST 28, 2023 AT 10: 00 AM.
The sentencing was not held today, as scheduled.
Clm. Mark Ridley-Thomas’s sentencing has been continued to August 28, 2023, at 10 am, probably because of Hurricane Hillary, although, there were other cases heard at the Courthouse today. Nevertheless, the delay provides Ridley-Thomas with an extra 7 days to decide whether or not to pursue his selective prosecution defense or claim. Will he fight or will he submit ? Man ? or Boy?
UPDATE—August 22, 2023.
IF RIDLEY-THOMAS DECIDES TO FIGHT FOR HIS RIGHTS, I WOULD BE HIS MATERIAL WITNESS.
Since Hurricane Hilary has provided Clm. Mark Ridley-Thomas with an additional 7 days to decide whether to fight for his rights or not, if he decides to fight, I, another Black man, would be his material witness. He would not have to fight ALONE. I would be with him, to help prove his case. United we STAND, and divided we fall. And, our greatest asset would be the U.S. Constitution, i.e., equal protection of the law.
The U.S. Attorney’s Office (USAO) knew when it or they prosecuted Ridley-Thomas, who is Black, while not prosecuting other non-Black public officials, who committed the same or similar crimes, that they were violating Ridley-Thomas’s constitutional rights. But they counted on Ridley-Thomas, like past Black and Latino public officials, not challenging their actions, based on a lack of courage. Ridley-Thomas can change that. And he can begin by fighting for his rights. But, he must be a man, and take a stand. The decision is his. Man ? or boy ?
NOTE : Have you noticed, the L.A. Times and the local broadcast media have not published anything about the Ridley-Thomas trial, conviction, and sentencing lately ? Not even the fact that the sentencing was continued to August 28, 2023. So, how is the general public to know ? Especially the poor ones (without access to the advanced technological forms of communication). Is that suppression or what ?
*And, is racism behind the suppression? Readers, you be the judge.
UPDATE—August 23, 2023
MAN ? OR BOY ?
The only issue Clm. Mark Ridley-Thomas is faced with at this point is will he be a man or a boy in dealing with a significant civil rights issue. Will he voluntarily *(not because there is a segregation law requiring him to do so) “give up his seat on the bus for a white official, *to protect the white official from having to stand ? or not ?” He has 5 more days to decide.
UPDATE—August 25, 2023.
THE LAST BUSINESS DAY FOR RIDLEY-THOMAS TO BE A MAN
Today, Friday, August 24th, is the last business day for Clm. Mark Ridley-Thomas to be a man (and not a boy) and take a stand, and file a selective prosecution motion (or to give notice that he will be filing one).
This is one of those times where the presence and efforts of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. is missed. He probably would have helped Ridley-Thomas be a man. But, at the same time, it shows how COURAGEOUS Rosa Parks was. She refused to give up her seat on the Montgomery, Alabama bus on her OWN, before Dr. King entered the picture. And she KNOWINGLY violated a segregation law when she refused to give up her seat to protect a white person from standing. She was truly a Black WOMAN.
UPDATE—August 26, 2023
IT SEEMS CLEAR NOW THAT RIDLEY-THOMAS IS NOT GOING TO FIGHT FOR HIS RIGHTS, AND TO ADD INSULT TO THE CIVIL RIGHTS INJURY, RIDLEY-THOMAS’S REFUSAL TO FIGHT FOR HIS CIVIL RIGHTS IS OCCURRING ON THE WEEKEND OF THE 60TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE 1963 MARCH ON WASHINGTON LED BY DR. MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR.
Monday, the scheduled day of sentencing for Councilman Mark Ridley-Thomas, happens to be the 60th anniversary of the 1963 March on Washington, led by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Ridley-Thomas’s concession of his civil rights on or before that anniversary represents an insult to the efforts of those participating in the March, as well as to the efforts of Rosa Parks, which preceded the March.
But, at the same time, his sentencing will represent not only punishment for his crimes (based on his convictions), but also, it will represent punishment for his refusal to fight for his rights.
MY RESPONSE TO RIDLEY-THOMAS’S REFUSAL TO FIGHT FOR HIS RIGHTS
I have already expressed my feelings regarding Ridley-Thomas’s refusal to fight for his rights when his sentencing was previously scheduled for August 21, 2023. Therefore, I will refer you to that response, contained in the blogpost entry at August 20, 2023 above in this blog. *However, I will add here that when Ridley-Thomas refused to fight for his constitutional rights, he, in essence, sold his SOUL to RACISM.
FYI : Former city councilmember Bernard Parks has written an anti-Ridley-Thomas letter to District Judge Dale Fischer, with a copy of the letter being sent to the United States Attorney’s Office, regarding Ridley-Thomas’s sentencing. *More than anything else, Parks’ letter shows his ignorance of the Ridley-Thomas trial proceedings. The letter is filled with false information regarding the trial and other trial associated matters that I will not reveal here, prior to Ridley-Thomas’s sentencing. And, because of that false information, I doubt if judge Fischer will give much credence to the letter and its suggestions. But, who knows ? However, I think that you, my readers, should know that this letter is before the Court prior to sentencing. The letter is dated August 17, 2023.
UPDATE—August 27, 2023
Tomorrow, a significant day and setback for the civil rights movement. An important day for the criminal prosecution of Clm. Mark Ridley-Thomas for bribery; but, a significant day for the civil rights movement for the regression and setback.
UPDATE—August 28, 2023
CLM. MARK RIDLEY-THOMAS’S SENTENCE :
FROM JUDGE FISCHER : 42 MONTHS OR 3 1/2 YEARS IN PRISON
FROM THE CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT : 42 MONTHS OR 3 1/2 YEARS IN PRISON
(TO RUN CONCURRENTLY WITH JUDGE FISHER’S SENTENCE)
*AND
FROM RIDLEY-THOMAS : A BOY
District Judge Dale S. Fischer sentenced Clm. Mark Ridley-Thomas to 42 months or 3 1/2 years in prison today. Additionally, he was fined $30,000. All the individual counts were separately sentenced to 3 1/2 years and run concurrently. He also will have 3 years of supervised release or probation after he is released from prison.
From my view, Ridley-Thomas also received the same sentence(s) for not fighting for his constitutional rights and the rights of others (mostly Black males in Los Angeles County) from the 2020 Racial Justice Movement.
*And, Ridley-Thomas showed up at sentencing a Boy.
Brief Comments.
The Defense : Attorney Galia Amram, like Daralyn Durie, in making her sentencing argument, refused to refer to Ridley-Thomas as either “Councilman Ridley-Thomas” or “Dr. Ridley-Thomas” or “Mr. Ridley-Thomas“, rather , she consistently referred to Ridley-Thomas by his full name, “Mark Ridley-Thomas”. From my view, as with Durie, it evidenced a disconnect between lawyer and client, as well as disrespect. Not necessarily intentional disrespect, perhaps subconsciously, but disrespect nonetheless. And, one does not know which one. But, I believe the judge could sense the disconnect. When the judge delivered her sentencing order, she referred to Ridley-Thomas as “Dr. Ridley-Thomas”. It would be interesting to know how Ridley-Thomas went about retaining these lawyers to represent him. *I note that one of Ridley-Thomas’s lawyers did address him, and was the first to do so, as “Dr. Ridley-Thomas”. That was the Latino Arturo Gonzalez .
The Government : The government generally followed the game plan of its recommendation. Nothing unusual or out of the ordinary regarding the reasoning for its recommendation, e.g., no remorse from Ridley-Thomas.
The Judge : Whatever issues Ridley-Thomas might raise on appeal, charging judge Fischer with being arbitrary and capricious in her decision making will not be a successful one. I continue being impressed with judge Fischer in her well-reasoned decisions. I may not necessarily agree with her reasoning, but, I am impressed with her providing the reasoning. As she went through her decision, she gave reasons why she either agreed or disagreed with either party’s position. And, I disagreed with her on several points, especially with regard to Ridley-Thomas’s responsibility for certain actions. And, I disagreed with her regarding her reliance on former councilmember Bernard Parks letter in her sentencing decision. I think Parks letter lacks credibility. I’ll discuss the letter at a later time. In the end, I was surprised by judge Fischer’s imprisonment decision. I thought she would give more prison time, i.e., 5 or 6 years (but I would have recommended 3 years imprisonment, not probation or home confinement, *because I know those options were not realistic).
Ridley-Thomas’s Statement : Ridley-Thomas‘s statement was the usual “I apologize” and “I’m sorry” statement to his family and others. It was a submissive statement, but a necessary one, since he refused to fight for his rights, and was trying to secure a more lenient sentence than the one recommended by the government. And, apparently, it had some effect. But, he also stated in a round about way that he did not think what he did was criminal at the time he did it, but proved to be criminal in the end. This suggested that he probably should have testified, where he could have explained that to a jury.
More next time.
UPDATE—August 30, 2023.
BRIEF RE-CAP
Did Councilman Mark Ridley-Thomas receive a fair trial ? Yes.
Did he receive a fair sentence ? Yes.
Did he receive a fair judge ? Overall, yes. To my knowledge, Judge Fischer didn’t deny any of Ridley-Thomas’s constitutional rights; which, *if she had, * would be prima facie evidence *that she was an unfair judge.
More next time.
UPDATE—September 6, 2023
CLOSING MATTERS
Bernard Parks Letter : Former councilman Bernard Parks , in writing an anti-Ridley-Thomas letter to Judge Dale Fischer (made public) made at least two false or misleading statements in the letter : (1) He stated that Ridley-Thomas “misled his colleagues by soliciting their voting support”. But, the evidence presented at trial by County Board of Supervisors Sheila Kuehl and Janice Hahn that Ridley-Thomas did not pressure either of them to vote would make the statement false as to them. (2) Parks also states that Ridley-Thomas’s co-defendant, Marilyn Flynn, “testified against him”. If Parks is referring to the trial, this statement would be false, because Flynn did not testify against Ridley-Thomas during his trial. If Parks is referring to some other proceeding where Flynn provided testimony under oath against Ridley-Thomas, then Parks should have specified what that proceeding was. Otherwise, the average reader would understand that the statement is referring to trial, which would make the statement false. Therefore, the statement is at least, misleading.
Finally, Parks states that Ridley-Thomas “attempted to use his race to undermine the public’s faith in the judicial process and encouraged others to do so as well. He’s used this despicable tactic to raise money and garner support. . . .” How did Ridley-Thomas do this ? Parks does not explain. From my view, the best way he could have used his race to benefit himself was to assert his selective prosecution defense, which he did not do. So, how did he use his race to undermine the public’s faith in the judicial process ? And, how did he encourage others to do the same ? Parks didn’t answer either of those questions.
Yet, Parks relied on his above statements to suggest that judge Fischer sentence Ridley-Thomas “to the highest penalty that his crimes allow”. As I stated earlier, Parks’ letter lacks credibility.
Judge Fischer’s Sentencing Declaration to Ridley-Thomas that “No one is above the law”. : If Ridley-Thomas would have fought for his constitutional right to equal protection of the law, judge Fischer would have had to say the same thing to the un-prosecuted non-Black public officials who violated the same or similar criminal laws as Ridley-Thomas. But, Ridley-Thomas did not fight for his rights. So, the un-prosecuted white and other non-Black officials who committed the same or similar crimes as Ridley-Thomas are, in fact, being held “above the law”, notwithstanding judge Fischer stating otherwise, i.e., NO ONE is above the law.
A Classic Irony : I have pushed for Ridley-Thomas to fight for his constitutional rights to due process of law and equal protection of the law; and I have declared that the sentencing punishment meted out by judge Fischer for his criminal convictions was also the same punishment meted out by the 2020 Racial Justice Movement for his failure to fight for his rights (and the rights of others, especially Black males of Los Angeles County). Ridley-Thomas has refused to fight for his rights. The irony : Judge Fischer first proposed for Ridley-Thomas to report to enter prison on November 6, 2023, which is Ridley-Thomas’s birthday. Which means, Ridley-Thomas would be entering prison on his birthday, or put another way, he would be celebrating his birthday in prison. So, judge Fischer, in accommodating Ridley-Thomas, through his counsel, changed the reporting date to November 13th, so that now Ridley-Thomas will not be celebrating his birthday in prison. But, guess what ? November 13th is MY birthday! Which means, as I celebrate my birthday, Ridley-Thomas will be entering prison. That’s the irony. Having suggested that Ridley-Thomas is being punished by the civil rights movement for not fighting for his rights and the rights of others, I will be celebrating my birthday as Ridley-Thomas goes to prison. The scenario seems to give credence to my position. And remember, I played no part in the arrangement. But, I will not celebrate Ridley-Thomas going to prison, although I believe he deserves to go.
THE BOTTOMLINE : Councilman Mark Ridley-Thomas, a Black man, prior to his conviction and sentence for bribery and other crimes, was a respected pillar in the Black community and in general. He had a history of fighting for the rights of others, through the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) and various political offices, e.g., County Board of Supervisors. I particularly was impressed by his efforts to cause the reopening of the Martin Luther King, Jr. Community Hospital in Watts, after it had been closed down for various reasons.
NOW, after his bribery conviction and his refusal to fight for his constitutional rights, he will go out and be remembered as a convicted felon and a disgraced coward who went to prison to protect white and other non-Black officials from going to prison, and who joined the cycle of cowardly Black and other minority officials who refused to fight for their constitutional rights and have gone to prison, or otherwise have been punished for it. They all voluntarily “gave up their seats on the bus”.
Lastly, and perhaps most importantly for me, I have lost RESPECT for Ridley-Thomas, not as much for him not fighting for his OWN rights, as it is for him not fighting for the rights of OTHERS, as he once did. I’m disappointed. He had the opportunity to make a BIG difference in the civil rights movement, and, instead, he turned his back on us. History will remember.
UPDATE—October 12, 2023
RIDLEY-THOMAS : OUT ON BAIL UNTIL THE END OF HIS 9th CIR. APPEAL
Clm. Mark Ridley-Thomas has now obtained an Order from District Judge Dale Fischer allowing him to remain free on bail until the conclusion of his 9th Cir. appeal. His lawyers, or lawyer (Galia Amram), presented a group of issues that they felt might be successful on appeal and convinced the court that he would not be a flight risk. And guess what ? They also convinced the government, together with the government’s desire for a speedy appeal, to not oppose the “freedom ride”. So Ridley-Thomas’s camp and the government stipulated to the freedom ride.
Personally, I continue to believe that Ridley-Thomas should go to prison, for not fighting for his civil and constitutional rights, and the rights of others. He deserves to go.
NOTE : Ridley-Thomas’s lawyer, Galia Amram, now refers to Ridley-Thomas as “Dr. Ridley-Thomas” in her motion. I bet the L.A. Times and others would claim that I had NOTHING TO DO WITH IT, when, in essence, I had EVERYTHING to do with it. *I was the one, the only one, who raised the issue or point.
UPDATE—January 3, 2024
THE RESIGNATION OF HARVARD UNIVERSITY PRESIDENT CLAUDINE GAY: OUR BLACK LEADERS OR LEADERSHIP CONTINUE TO FAIL US. REGRESSION RATHER THAN PROGRESSION.
Harvard University‘s first Black President, Claudine Gay, has now resigned from office, amid pressure from outside sources to do so. But, in my view, under the circumstances, the only valid reason for her considering resignation or resigning would be serious threats of violence and/or harm to her or her family, supported by solid evidence, e.g., destruction to her home with family members present. Any other reason is simply unacceptable. The reasons for her remaining were/are too important for the civil rights movement. It is probable that Gay’s selection as the first Black President of Harvard required the tooth and nail fighting of mostly white people, who recognized the significance of the appointment and expected that Gay would recognize that significance as well. Apparently, she did not.
Perhaps more important of all, even with the misspeak that Gay made during the Congressional hearing whereby she was asked by Rep. Elise Stefanik (R -NY) whether “calling for the genocide of Jews” would violate Harvard’s code of conduct, and she responded that it depended on the context (while trying to show regard for the speaker’s First Amendment rights), the Harvard administration continued to support her, because it recognized that her appointment was too important to the civil rights movement to cave-in to anti-civil rights or anti-affirmative action proponents. But, apparently, Gay didn’t recognize this herself. She failed us. She refused to fight for her civil rights and the civil rights of others, esp. Black Americans. She gave up too easily.
Yes, Gay did not respond appropriately to Stefanik’s question. Her response should have been that it should violate a college’s code of conduct because calling for the genocide of any race or ethnicity of people would represent “hate speech” and hate speech should violate any college’s code of conduct. However, Gay apologized for her misspeak, stating, “What I should have had the presence of mind to do in that moment was return to my guiding truth, which is that calls for violence against our Jewish community — threats to our Jewish students — have no place at Harvard, and will never go unchallenged.” That was enough. The Harvard administration thought it was enough, and indicated to Gay that they had her back. So, why resign ? What Gay’s resignation says is that Harvard selected the wrong Black person to be the first. And Gay has chosen to stay at Harvard as a faculty member. How will she face her students ? How will they perceive her ? Will they respect her ?
Finally, the main intent of this blogpost is not to degrade Professor Gay, but rather to help our Black leadership of today see that they are failing Black people, and they are failing the civil rights movements of today, and yesteryear. Gay, like Ridley-Thomas, has refused to fight for her civil rights and the civil rights of others. So, when will Harvard get another Black President ? Did Gay think of that before she resigned ? Now, Harvard goes BACK to not having a Black President, rather than FORWARD to having one.
What will Councilman Curren Price do ? He’s in the same position as Ridley-Thomas. Will he proceed the same way ? Or, will he fight for his civil rights ?
UPDATE—November 11, 2024 VETERANS DAY
AN ORAL ARGUMENT DATE HAS BEEN SET FOR THE RIDLEY-THOMAS APPEAL
According to the L.A. Focus, there is a set date for oral argument in the Ridley-Thomas appeal : November 21, 2024, in Pasadena. I wonder why the L.A. Times hasn’t reported it ? I believe there’s a reason.
**UPDATE—November 22, 2024
THE RIDLEY-THOMAS ORAL ARGUMENT.
I watched the Ridley-Thomas oral argument via videotape. I think both
Pppp counsel, defense and prosecution, did a good job. Both seem well-prepared, and knew the Record and major cases relied upon.
The most remarkable thing I was left with after the argument was: why didn’t Ridley-Thomas’s counsel make the Batson (peremptory challenge of jurors) argument before the panel ? That is, prosecutors had used peremptory challenges to remove the only Black female jurors on the jury. For me, that was Ridley-Thomas’s strongest argument for at least a new trial. But, apparently, Ridley-Thomas’s counsel felt otherwise. The Batson argument wasn’t the main argument in their brief, so counsel proceeded the same way in argument, and never reached it. But, it was briefed. So, we’ll see what happens.
**UPDATE—January 20, 2026 DR. MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR.’S DAY (MORNING AFTER)
STILL NO DECISION; BUT, CLM. MARK RIDLEY-THOMAS IS STILL OUT ON BAIL
If the conviction is reversed or vacated, will Ridley-Thomas get his council seat back ?
No comments:
Post a Comment