janbtucker.com Blog

The ultimate question about “The Garden,” a purported “documentary” about the fight to save the “South Central Farm” in Los Angeles produced by Scott Hamilton Kennedy is, ‘is Scott a photo-journalist who produced a truthful documentary or is he Leni Reifenstahl in drag.’  Now that “The Garden” is up for an academy award at tonight’s Oscar presentations for best documentary, this will become a salient issue.

Kennedy crafted the film to make certain people appear as heroes:  Rufina Juarez, Tezozomoc, and the law office of Hadsell & Stormer.  The film makes others, especially Mayor Antonio Villaraigoza and City Council Member Jan Perry, look like villains.

The fact is, that for an inquiring mind, something that a photo-journalist documentarian would be concerned about is the search for truth.  Now, I do know something about the search for truth, having been a private investigator for thirty years come March 2009, serving as a sixth term Chair of the Board of CALI, the world’s largest private detective organization, and as somebody who teaches a course in Epistemology & Formal Logic for the Private Investigator (covering the applications of Goedel’s “Impossibility Theorem,”  Heisenberg’s “Uncertainty Principle,” and “Ockham’s Razor” principle to private investigation).  I also know something about journalism, having served as First Vice President of Newspaper Guild Local 69 for years.

So, here are some of the questions that need to be answered for somebody to make an intelligent  judgment about the quality of “The Garden” and whether or not it deserves an Oscar.  I will not attempt to answer them today (even though I know most of the answers or at least know why they should be asked); I’ll reserve explanations for after the Oscars presentations tonight:

1.  In the original version of “The Garden,” Miguel Perez was sub-title identified as a “ex” Brown Beret.  Kennedy had that corrected in the current version.  Who told Kennedy that Perez was a “former” Brown Beret and why didn’t he verify the purported fact by asking Perez before printing something that could potentially cause someone harm?  Or, is he so out of touch with reality that he didn’t perceive the potential harm he could have caused?

2.  Miguel Perez stops appearing in the film about half-way through?  Is that accidental, was it inadvertent, was he no longer an important factor, or…..(pregnant pause) would including his continuing perspective have changed the villains into heroes and the heroes into villains?

3.  What happened to the money that was raised at the concert depicted in the film?

4.  Why didn’t the film explain that the farmers themselves claim, all of whom were dirt poor, that they had been “taxed” by Rufina and Tezozomoc  to pay for legal fees, when the attorneys maintain publicly and Rufina herself claimed at the Landmark Theater presentation of “The Garden” the attorney work was pro-bono?

5.  Since Juan Gamboa (featured in the film) is a named Plaintiff in Case No. BC 311110 of the Los Angeles Superior Court (appealed all the way to the California Supreme Court) along with Tezozomoc and Rufina Juarez (and other farmers) and since Hadsell & Stormer have been Juan’s attorney of record for the past several years, when was the last time that Hadsell & Stormer communicated with Juan Gamboa (or any of their clients other than Rufina and “Tezo”)?  When was the last time they communicated with their clients Ediogenes Luvianos “Don Eddie” Rumbos, Margarito Salgado, and Pedro Barrera (whose plots were also seized by Tezo and Rufina)?

6.  After Tezo got Juan and his sister arrested and Juan prosecuted for allegedly attacking Tezo, why did Hadsell & Stormer continue to represent all the original parties to the action?

7.  Did Hadsell & Stormer obtain the informed written consent to continue representing everybody concerned that may have been required by State Bar Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 3-310 after Tezo and Rufina had one of their other clients arrested and seized his farm plot?

8.  After Scott Hamilton Kennedy personally heard me ask Tezo at a showing of “The Garden” on behalf of a number of the farming families to produce copies of two 501(c)(3) IRS Form 990′s so that they could figure out where their money went (990′s are public record and IRS Regulations require them to be made available on request) didn’t he think that there was something funny about Tezo’s long rambling explanation of what happened to the money that he admitted had been collected for legal fees since Tezo admitted that they weren’t spent on legal fees?

9.  When I told Kennedy yesterday that Tezo had promised in writing to produce the 990′s and now — months later — he still hasn’t produced them, Kennedy said, “Great!  I’m thrilled to hear that!” (and he actually said it in front of witnesses).  Why isn’t Kennedy concerned to find out whether the farming families he glorified in his film, and who made it possible for him to appear tonight before the Oscars in what he described would be his Hugo Boss suit, were ripped off by the people he makes look like heroes, or whether the money they scraped together for the fight was spent honestly and appropriately (California law defines embezzlement from money held in trust as utilizing the funds for a purpose for which it was not intended)?

10.  The film at the end points out that farmers got other land from “the City.”  Why doesn’t it mention that they got the land thanks to the efforts of Mayor Villaraigosa and Council Member Jan Perry, or is that an inconvenient truth?
Well Scott, inquiring minds want to know the answers to these and other questions your film raises and leaves unanswered.  If anybody out there in the blogosphere wants some answers to these questions, email me at admin@janbtucker.com.

Open Letter From a former customer of Proposition 8 Supporters to Ken and Wendy Lee

Dear Mr. Ken Kiwook Lee and Wendy Wonok Lee:

As the owners of the Bubble Bath Hand Car Wash located at 1831 W 213th St Torrance CA 90501 I wanted you to know that while I always used to be very satisfied with the service I received when I used to patronize your business, I haven’t been there since before the November election and I am enclosing the Bubble Bath get one for free after ten washes card which I have cut in half.

Because of your having allowed or directed the placement of Yes on Proposition 8 signs at your business, I will no longer be patronizing the establishment.  It means that instead of driving to a location in my immediate neighborhood, I will have drive several miles to another car wash, but I am willing to do so because I do not give my dollars to promote a message that discrimination against minority groups in society is alright.

When I was a young boy growing up in California, the Unruh Civil Rights Act, now Section 51 of the California Civil Code was being debated.  To protest this new law, which prohibited segregation in California businesses, some business owners made their views very dramatic and very plain.  As a child I had to witness a restaurant off the freeway heading North out of the San Fernando Valley towards the Antelope Valley where a gigantic sign had been put on the wall of the restaurant by the owner.  It said, “No Niggers, Jews, or Dogs Allowed.”

I gather from your names that you are probably Korean immigrants or of Korean heritage.  I have many Korean friends and I welcome them to my country as I do all immigrants.  If somebody were to put up a sign in their business that made Koreans feel unwelcome, I would be the first to stop patronizing that establishment.

I feel the same way about my Gay and Lesbian friends and I know that they must feel the same kind of humiliation and anger that I felt seeing that sign as a child–because I am Jewish–that they feel when somebody tells them they don’t have the right to marry because some religions in America have a different definition of marriage that they want to impose on everybody.

Maybe it never occurred to you, but the Unitarian-Universalist Association, the Union for Reform Judaism, and the United Church of Christ amongst others have a different religious outlook than yours which accepts same-sex marriage on an equal basis with opposite-sex marriage.  Who are you, or anybody else, to say that their personal or their church’s definition of marriage has a right to be imposed as a theological outlook on anybody else in America by putting it in a state constitution?

The United States Supreme Court wrote in 1985 in Wallace vs. Jaffree that:

The fundamental concept of liberty embodied in that Amendment embraces the liberties guaranteed by the First Amendment. The First Amendment declares that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The Fourteenth Amendment has rendered the legislatures of the states as incompetent as Congress to enact such laws. The constitutional inhibition of legislation on the subject of religion has a double aspect. On the one hand, it forestalls compulsion by law of the acceptance of any creed or the practice of any form of worship. Freedom of conscience and freedom to adhere to such religious organization or form of worship as the individual may choose cannot be restricted by law. On the other hand, it safeguards the free exercise of the chosen form of religion.”  [citing Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 303  (1940)]