Ed Saucer Man Flies Again


 

I’m shocked, shocked at the latest revelations about Private Dick Ed Saucerman.

Well, not really.  Nothing he could do would shock me these days.  For background on why, check out:

http://janbtucker.com/blog/2012/03/14/pitiful-practice-in-pasadena-usd/

http://janbtucker.com/blog/2012/02/26/opening-the-skeletons-closet/

What is actually shocking is that people continue to hire him, apparently without first simply “Googling” his name, which ought to be a pre-requisite for hiring a Private Investigator, an attorney, a doctor, or a contractor…….Not doing so can lead to many headaches.  One such headache could have been averted by the Claremont Unified School District (CUSD) and it’s attorneys if they’d bothered to check Saucerman out before utilizing his services:

https://www.claremont-courier.com/articles/news/t3190-cusd-investigation

https://www.claremont-courier.com/articles/news/t3048-claremont-sumner-principal-dismissed

So, let’s review what a school district or an attorney would have found out by conducting even a cursory search of the publicly available sources of knowledge on the internet about Ed Saucerman before hiring him:

  • Saucerman fabricated a testimonial letter purportedly written by a Deputy Attorney General and posted it on his website; the letter falsely claimed that he’d been hired by the California Department of Justice for an investigation
  • Saucerman fabricated a testimonial letter from another private investigator and falsely attributed its contents to the wrong investigator because he’d had a falling out with the real investigator who hired him on the case
  • Saucerman falsely claimed that he would not renew his membership in the California Association of Licensed Investigators (CALI) and then renewed that membership after his disastrous showing in the election for President of CALI’s rival, PICA (Professional Investigators of California)
  • Saucerman was sued for arresting and causing the incarceration of a student at Fontana High School on graduation day for suspicion of knowing who might have painted graffiti on school property
  • Saucerman has repeatedly made deceptive statements to other investigators and the public about his law enforcement experience in an attempt to lead people to believe he’d spent 16-17 years in the Los Angeles Police Department when in fact he didn’t even make it past probation
  • Saucerman was ordered off of the Fontana High School campus due to staff complaints

Now, even if Saucerman was the “Titan” of the investigative profession that he imagines himself to be, it would be extremely unwise for a school district, an attorney or any other client to hire Saucerman knowing this to be his record.  If he ever had to testify in court or any administrative hearing, he’d get beaten up with his reputation for dishonesty at the very least.  If Saucerman had been an employee rather than an independent contractor for the CUSD, he might very likely have gotten the district into a negligent hiring lawsuit, 79% of which are lost by employers according to a 2001 Public Personnel Management report (http://www.iso.com/Research-and-Analyses/ISO-Review/Negligent-Hiring-Employer-Risk.html).

If I was a taxpayer in the CUSD, I’d sure be thinking about filing a lawsuit pursuant to Section 526a of the California Code of Civil Procedure to insure that the district would never again squander public money by hiring either Ed Saucerman or the law firm that recommended him, Fagen Friedman & Fulfrost LLP, again.  Section 526a CCP provides that:

An action to obtain a judgment, restraining and preventing
any illegal expenditure of, waste of, or injury to, the estate,
funds, or other property of a county, town, city or city and county
of the state, may be maintained against any officer thereof, or any
agent, or other person, acting in its behalf, either by a citizen
resident therein, or by a corporation, who is assessed for and is
liable to pay, or, within one year before the commencement of the
action, has paid, a tax therein. This section does not affect any
right of action in favor of a county, city, town, or city and county,
or any public officer; provided, that no injunction shall be granted
restraining the offering for sale, sale, or issuance of any
municipal bonds for public improvements or public utilities.
   An action brought pursuant to this section to enjoin a public
improvement project shall take special precedence over all civil
matters on the calendar of the court except those matters to which
equal precedence on the calendar is granted by law.

The approximately $20,000.00 spent on Saucerman’s services according to the Claremont Courier was a waste of money.  Claremont taxpayers should do something about it.