INFORMATION WANTED, GOOD BAD OR UGLY ON:
Mark Christopher Gatmaitan
Maria Margarita Gatmaitan
Megan Grace Gatmaitan
Please email any information you have on these people, whether positive or negative, to firstname.lastname@example.org
Alternatively use the comment form at the bottom of this blog.
My letter to the head of ICE Removal Operations
February 16, 2017
Marlen Piñeiro, Assistant Director for Removal, Enforcement and Removal Operations, U.S Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 500 12th St., SW Washington D.C. 20536
Honorable Assistant Director Piñeiro:
First I want to express my concern that there have recently been social media reports—that I am personally receiving in real time—of eyewitnesses to ICE Checkpoints throughout Los Angeles indiscriminately checking people’s immigration status on a geographical basis rather than on a focused basis of convicted criminals. Are these reports true?
Second I want to bring a specific situation to your attention. This is in regard to:
Name: GATMAITAN, MARIA MARGARITA
Date of Birth:
Citizenship: El Salvador
Ms. Gatmaitan holds a restricted California Real Estate license because of criminal convictions, Salesperson license 01318653. Quoting from the findings of fact in Bureau of Real Estate Case No. H-29423LA, OAH No. L2002040455. The following are findings of fact in that case:
On March 6, 1998, in the Municipal Court of Santa Anita Judicial District, County of Los Angeles, State of California, respondent was convicted on her plea of nolo contendere of violating section 487(a) (Grand Theft) of the Penal Code. This crime was a misdemeanor involving moral turpitude.
On March 16, 1999, in the Municipal Court of California, County of Los Angeles, Pasadena Judicial District, respondent was convicted on her plea of nolo contendere of violating sections 666-484(a) (Petty Theft With a Prior) of the Penal Code. This crime was a misdemeanor involving moral turpitude.
Question No. 25 on respondent’s application asked, “HAVE YOU EVER BEEN CONVICTED OF ANY VIOLATION OF LAW?” Respondent answered, ”NO.” This was an attempt to procure her license by fraud, misrepresentation, or deceit, or by making a material misstatement of fact.
Respondent is not rehabilitated. The above crimes are recent. It has been less than six months since her summary criminal probation ended. During her testimony in the hearing in this matter, respondent denied culpability for both of the above crimes. This was not believable. In explaining why she answered ”no” to Question No. 25, she testified that she thought “conviction” meant being in jail. This was not believable. She has admitted that she failed to disclose her convictions because she was afraid that if she did reveal them, her application would be denied. Neither of the above convictions have been expunged. Much of respondent’s testimony was not credible and was inconsistent. It lacked honesty.
In that case her application was denied by the Administrative Law Judge. When she later obtained a restricted license she did not conduct herself honestly and was sued civilly for 1) Breach of Contract, 2) Breach of Fiduciary Duty, 3) Fraud and Deceit in Los Angeles Superior Court (LASC) Case No. BC 315479 filed May 13, 2004. The basic allegation was that Ms. Gatmaitan embezzled $13,000 of client funds. The case was settled within five months with virtually no court proceedings, which suggests (based upon my 46 years of experience as a licensed investigator and I have court qualified as an expert witness on various fraud related issues) that means that she had no defense and caved in to a settlement to preclude the Plaintiff from reporting her to the Bureau of Real Estate.
Ms. Gatmaitan is currently being sued by her neighbors for her family’s ongoing campaign of harassment in LASC CASE NO. EC 064228. This includes causes of action for 1. Private Nuisance, 2. Quiet Title to Enjoin Adverse Possession, 3. Battery, 4. Ralph Civil Rights Act Sections 51.7 and 52 of the Civil Code, 5. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, and 6. Trespass. The Third Amended Complaint (TAC) survived a demurrer with these causes intact and is a verified complaint. The Ralph Civil Rights Act cause is based in part on racist statements made by Ms. Gatmaitan that her neighbors, all of whom are native born American citizens, are “wetbacks” from Mexico, i.e. undocumented immigrants.
One of the allegations in the TAC is that:
…Defendant Maria Gatmaitan is a Salvadoran national and they have been observed to associate at their home with people openly displaying MS13 (Mara Salvatrucha, a criminal organization officially designated by the United States as a “Transnational Criminal Organization”) gang tattoos.
Ms. Gatmaitan is also harboring at her home her daughter Megan Gatmaitan who (the last time I checked) was wanted on outstanding arrest warrants from Orange County Superior Court, Case Number: 15CM00680 (for theft) and Case Number: 15CM01353 (public intoxication). Maria Gatmaitan is fully aware of these outstanding warrants as they have been alleged in the lawsuit pleadings and Orange County police detectives have come to the neighborhood looking for Megan.
Maria Margarita Gatmaitan is precisely the kind of person who should be deported by ICE.
Respectfully Yours, Jan B. Tucker