Unique Pages Served: 82081 Total Sessions: 1133786 Total Page Hits: 3695050
Unique Pages Served: 82081 Total Sessions: 1133786 Total Page Hits: 3695050
I’m eager to get in touch with anybody who has information on any of the following people, places or institutions. Note that inclusion on the list doesn’t mean that they have done anything wrong; some of the people listed may be potential victims or witnesses. Note also that some of these names may be very common so do not impute anything adverse just because somebody’s name might be in the list because of its commonality. If you know anything or know anybody who might know anything about these folks, bad, good, or otherwise, please e-mail me at:
If you want confidentiality to apply under the California journalists shield law please specify in your message that the information you provide is not for attribution.
Valle Lindo School District, South El Monte
Dean L. Shively Middle School
New Temple Elementary School
Value Foam Inc.
aka Mary Jane Labrucherie
Southern California Basque Club
Euzkadi Ta Akatasuna
Valle Lindo school board members Rudy Martinez, Veronica Castillo, Veronica Lauria, Rey Soto, Richard Angel
Tyrone Cole (DOB 12/19/64; Fremont HS; claims to reside in Beverly Hills)
Aleksandr Grigoryevich Lukashenko, Belarus & Naples, Florida
Gary Don Robinson
Philip I. Markowitz
Saul Lee Markowitz
Mintz Group, LLC
Ian David Skorodin
The Barcid Foundation
Karen Williams, LA 90027
Shirley Cheechoo, Ontario, Canada
A recent twist in the continuing investigation of Paul Manafort is that he is been indirectly linked to the organized crime activities of Semion Mogilevich, the worst mobster in the world, of whom I have written on several occasions in this blog: http://janbtucker.com/blog/2011/04/02/dracula-really-did-exist/ ; http://janbtucker.com/blog/2011/09/02/information-wanted-dead-alive-or-otherwise/ ; http://janbtucker.com/blog/2013/04/28/small-freaky-world-of-white-collar-crime/ ; http://janbtucker.com/blog/2013/04/30/draculablacula-resurrection-party-5-25-13/ .
Some years ago in what I thought was a completely unrelated investigation of a man involved in fraudulent activities on the East Coast, we detected that his current wife was using the Social Security number of his purportedly deceased first wife. The second wife was a Jewish immigrant from Ukraine, Kiev to be exact, which happens to be the hometown of Mogilevich. She was of age where she could have been his daughter; had a son by a previous relationship who was a dead ringer for what looked like a Mogilevich grandson; and from what we knew of her prior movements around the world they seemed to mirror the movements that we knew about Mogilevich.
We tipped off the FBI organized crime division. The FBI agents we discussed the matter with agreed that the woman we were interested in could very well be his daughter. In the normal course of their investigation they would’ve then put her under electronic surveillance such as by having her email and phone traffic monitored. About a year later, January 24, 2008 Mogilevich was arrested in Moscow and reportedly held 15 different passports and something like 20 different identifications. By July however he was released by Russian authorities without charges and they refused to extradite him to any of the several nations that have warrants outstanding for his arrest.
One interpretation is that Putin is not in fact in charge in Russia and that in fact he answers to Mogilevich!
Cosby-Weinstein-Toback: entirely predictable
Around 1992, a year after the Anita Hill-Clarence Thomas hearings, the entertainment industry scrambled to make it look like it was doing something about sexual harassment. The industry instead of actually doing something held a conference on sexual harassment to tout what it was supposedly doing instead of actually doing anything. I was in attendance representing the San Fernando Valley Northeast Los Angeles chapter of the NOW. What I learned at that conference made the current allegations against Bill Cosby, Harvey Weinstein, and James Toback entirely predictable.
“Cosby has been the subject of sexual assault allegations, the earliest of which date back decades; those allegations did not become highly publicized until 2014. More than sixty women have accused him of rape, drug facilitated sexual assault, sexual battery, child sexual abuse, and sexual misconduct.”–Wikipedia.
“In October 2017, The New York Times and The New Yorker reported that more than a dozen women accused Weinstein of sexually harassing, assaulting, or raping them. Many other women in the film industry subsequently reported similar experiences with Weinstein, who denied any non-consensual sex. As a result of these accusations, Weinstein was fired from his production company, suspended from the British Academy of Film and Television Arts,  expelled from the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, his wife Georgina Chapman left him, and leading figures in politics whom he had supported denounced him. The Los Angeles Police Department opened a criminal investigation for alleged rape, and New York and London police are investigating other sexual assault allegations.”–Wikipedia.
“James Toback (born November 23, 1944) is an American screenwriter and film director. He was nominated for the Academy Award for Best Original Screenplay in 1991 for Bugsy.
On October 22, 2017, the Los Angeles Times reported that 38 women have accused Toback of sexual harassment or assault. Four days later, Los Angeles Times reporter Glenn Whipp stated on Twitter that a total of 310 women had contacted him regarding incidents of sexual harassment involving Toback.’–Wikipedia.
Lilavati Sharma was a secretary at the time of the conference in the office of the Screen Actors Guild (SAG). Years later when I met Lilavati, she told me that she had been abruptly placed on one of the panels at the conference about what the union/guilds in Hollywood were doing to combat sexual harassment. They needed a statement and they needed a woman to present it but none of the union officials wanted to take ownership of the statement or be responsible for its contents. Late the night before the conference they drafted a statement of what they were supposedly doing and got it to Ms. Sharma to read at the conference.
One panel discussion included the two female heads of HR respectively for MCA and Universal Studios. Sheila Kuehl, herself a former actress having played Zelda in the Dobie Gillis series, and then a lawyer heading the Women’s Law Center in her own right was also on that panel. The representatives MCA and Universal, astonishingly admitted that their policy was to counsel women victims of sexual harassment on how to cope with it because transferring the male perpetrators of the offense was usually too disruptive to the workplace. Following this panel discussion fellow NOW member Pat Jones and I confronted Sheila who basically rolled her eyes, sharing the disgust that we experienced from these comments.
That these were the actual policies and procedures of MCA and Universal were graphically illustrated to me when years later I would investigate a sexual harassment lawsuit against them. In one of those small world events I found that the multiple sexual harassers of my client had repeatedly been sued in the past along with MCA and Universal. I had long heard that formerly Marxist high school activist Mark Wasserman and had since become a union busting/sexual harassment defending corporate attorney and sure enough he had been one of the lawyers defending the sexual harassers in the past litigation. I mentioned this in passing in my prior blog at http://janbtucker.com/blog/2011/11/12/tristanism-acunism/.
In 2002 I wrote what became the 2002-2003 California legislative session AB 1617 introduced in the legislature by assemblywoman Cindy Montanez. This was an effort to put teeth into the laws against sexual harassment. It failed because of staunch opposition by the business community; the Chamber of Commerce and other business organizations threatened Cindy’s staff that they would shut down her office with round-the-clock telephone calls if she even tried to get the bill up for a committee vote.
I am ready to take another stand at getting the principles of AB 1617 into California law. Following is the information sheet that my NOW chapter had originally created for AB 1617 and a rewritten version of what I want in the wall which takes into consideration my experience with the investigation of sexual harassment since then.
AB 1617 fact sheet
AB 1617 – (Cindy Montanez, D-39th AD) Workplace Harassment Investigation & Employee Discipline Fact Sheet
(NOTE: AB 1617 DID NOT PASS. Since then however, we have garnered the support of California and National LULAC, League of United Latin American Citizens, in our effort to revive its provisions)
AB 1617 will insure that in-house investigators or licensed investigators who are hired to investigate harassment in the workplace are competent to do the job, independently, and objectively, as mandated by California case law. Whether they are or not will be “considered” in determining whether the employer response to a complaint of harassment was reasonable. Likewise, the law sets forth a variety of employer responses to the remedy of workplace harassment, mandating only that those issues be “considered” when an evaluation of the reasonableness of the response is made.
What AB 1617 does not do:
There is no employer mandate to hire an outside investigator
There is no mandate that the employer use any particular type of remedy for harassment (but specific employer remedies will be “considered” in determining the reasonableness of the action)
There is no mandate that an employer use a competent investigator (but the employer’s use of one or non-use of one will be “considered” in determining the reasonableness of the investigation)
Bill Sponsor: San Fernando Valley/Northeast Los Angeles Chapter of N.O.W.
Confirmed Support: Alameda Corridor Jobs Coalition, California NOW, San Gabriel Valley/Whittier Chapter of N.O.W., California Association of Licensed Investigators, Los Angeles South Chapter of N.O.W., Sonoma County Central Committee of the Peace & Freedom Party, League of United Latin American Citizens; Bay Area Chapter 9 to 5; National Center for Lesbian Rights
The Need for Legislation
Existing law [Section 12940(j) Government Code] requires that employers take all “reasonable” steps to prevent harassment in the workplace, but nowhere is there a statutory definition of “reasonable.” Irresponsible employers have exploited this lack of definition to do little or nothing, which only leads to a burden on the taxpayers when their failure to stop harassment leads to the filing of charges with the federal EEOC and the California Dept of Fair Employment & Housing. There is an additional burden to the court system when those charges are not administratively rectified and the victim sues. In some cases, the alleged perpetrator sues, contending wrongful termination because of an incompetent or unreasonable investigation or that the remedy imposed was not properly justified.
A body of law has built up both outside and inside California detailing what went wrong with some investigations [See Valdez vs. Church’s Fried Chicken, Inc., 683 F.Supp. 596 (Western District, Texas, 1988), Fuller v. City of Oakland, 47 F 3rd 1523 (9th Circuit, 1995), Kestenbaum v. Pennzoil Co., 108 N.M. 20, 28, 766 P.2d 280, 288 (1988) Llewellyn v. Celanese Corp., 693 F. Sup. 369 (Western District of North Carolina, 1988). A seminal California Appeals Court case, Silva v. Lucky Stores, Inc. (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 256, 76 Cal.Rptr.2d 382 detailed what went right with an investigation and the appropriate remedies taken.
One of the effects of Silva was to protect responsible employers, like Lucky Stores, who took their responsibilities under law seriously and conducted independent, objective, and fair investigations. The effect of the case on irresponsible employers has been to make them go through the motions of an investigation and then engage in the same kind of remedies that they always used anyway, usually, one of several actions short of actual discipline of a harasser. Typical irresponsible employer responses include transferring the victim to other duties or changing his/her working hours (often disrupting their child care arrangements or reducing their income) or giving the perpetrator a better job to avoid the perpetrator filing a frivolous lawsuit. These are not legally permissible actions because they do not impose actual discipline: Intlekofer v. Turnage, 973 F.2d 773, 777 (9th Cir. 1992) held that the employer “must take some form of disciplinary action” to prevent harassment from occurring.
Another effect of Silva was for irresponsible employers to rely upon incompetents to perform their investigations. In many cases, a manager with no experience at investigation is used. Since their only concept of how to perform an investigation is usually what the see on television in NYPD Blue or Law & Order, rather than reasonable fact-finding exercises, these efforts tend to turn into hostile environments for the victim as well as the perpetrator and serve no legitimate purpose.
Silva also spurred a cottage industry of unlicensed Human Resources Consultants masquerading as experienced and competent investigators, especially for sexual harassment investigations. Their haphazard inquiries have lead to an increasing record of fiascoes for the employers themselves and generally have gotten the employers sued. The Bureau of Security & Investigative Services has issued cease and desist orders in a number of such cases for unlicensed investigative activity. Had these been situations of unlicensed people doing a proper job, they never would have come to the attention of the agency in the first place; the agency learned about them only when somebody else who was licensed, experienced and competent had to be brought in by one side or the other to clean up the mess they’d left behind.
Requiring an in-house investigator to be competent is not an unreasonable burden on a responsible employer. As one example of training available at a modest cost, the Department of Fair Employment & Housing in partnership with the non-profit Southern California Employers Roundtable (SCERT) conducted a seminar in sexual harassment investigation at the very reasonable fee of $35.00 which also included extensive reference materials. AB 1617 also requires consideration of whether the in-house or a contracted licensed investigator adhered to privacy and honesty standards which already apply to licensed investigators. The only conceivable argument against such criteria is that the employer wants to get sued.
The experience of the Bill’s sponsor and other supporting organizations is that the smaller the organization, the less likely for on-the-job harassment to be a problem that involves formal investigation. Such complaints rarely come to the attention of the Bill’s sponsor (in fact, the Bill’s sponsor, SFV/NELA NOW, knows of only one such complaint, which involved a small subsidiary office of an out-of-state corporation, in Tulare County). Every complaint ever received and processed by SFV/NELA NOW has involved a major employer for whom conduct proper investigation and remedy would not have imposed any significant economic burden.
My new legislative proposal to combat workplace harassment
Proposed new language for to fair employment and housing act appear below:
Amendments to section 12940 Government code:
(j) (1) For an employer, labor organization, employment agency, apprenticeship training program or any training program leading to employment, or any other person, because of race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age, sexual orientation, or military and veteran status, to harass an employee, an applicant, an unpaid intern or volunteer, or a person providing services pursuant to a contract. Harassment of an employee, an applicant, an unpaid intern or volunteer, or a person providing services pursuant to a contract by an employee, other than an agent or supervisor, shall be unlawful if the entity, or its agents or supervisors, knows or should have known of this conduct and fails to take immediate and appropriate corrective action. An employer may also be responsible for the acts of nonemployees, with respect to sexual harassment of employees, applicants, unpaid interns or volunteers, or persons providing services pursuant to a contract in the workplace, where the employer, or its agents or supervisors, knows or should have known of the conduct and fails to take immediate and appropriate corrective action. In reviewing cases involving the acts of nonemployees, the extent of the employer’s control and any other legal responsibility that the employer may have with respect to the conduct of those nonemployees shall be considered. An entity shall take all reasonable steps to prevent harassment from occurring. Loss of tangible job benefits shall not be necessary in order to establish harassment.
It is the policy of the state of California that:
(A) Employees who, in good faith, complain about harassment in the workplace should not be penalized for complaining.
(B) Employees who harass others in the workplace should not be rewarded for their misconduct.
(C) Remedies for harassment in the workplace should be effective and serve as a deterrent to future acts of misconduct.
(D) An employee’s status as spouse of an employer, supervisor, or manager should not affect the right of that employee to a workplace free from a hostile working environment; entering into a contract of marriage does not mean that a person gives up his or her right to be free from harassment and/or discrimination in the workplace or to oppose unlawful practices pursuant to California Government Code Section 12940(h).
(E) The reasonable steps required by Section 12940(j) of the Government Code to prevent workplace harassment from occurring shall include but not be limited to the following:
In determining whether supervisory employees have taken all reasonable steps to prevent harassment from occurring, the following shall be considered:
(i) Whether management personnel acted in good faith in making employment-related decisions.
(ii) Whether management employees undertook an investigation that was reasonable and appropriate under the circumstances, including a consideration of the following issues:
(iii) If the investigator was an employee of , whether the investigator was sufficiently unbiased to conduct a fair, objective, and truthful investigation and whether the investigator implemented adequate safeguards to insure employee privacy.
(iv) If the investigator was an independent contractor hired by the employer the investigator was a licensed private investigator pursuant to Article 3 (commencing with Section 7520) of Chapter 11.3 of Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code and complied with subdivisions (a) and (b) of Section 7539 of the Business and Professions Code.
(v) Whether the background, education, training, and experience of the investigator complied with industry standards of competence for the investigation of harassment.
(vi) Whether allegations of prior misconduct by the alleged perpetrator were investigated.
(vii) Whether, after the investigation and prior to taking corrective action, managers had a good faith, reasonable belief that an employee engaged in misconduct and took corrective action based on reasonable conclusions supported by substantial evidence that was not trivial, arbitrary, capricious, or pretextual.
(viii) Whether the corrective action taken by management was reasonable under the circumstances, including a consideration of the following issues:
(ix) Whether actual discipline was imposed on the perpetrator of harassment, and not merely a change in the perpetrator’s duties or working hours.
(x) Whether the supervisor changed the duties or working hours of the perpetrator or the victim.
(xi) Whether, if the supervisor changed the victim’s duties or working hours, the change was satisfactory to, and did not cause annoyance or hardship to, the victim.
(xii) Whether, if the supervisor changed the duties or working hours of the perpetrator, the change was, in fact, corrective action that the perpetrator
did not welcome.
(xiii) Whether the corrective action was reasonable in light of any past misconduct.
(xiv) Whether any prior corrective action had been ineffective in deterring the current misconduct.
(xv) Whether an alternative to the action taken by the supervisor would have imposed a significant economic burden on
(xvi) Whether the company was in compliance with section 12950.1 of the overnment code.
(F) The provisions of (E) shall not be construed to prohibit, prevent, or interfere with a supervisor’s decision to take interim measures, pending the outcome of an investigation conducted with all deliberate speed, in order to separate the person alleging harassment from the alleged perpetrator of harassment.
(2) The provisions of this subdivision are declaratory of existing law, except for the new duties imposed on employers with regard to harassment.
(3) An employee of an entity subject to this subdivision is personally liable for any harassment prohibited by this section that is perpetrated by the employee, regardless of whether the employer or covered entity knows or should have known of the conduct and fails to take immediate and appropriate corrective action.
(4) (A) For purposes of this subdivision only, “employer” means any person regularly employing one or more persons or regularly receiving the services of one or more persons providing services pursuant to a contract, or any person acting as an agent of an employer, directly or indirectly, the state, or any political or civil subdivision of the state, and cities. The definition of “employer” in subdivision (d) of Section 12926 applies to all provisions of this section other than this subdivision.
(B) Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), for purposes of this subdivision, “employer” does not include a religious association or corporation not organized for private profit, except as provided in Section 12926.2.
(C) For purposes of this subdivision, “harassment” because of sex includes sexual harassment, gender harassment, and harassment based on pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions. Sexually harassing conduct need not be motivated by sexual desire.
(5) For purposes of this subdivision, “a person providing services pursuant to a contract” means a person who meets all of the following criteria:
(A) The person has the right to control the performance of the contract for services and discretion as to the manner of performance.
(B) The person is customarily engaged in an independently established business.
(C) The person has control over the time and place the work is performed, supplies the tools and instruments used in the work, and performs work that requires a particular skill not ordinarily used in the course of the employer’s work.
(6) (A) Any harassment which violates a person’s rights under article 1 section 1 of the California Constitution shall be deemed to be a violation of both section 12940(j) of the government code as well as section 52.1 of the Civil Code, the Bane Civil Rights Rights Act;
(B) Any harassment which violates a customer’s rights under article 1 section 1 of the California Constitution shall be deemed to be a violation of both section 12940(j) of the government code as well as section 51 of the Civil Code, the Unruh Civil Rights Rights Act;
(C) Any harassment which violates a person’s rights under article 1 section 1 of the California Constitution and which involves violence or a threat of violence shall be deemed to be a violation of both section 12940(j) of the government code as well as sections 51.7 and 52 of the Civil Code, the Ralph Civil Rights Rights Act;
(D) Fear of retaliation against a person’s right to employment constitutes fear of unlawful actions as defined in section 519 of the California Penal Code; an employer has an affirmative duty to report violations of this kind to appropriate law enforcement agencies.
Amendments to section 12965 subsection b of the government code:
(b)(1) If a civil action is not brought by the department within 150 days after the filing of a complaint, or if the department earlier determines that no civil action will be brought, the department shall promptly notify, in writing, the person claiming to be aggrieved that the department shall issue, on his or her request, the right-to-sue notice. This notice shall indicate that the person claiming to be aggrieved may bring a civil action under this part against the person, employer, labor organization, or employment agency named in the verified complaint within one year from the date of that notice. If the person claiming to be aggrieved does not request a right-to-sue notice, the department shall issue the notice upon completion of its investigation, and not later than one year after the filing of the complaint. A city, county, or district attorney in a location having an enforcement unit established on or before March 1, 1991, pursuant to a local ordinance enacted for the purpose of prosecuting HIV/AIDS discrimination claims, acting on behalf of any person claiming to be aggrieved due to HIV/AIDS discrimination, may also bring a civil action under this part against the person, employer, labor organization, or employment agency named in the notice. The superior courts of the State of California shall have jurisdiction of those actions, and the aggrieved person may file in these courts. An action may be brought in any county in the state in which the unlawful practice is alleged to have been committed, in the county in which the records relevant to the practice are maintained and administered, or in the county in which the aggrieved person would have worked or would have had access to the public accommodation but for the alleged unlawful practice, but if the defendant is not found within any of these counties, an action may be brought within the county of the defendant’s residence or principal office. A copy of any complaint filed pursuant to this part shall be served on the principal offices of the department. The remedy for failure to send a copy of a complaint is an order to do so. Those actions may not be filed as class actions or may not be maintained as class actions by the person or persons claiming to be aggrieved where those persons have filed a civil class action in the federal courts alleging a comparable claim of employment discrimination against the same defendant or defendants. In civil actions brought under this section, the court, in its discretion, shall award to the prevailing party, including the department, reasonable attorney’s fees and costs, including expert witness fees and investigative fees and costs when the investigation is performed by a licensed private investigator pursuant to Article 3 (commencing with Section 7520) of Chapter 11.3 of Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code and complied with subdivisions (a) and (b) of Section 7539 of the Business and Professions Code.
(2) if a corporate director or officer is named as a defendant in any action brought pursuant to this section for negligence it shall be deemed to be negligence per se if that officer or director breached their duties to the corporation including but not limited to their fiduciary duty, their duty of care, their duty of loyalty, and or their duty of reasonable inquiry in such a manner that harassment or discrimination was allowed to occur or to continue after they reasonably knew or should have known that it was occurring. Expert witness testimony shall be admissible to determine whether officers and/or directors breached their legal duties in this manner.
I previously announced a documentary film project about myself, which has now come to fruition. See my prior blog posting at: http://janbtucker.com/blog/2016/12/20/chung-winners-latest-documentary-me/
You can see the result at: www.storiesfromourtime.com and by clicking the episode known as, The Equalizer at the top of the page. Hearkening back to the old Equalizer series on TV, one of my long time clients years ago dubbed me the real equalizer because of the way I assist people who have been oppressed, repressed, and generally fucked over by the powers that be. Filmmaker, Chung Winner, has done what I think you’ll agree is a superb job of capturing the essential Jan Tucker (you’ll know my essence if you know me personally).
LOCATION CREDITS: Sky Caberet, Rancho Dominguez; City Center Parking, DTLA
The recent ruling by the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Bayev and others versus Russia has implications for the Hon. Judge Randall F Pacheco who sits in the George Deukmejian courthouse in Long Beach of the Los Angeles Superior Court. In an ongoing case involving child custody of two lesbians who adopted their son from Russia. Judge Pacheco took it upon himself to suggest that there was something wrong with lesbians deceiving the Russian authorities about their sexual orientation and status.
It is intuitively obvious that Russia discriminates against LGBT people. In spite of that Judge Pacheco gave credence to the horrendous laws against gay people in Russia who are prohibited from adopting children amongst other things. Discrimination against gay people is so overt that laws were passed against so-called homosexual propaganda under the pretext that promoting the rights of LGBT people could be construed as an attempt to lure children into a same-sex lifestyle. These laws have been struck down as violating not only the European Convention on Human Rights but also the Russian Constitution itself.
Underscoring the horrendous treatment of gay people in Russia are the concentration/torture camps that LGBT people are being subjected to in Chechnya. For more on this virtual pogrom against the gay community see https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/21/world/europe/chechnya-russia-attacks-gays.html
If these prospective lesbian parents had told the truth to the Russian authorities they would never have been allowed to adopt their son. It’s long been held ever since Marbury versus Madison in 1803 that an unconstitutional law is not a law; the legal significance of an unconstitutional law or government practice is that it might as well have never existed before or after a court gets around to declaring it unconstitutional. This goes for Russia the same as it goes for the United States and certainly that’s the way Judge Pacheco should have ruled in the Long Beach Courthouse.
When it comes to family law any American judge who gives any credibility to the legal shenanigans that go on in Russia needs to be carefully scrutinized. For example in a well reported move in late January 2017 the Russian parliament voted 380-3 to decriminalize domestic violence unless it causes substantial bodily injury or occurs more than once a year. In other words you get to beat your wife or child once a year and God knows what they mean by substantial bodily injury. Like, is it okay to just bruise them or give them a black eye just as long as you don’t break any bones?
Russian diplomatic authorities have attempted in the past to call into question the legitimacy of this adoption. Their obvious intent is to force this now 14-year-old American child to come back to Russia, because of Russia’s abhorrence of the rights of LGBT people. Judge Pacheco has effectively aided and abetted the sick and authoritarian Russian government with his words that are a part of the court record.
USA Today reported that:
Critics of the new measure warned it would encourage domestic violence and fuel crime.
“This bill would establish violence as a norm of conduct,” Communist lawmaker Yuri Sinelshchikov said during the debate.
Women’s rights lawyer Mari Davtyan told The Moscow Times
(https://themoscowtimes.com/news/they-fought-the-law-russia-edges-closer-to-decriminalizing-domestic-violence-56882) that the legislative moves are dangerous and “send a message that the state doesn’t consider familial battery fundamentally wrong anymore.”
The 14-year-old adopted from Russia, as a baby, who has now grown up to be a typical California 14-year-old youth, is thankfully now protected by article 1 section 1 of the California Constitution which states “All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.” If he lived in Russia however his rights to life liberty safety and happiness would all be compromised because it would be perfectly legal to subject him to domestic violence.
Enter the Trump connection
A recent development in scandals surrounding Donald Trump’s campaign having meetings with Russians linked to the Russian government and to Vladimir Putin all of a sudden has highlighted the issue of Americans who adopted children from Russia. See https://www.ft.com/content/38532856-6584-11e7-8526-7b38dcaef614?mhq5j=e1
Ostensibly, Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya met with Donald Trump Junior, Jared Kushner, and Paul Manafort of the Donald Trump for Pres. campaign in a purported effort to end the ban instituted by Vladimir Putin on Americans adopting children from Russia due to the passage of the Magnitsky Act, an American law passed to sanction specific Russians involved in corruption that had been exposed by a Russian lawyer for whom the act is the named. Attorney Magnitsky died in a Russian prison beaten to death in his cell, conveniently.
In the event that the general policy of Donald Trump’s administration becomes the law of the land and the Magnitsky act is repealed, resulting in the resumption of Russian adoptions by Americans, the United States should not allow such adoptions unless and until Russia allows equal participation by LGBTI Americans. That is the only way we can be consistent with the United States Constitution and international law, not to mention common decency.
Conflicts of interest?
The judicial canons of ethics for California require that a judge not only not engage in impropriety but additionally they must avoid even the appearance of impropriety. According to the 2010 California judge’s bench guide regarding disqualification of a judge a judge should disqualify him or herself if “A person who was aware of the facts might reasonably entertain a doubt about the judge’s impartiality….”
In spite of the fact that in addition to his salary as a judge, Judge Pacheco reports receiving in excess of $100,000 per year as an educator for the Huntington Beach Union High School District on his form 700 statement of economic interests he has failed to disqualify himself from participating in this case. The appearance of impropriety involves the fact that in addition to having its own police department the high school district also uses the services of the Huntington Beach Police Department. The Huntington Beach Police Department is designated by the judge as the pickup and drop off point for the minor child, one of the mothers being a resident of Orange County. Because of that fact Huntington Beach PD officers are witnesses in this case and one of the litigants reports that Judge Pacheco in a past ruling refused to allow evidence or testimony from HP PD on issues relevant to child visitation and custody.
As a teacher for the high school district can Judge Pacheco afford to piss off police officers who he might depend on for protection and assistance in the case of an emergency at the school he teaches at? In such a situation wouldn’t a reasonable person consider this a conflict of interest, and a clear appearance of impropriety?
For more info:
Unique Pages Served: 77912
Total Sessions: 940004
Total Page Hits: 3144895
Article by Chris Peel in the Occidental Weekly:
March 7 2017 LA Election Recommendations
City of Los Angeles
Ho-Hum….Eric Garcetti is going to win. It’s a fait accompli. It’s not that he hasn’t done anything decent; he has. When it comes to following through on promises he made to me and mine four (4) years ago….well there’s just no track record. For example, read: http://janbtucker.com/blog/2017/01/10/dr-robert-shomers-death-is-a-clarion-call-for-law-enforcement-reform/ Take note that even though I asked for any documentation as to whether in four whole years Eric has done anything about changing the LAPD’s unscientific and effectively racist eyewitness identification procedures that I requested on December 27, 2016, I’m still waiting for a response. The city keeps giving me one compliance deadline after another, most recently promising compliance after the election on March 24. Technically they were supposed to comply within ten days of December 27, 2016. Do Black, Brown and Yellow lives matter or do they have to wait another four years to reform effectively racist procedures?
City Attorney and City Controller
As much as I like Mike Feuer and Ron Galperin they’re unopposed because Los Angeles maintains onerous filing fees and petition requirements that discriminate against poor people and working class candidates….and those laws are remain on the books because limousine liberals like it that way. For more on this issue: http://janbtucker.com/blog/2010/12/30/abolish-ca-filing-fees/.
City Council District 1
The only candidate who showed up at our NOW and CALLAC forum on sexual harassment and racism in the district was Jesse Rosas. He’s well spoken and supportive of our issues.
City Council District 15
Caney Arnold is supported by all the Berniecrats I know.
Board of Education District 2
Carl Petersen submitted an outstanding questionnaire response to SFV/NELA NOW and has our endorsement.
Community College Board of Trustees Office 2
Vote AGAINST Steve Veres. When he was on the San Fernando City Council he was in the pocket of developer Sev Ashkenazy, who is a pig.
Community College Board of Trustees Office 4
Vote for Dallas Denise Fowler without hesitation. She’s great. Incumbent Ernie Moreno botched an investigation into corruption at Mission College when he was President—which would be excusable except that I’d given him written advice which he declined to take beforehand that would have prevented the debacle. His statements to my face about planning for a satellite campus were also proven false when I got his own emails under the California Public Records Act.
Community College Board of Trustees Office 6
Nancy Pearlman is the best thing since sliced bread on the College Board. See http://janbtucker.com/blog/2013/05/13/nancy-pearlman-is-our-community-college-trustee/. In the past I’ve supported her opponent Gabriel Buelna, but I suspect that he got suckered by the “Mexican American” [read that like “Negro” as opposed to Black or African American, and as juxtaposed to Chicano] political hacks around town to run against Nancy. The hacks of all stripes have wanted to take her down for years because she’s too damn honest and principled.