Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

How to talk stupid & influence people (negatively)

Friday, February 5th, 2010

As people know, I’m serving my seventh consecutive term as Chair of the Board of Directors of the California Association of Licensed Investigators (CALI).  As a natural consequence, I know a few things about what goes on in the private investigator world.

A rival organization was founded by some former dissident directors of CALI years ago.  It started out hostile to CALI, then voted in sane leadership and morphed into a still-rival but competent organization.

Fast forward.  In its last elections, there is a knock-down, drag-out fight between factions.  The new faction that gets in, reinstalling one of the founders to leadership (i.e., the guys who founded the group with one of its goals being to prevent a “good ‘ole boy” style of leadership from becoming entrenched.

So, who gets appointed as the group’s legislative leader, the person who’s supposed to influence the legislature about what bills to pass and which ones to defeat and how to amend bad bills into good ones?  A guy who has publicly referred to prominent members of the legislature on both sides of the aisle as “whores,” accusing them of taking unlawful payoffs for legislation.  Not just publicly, but PUBLICLY!!!  This is a guy whose behavior was interpreted to be so bizarre and outlandish that a prominent legislative staffer thought it prudent to talk to the legislature’s sergeant at arms about him, wondering if she had to fear for her safety at a legislative hearing.

Remember Lenny Bruce’s How to Talk Dirty and Influence People? Well appointing this guy as legislative chair is worse than talking dirty!

Florence Marie Cooper – a courageous judge

Tuesday, January 19th, 2010

U.S. District Court Judge Florence Marie Cooper died Friday.

I had the distinct honor of seeing her courage in doing the right thing when I was defense investigator for Gyula Tamas Zubovicz (aka Dracula) when the LAPD and the District Attorney’s office were dead set on framing him.  It’s not that Zubovicz was an upstanding example of morality, but when the authorities couldn’t get him for anything real, they just invented a case.

Zubovicz was accused to conspiracy to possess explosives in a residential area.  The evidence came down to the word of a notorious snitch, Gregory James Bartole.  Bartole is still on the scene and still as delusional as he was before:  he recently convinced some other ex-con that he was the head of the Sicilian Mafia on the West Coast, as though LCN would have anybody in its ranks that had ever testified as state’s evidence before.

The LAPD didn’t put the detective on the witness stand who’d taken certain evidentiary photos of where dynamite wrappers had supposedly been burned in a fire place and the ashes supposedly recovered.  Maybe they were worried that his having been sued by his wife for divorce on the grounds of extreme cruelty would come out, or maybe the D.A. — John C. Spence III — was worried that the photos he’d taken clearly showed the electrical cord that went to the fire place which had long since been cleaned out and converted to a faux electrically lit up fireplace.

Long story short, there had been a motion in limine granted by Judge Cooper before the trial even began precluding the prosecution from referring to the Hungarian Mafia, the Jewish Defense League or the initials JDL or introducing any evidence about those entities.  Spence had claimed that he’d given us his entire file during discovery and there was nothing in any of that evidence that he was introducing — or so he claimed — that had anything to do with the Hungarian Mafia.

At the last minute of the trial, literally, he showed us (the defense team at counsel table) a two page document without showing us the second page which he wanted to introduce to prove Zubovicz’s co-defendant’s address at a certain point in time.  The second page he didn’t show us, which the jury saw, contained the claim that the co-defendant was a purported hit-man for the Hungarian Mafia.

The jury hung on Zubovicz but convicted the co-defendant.  I spoke with one of the jurors who’d held out for Zubovicz acquittal and found out that the reference to the Hungarian Mafia was why the jury convicted the co-defendant.\

I filed an affidavit with Judge Cooper alleging violation of her order on the motion in limine by the prosecutor, Spence.  I asked her to jail him for contempt of court.

She didn’t do that but she went one step better:  she declared a mistrial and threw out the jury’s verdict against the co-defendant.  Judge Cooper was a courageous woman and an honorable judge of the highest order.


Jury Hung 9-3 for Acquittal

Wednesday, November 18th, 2009

Well, the case I discussed in my last report thankfully came in 9-3 for acquittal today!  I guess I did a decent job — having gotten into the case on September 21, 2009….

Last time I told you I’d discuss what the police knew and didn’t do anything about.  Here are some tidbits.

A guy named Raul Chanel is noted as a person of interest.  He has an identical statistical description (height, weight, etc) to the Defendant, but they do next to nothing to try to find the guy or explain why he’s a person of interest in the case.

Another guy is busted for DUI, having driven his car off the freeway.  The CHP finds the murder weapon right near his vehicle while inspecting the scene, but because he adamantly denies it’s his, they discount the possibility that maybe he tossed it from his vehicle after the crash and don’t investigate him as a suspect.  Now, in the meantime, I’ve found some intriguing stuff about a guy matching this name (33 years later of course) and I’m following up (more later).

They know that the Defendant at the time of the murder lives up in Sanger (they have his address).  They send a notice to the Sanger PD but nobody bothers to follow up.  They don’t go into his place of work to even check his time card or interview anybody to see if he was or wasn’t at work on the day of the murder!

There were latent prints lifted from the passenger side of the vehicle, the side the shooter would have been on if you believe the story of their star witness (who admits he drove the car).  They didn’t match the Defendant and seems that nobody’s bothered to follow up on those prints since the crime.  Maybe, just maybe, the person who left them has been fingerprinted for some reason in the past 33 years….ya think???

33 Yr Old Murder Case goes to Jury

Monday, November 16th, 2009

September 21, 2009 I got court appointed as investigator/expert witness for a 33 year old murder case that was tried in Dept E of the Pomona (East District) branch of the Los Angeles Superior Court.

The Prosecution Theory

The prosecution’s theory of the case was that on September 9, 1976, my client was in a car driven by their star witness (a felon with multiple convictions that they’d given an immunity deal to), following Roberto Lozano, because Lozano was supposedly having an affair with his wife and was the biological father of his first son.  According to this theory, my client shoots Lozano, drives down to San Ysidro (by the U.S. – Mexico border), abandons the car, and flees into Mexico immediately.  Then according to the prosecution theory, the defendant hid out first in Mexico and then hid out in Texas by adopting an alias when he re-immigrated to the United States.

Big Problem with the Prosecution Theory

One of my best attributes is to “pick the fly shit out of the pepper” during investigations.  Going through lots of documents supplied by the defendant’s family to his lawyer, I found the defendant’s son’s Baptismal Certificate and immediately recognized the significance of it:  it was dated September 14, 1976, just five (5) days after the murder of Roberto Lozano.

I tracked down the church, St. Alphonsus in Fresno.  I contacted the staff, convinced the on-duty secretary to go down into the basement and locate the Sacramental Registry for 1976.  Lo and behold…sure enough….there was the registry listing authenticating the certificate, listing my client and his wife as the parents and one of our witnesses and his wife as the god-parents.  I drafted a declaration for the church’s administrator as custodian of records and they rushed a copy down to the lawyer just in time for the trial.

Another Big Problem with the Prosecution Theory

According to the District Attorney’s way of thinking, when the Defendant came back to the United States in the 90’s, he changed his name around from using his father’s surname first and his mother’s surname last to the other way around.  This “alias” was supposedly to hide from the authorities.  The first issue is that there is a perfectly innocent and much more believable reason for this.

In Spanish usage, the technically proper way of constructing a child’s surname from their father’s and mother’s surname is to place the father’s name first with the conjunctive use of “and” followed by the mother’s name.  So properly, if the father’s surname is Gomez and the mother’s surname is Toledo, the child’s name should be something like Jose Gomez y Toledo.  In some countries, an “i” or an “e” is used for “and” instead of the more common “y.”  I’m not certain as to why this variation in Spanish exists, but I suspect it’s done in areas where the Spanish has been influenced by Sicilian immigration (Sicily was part of Spain for centuries starting in the 12th Century), because “y” and “w” don’t exist in the Sicilian language as vowels the way they do in other Romance languages.

In Anglo-American English usage, the custom is to simply drop the mother’s surname for a child, although in modern feminist-influenced times, we have begun to see the hyphenation of surnames, with the mother’s surname coming first, hyphenated to the father’s surname.  This is like what I’m told is the rule in Tagalog (the Phillippines native language), where the mother’s name becomes the middle name and the father’s name the surname (or last name in order).

Both Spanish and English “surname” or family-name order is completely different from a number of Asiatic languages, like Hungarian (from the Finno-Ugric language family) and Chinese.  In those languages, the surname is first, followed by the given name.  So a common Hungarian name transliterated into English as Zoltan Horvath should properly be Horvath Zoltan, or Mao Zedong in Chinese is really Zedong Mao.

Traditional/classic Semitic languages followed a completely different construction, with the use of “Ben” or “Ibn” for “son of” followed by the father’s name (and the given name appearing first in order, even though to begin with, the languages are written from right to left instead of left to right).

So, getting back to the case at hand, part of my expert witness testimony was to explain to the jury why there was nothing necessarily sinister about changing the order of the defendant’s surnames on the American side of the border.  In fact, he’d even disclosed the discrepancy on one of his INS (the former federal agency, Immigration & Naturalization Service) applications for legal residency.

It’s perfectly common in America, historically, for names to get really screwed up or Americanized, depending on one’s point of view, when people immigrate to the United States.  The people who interview and process immigrants are clerks, not linguists.  As I told the jury in this case, a similar thing happened with my family.  My grandfather’s original family name, from Tereshki, Belarus, was “Tokar,” which means millwright in Slavic languages and of course would have been written in the Cyrillic alphabet in the Czar’s old empire.  When my grandfather arrived at Ellis Island in New York, the name was transliterated and Anglicized rather than being translated into English. It became “Tucker” simply because “Tokar” sounded like “Tucker.”  Properly translated it would have become “Turner,” because a “Turner” was a millwright in Old English (literally, one who turns a lathe).

More to come!

In my next blog about this case, there will be more issues, more details about my expert witness testimony, and more on the Archaeology of knowledge that goes into a defense investigation of a very, very old case, including:

  • What the police knew
  • What the police never followed up on
  • Why my client wound up back in Mexico
  • What my client did in Mexico
  • What my client did after he came back to the United States
  • How my client was fingerprinted and not found to have any outstanding warrants REPEATEDLY

Meanwhile, please keep your fingers crossed while the jury’s out.  I’m convinced he’s not guilty and should be acquitted.  He’s been in jail since May 2009 and his family are the Salt of the Earth!


Who’s Who of PI MCE Supporters (MCE #5)

Sunday, September 20th, 2009

One of the canards being bandied about on the internet against me by the opponents of MCE is that a “retired attorney” listed as a supporter of Mandatory Continuing Education (MCE) for private investigators is that she has a bad record with the state bar.  I call this a canard because it is a deliberately misleading non-story.  There are certain things that the opponents who used this didn’t tell their readers that they would have if they weren’t just picking the fly-sxxt out of the pepper to use for spin doctoring.

First off, they didn’t bother to give the entire list of primarily non-PI supporters of SB 202 brought together by the “Same Page Coalition,” which includes:

RE:  SB 202 – SUPPORT

Supporting Public Entity:

  • City of West Hollywood

Supporting organizations:

  • California League of United Latin American Citizens
  • LULAC Councils 3122, 3036, and 3150
  • San Fernando Valley Chapter of Mexican American Political Association
  • San Fernando Valley/Northeast Los Angeles, San Gabriel Valley/Whittier, Los Angeles South, and Sonoma County Chapters of the National Organization for Women
  • Stonewall Democratic Club of Los Angeles
  • Adelanto Committee of Watts

Supporting Individuals:

  • Angel G. Luevano, Vice President, Far West, LULAC
  • Argentina Davila Luevano, State Director, California LULAC
  • Norma Ramirez, President, LULAC Council 3122 (San Fernando Valley)
  • Jose Luis Ramirez, President, SFV Chapter MAPA
  • Cynthia Conover, Activist Liaison, SFV/NELA NOW
  • Linda Pruett, Co-President, SFV/NELA NOW
  • Jeffrey Prang, City Council Member, West Hollywood (Title for ID only)
  • Ramon Miramontes, Member, Pasadena Board of Education (Title for ID only)
  • Marguerite Buckley, retired attorney
  • Pamela Narcisse, President, Adelanto Committee
  • Malinda Rosell, President, Los Angeles South NOW
  • Joseph Paolella, Retired U.S. Secret Service, member LULAC Council 3150
  • Roger Jon Diamond, Attorney at Law

The opponents of MCE also didn’t mention a few facts that they apparently didn’t know or didn’t think anybody else ought to know for context about the “retired attorney” that they condemn out of hand.

They didn’t mention for example that she got her bar card when I was three (3) years old.  It does not take intuition for anybody to understand that even great attorneys (like some great PIs) sometimes fall on hard times when they get older, lose their edge, and things start falling through the cracks.  That said, assuming arguendo that everything the State Bar claims is true about her, not one of the opponents of MCE who has been publicly vocal about the issue can hold a candle to her accomplishments.

First and foremost, none of them won a 9-0 (nine to nothing) United States Supreme Court decision that was hailed by a major law review as being the landmark 14th Amendment case of the decade of the 70’s on issues of equal protection of law.  That decision overturned 19 out of 20 California state and federal judges who had ruled the other way in the case (Lubin vs Panish), including a unanimous State Supreme Court, before it made it to Chief Justice Warren Earl Burger.   Burger, a Nixon appointee and no flaming liberal, wrote the majority opinion; there were separate concurrences by Rehnquist joined by Powell, and by William O. Douglas.  The case established the right of poor and working people to run for office without paying filing fees if they could not afford them.

She was also the first attorney ever to appear before the Supreme Court in a mini-skirt (in front of Earl Warren) and a pants-suit when she argued Lubin vs. Panish in front of Warren Earl Burger.  The pants-suit was controversial for women attorneys once upon a time and Chief Justice Burger issued a dress code the next day banning them.

Now, whether or not people agree with the politics of the American Indian Movement and their occupation of Wounded Knee 71 day occupation in 1973, one can respect the courage of an attorney who was inside with her clients while gunfire was being exchanged between them and the United States government, while her more famous leftist colleagues, like William Kunstler and Leonard Boudin were outside, holding press conferences.

I could go on ad nauseum about her credibility and credentials, but if any of the opponents of MCE can even come close to matching her 9-zip U.S. Supreme Court win, I’d like to hear what they did that compares with that.

One last point.  I’ve been accused, quote – unquote, of “hiding behind the skirts of NOW” (the National Organization for Women) by the chief self-appointed opponent of MCE for PIs.  Please keep the quotes coming.  That one, like the ones denouncing the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC, the nation’s oldest and largest Latino civil rights organization), will go over really well with women and minority legislators in Sacramento and guess how they will go over with a new Governor if the Democrats (by the way, I’m not now and have never been a Democrat myself) win the office back in the next election.

I’ll tell you how those comments will play out.  The opponents of MCE have created an independent agenda and an independent reason for the Same Page Coalition to seek to have PI MCE revisited as soon as there is a Governor who is not hostile to MCE in office.  They view these comments as demonstrating (a) sexism, (b) racism, and (c) lack of impulse control by people who hold state licenses.  So now you’re going to see groups outside of the PI community wanting to craft a legislative MCE and regulatory response instead of CALI being out in front and proactive on the issue.

Exactly what we’ve been warning about for a long time.

Eyewitness ID, MCE #4

Wednesday, September 16th, 2009

In my last blog entry, I explained how some of the opponents of MCE are claiming that a “whereas” clause in a LULAC resolution quoted in a letter is being taken out of context.  The best defense against inability to understand normal grammatical usage of words for these people is that they are deliberately taking it out of context.

Now I’m going to explain another “whereas” clause in the same letter that has drawn heat.  Specifically, I have been excoriated for supposedly accusing police officers of being racists since I quoted the resolution language supporting SB 202 in the letter (which expressed the sentiments of the “Same Page Coalition”).  Anyway, here’s the contentious paragraph:

And whereas, training in the science and ethics of eyewitness identification procedures can help alleviate wrongful convictions, most of which victimize Latinos, African Americans and other minority groups;

If somebody has actually taken the time to understand the controversy over eyewitness identification procedures they would not consider this a criticism of law enforcement as “racist.”  All they’d have to do is attend one of my educational seminars that I’ve done for CALI and the NAACP state conference.  What they’d understand is that it doesn’t matter whether or not a police detective is racist or non-racist; it’s the witnesses who are unreliable, especially when it comes to cross-racial identification.

The overwhelming majority of mis-identifications that sent people to prison who were later cleared of wrong-doing by DNA evidence (showing somebody else to be the perpetrator) were African American or Hispanic.   A significant number of these identifications were done by witnesses on a cross-racial basis, i.e., Caucasians identifying African Americans.  That is a simple fact, just as it is a simple fact that in 50% of the first 179 of 239 DNA exonerations a bad eyewitness identification was the only reason that a person was wrongfully convicted.

It is likely that these convictions could have been avoided if people were properly trained according to the procedures advocated by the National Institute for Justice and the California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice.

So, how does that clause of the LULAC resolution, which is entirely accurate, somehow justify my supposedly accusing all peace officers of being racists?  The only way to rationalize that question is, well, guilty conscience on the part of the persons making the accusations?  Ya’ think?

Literacy as a Requirement for Licensing?

Wednesday, September 16th, 2009

When I was a security guard working my way through graduate school, I found that a significant number of the guys I was working with had literacy problems.  It wasn’t just a problem of not being able to write a cogent report of an incident they’d witnessed or been involved in; some were just functionally illiterate.  But I never imagined that I would encounter this same phenomena amongst private investigators, when as a fluke, I wound up as one myself.

It’s not like I’m trying to hold people to my own personal standards of scholarship.  I had completed 22 units with a 4.0 GPA (grade point average, i.e., straight A’s) before I dropped out of graduate school.  But since I’ve been in the profession for thirty (30) years, I have found that some private investigators and some police officers are in fact functionally illiterate.  I’m emphasizing some because some people didn’t understand the grammatical construction of a letter I wrote to the Chair of the Assembly Business & Professions Committee in support of SB 202 and there was nothing difficult about the plain language of the letter.

Several investigators have criticized me for the following language that is quoted in the letter:

And whereas, since 80% of all private investigators are former law enforcement officers who have little or no training regarding family law and civil practice procedures, laws, ethics and regulations, it is imperative that such additional training be required to insure consumers are better served and the public protected;

If the people reading the letter actually understood what they were reading, first off, they would have realized that this was a quote from a resolution passed by the State Convention of the League of United Latin American Citizens.  Instead of saying that in their emails and postings, and letters denouncing the statement, they attributed the statement directly to me.  The second problem with their criticism is that they did not understand the grammatical effect of the use of the conjunctive word “and” between “family law and civil practice procedures,” and the subsequent use of commas as additional conjunctives.  Those conjunctives relate the words “laws, ethics, and regulations” back to “family law and civil practice.”

At no time did that resolution ever intend to mean, and no reasonable person would interpret it to mean that law enforcement officers don’t get training in “law, ethics, and regulations.”  The plain fact is, that most law enforcement officers don’t get training in the non-law enforcement related court procedures and civil process rules relating to issues like orders to show cause and motions in family law or the nuances of civil cases having nothing to do with criminal law enforcement.  Granted, if somebody worked in the civil division of a Sheriff’s office, something most peace officers will never do, they would certainly know the nuances of process service very well, but that doesn’t make them experts at the rules of evidence for civil and family law cases, which are very different from those of the criminal courts.

Getting back to literacy though I have found that it is entirely possible to be functionally illiterate and to be either a sworn peace officer or a private investigator.  Two cases on point:

  • While investigating a former Compton Police Detective, who defense lawyers had always noted seemed to have brilliantly written reports, I came across his divorce case.  Somebody must have been ghost – writing his reports for criminal court, because he’d drafted his own declaration for his divorce case.  There was not one single complete sentence and not one properly constructed paragraph in the entire declaration.  Forget the mis-spellings.  It was fundamentally incomprehensible.  Additionally, he served the divorce summons and petition on his sister-in-law, not his wife and he did it personally.  He served it at an address which he acknowledged his wife didn’t live at and had the sister-in-law sign the proof of service where the process server was supposed to sign and he signed on the line designated for a peace officer to sign if a paper was being served by a sheriff or marshal.
  • Recently, Lita Abella and I took over a case that had previously seen several other investigators before us.  When we saw the “report” done by one of the former investigators, a former federal agent, we were appalled.  I won’t even go into the details, but unfortunately, I’ve seen this kind of deficiency one too many times in my own profession and it’s embarrassing.

So, the people who’ve criticized that quote from the LULAC resolution think that private investigators don’t need Mandatory Continuing Education.  Well, maybe some don’t.  But some clearly do.  Those that do need it can do great harm to the public by not getting up to par.  It’s almost impossible to write a law that creates the perfect law for every single individual it will affect, but that’s the nature of the legislative process.  You try to get the best remedy for the most people.

So, if the opponents of MCE can think up a better way to deal with those within our profession who are functionally illiterate and somehow wound up with a private investigator license, I’d like to hear your solution.   In the meantime, I’d like to require them to get MCE and to do that, we all have to get MCE to improve our skills and keep up with the constantly changing legal and technological environment that we practice in.

By the way, you can find the full letter from the Same Page Coalition at:

http://www.janbtucker.com/IdeaOpinions.html

Why PI’s need MCE #3

Sunday, September 13th, 2009

While trying to stop SB 202 earlier this year in a California Senate committee proceeding, an opponent of Mandatory Continuing Education sent an opposition communication on the letterhead of the Federal Public Defender’s Office for the Eastern District of California.  As a result, the staff analysis for the committee mistakenly listed the FPD’s office itself as opposed to the bill.

The investigator who sent this letter — and his boss — defended the use of the FPD’s letterhead on the grounds that the letter represented only his personal opinion and therefore it was perfectly okay to use the FPD’s stationary.  As far as they were concerned, it wasn’t their fault that the Senate staff got mixed up and listed their agency as opposed to the bill.

If you buy that one, you must also believe in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy.

Defending the use of the letterhead on the ground that it was a private communication demonstrates just how far some people will go to defend the indefensible.  Since it was by their own contention a private opinion being expressed to a legislative body, not a function of the government agency itself, using the stationary violated Title 5 CFR Section 2635.704.  It’s a violation of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) to use any government office supplies for a private purpose.  That’s just plain common sense; it’s the same thing as stealing stamps, pens, or paper clips from the United States government.  It’s less politely called employee pilferage.

But this guy was arguing that the State of California shouldn’t require private investigators to go through 12 hours of Mandatory Continuing Education each year, that would include at least two hours of training in ethics…..hmmmmm……and he wants to be able to use a federal letterhead to express that opinion instead of paying for his own piece of paper to do it with…….hmmmmmm!

Aside from the obvious fact that you can’t just take your employer’s property for your own use, one of the reasons that a CFR regulation even exists prohibiting the use of office supplies is that using federal envelopes or letterheads can cause confusion — just like the confusion that resulted in the Senate staff listing the FPD office itself as opposing SB 202.

Stupid, stupit, or stupiter?

Tuesday, September 8th, 2009

One of the opponents of MCE (Mandatory Continuing Education) for private investigators recently wrote me and made the following accusation (this is a verbatim cut and paste from his email):

“Personally, I know nothing of running a corporation. But, I do understand NON_PROFFIT. But I don’t like the way you use your position in the Corp to flog the membership for dollars for your personal causes, LULAC, Nut Crack and all your other concerns of the world, then turn around and bash 80% of the industry. Logically, that makes you look stupit.”

It’s bad enough that he thinks that I “…look stupit.”  I know this sounds like a Jeff Foxworthy joke and the guy does come from the Central Valley, but then, some of my favorite PI’s are from the Central Valley.  But what’s greater concern to me here is that he apparently did not understand that he was de facto committing libel per se (he was apparently BCC’ing his emails to others) with his accusation that I was supposedly flogging the membership for dollars for my personal causes.

Any reasonable person looks at the implication of that statement and comes away thinking that I’m using my influence as a corporate director to get money for other organizations that I’m associated with.  Since those people include CALI members who are entitled to look at the financial statements we produce for the Annual Business Meeting, reasonable people would wonder why there are no line items showing us sending money to LULAC or whatever he means by “Nut Crack.”  In the context of how the opponents of MCE have irrationally accused us of engaging in a corporate cover-up (simply by following the law and heeding the advice of our corporate counsel), this is just the latest in a series of irresponsible and malicious accusations that increase the paranoia of a group of disgruntled dissidents.

Now, if I had actually gotten money appropriated to LULAC from CALI (or any other organization) without a vote of the board (no such vote will appear in the board minutes because it never happened), then the purported fact of such an appropriation as claimed by this guy would be a violation of Sections 504 and/or 506 of the California Penal Code, because utilizing corporate and/or non-profit money held in trust for purposes not intended by the trust is verboten.

I call him on this and he writes, ” It was a phrase not an accusation.”  Are you kidding me?  “…a phrase not an accusation…”  What does that mean and how is it different.  You still accused me of facts which can be interpreted as a crime.

So, after going back and forth a few times about the propriety of his statement and whether he will retract it (he won’t), this is his response:

“I had a good uncle and his name was J.T.. I hate to think of what he would think of you being called by his name. While you were reading about logic, he was involved in bringing peace to the world. You would not qualify to shine his boots.

I was gong to give you some shit then let you off the hook, but no, you won’t have it. You will never get it. You will learn nothing. Just keep running people away from CALI.

So sue me shithead…? (Sorry shit, did not mean to insult you.) I’m tired of your stupid nonsense and self-centered goals and bloated ego, sucking off the hard working PI and taking up valuable space on the Corp BOD. Go suck a lemon and stop speaking against the industry! Your 1968 and this is 2009. You represent nothing that resembles what I know to be Truth and Justice, and about 9,000 other PI’s agree with me. Just keep talking, your making our case for us.”

————–

Well, at least he spelled Stupid right this time…..maybe he doesn’t need MCE after all.

First Amendment Rights & Non-Rights

Tuesday, September 8th, 2009

A member of CALI (the California Association of Licensed Investigators) recently resigned in a huff over his opposition to Mandatory Continuing Education for private investigators, citing his staunch belief that the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States gives him the right in a private association to voice any opinion he wants to on an internet list-serve designed for professional advice and referrals.  Specifically, he believes that the Constitution of the United States gives him the right to spout off on political issues within an NGO (non-governmental organization).

The fact is that he believes this is an argument for why the legislature was wrong and the governor is right about the desperate need for MCE for private investigators (after SB 202 got unanimous votes in every committee and on the Senate floor, the Governor’s opposition to MCE for any profession got in the way of seeking final bill passage in the Assembly).  What is scary is that as a former law enforcement officer, if his understanding of the First Amendment is below elementary level, one wonders what his understanding of the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth amendments is and how he applied those understandings while he was a peace officer.

CALI recently adopted a new ethics code.  One of the ethical standards we adopted was  adapted from the State Bar Rules of Professional Conduct.  In essence, it says that if somebody isn’t personally competent to do a particular kind of work they should either obtain the knowledge of how to do it or associate or sub-contract with a licensee who is competent.  This is just common sense.

So, it follows that if a private investigator keeps getting told that the constitutional right to free speech doesn’t apply to private groups, that he or she would be minimally competent enough to seek out the unbiased opinions of people who could render an opinion on the subject, like political scientists, government teachers, or lawyers.  If this guy had talked to any political science professor, high school government teacher (or even junior high school civics teacher), or constitutional lawyer, they would probably look at him cross-eyed if he asked them whether the First Amendment protects his rights to “free speech” in a private association.  Like, “say what????”

The constitution protects not only individuals from the government, it also protects groups of people from the government.  The First Amendment also contains the right to “assemble,” which has come to mean the right to associate for the advancement of political beliefs.  That right is in direct conflict with the concept that the government can, will, or should protect a person’s right to say whatever they want to within a private organization.  Private associations have their own right to limit themselves and to not associate with people whose beliefs are incongruent with the organization’s reason for existence and whose behavior is detrimental to the smooth functioning of the group.

To illustrate how ludicrous the idea is that the First Amendment somehow gives somebody a right to advance beliefs in any way they see fit in private groups, remember that in the free society that we live in, the government tolerates and even protects the right of many unpopular organizations to exist and their right to propagate their beliefs.  Can the government tell the Nazi Party to let Jews join its ranks and argue at meetings that Hitler was a dirt-bag?  Would the United States ever tell the Ku Klux Klan that African Americans are allowed to join the organization, attend its cross-burnings, and argue that Martin Luther King Jr. was one of the greatest Americans who ever lived?

The answer is ‘obviously not.’  Neither can the government tell most organizations how to organize their affairs internally.  The United States Supreme Court has ruled for example, that political parties don’t have to let non-members vote in their primary elections to nominate candidates or elect party officers if they don’t want to.  This is why some parties let independents vote in their primaries and some don’t.

If an organization wants to be deemed to be non-profit and claim exemption from most taxes, that’s another thing.  The states and the federal government can impose certain basic structures on these organizations.  But precisely because of the First Amendment’s freedom of association, as long as the organizations don’t discriminate against people on arbitrary bases like race or ethnicity and maintain a fundamentally representative form of governance, the government can’t tell private non-profits that they must be run according to the strictures of the Constitution of the United States, nor should government try to do so.

Aside from the constitutionality of the issue, the fact is that you will always have gadflies in organizations who simply don’t understand the sociology of organizational arrangements.  It would be a lot easier to explain this if everybody in the world–or at least if everybody reading this blog–had taken political science 100 or anthropology 100 (the course is the same or similar in a lot of colleges and universities) because they start out by explaining the four basic structures of society and government:  every social grouping has a structure of ideology, a structure of authority, a structure of power, and a structure of society.  In the most primitive groups, these structures are all the same (like in hunter-gatherer groups like the Bushmen of the Kalahari desert).  In complicated nation-states, these structures are all inter-related and yet distinct.

But whether one exists in a primitive hunter-gatherer society or a nation-state with separated executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government, or something in between like a professional association, there is always to contend with what Robert Michels identified and described as The Iron Law of Oligarchy.

The fact is, that only in extraordinary times, such as during revolution, there is larger than normal mass participation in organizations, including government.   During more normal times, most people leave governance of every social institution, including government, to others who have the time and inclination to spend the time and effort.  Those people form an oligarchy and the overwhelming majority of people in every group acquiesce to it because it is most convenient to do so.  I hate to come out sounding like John Locke, but when it comes down to this basic debate from 17th Century philosophy, Locke has it over Hobbes and Rousseau, at least when describing normal human behavior during times of relative calm and peace.

Some people are probably wondering why I’m writing this in the first place.  It’s because I’ve been recently attacked, vociferously, by opponents of MCE for private investigators who’ve demanded that I resign, especially in light of a letter from the Same Page/Misma Pagina coalition in favor of MCE to the Senate Business & Professions Committee.  This is the first of a series of essays I’ll do explaining why I’m right and they’re, well, not just wrong, but in a number of cases, semi-literate, lacking impulse control, obscene (literally), and in at least one case, outright defamatory.

Venceremos companeros! — jt