We cannot load blog data at this time.
- July 2014 (6)
- June 2014 (12)
- May 2014 (22)
- April 2014 (18)
- March 2014 (12)
- February 2014 (6)
- January 2014 (7)
- December 2013 (6)
- November 2013 (1)
- October 2013 (8)
- September 2013 (6)
- August 2013 (5)
- July 2013 (6)
- June 2013 (8)
- May 2013 (15)
- April 2013 (7)
- March 2013 (6)
- February 2013 (11)
- January 2013 (9)
- December 2012 (10)
- November 2012 (15)
- October 2012 (20)
- September 2012 (12)
- August 2012 (7)
- July 2012 (7)
- June 2012 (3)
- May 2012 (10)
- April 2012 (6)
- March 2012 (10)
- February 2012 (9)
- January 2012 (7)
- December 2011 (18)
- November 2011 (16)
- October 2011 (10)
- September 2011 (13)
- August 2011 (13)
- July 2011 (28)
- June 2011 (19)
- May 2011 (19)
- April 2011 (22)
- March 2011 (13)
- February 2011 (15)
- January 2011 (17)
- December 2010 (18)
- November 2010 (8)
- October 2010 (14)
- September 2010 (13)
- August 2010 (9)
- July 2010 (5)
- June 2010 (5)
- May 2010 (9)
- April 2010 (3)
- February 2010 (1)
- January 2010 (1)
- November 2009 (2)
- September 2009 (7)
- August 2009 (3)
- May 2009 (2)
- February 2009 (2)
- December 2008 (4)
- November 2008 (1)
- October 2008 (21)
- May 2006 (1)
Women throughout the world had to fight, literally as well as figuratively, for the right to vote. This photo album portrays what some American suffragists went through: http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.3895839116228.2143743.1286600320&type=3
For the crime of picketing the White House in support of women’s right to vote, jailers hurled Dora Lewis into a dark cell, smashed her head against an iron bed and knocked her out cold. Her cell mate, Alice Cosu, thought Lewis was dead and suffered a heart attack. Additional affidavits describe the guards grabbing, dragging, beating, choking, slamming, pinching, twisting and kicking the women.
They beat Lucy Burns, chained her hands to the cell bars above her head and left her hanging for the night, bleeding and gasping for air.
Viola Liuzzo, Medgar Evers, James Chaney, Michael Schwerner, and Andrew Goodman died during the 1960′s civil rights movement for the right to vote.
Viola Fauver Gregg Liuzzo (April 11, 1925 – March 25, 1965) was the wife of a Teamsters Union Business Agent from Michigan. She was a member of the Unitarian Universalist Church and the NAACP. She was killed by an FBI informant.
Medgar Wiley Evers (July 2, 1925 – June 12, 1963) was an NAACP Field Secretary and was murdered by Byron De La Beckwith of the White Citizens Council (the overground front for the KKK) in Jackson Mississippi. Evers, a veteran, was shot in the back. He was buried at Arlington National Cemetery.
James Earl “J.E.” Chaney (May 30, 1943 – June 21, 1964), Andrew Goodman (November 23, 1943, – June 21, 1964), and Michael Henry Schwerner (November 6, 1939 – June 21, 1964) were Congress On Racial Equality (CORE) workers murdered by the KKK in Mississippi. Before they themselves were murdered, they had been investigating the burning of Mt. Zion Methodist Church, which had been a site for a CORE Freedom School. The congregants had been beaten in the wake of Schwerner and Chaney’s voter registration rallies for CORE. Sheriff’s Deputy Cecil Price had been accused by parishioners of stopping their caravan, and forcing the deacons to kneel in the headlights of their own cars, while they were beaten with rifle butts.
DO NOT DISHONOR THESE HEROIC PEOPLE TODAY BY NOT VOTING.
Posted at the request of mi jefe, mi maestro, mi Tlamatini, Rudy Acuna:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Title: Outlawing Shakespeare: The Battle for the Tucson Mind
TO: All MEDIA OUTLETS
RE: Documentary Release
Outlawing Shakespeare: The Battle for the Tucson Mind is a documentary that focuses on the elimination of the Mexican American Studies program within the Tucson Unified School District in Arizona. Under a federal de-segregation decree, Mexican American Studies was created and was successful at improving academic achievement. The documentary explores Arizona Attorney Tom Horne’s crusade as he and other state officials claim the program in Tucson is attempting to convince students to secede from the United States by creating “Aztlan.” Baffling students, parents and teachers, Outlawing Shakespeare explores why this tactic is being utilized.
The documentary explores how Arizona officials have outlawed books and authors such as renowned British author William Shakespeare because Tucson officials believe he is too controversial.
Is there a rebellion in Tucson or are officials worried about an impending Latino majority in Arizona? The documentary explores how Arizona politics has become focused on race and adults blaming youth and using intimidation to force students, teachers and parents not to speak out.
Passed in 2010, HB-2281 outlaws any curriculum focused on overthrowing the US government and focused on one ethnic group. This legislation is the only legislation ever to focus on the concept of “Aztlan” by a sitting attorney general of any state.
Watch the documentary, it is interesting.
The first woman to run for California Attorney General and Los Angeles County District Attorney is my good friend and mentor Marguerite “Marge” Buckley. Having been involved with those pioneering campaigns, I’m glad to see that Jackie Lacey is likely to become Los Angeles County’s first woman elected District Attorney, not to mention the first African American. There are four main issues as to why I voted for her over Alan Jackson.
First and easiest, she’s got all the right endorsements from people, organizations, and politicians that I respect and trust, like Congressman Brad Sherman, former Senator Sheila Kuehl, the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor, Civil Rights lawyer Connie Rice, the late Willis Edwards of the NAACP, forrmer Los Angeles Sheriffs Crime Lab Chief Barry A.J. Fisher, the Stonewall Democratic Club, and many others. Of course, nobody’s perfect so I’m not happy that Richard Loa — an apostate former Marxist Leninist turned Mitt Romney Republican — is listed as her endorser. C’est la Vie.
When it comes to Lacey’s opponent, Alan Jackson, I’m downright horrified that he sports the endorsement of former Superior Court Judge William Pounders. The proverb “Birds of a feather flock together” has been around at least since 1545 when William Turner published his critique of the papacy entitled The Rescuing of Romish Fox where he wrote, “Byrdes of on kynde and color flok and flye allwayes together.” In essence it means that people of the same ilk hang out and coalesce with each other.
Pounders was the perennial head until he retired of the judge’s committee which oversees the appointment panel of Los Angeles County court appointed criminal defense investigators. Pounders personally threatened retaliation against members of the Los Angeles County Criminal Defense Investigators Association (LACCDIA) if they attempted to act as a union for collective bargaining and representation of their members’ interests. This was in spite of the fact that any objective reading of the panel rules and the actual procedures of the office which approves or disapproves payments for their work are clearly in violation of IRS Publication 15a criteria. By Publication 15a standards, appointed defense investigators are plainly common law employees who should be protected by the Public Employees Relations Act with the right to unionize and bargain collectively.
Furthermore, by keeping up the pretense that court appointed investigators–who do essentially the same job as Public Defender and Alternate Public Defender Investigators who are union represented by the Association of Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs (ALADS)– should be defined as “independent contractors,” Pounders insured that they would have to pay to make use of data bases of companies that he owned stock in, according to his Form 700 Statement of Economic Interest filings. Alan Jackson has pledged to crack down on public corruption: I wonder if he might start by re-examining his own supporter’s actions when he was judge?
Next, I have a real problem with the way that gang prosecutions take place in Los Angeles County. Alan Jackson touts his credentials as gang prosecutor. To illustrate some of the problems with gang prosecution and its reliance on so-called law enforcement experts to prove gang affiliation, here is an excerpt from a declaration I recently executed concerning the prosecution of an alleged member of the Mara Salvatrucha organization:
5. Based upon the testimony of the People’s expert witnesses, I believe that their methodology, expertise, and the conclusions that they have drawn from the evidence they testified to reviewing are subject to scrutiny and attack based upon criteria which the Justice Alex Kozinski laid out in the 9th Circuit laid out in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 43 F.3d 1311 (9th Cir. 1995), i.e.:
(a) Has the technique been tested in actual field conditions (and not just in a laboratory)?
(b) Has the technique been subject to peer review and publication?
(c) What is the known or potential rate of error?
(d) Do standards exist for the control of the technique’s operation?
(e) Has the technique been generally accepted within the relevant scientific community? [this test was earlier the only relevant criterion under Frye]
6. Examples of where law enforcement gang expertise deviate from a normal scientific inquiry environment include:
(a) Problems with peer review–Active duty law enforcement peer review and training organizations tend to be insular in nature and separate themselves, for both legitimate and potentially illegitimate reasons, from the larger communities of expert and scientific communities which are inherently necessary for full and free scientific discussion. For example, the California Gang Investigators Association (CGIA) does not permit membership for non-active duty law enforcement personnel. A more stark and illustrative example is within the forensic computer examiners field, where rival organizations for certification of computer examiners (CFCE, Certified Forensic Computer Examiner) exist, some of which admit only law enforcement personnel to membership and others which incorporate amongst their members any CFCE. The limitation of membership in professional organizations to law enforcement personnel and the exclusion of non-law enforcement academics, researchers and private sector experts whether engaged in defense or prosecution work or both creates an inherent bias that runs counter to the normal scientific concern for methodology which minimizes the problems posed by both the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and the Mathematical Impossibility Theorem (See attachment, The Relationship of Epistemology & Logic to Private Investigation, incorporated herein by reference).
(b) Acceptance by the relevant scientific community—because the law enforcement oriented peer organizations limit their membership to active duty law enforcement, by definition they do not subject their exchange of knowledge to the relevant academic and scientific scrutiny that normal expertise and science invites. In the case of gang expertise, bodies of knowledge taught in colleges and universities that are of inherent value include but are not limited to criminology, sociology, and various ethnic studies interdisciplinary programs and departments.
(c) Standards of Control—In theory, law enforcement disciplinary procedures, e.g., “internal affairs” departments, exist to prevent perjury and other offense against public justice, but they lack the knowledge to judge and dispute so-called expert testimony in which subjective conclusions must be second guessed. Within the professional associations of law enforcement gang investigators, there is no effective discipline or control to prevent deviation from scientific standards in the larger bodies of knowledge in criminology, sociology and other disciplines since those organizations inherently exclude outside influences.
7. In addition to interviewing the People’s witnesses in connection with the above delineated methodological problems with their opinions and conclusions, I have specific problems with the knowledge which they lacked or which they claimed to be true which render their opinions to be invalid and unsound as those terms are formally used in logic.
8. During the preliminary hearing, neither of the People’s experts had ever heard of the term “consafos” or the use of the symbol “c/s” in connection with gang graffiti. By itself, this indicates that they have little if any knowledge of gangs outside of what law enforcement has taught them to believe and that their knowledge is restricted to the minimum necessary to promote prosecutors’ crime theories. This lack of knowledge is indicative of a lack of interest in the history of gangs, the culture of gangs, an ignorance of the implications of the use of “consafos” for the existence of “veterano” leadership of particular gangs in particular geographical areas, and an ignorance of the source of animosity between rival gangs that could and would be likely to lead to violence. Whether their knowledge in light to this failing inherently calls into question if it is appropriate to even call them experts, let alone to admit their testimony.
9. The People’s experts’ testimony concerning the culture and propensities of Mara Salvatrucha runs counter to knowledge which is or ought to be intuitively obvious to anybody who speaks on a regular or even intermittent basis to people who come into contact with MS-13 members and/or who live in neighborhoods affected by MS-13. Their testimony, at best, tended to obfuscate that which is intuitively obvious, especially in light of the United States Treasury Department’s subsequent designation of MS-13 as an international criminal gang organization.
Finally, Jackie Lacy supports Proposition 36 and Alan Jackson opposes it. Proposition 36 isn’t exactly what I’d like to see. It’s not as simple and direct as limiting the application of the “Three Strikes” law to serious and violent felonies only–as the California Three Strikes Project initiative proposed in 2000 (co-authored by myself and my then-significant other, Attorney Valerie Monroe, and coordinated by the mother of my Godson, Malinda Rosell), but it’s a big step in the right direction and the best we’re going to get.
Excellent article. Thank you for assisting me pro bono in representing Irving Guevara, a 16-year-old certified as an adult, being wrongly prosecuted as a gang member for attempted murder, and facing 80 years in state prison. (See People v. Guevara BA398061)
I sincerely appreciate your continuing to hammer LAPD’s gang “experts” and their questionable qualifications.
It was a huge waste of the taxpayers’ money for the prosecutor to approve 12 hours preparation time for one of their gang experts to testify at Irving’s preliminary hearing, especially considering the expert was incompetent in so many areas.
Why did the DA have to put on two gang experts over two sessions of the preliminary hearing?
David R. Yardley
A controversy has broken out over Roseanne Barr’s discussion of issues involving transgendered people and it has turned into a game of “telephone” over the internet. Some of the people chiming in on the discussion don’t even understand the correct terminology, using concepts like “transwomen” or casting about to create words when they already exist in the movement (I used to attend meetings of the Transgender Round Table in Los Angeles, where I got educated about the issues facing the community; not to mention that I have personal MTF friends). The correct terms are the acronyms, MTF (Male To Female) and FTM (Female To Male).
Here is the issue that sparked the controversy: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/transgender-student-womens-locker-room-raises-uproar-221516308–abc-news-topstories.html The issue: is it appropriate for a pre-operation transsexual to be in a locker room where their male genitalia is visible to women who don’t want to see it?
The discussion has degenerated with a lot of misinformation being bandied about on the issue, so people should first of all look at what she is saying about the issue, because even people trying to explain or defend her position don’t seem to have looked at what she, herself, is saying:
I have more than average experience at combating discrimination on the basis of gender orientation, i.e., Transgender issues. As a private investigator, I have worked on:
- An insurance discrimination case involving bad-faith failure to pay a death claim on a transvestite who listed herself as female
The gang rape of a transsexual (MTF) intentionally placed in a male-only cell by a Wackenhut security guard at a privatized San Diego County jail in violation of policy
The harassment of and physical attack on an L.A. County Mental Health worker (MTF) by her co-workers after a fellow employee illegally accessed her medical file and out-ed her at work.
My work on these kinds of issues and cases has convinced me over and over again of the need to both criminalize intentional workplace discrimination, harassment and retaliation. We must also legislate the Model Policy on Workplace Harassment which I authored and which was nationally adopted as policy by the League of United Latin American Citizens and which is the policy of the Same Page/Misma Pagina Coalition that includes the California League of Latin American Citizens (of which I am state director). That policy was originated by SFV/NELA NOW and introduced by then-Assembly Member Cindy Montanez in the 2002-3 California legislative term as AB 1617.
The most basic problem with this discussion is that it is taking place amongst people that may know an MTF or FTM (by the way, when I used to hang out in the drag scene at places like the Queen Mary – in Studio City not Long Beach – while working cases and because I like the scene socially, about 20 – 30 years ago the correct slang term was a “change” for people in the process or after the process of a gender reassignment surgery) here or there but who’ve never actually done anything specifically for gender orientation equality and rights. I’m actually going to ask my MTF friends what they think about the issue before I spout off any more about it and before people mouth off about Roseanne, they ought to do so as well. As an “oh by the way,” Roseanne was The Advocate “Person of the Year” in 1994 because of all the great work she’s done for the LGBTI movement, so those of you who haven’t done as much as she has should think twice before they throw stones.
A lot of people depend on me for recommendations on how to vote. I’m not necessarily comfortable with that role but the way I make my recommendations generally gives you an idea of how and why I choose my candidates and positions. Education should concentrate on teaching people how to think about things–such as teaching formal logic–not what they should believe. That goes for public educational institutions and those who engage in political education as well.
PRESIDENT – If there was any realistic possibility that Romney could win in California I’d have to think about this, but I’ve voted my conscience for Roseanne Barr on the Peace & Freedom Party ticket. There isn’t a red-cent’s worth of difference between the Peace & Freedom Party, the Green Party, the Freedom Socialist Party, the Party of Socialist Liberation, and the Socialist Party USA in how they’d govern if they actually got their candidates elected, which they won’t. There are however some specific reasons I’m voting for Roseanne.
Roseanne is not some rich dilettante, she’s been down in the trenches of social and political activism – Before becoming rich and famous she was with the Big Mama Rag feminist collective in Denver and worked with Corky Gonzales’ El Partido de La Raza Unida (LRUP) organization there. Because of her experience, she became the first celebrity and the only Presidential candidate to have endorsed freedom for Chicano Political Prisoner Ramsey Muniz, former Texas LRUP gubernatorial candidate who’s serving life in prison over a fairly obvious frame-up [see http://www.freeramsey.com].
Roseanne is also familiar with specific civil liberties issues that are near and dear to my heart: I have a Class M1 endorsement on my California Driver License. Bikers will understand what I’m talking about and because I’ve done criminal defense work over the years for bikers, I appreciate the fact that Roseanne is a Harley rider and knows the issues faced by “1 percenters” in the biker world (not talking about economic class here).
During the campaign, I personally spoke with Jill Stein, Steve Durham, Peta Lindsey, and Alejandro Mendoza (Stewart Alexander’s running mate) about how application of Article 21 procedures under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo should be brought to play in resolution of immigration and other issues between the United States and Mexico. Not one of them has gotten back to me on the question as they’d promised. Now, I recognize that all of them are busy, but I did ask each of them in person. I also know just how busy Roseanne is so I haven’t even brought the issue up with her, but I look forward to doing so after the election, as well as with the PFP groups in other states (the leadership of the California PFP will not give me the time of day on the issue simply because I have something to do with it).
UNITED STATES SENATE–hold your nose and vote for Dianne Feinstein. Aside from the fact that as Mayor of San Francisco she vetoed same-sex partnership benefits for municipal employees, in 1994 I personally caught her campaign pirating both Allied Printing Trades and Graphic Communications International Union printing labels on a statewide fundraising mailing. Kam Kuwata, her campaign manager, tried to get Dave Sickler, then head of Region 9 of the AFL-CIO to “call Tucker off” of exposing this publicly. When he explained to Dave what they’d done (used a Texas scab printing plant to export jobs from California while she’d been ranting and raving a couple of years earlier that so-called “illegal aliens” were taking jobs from California) Dave to his great credit told him that if anything, he’d unleash me on the issue.
That said, Feinstein is the best choice given that the state has implemented top-two and gotten rid of third party candidates out of our partisan elections.
30th CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT–Brad Sherman and I’m enthusiastic about this pick. See my reasons at: http://janbtucker.com/blog/2012/10/13/same-page-coalition-endorses-brad-sherman-steve-fox-dan-mccrory/ and at: http://janbtucker.com/blog/2012/10/18/sherman-vs-berman-in-the-30th-district/
36th ASSEMBLY DISTRICT–Steve Fox and I’m equally enthusiastic about my old college buddy’s candidacy (see my above 10-13-12 blog).
39th ASSEMBLY DISTRICT–Richard Alarcon, another old college buddy. I’m disappointed that neither Richard nor his opponent Raul Bocanegra submitted responses to the Same Page/Misma Pagina coalition questionnaire. I have friends supporting both sides on this race. One important point is that while I think that the District Attorney’s prosecution of Larry “Nativo” Lopez for registering at an address he didn’t live at was NOT politically motivated (it was initiated by the Secretary of State’s office), I DO believe that the prosecution of Richard Alarcon is not just political but ridiculous and a waste of time and money. Richard has a great record in office.
30 and 38–See my blog at http://janbtucker.com/blog/2012/10/29/proposition-30-important-opinions/ and then make your own decision on how to vote on 30 and 38 regarding taxes
31–If you trust your local government officials to handle your tax dollars wisely and honestly then vote for this. If you don’t, vote against it.
32–NOT! Definitely freaking NO! This is a Trojan horse to prevent unions from protecting their members politically. That’s really all there is to it. Rather than taking the controversial step of restricting who can contribute and how much in politics, which is highly controversial and of dubious constitutionality, real reform would entail putting a floor under candidates to ensure that their legitimate messages get out to the public rather than trying to find a constitutional way to put a ceiling over contributions.
For example: (a) abolish filing fees to run for public office and make all candidates, rich or poor, get the current “nomination signature” requirement to get on the ballot; (b) abolish fees to put any campaign statement in the ballot pamphlet, especially for judicial and statewide candidates and insure a minimum statement for every candidate running for office as a service to the voters; (c) amend the Corporations Code to prohibit non-profit media corporations (radio and television) from restricting debates to Democrats and Republicans and create a California equivalent rule to keep non-profit status that would re-instate the Fairness Doctrine and Equal Opportunity rule as interpreted by former FCC Chair Nicholas Johnson.
33–No recommendation. This will help some consumers and hurt some consumers.
34–Yes, even though abolishing the Death Penalty is against my own economic interests. Death Penalty cases have different rules for appointment of counsel and defense investigators that are better than the way it’s done for all other cases in Los Angeles County. The legislature should take some of the money it will save by getting rid of the death penalty, if this proposition passes, to standardize and improve wages and working conditions for court appointed investigators, including but not limited to permitting collective bargaining rights.
35–Yes. There are a lot of reforms that need to take place to deal with human trafficking and frankly, I’m not sure (to figure it out I have to go line by line through the legislation) if this will take care of the problem, but people who pimp or pander with adults do not have to register as sex offenders, a very serious omission in state law, whereas people who get convicted of misdemeanor pissing in public do. Go figure. Read the resolution I authored (which the Peace & Freedom Party has not allowed a vote on) at: http://janbtucker.com/blog/2011/07/09/konversations-with-kevin-5/
36–Yes. This is not as simple and direct as limiting the application of the “Three Strikes” law to serious and violent felonies only–as the California Three Strikes Project initiative proposed in 2000 (co-authored by myself and my then-significant other, Attorney Valerie Monroe, and coordinated by the mother of my Godson, Malinda Rosell), but it’s a big step in the right direction and the best we’re going to get.
37–Yes. More information is better than less.
38–See above with #30.
39–Yes. This wouldn’t even be an issue if California had not done what the Democratic and Republican candidates for Lieutenant Governor in 1978 (I was the only candidate that opposed repeal) teamed up to campaign for, repeal of the “Unitary Tax.” See http://janbtucker.com/blog/2012/02/15/obama-puts-unitary-tax-in-spotlight/
From our sponsors: some of the best rehabs are in California; http://www.rehabs.com/local/california/
Proposition 30: Important Opinions
The main argument that proponents of Prop 30 are making is that if it is not passed, mandatory trigger cuts will go into effect, destroying public education because there will be no money to fund schools. So why wouldn’t we be on board telling our members that they MUST vote YES?
Well, to begin with, the trigger cuts are NOT mandatory and funding for schools – particularly community colleges, Cal states and the UC system – will still be there even if Prop 30 doesn’t pass. The first pot of money comes from Prop 39 (polling is off the charts and will pass). The other is Prop 38 which not only gives more money to k-12 and early education but actually delivers more funding to the General Fund than Prop 30.
There is too much at stake to pretend that Prop 30 is just about school funding and closing the budget gap. The truth is – Proposition 30 is about constitutionalizing the 2011 Public Safety Realignment. That means the $6.2 billion allocated for the 2011 Public Safety Realignment will be permanently allocated leaving a $6.2 billion budget hole when the taxes expire. The Public Safety Realignment is bad policy. A prison relocation program that permanently removes the $6.2 billion from the general fund and equally, if not more importantly, authorizes between $7-20 billion in local prison construction bonds that state tax payers will be forced to pay if counties and cities cannot.
Proposition 30 is a doubling down on the school-to-prison pipeline, with potentially generations of children lost while the Corrections Corporation of America profits (a funder of Prop 30). Cities and Counties over the past year have been opting to borrow money to build new jails. That debt is paid for by generating income from housing prisoners. The 2011 Public Safety Realignment sets up economic incentives to increase the number of prisoners – that means increasing prison spending rather than reducing prison spending.
It is true that if Prop 30 passes, the $6 billion taken from the general fund for the 2011 Public Safety Realignment will be “returned” to public schools, community colleges and universities. Taking the money originally was a way of holding hostage education funding to force women to vote YES on prop 30. As the Legislative Accounting Office has shown, after the tax increases end, there will be a $ 6 billion hole in the General Fund.
Prop 38 not only provides $136.9 billion for k-12 and early education compared to $17 billion under Prop 30 but Prop 38 provides $27.4 billion to the State Budget compared to $22.5 billion under Prop. 30. In addition, Prop 38 does not add the $7-20 plus billion in bond debt for unnecessary prison construction that are authorized by the 2011 Public Safety Realignment.
When you work as closely as we do in Sacramento, you learn very quickly that money plays an important role in outcomes. The healthcare industry has invested almost $3 million in this initiative with the prison industry kicking in $400,000 and the beverage industry giving over $1 million.
For more on CA NOW’s Recommendations: http://www.canow.org/e107_files/downloads/2012%20Activist%20Newsletter.pdf
Sheila Kuehl on Proposition 30
Reprinted from the L.A. Progressive
This is the first in a series of essays analyzing the Propositions appearing on California’s November ballot. This essay describes Proposition 30, which amends the state Constitution to temporarily increase (or restore, if your memory goes back to the first half of this year) the state sales tax, increase state income tax for those earning more than $250,000 a year, bar the use of any of the new funds for administrative costs (but allow local school boards to decide how to spend their share) and guarantee a portion of the new revenue for “public safety services”. These will go to cover the increased costs caused by “realignment” of the incarceration of low-level, non-violent offenders to the counties, along with new duties related to parolees and substance abuse treatment. The essay also sets out the budget cuts that will automatically ensue should the measure fail.
The next essay will set forth the provisions and impact of the “other” tax measure, Prop 38, in order to allow a comparison with Prop 30. Further essays will analyze what might happen if both prop 30 and Prop 38 should get more than 50% of the vote, along with analyses of the rest of the peopositions.<
Why Does This Tax Measure Require A Vote of the People?
When Governor Brown took office, he erroneously believed he was dealing with the same California Republican party with whom he had worked out so many things in the past. Instead, he was strung along just long enough for the temporary taxes put into place by Gov. Schwarzenegger, which were simply supposed to be extended, to expire. Left with no alternative, the Governor put his version, a continuation of the Schwarzenegger tax increases, out for signature. At the same time, a proposed initiative, cheerfully dubbed the Millionaire’s Tax, was circulating and the two seemed destined to do some harm to each other, especially since the provisions of the Millionaire’s Tax were polling better. As Sen. Russell B. Long once put it, “Don’t tax him and don’t tax me, tax that guy behind the tree.” That would be the rich, and the 99% seemed very willing to do it.
But the Governor’s signature collection budget was high, so the proponents of the Millionaire’s tax decided to flex their good polling muscles and voila! Out of mutual interest, a hybrid was born: Prop. 30. The new initiative adopted the small sales tax increase in the Governor’s plan, but adopted the establishment (really restoration) of three new tax brackets for upper-income earners.
The Sales Tax
California state sales tax rates differ, depending on where you live. This is because, local governments, special districts, and others have the ability to add to the basic state sales tax through a vote of the populace. The average state sales tax rate is just over 8%. A portion of that goes to the state, and the rest to local government. In 2010-11, the state share of the total sales tax collected in the state was around $27 billion dollars.
The sales tax revenues are extremely important to local governments. When Gov. Schwarzenegger gleefully Terminated the Vehicle License Fee, and with the limits placed by Prop 13 on property tax, the sales tax came to be the greatest source of revenue for local government. Having gutted local governments’ ability to collect Vehicle License Fees, Arnold finally agreed to raise the state sales tax by one quarter of a cent for every dollar of goods purchased. The tax was temporary, and expired earlier this year. Should Prop 30 pass, we would, in essence, be paying the same sales tax we were paying before the end of June. Under Prop 30, the one quarter cent sales tax would last for only four years, and then expire.
The Personal Income Tax (PIT)
Currently, the top marginal personal income tax rate in California is 9.3% and is paid by all earners with incomes of anything over $48,000 or by joint filers earning $96,000 or more. Under Reagan and other Governors before him, there were higher marginal tax brackets for higher earners, all of which have since been eliminated.
As you know, in a progressive system of taxation, such as ours, different levels of income pay increased taxes as the income increases. These are called marginal rates. Right now, we all now pay 1% (state income tax) on our first $7300 of income, 2% on the next $7300-17,000, 4% on 17-27,000, 6% on 27-38,000, 8% on 38-48,000 and 9.3% on amounts over that.
This proposition would increase the marginal taxes for individuals earning more than $250,000 or couples earning more than $500,000 in the aggregate (shown ahead in parentheses): so that the new marginal rates would be 10.3% for earnings above 250,000 but below $300,000 ($500-600,000); 11.3% for 300-500,000 (600,000 to one million) and 12.3% on amounts over 500,000 (one million). These new taxes actually affect only the 1$ of Californians who gross more than $250,000 a year. Like the sales tax increase, these new brackets would be temporary, but, whereas the sales tax increase expires after four years, the new tax brackets would be in place for seven.
The 2012-13 California Budget
As passed at the end of June of this year, the California general fund budget already includes the amounts to be raised by Prop 30. In that budget, K-12 education was relatively unscathed and higher education was not cut as deeply as it had been in the past. Built into the budget, however, were a series of “trigger” cuts which automatically go into effect should Prop 30 fail to pass. The cuts would be relatively instantaneous (and have to be applied all in the last half of the 2012-13 budget) and would diminish K-12 and community colleges by a whopping 5.35 billion dollars, UC by 250 million, CSU by 250 million, and various other law enforcement, safety, and developmental disability services by a total of 99 million.
All in all, if Prop 30 passes, it is expected to provide about $6.6 billion dollars to the schools. Under Prop 98, education funding (K-12 and community colleges) increases when there are increases in state revenue, on a formulaic basis.
The realignment to the counties of responsibility for the incarceration of low-level, non-violent offenders, supervision of parolees and provision of substance abuse treatment services has begun. It is funded currently but there is no guaranteed source of funding for the counties in the future. The 2011-12 state budget provided a transfer of monies to pay for the realigned services but funding was only guaranteed through last June, with a proposed transfer of six billion dollars a year from state to counties to pay for the programs. This is to be accomplished by shifting an additional portion of sales tax which usually goes to the state to the counties. Prop 30 embeds language in the Constitution requiring the state to continuously provide the tax revenues that had been redirected in 2011 to local governments going forward.
Other Provisions in Prop 30
Language in Prop 30 provides that local governments may not be required by the state to implement state laws that increase local costs to administer the programs transferred by realignment in 2011, unless the state provides additional money.
In addition, the state must pay any increased costs that result from court actions or federal statutes related to these transferred services.
So What’s The Good, the Bad and the Ugly?
The approach adopted by this measure is like holding a gun to your head and shouting “Stop me before I hurt somebody!” The budget is in place and the gun is pointed squarely at education, and the public safety services tied to realignment. Without the influx of revenue provided by the increased temporary taxes, there is insufficient money to hold education or the counties harmless.
It seems very clear that education was chosen as the main hostage most likely to succeed because people prefer putting money into schools rather than into the social safety net that provides health care and welfare to low income, seniors, children and families. Cuts to those social services programs, bloody as they were, will remain even if the Proposition passes. However, with the trigger cuts built into an already-adopted and signed budget, education across the board takes a heavy blow if it fails.
Opponents claim that there is nothing holding the state to keep its promise to put the new revenue into the schools and into the counties. As to the schools, when state general fund revenue increases, Prop 98 allocations also increase, so a portion of the money would definitely go to the schools. Similarly, realignment monies will have to go to the counties if Prop 30 becomes part of the Constitution.
You can find the list of supporters and opponents online. The League of Women Voters, the California Teachers’ Association and the California State Sheriffs’ Association signed the ballot argument in favor, as well as the rebuttal to opponents. The Small Business Action Committee, the National Federation of Independent Business/California and the Sacramento Taxpayers Association signed the ballot argument against. The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers’ Association, the California State Board of Education and the Los Angeles County Board of Education signed the rebuttal to the proponents’ arguments.
Sheila Kuehl, SheilKuehl.org
- See more at: http://www.laprogressive.com/prop-30/#sthash.g7SSu5GE.dpuf
My friend, private investigator colleague and former NCIS investigator Tony Perrin forwarded this to me. Little known fact in my circles, two of my uncles and two of my aunts on my father’s side were in the Navy in World War II. My mother was a civilian “Wanda the Welder” at the Brooklyn Navy Yard and welded on the Battleship Missouri.
My friend Barbara Nickson is currently serving in the USN and I’m eager to hear her tales and take on CPO’s from her experience. Tony’s message is about Chief Petty Officers (CPO):
You may have forgotten it (although I’m not sure how) but Chief Petty
Officers are known as the “backbone of the Navy.” This is how you tell if you are in the presence of a “real” Chief.
The Chief’s not afraid of the dark; the dark is afraid of the Chief.
The Chief once visited The Virgin Islands. They are now simply called “The Islands”
Superman owns a pair of Chief pajamas.
The Chief has never paid taxes. He just sends in a blank form and includes
a picture of himself.
If the Chief is late, then time had damned well better slow down.
The Chief actually died four years ago, but the Grim Reaper can’t get up the
courage to tell him.
The Chief can divide by zero.
The Chief has counted to infinity … twice!
If the Chief ever calls your house, be in!
The Chief doesn’t leave messages; he leaves warnings. You had better pay
attention to them.
The Chief can slam a revolving door.
The Chief was sending an email one day, when he realized it would be faster
When the Incredible Hulk gets mad, he becomes the Chief.
When the Chief exercises, the machine gets stronger.
Bullets dodge the Chief. If not, he catches them in his teeth.
Chiefs think Ensigns should be seen and not heard, and should not be allowed
to read books on leadership.
Chiefs do not have any civilian clothes. As civilians, they keep their uniforms forever.
The Chief’s favorite national holiday is CPO Initiation.
The Chief’s favorite food is SOS for breakfast.
Chiefs don’t know how to tell civilian time.
Chiefs dream in Navy blue and gold, white, haze gray, and occasionally khaki.
Chiefs have served in ships that are now war memorials or tourist attractions.
Chiefs get tears in their eyes when the Chief dies in the movie “Operation Pacific.”
Chiefs have pictures of ships in their wallets.
Chiefs do not own any pens that are not inscribed “Property of U.S. Government.”
Chief’s favorite quote is from the movie Ben Hur, “We keep you alive to serve this ship.”
A Chief’s last ship (or duty station) was always better.
Chiefs know that the black tar in their coffee cup makes the coffee taste better.
A Chief’s idea of heaven: Three good PO1′s and a Division Officer who does
what he’s told.
Chiefs think John Wayne would have made a good Chief, if he hadn’t gone soft
and made Marine movies.
California Peace & Freedom Party State Chair Kevin D. Akin recently sent out an email about me which has been circulating all over creation. The left column has his email content and the right column is my refutation of his accusations, distortions, delusions, and outright hallucinations and fantasies. But before you get to that, here are some of the comments that have come in from inquiring minds, marveling about Akin’s intellectual prowess:
Comment by Laszlo:
He forgot to mention that you are a Vampire.
I may be slow, but here are some questions I didn’t really get from the accusations:
1 – Who was the target audience ?
2 – What makes him think that the audience is perceptive?
3 – Why the “high-school” style when he had all the uncensored opportunity to express himself (how about based on checked facts, etc…)?
Comment by Sean:
Jan, keep up the good work. One thing’s for sure, when someone throws those kind of smears, they are protesting too much and usually hiding something themselves. I’m not fooled.
Comment by Paul:
Jan, we low (love) you. “I’m going to california with an akin in my heart” If I make it there in time to become chair of the pfp california will you watch and chuckle about it afterwards over a beer or 3?
Comment by Robert:
One way to look at all the ‘gossip’ is, THAT if they are talking about you, they are leaving some other poor fool alone.
It appears that this world is not bad enough! For whatever trouble making reasons, people don’t have better things to do than go around, putting people down, making fun of others and sticking their noses where they have no concern. I for one, network with anyone who treats me like they want to be treated. But too, as I’ve stated in the past, IF people are talking about you, they’re leaving some other poor fool alone! (you can quote this if you want). Now – I’m off my soap box…
Jan – if I had a quarter for every time someone said crap about me, I’d be able to purchase me a brand new truck! lol
Comment by Sharon:
“Hmm. I’ve known you, and worked with you professionally for 20 years. How come I never knew all of these terrible things about you? Oh, yeah…because none of his outrageous claims are true. I love how–according to Kevin Akin–you “failed” in CALI and then started another PI group. I know first-hand, and for an absolute fact, that not a single thing about that claim is true. He doesn’t get ANYTHING right in his diatribe. What an enormous pile of vitriolic crap.”
Comment by Janet:
Wild stuff. Seems meager to say “hang in there” when you’ve been through all this before, but most of us know you for who and what you are.
Take care, Janet
AKIN’S CONTENTIONS JAN TUCKER’S RESPONSE
|He [Jan Tucker] is a long-time enemy of our party.||I am an enemy of the party leadership who are a bunch of control freaks who have turned the party State Central Committee into a cult.|
|He is a sneaky, lying, backstabbing creep. Don’t have anything to do with him, he will look for a way to use it against you personally and against the party. Really.||I don’t backstab anybody, nor do I bring a knife to a gunfight. I’d just as soon blow somebody away face to face. Whether or not I’m a sneaky, lying, creep is a matter of opinion and depends upon what role I’m in. Professionally, when I’m working undercover…..well, yeah, those are necessary survival traits. For example, recently I’ve been working in undercover capacities against the Jerusalem Network of the Israeli Mafia. I had a de facto death threat a few months ago from a convicted Racketeer as a result. What do you expect: I’ve been a private investigator since 1979.|
|Tucker is probably insane in some way, but covers it fairly well. Here is some of his history, that may help illuminate why I say this stuff.||Feel free to ask my shrink. Send me a written request and if you have a legitimate reason to know my mental condition, I’ll give her a waiver of privilege to discuss whether or not I’m crazy with you. Incidentally, my shrink is Arab-American, which is kind of relevant as to whether Kevin Akin’s accusations about my agreeing with the JDL’s racist bullshit is accurate or not. Keep in mind, the LA Times quoted me as saying in July 1996 that “I don’t give a shit how many people think I’m a nut. I’m a nut in high demand.” Kind of like Roseanne Barr’s Macadamia nuts.|
|Tucker first introduced himself to me about 30+ years ago. He called me because I was the Riverside County Chair, and he was working in Riverside County for a few months.||Kevin’s memory is faulty. We met well before 1979 when I was working undercover in Banning. The reason I called him was because I was Southern California Chairperson of PFP at the time.|
|The job? Working in a factory to learn who among the other workers was using marijuana, so they could be fired. He bragged about this to me!||Total distortion. First, it was an injection molding factory where people had to handle 60 lb. Metal plates with asbestos gloves because they were about 600 degrees Fahrenheit. I’ve got news for Kevin. As a former Steelworker himself he ought to know that whether somebody is high on grass or under the influence of alcohol or whatever in a factory it’s a serious safety issue, not just for the person under the influence but for their fellow workers, so frankly I have no apologies for busting people that are endangering the health and safety of working people. Aside from that the main thing I accomplished was getting the plant manager fired for sex discrimination in violation of 42 USC 2000e, Title 7 of the Civil Rights Act.|
|Not too long after that, he showed up as a spokesman for the so-called Jewish Defense League (run by his pal Irv Rubin). The JDL was a fascist, racist organization, dedicated to driving out Jewish progressives and whipping up racism against Blacks, Arabs, etc. etc. Tucker was their public spokesman, often quoted in the papers. He also did detective work for them. (This was during the time when Arab-American professor Alex Odeh was murdered in Orange County. The JDL has always been considered the likely culprit.)||“Not too long after that…” Try about three years later. I was not spokesman; I was spokesperson because I insisted on not using sexist language. To assume this role (and I was never a member) the JDL had to agree to disagree with me about the Middle East, because unlike Kevin I am an unabashed supporter of secularism, have had two Arab immigrant room-mates, an Arab American girlfriend, and as I pointed out, my shrink is Arab American. I also have many Muslim clients and personal friends and have unequivocally supported legalization of the Mujahedeen e Khalq which is borne out by my blogs on the issue going back years.The JDL had agreed to say nothing about the Middle East that would embarrass me and I agreed not to say anything that embarrassed them. When they violated that agreement we had a complete falling out which resulted in my suing Irv Rubin and the JDL’s having slashed my tires and shot out the window of my car (they were aiming for me and missed).By the way, I do have inside information about the murder of Alex Odeh from my law enforcement contacts which I can’t explain publicly. If I could turn in JDL folks for that I wouldn’t even hesitate because there’s a $1,000,000 reward aside from the fact that I respected the work that Alex Odeh did. The problem is, the JDL is NOT considered the real suspect anymore in that bombing. All Kevin knows is what he read in the newspapers long, long ago and it never occurs to him to do due diligence to check his facts.|
|In one amazing case, in which the Court of Appeal rendered an opinion that made it clear that they thought Tucker was a foolish incompetent or a perjurer, or quite possibly both, his “detective work” identified a man in California named Finkelstein (a common Jewish name) as another man named Finkelstein in New York who had been feuding with Irv Rubin. The JDL harassed the L.A. Finkelstein, and when he complained, they ended up in court. Tucker purported to produce proof that the Finkelsteins were both the same guy, but the court found that they didn’t even know each other, and rejected Tucker’s “evidence.” (This ruling, with juicy details, can be found on the web somewhere.)||This is a real doozy. It wasn’t the Court of Appeals, it was the State Supreme Court. I executed a declaration which wasn’t sufficient as a matter of law to uphold the position that the attorney prosecuting a civil case was advancing. That attorney had in fact wanted me to fudge the facts to support his position and I refused, which is why the attorney lost the case. The name in question was not “Finkelstein.” The name in question was another common Jewish name but with a very uncommon spelling. There were in fact only two people who’d ever lived in Los Angeles with the first and last name in question and one of them had used a U.S. Postal Service P.O. Box, which was the kind of thing one would have expected of the individual in question. I had advised the attorney to subpoena the information from the Postal Service and he was too lazy to do so, which is another reason he lost the case.The JDL had not harassed the L.A. “Finkelstein” as Kevin asserts. What their attorney did was to rely upon my declaration to assert jurisdiction in civil court to sue the real culprit for slander who was in New York but who had at one point lived and operated an organization in Los Angeles. It was merely a matter of jurisdiction as to whether the Plaintiff—which was not the JDL–had to sue him in Los Angeles or New York. Eventually they sued him in New York and won on the merits. Incidentally, the guy who was being sued had shot at Irv Rubin along with a New York process server and a New York licensed private investigator when they went to serve him with legal papers and he was eventually convicted of shooting an innocent bystander (he was acquitted of everything else because Irv Rubin was being blackmailed by the Defendant in that case with exposure to his wife of having visited Mexican whorehouses on a regular basis, so he conveniently lost his memory on the witness stand).|
|The crucial thing here is not that Tucker is an incompetent or a liar, but that he worked for a racist, fascist organization right up to the time it collapsed with Rubin’s suicide in jail. (Then he posted material on his website, all fabricated, claiming that he had always considered Irv Rubin a fool, and been against the JDL all along. He lied.)||As explained above, total bullshit. Incidentally, while I did have a relationship with the JDL, I convinced them at one point to protect a Palestinian Muslim immigrant business-person from Israeli-American harassment in the Fairfax district in Los Angeles. My agreement with the JDL was to go after Nazis and KKK types, for which I have no apology whatsoever.|
|Tucker was a registered member of the PFP for about 20 years before 1998. In 1998, he ran a campaign against the PFP leadership that included running puppet candidates against some of our regular statewide candidates, and he got some money from some millionaires to campaign.||Within PFP I ran at one time or another for State Assembly, Lieutenant Governor, Governor (lost the primary), and President (came in second out of four candidates, notably beating the leadership candidate by a couple of points for which they never forgave me) and twice each for State Senator, Congress, and State Treasurer. In 1998, I set and hold to this day the highest vote ever achieved by any PFP candidate in the primary election and was the party’s top vote-getter. The fact is that the leadership refused to support me which is why I didn’t get the 2% of the vote necessary for the party to stay on the ballot. The leadership cut off its nose to spite its face. I ran a slate in the primary which was 50% female, 50% Latino, 50% NOW members, every candidate was a union member or former union member, and all but one of our candidates were bikers. The leadership was embarrassed by our feminist, working class diversity.|
|His candidates put statements in the June 1998 voter pamphlet attacking the party leadership (with lies, not truth), and some of his candidates (including himself) got the party nomination (this was during a brief period when anyone could vote in any party’s primary, and he recruited Democrats and Republicans to vote in our primary for his candidates). His candidates then did really bad campaign jobs, put strange statements in the ballot pamphlet, and none of our candidates got the required 2% of the vote. We were off the ballot.||An example of my attacks on the party leadership: the party organizational principles are closer to those of the Marx Brothers than to Karl Marx.I stand my assertions then as I do now.|
|A few days after the November 1998 election, Tucker announced that the PFP was finished, and he was leading the masses into the Green Party. (The masses did not appear to number more than four or five.) He then ran for office in the Green Party, and took his campaign of manipulation, slander and disruption into the Greens. By four years later, no one in the Greens would touch him with a ten-foot pole.||Contact me and I’ll give you a list of current and former Green Party members who you can interview as to what my role was and how they view my integrity.|
|In the first few days of 2003, after a big registration campaign (to which Tucker gave neither any work nor a single dollar), we re-qualified for the ballot. Jan Tucker rejoined the PFP (under state law, we can’t kick a voter out of our party), and declared that he was ready to lead us. He attempted to run for Governor in the 2003 special election. He couldn’t get the signatures. Since then, he has tried to run for several offices, but he has not managed to get the needed signatures. But he has been busy.||I never declared that I was “ready to lead” the party. I don’t associate with the party’s leadership. It’s impossible to bring sane people to party meetings because they will just be turned off. The last time I brought people to a party State Central Committee meeting, they later thought it was weirder than Alice in Wonderland. The last time I tried to run, I wound up in the hospital with serious health issues and thus wound up about 20 signatures short. Big deal. I’ve got better things to do because I actually have a life, unlike these people who are obsessed with hanging on to titles in PFP as though anybody gives a shit about them.|
|Using several aliases, he has carried on a busy campaign against the party. (He is not self-aware enough to notice certain tricks of phrasing that he always uses, which make it clear who really wrote the material.) He sends e-mails and posts statements after newspaper articles, containing outrageous slanders against party candidates and officers. He posts material on his website that contains absurd slanders, sometimes with just a trace of truth mixed in (Joe did live in Temecula in 1973, Fred did get divorced in 1994, though for a different reason than Jan claims, etc.).|
|Tucker used to call himself a Satanist, and still uses some of that jargon. He has posted several statements claiming to have killed party officials and candidates, and a federal judge, by casting spells or putting curses on them. (After pretending to turn against Irv Rubin after Rubin’s death, he made the same claim about Rubin’s death.) This guy is a sick puppy.||I agree. I’m a sick puppy. I have a twisted sense of humor. At least I have a sense of humor. Clowns like Kevin take themselves too seriously.|
|In various forums and campaigns in the past, Tucker has claimed to be a woman, gay, Greek, Jewish, Armenian, Black, etc. etc.||I have never claimed to be a woman. As pointed out by the LA Times in 1996, Newspaper editors have occasionally changed “Mr.” to “Ms.” in stories thinking I am female.I have never claimed to be Gay but I don’t confirm or deny to reporters what my sexual orientation is because I consider it unethical to do so. It is the equivalent of a Christian in Europe denying being Jewish when filling out a Nazi identification form during German occupation.I don’t know what the fuck Kevin is talking about my supposedly claiming to be Greek. That’s out of left field. I am Jewish; I attended Kinderschul and Mittelschul and was in an Orthodox Yeshiva (Rabbinical School) until I voted in the student council for a strike to achieve co-ed classes and an 8 hour day.A 1996 LA Times article made very clear that I am not Armenian. I was the only non-Armenian founding Vice President of the Armenian American Action Committee (ARAMAC) later absorbed into the Armenian Assembly.I have never claimed to be black. I have served as a branch officer or committee member of three NAACP branches and served as special assistant to the Southern California Legal Redress Chair of the NAACP, my former significant other (now deceased), Attorney Valerie Monroe.|
|In fact, he appears to have been raised by parents who, despite having Jewish ancestors, did not participate in any way in any Jewish activities.||Amongst other things, my father was an officer of the Jewish People’s Fraternal Order, an alleged Communist Front which was suppressed by the government. Kevin probably converted to Judaism after that time which is probably why he isn’t familiar with it.|
|He knows nothing of any religion, including the ones he sometimes claims to be in.||Mene Mene Tekel Upharsin.|
|He thinks he know a lot of law, but apparently does not understand it very well.||If anybody is interested in, I’ll give you a list of attorneys, ranging from private attorneys to a Deputy District Attorney, who will vouch for my creds.|
|He gets photographed a lot sucking up to Democratic Party officials, and these photos sometimes go on his website.||The fact is, that mainstream Democrats seek out my endorsement knowing full well that I am not now nor have I ever been a Democrat. I am Co-President of the San Fernando Valley/Northeast Los Angeles Chapter of the National Organization for Women. A professional poll conducted by then-Assembly Member Cindy Montanez found that of all the organizations that make endorsements in the San Fernando Valley, SFV/NELA NOW’s endorsement was trusted by more voters than any other because of the integrity of our process and our reputation for strict non-partisanship.|
|When he couldn’t get anywhere in the legitimate organizations for private detectives, he and a few others founded a less professional organization designed to glorify Jan Tucker, and he lost control of that one after while.||I spent seven terms as Chair of the Board of the California Association of Licensed Investigators. It is the largest organization of private investigators in the world. Nobody prior to me ever spent more than three terms as Chair or President. I resigned in a dispute with the immediate past President. The current President has asked me to return to the Board and to the Legislative Committee. The outgoing President made an unsolicited public apology to me for his conduct at his outgoing “Presidents Banquet” which I refused to attend. I have better things to do with my time in spite of repeated requests from many board members to return to active service in CALI, because I was appointed State Director of the California League of Latin American Citizens.|
|Every party has some evil nut jobs in it. The Democrats and Republicans even elect some of theirs to office. Tucker is our handicap.||I am evil. I am a nut job. I am a handicap to the PFP leadership cult’s acts and omissions which retard the growth and success of PFP. I am not a handicap to the growth and success of PFP as a collective body of its members.|
|Watch out for him. If you have a friendly conversation with him, he will later twist it and claim that you said all sorts of things you never said. One of his specialties is the misquote, in which he twists thing just enough to make you look like a jerk, but retains some of the content of what you said.||Based on all the foregoing, Kevin has no credibility, not to mention that this is a guy who is so gullible that he supported the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968 and swallowed the Soviet explanation for why, hook, line and sinker. I don’t have to twist anything to discredit him or the PFP leadership cult.|
|He has been using his “Barbara” persona to get a lot of talk, tweets and e-mails from Roseanne.||I’ll make this deal with Kevin. I will take a polygraph (lie detector) test to demonstrate that I’ve never used the aka “Barbara,” if he’ll agree to resign as State Chair of PFP if I pass and have nothing further to do with the party leadership. If I flunk, I’ll pay for the test; if I pass, he’ll pay. For a detailed discussion of the aliases I’ve been accused of using, see: http://janbtucker.com/blog/2011/12/26/debunking-mythology/|
|He will use them against her when he can. He is a real evil SOB, and despite his amazing incompetence he does damage. -Kevin||I agree that I’m evil, but I don’t use the term SOB because I don’t use the “B” word, because it’s sexist. Sorry to be stuck in the era of 70′s feminism. Why don’t I deny being “evil?” As Macchiavelli wrote in The Prince, it’s best to be both loved and feared; but if you have to choose, choose to be feared. Obviously, Kevin is afraid of me which tends to reduce his being a nuisance to me publicly. For further detail about Kevin’s nonsense, just use “Akin” as a search term in this blog (http://www.janbtucker.com/blog) and see what comes up.|