Konversations with Kevin #7


By signing up, you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.

Kevin D. Akin, State Chair of the California Peace & Freedom Party; liar and prevaricator

This is to elaborate on a particular point made by Kevin D. Akin as portrayed in my piece, Konversations with Kevin #6 [http://janbtucker.com/blog/2012/10/25/koversations-with-kevin-6/].  In his recent email about me (Jan B. Tucker), he made the statement:

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. He knows nothing of any religion, including the ones he sometimes claims to be in.

I do know a few things about lying and deception.  While working undercover as a private investigator I have to use pretexts, false identities for safety’s sake, and all kinds of subterfuges when dealing with everybody from terrorists to organized crime figures to deadbeat dads I’m trying to track down to enforce child support orders.  I’ve also been trained and tested on detection of deception.  In a blind test conducted by the late Dr. Maureen O’Sullivan of the University of San Francisco, I scored a very rare 8 out of 9 correct in determinations of truth or deception.

With that background, training, education, and experience (private investigator since March 1979) I long ago formulated Tucker’s first rule of prevarication:  don’t lie when the truth is easily ascertainable!

Kevin D. Akin has clearly violated that rule in the above quotation from his widely circulated email.  He also violated the principle of California Penal Code Section 125, which states:  An unqualified statement of that which one does not know to be true is equivalent to a statement of that which one knows to be false.”

More to the point, since Kevin’s statement is about the ethnic and religious affiliations of my parents and my knowledge of religion, and because Kevin converted to Judaism which inherently implies that he actually believes in the metaphysical existence of god as per the Old Testament as well as in god’s purported commandments, then Kevin must either know less about the Ninth Commandment than I do, or else he is just a hypocrite who professes to be a Jew while flouting the Ten Commandments.  The Ninth Commandment prohibits the bearing of false witness.

Moreover, lying is proscribed by Judaism:

There are six things that the LORD hates, seven that are an abomination to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that make haste to run to evil, a false witness who breathes out lies, and one who sows discord among brothers.  Proverbs 6:16–19

Now before I begin my rendition of why Kevin doesn’t know his ass from a hole in the ground about my family’s history and my own knowledge of Judaism, let me draw a comparison to Shakespeare’s  The Life and Death of Julius Caesar, Act I, Scene II, lest I be accused of plagiarizing the concept without attribution:

Did this in Caesar seem ambitious?

When that the poor have cried, Caesar hath wept:

Ambition should be made of sterner stuff:

Yet Brutus says he was ambitious;

And Brutus is an honourable man.

You all did see that on the Lupercal

I thrice presented him a kingly crown,

Which he did thrice refuse: was this ambition?

Yet Brutus says he was ambitious;

And, sure, he is an honourable man.

Kevin says that my parents “did not participate in any way in any Jewish activities.”

My father was a member and officer of the Jewish Peoples Fraternal Order.  I can understand why Kevin, as an apostate ex-Communist Party member and adviser/speech writer for Stewart Alexander of the Socialist Party might not consider the JPFO to be Jewish, since the JPFO was formed as the pro-Communist Party faction out of the The Workmens Circle/Arbeter Ring (the original social democratic Jewish movement of the Yiddishist tradition).

Growing up, our family always had Hannukah and Passover ceremonies, because these holidays emphasize struggles against slavery and for national liberation sympatico with my parents’ left-wing ideology.  I attended Kinderschul and Mittelschul, where we studied Yiddish, Yiddish literature in translations such as the writings of Isaac Lieb Peretz and Sholom Aleichem.  I watched Luther Adler–reputedly through Jacob Adler a distant cousin on my mother’s side–perform in Fiddler on the Roof at the Pasadena Civic Auditorium.  I sang in Yiddish and performed a solo one year at the Valley Cities Jewish Community Center of Rozhinkes mit Mandlen at a community Passover seder.

But Kevin Akin says that I have no Jewish roots and no knowledge of Judaism, and Kevin is an honorable and truthful man.

Because I wanted a more extensive Jewish education, I got myself into the Rambam Torah Institute, an Orthodox Yeshiva, on full scholarship, studying Hebrew, Aramaic, Talmud and Torah along with secular studies.  I was elected to student council and because I believed in practicing the Jewish precepts of freedom and equality, I wound up out of the academy after supporting the student body president’s motion in student council to go on strike for co-ed (non-sex-segregated) classes and an 8 hour day.

But Kevin Akin says that I have no Jewish roots and no knowledge of Judaism, and Kevin is an honorable and truthful man.

Moshe stops the beating of a Levite and smites an Egyptian overseer

My certificate of circumcision accorded me the name of (translated from Hebrew) “Blessed hand of Moses, son of Happy Samuel.”  My father’s Hebrew name was “Happy Samuel.”  “Hand of Moses” was the name of my Great, Great grandfather, a Ukrainian Rabbi of five brothers, all Rabbis.  The “Blessed Hand of Moses” as a name confers a great onus upon me, as it refers to Moses’ role in stopping the beating of a Hebrew slave.  That incident is described in Exodus 2:11-12 and in the New Testament, Acts 7:24.  In some translations it has been written as Moses smiting an Egyptian overseer who was beating a Hebrew slave of Moses’ own Tribe of Levi, with one blow.  I am named for the Blessed Hand of Moses that he used to kill the Egyptian overseer.

The Midrash Rabbah gives one traditional edification on this incident:

In the section of Talmud called Midrash Rabbah, the rabbis argue that what Moses saw wasn’t merely the absence of witnesses. Rabbi Yehudah said, “[Moses] saw there was no one who would be zealous for the Holy Blessed One [ie, no one else who would do God’s work] and so he [Moses] killed him [the overseer].” Later in that same passage, we read that the Sages said, “[Moses] saw that there was no hope that righteous persons would arise from him [the overseer] or his descendents until the end of generations.” The Sages then go on to explain that Moses had a chat with the angels, who agreed with him, and gave him license to kill the overseer.

But Kevin Akin says that I have no Jewish roots and no knowledge of Judaism, and Kevin is an honorable and truthful man.

At one time I was a member of the American Israeli Civil Liberties Coalition which was dedicated to promoting a secular Israel with complete separation of church and state and full equality for all citizens of Israel, not just Jewish citizens.

But Kevin Akin says that I have no Jewish roots and no knowledge of Judaism, and Kevin is an honorable and truthful man.

I have been involved in litigating actions that have involved the Los Angeles Bet Din, the religious court which operates with the authority of the Rabbinate of Israel, which in turn has authority over Jewish family law matters in Israel.  For example, a divorce which begins in the Israeli family law system (controlled by the various “official” religions of Israel) can be continued and completed in the Bet Din for the entire Western region of the United States.  This whole situation frankly disgusts me as an American.  I wonder what Kevin’s view on this state of affairs is.

But Kevin Akin says that I have no Jewish roots and no knowledge of Judaism, and Kevin is an honorable and truthful man.

Every year I hold a combined Passover seder and “Reversion” ceremony for my Sephardic brothers and sisters, the Anusim descendants of the forcibly converted ones, who were not as lucky as my Sicilian Jewish ancestors to be able to pay the exit tax to leave Spanish territory on July 31, 1492 under the Edict of Expulsion.  Many of my Chicano/Mexicano/Latino friends have gone through the “Reversion” ceremony.  Over 500 years ago the Sephardic Rabbis concluded that forced conversions of Jews were inherently invalid so that to rejoin The Tribe so to speak, a forcibly converted Jew or their descendant “reverts” to get back in rather than “converts” the way that Kevin did to become a Jew.

Incidentally, it has been traditionally forbidden for Jews to proselytize since the days of Roman domination.  I believe that this is probably because the Jews who wound up writing the history of the time consider the Herod family to have sold us out to the Romans (if that is a correct interpretation, we sure got a great deal out of it from Caesar but that is another whole peripheral story).  The Herod family were Edomites (reputedly the descendants of Jacob’s elder brother Esau, who had been kin and traditional allies of the Jews) who’d been conquered and forcibly converted by the later Maccabee dynasty.  Therefore it seems the Rabbinate forbade any attempts at conversion of Gentiles and laid down the law that even if they come to you seeking conversion, a Rabbi must thrice attempt to talk a Gentile out of conversion during the process (ergo, Kevin must have really, really, really wanted to be a good Jew and believe in god and all the other tribal mythology to get in).

But Kevin Akin says that I have no Jewish roots and no knowledge of Judaism, and Kevin is an honorable and truthful man.

Finally, let’s do a comparison of Kevin’s basic Jewish precepts and those that I adhere to.

You can find my beliefs at:  http://janbtucker.com/jews/2011/08/24/announcing-jewish-existentialist-world-society/

At the risk of making an argumentum ad hominem circumstantial, as a Jew who converted he likely espouses the so-called “Ten Commandments,” whereas I formulated with suggestions from adherents to the Jewish Existentialist World Society (JEWS) the Ten Principles for Humanity:

Humans created the concept of god. (Footnote: Friedrich Nietsche) You shall have no other gods before me.
Assuming arguendo that God created humans, humans have the right to judge God’s acts and omissions as portrayed in texts that God engaged in everything from genocide to infanticide. You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
Racism is a sin; there is no race but the human race. You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain, for the LORD will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain
Sexism is a sin; and yes, that includes discrimination on the basis of gender orientation or sexual orientation. Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
Ageism is a sin, and applies equally to the young and the old. Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long in the land that the LORD your God is giving you.
Intolerance of any kind directed arbitrarily against any group of people is a sin. You shall not murder.
All living things and things in creation should be accorded respect. You shall not commit adultery.
Creativity is a way that human beings can express their desire for immortality. (Footnote: Emperor Nezahualcoyotl of Texcoco; Hannah Arendt) You shall not steal.
The more knowledge and education you have the better, but the more you learn you should realize that you know only a fraction of the knowledge that exists in the Universe; that realization should make you humble, not haughty. (Footnote: Dr. Philip C. Wall) You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
We believe that every man, woman and child on the face of the Planet Earth has a right to the highest, the best, the most beautiful life that human wisdom, knowledge, and technology can produce. (Footnote: Eldredge Cleaver) You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male servant, or his female servant, or his ox, or his donkey, or anything that is your neighbor’s.

But Kevin Akin says that I have no Jewish roots and no knowledge of Judaism, and Kevin is an honorable and truthful man.

Or is he?

Well Kevin, there it is.  Stick that in your shofar and blow it!


Posted in Anecdotes & Adventures, Ideas & Opinions, Private Investigation Industry | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Proposition 30-Important Opinions


By signing up, you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.

From our sponsors:  some of the best rehabs are in California;  http://www.rehabs.com/local/california/

Proposition 30: Important Opinions

California NOW (National Organization for Women) on Prop 30–

 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

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?

L to R: Jerry Brown, Angel Luevano, Jan B. Tucker

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

Posted in Ideas & Opinions | Tagged , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Hail to the Chiefs


By signing up, you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.

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.

Barbara Nickson (R)

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
to run.

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.

Posted in Anecdotes & Adventures, Ideas & Opinions, Private Investigation Industry | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Koversations With Kevin #6


By signing up, you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.

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.

Regards, Sean

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.
Posted in Anecdotes & Adventures, Ideas & Opinions, Private Investigation Industry | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 5 Comments

The Tragedy of George McGovern


By signing up, you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.

I met George Spencer McGovern twice:  once before he was ever thought of as Presidential material, at a reception for the Food for Peace Foundation when I was around 12 or 13 and later in 1972 when he campaigned in North Hollywood shortly after I’d arranged for Peace & Freedom Party candidate Dr. Benjamin Spock to come to U.S. Grant High School.  Our principal, Herman Adams,  out of fairness allowed students out of school to see McGovern since Spock had such a tremendous event at our campus.

After serving heroically in World War II, McGovern got his entrance to politics as a supporter of Henry Wallace and the Progressive Party in 1948.

Bobby Kennedy

McGovern first picked up the mantle of Robert Kennedy after his assassination in 1968, seeking the Democratic nomination against Hubert Humphrey and Eugene McCarthy.  He came in third at the Democratic convention in Chicago that year, but got a very important boost when he was appointed to head the Democratic Party’s reform commission to change the rules of how delegates were selected to shift it away from party bosses.  His commission rewrote the rules so that delegates were selected in party grassroots caucuses.  That in turn gave his grassroots campaign for the presidency on an anti-war and initially, economically populist platform, a big shot in the arm.

McGovern on Economics

In 1972, once he became a serious contender against Hubert Humphrey, McGovern started backsliding, especially when it came to economic issues.

Hubert Horatio Humphrey & George Spencer McGovern

Shortly before the California June primary, he took out an ad in the Wall Street Journal claiming that he had not proposed a $1,000,000 limit on inheritance and a $500,000 limit on income (if my memory serves me correctly on the figures).  In a debate, Hubert Humphrey confronted McGovern with the full page ad, pointing out that he had in fact previously supported limits on wealth and income.  McGovern claimed that he had backed away from these proposals because “blue collar workers would not accept the plan.”

Of course, as Humphrey pointed out, taking out a full page ad in the Wall Street Journal is not exactly what you do when you want to influence and communicate with blue collar workers.

Perhaps the worst thing about this episode is that Richard Nixon proposed a “negative income tax,” i.e., a minimum national income for people who worked for a living.  His proposal would have given government money back to people through their filing of a federal income tax return instead of taxing them so that everybody had a minimum that put them above the poverty level.  What’s bad about that is the Democratic Party rejected it because it wasn’t their idea.  Does this sound familiar today with how the Republican Party is obstructing President Obama?  Sure does, but the shoe is on the other foot this time.

The War in Southeast Asia

General Nguyễn Ngọc Loan (11 December 1930 – 14 July 1998), South Vietnam’s Chief of National Police, executing handcuffed Viet Cong prisoner during the Tet Offensive. Incidents like this made many Americans question what we were doing in Vietnam supposedly fighting for “freedom.”

When it came to opposition to the Vietnam War, it is important to understand the context of what the “Peace Democrats” were proposing.  The viable Democratic anti-war candidates, Bobby Kennedy and Gene McCarthy in 1968 and McGovern in 1972, did not support, as did the Peace & Freedom Party, “immediate, unconditional withdrawal of all U.S. forces from Southeast Asia.”  The viable Democrats supported “negotiated withdrawal.”

What exactly did “negotiated withdrawal” mean?  Hard to say, especially because that’s what Richard Nixon eventually did:  negotiate withdrawal.  Without spelling out the parameters of a peace plan (the Peace & Freedom Party endorsed the South Vietnam Provisional Revolutionary Government’s proposed and very detailed “People to People” peace plan which delineated how peace could be achieved), negotiated withdrawal was as vague as Richard Nixon’s 1968 claim of his “secret plan to end the war.”

There are consequences to dragging out negotiations….

In fairness, if you’re going to negotiate withdrawal or anything, you don’t publicly announce your opening offer or lay down any more advance conditions than necessary.  That’s just not how negotiations work if you intend them to be successful.  The Peace & Freedom Party position was predicated on the value judgment that the United States had no business in Vietnam or the rest of Southeast Asia in the first place and that we should get out and let the Vietnamese solve their own political problems, many of which had been created by the United States, the French, the British, and the Japanese before us.

Wounded Knee

Wounded Knee 1973

George McGovern did represent the state of South Dakota…and he depended on the white people of South Dakota to keep him in office to do what he saw as all of his good works on behalf of the rest of humanity.  Unfortunately that led him to a scurrilous role during the federal siege against the American Indian Movement at Wounded Knee in 1973.

On February 27, 1973 the American Indian Movement (AIM) started an occupation of Wounded Knee at the Pine Ridge Oglala Reservation in South Dakota.  Marge Buckley of the Peace & Freedom Party went to Wounded Knee as an attorney to assist them (unlike Steven Bruce Orcutt aka Frank Runninghorse aka Runningdog aka Runningmouth of the PFP leadership faction, whose claim to have gone to Wounded Knee with his “Red Tide” faction is disputed in its details by Marge as simply not credible).  On April 22, 1973, the Billings Daily Gazette printed a UPI dispatch to the effect that:

Sen George McGovern has asked federal authorities to clear the Indians out of Wounded Knee before angry private citizens do the job for them it was disclosed.  McGovern aides made public a letter to Attorney General Richard Kleindienst in which McGovern said time is running out on the containment policy followed by the Justice Department.

1890 Wounded Knee Massacre

McGovern wanted the United States government to send in the Army.  Of course it was the 7th Cavalry of the United States Army (the 7th being of George Armstrong Custer infamy) that made Wounded Knee famous in the first place on December 29, 1890.  As Wikipedia explains:

By the time it was over, at least 150 men, women, and children of the Lakota Sioux had been killed and 51 wounded (4 men, 47 women and children, some of whom died later); some estimates placed the number of dead at 300. Twenty-five troopers also died, and 39 were wounded (6 of the wounded would later die).[7] It is believed that many were the victims of friendly fire, as the shooting took place at close range in chaotic conditions. At least twenty troopers were awarded the coveted Medal of Honor.

The Medal of Honor.  For a massacre of women and children?  At least we didn’t give that to Lieutenant William Calley for his role in the My Lai massacre.

On April 30, 1973, eight days after McGovern’s letter was publicly reported, its recipient, Nixon’s Attorney General Richard Kliendienst, resigned  following exposure of his role in Watergate.  He later was convicted of perjury before the Senate.

In a strange twist of fate, AIM leader Russell Means was one of the key AIM negotiators who met with McGovern at Wounded Knee.  Betrayed by McGovern with the letter to Kliendienst, at least he outlived McGovern by a day….a tiny bit of life’s poetic justice.

1972 AIM Occupiers of the BIA Building in Washington DC

Earlier, in 1972, McGovern had been noticeably absent from support of AIM’s Trail of Broken Treaties national protest which converged on Washington D.C. and which did an O.G. “occupation” of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) building.  The Trail of Broken Treaties demands (which were supported by the Peace & Freedom Party and by Rep. Shirley Chisolm who’d run against McGovern in the Democratic primaries that year) are summarized as:

  1. The United States Federal Government should retract the component of the 1871 Indian Appropriations Act which eliminated the power of the Indian Nations to contract constitutionally bound treaties with the U.S. government.
  2. The U.S. Federal Government should establish a Treaty Commission that will have the power to contract new treaties to ensure the future of the Indian Nations. In addition, it should be established that no terms of existing treaties can be violated.
  3. The Federal Government should pledge that they will meet with four American Indian representatives before June 2, 1974 in order to discuss the future of the Indian Nations. The national media should be present for this meeting.
  4. The President of the United States should establish a committee consisting of both Indians and non-Indians to examine treaty commitments and violations.
  5. Treaties that have not been ratified should be presented to the Senate.
  6. All American Indian peoples should be considered to be in treaty relations with the United States Federal Government.
  7. The United States Federal Government should ensure that there is judicial enforcement and protection of the treaty rights of American Indians.
  8. The United States Federal Government should provide a new system of federal court jurisdiction through which American Indians can address treaty or tribal rights. This system of jurisdiction must apply both in cases between American Indians and between American Indians and non-Indians. It is of utmost importance that leaders of the Indian Nations take part in the process of interpreting treaties.
  9. The Congress of the United States should relinquish their control over Indian Affairs and instead create a joint committee. This committee is to be called the “Committee on Reconstruction of Indian Relations and Programs”. The members of the committee must be will to commit significant amounts of their time to restructure Indian relations in America.
  10. By July 4, 1976 the United States Federal Government should restore a permanent Native American land area of no less than 110 million acres (450,000 km2). This area should be perpetually non-taxable by the federal government. In addition the Termination Acts of the 1950s and 1960s should be immediately repealed.
  11. There should be a revision of 25 U.S.C. 163. This revision will call for all Indian rights to be restored to individuals that have lost them due to issues with enrollment. In addition, American Indians must be able to qualify for membership in more than one tribe and not be prohibited from receiving dual benefits.
  12. Congress must repeal state laws passed under the Public Law 280. PL280 allows for people not belonging to the Indian community to gain control over governing in reservation areas. The law takes away American Indian’s ability to govern themselves without external conflict.
  13. All violent offenses against Indians should be treated as federal crimes and the persons committing the crimes must face penalties under federal prosecution. Congress should also create a national federal Indian grand jury. This grand jury should consist only of Indians that are chosen by the President as well as by Indian people. In addition this jury will have jurisdiction over non-Indian peoples living on Indian reservations.
  14. The Bureau of Indian Affairs should be dismantled by 1976 and a new government structure that maintains Indian-Federal relations should be established.
  15. The new structure that will replace the Bureau of Indian Affairs will be called the “Office of Federal Indian Relations and Community Reconstruction”.
  16. The “Office of Federal Indian Relations and Community Reconstruction” will promote equality between the Indian Nations and the federal government and seek to remedy the wrong-doings of the federal government against the American Indians.
  17. Congress should enact a statute that allows for trade, commerce, and transportation of Indians to remain outside the jurisdiction of the federal government. American Indians within reservation areas should have immunity from federal and state taxation.
  18. The United States government should recognize and protect the spiritual and cultural integrity of the Indian Nations.
  19. Forms of Indian organization should be consolidated so as to regain the unification of the Indian Nations.
  20. The United States Federal Government should focus on the improvement and creation of better housing, education, employment and economic development for the American Indians.

Jan B. Tucker & Dr. Benjamin Spock, 1976

On November 8, 1972, Dr. Spock, then running as the PFP/Peoples Party candidate for President, showed his solidarity with the AIM occupiers of the BIA building by crossing the government lines, abandoning his Secret Service protection detail which was given the Hobbes Choice of confronting the FBI since Spock was committing a criminal act in support of the AIM protesters, and going into the BIA building to confer with and support AIM.

The AIM members had wanted to meet with George McGovern in this last week of the presidential campaign.   They did not get their wish and then as later would be borne out during the Wounded Knee incident of 1973, he demonstrated what Newspaper Guild founding president Heywood Campbell Broun meant when he wrote that “A liberal is one who leaves the room when the fight begins.”

Dennis Banks (L), Russell Means (R)

Perhaps the best commentary that sums up McGovern’s legacy vis a vis AIM and Native American issues was released by Dennis Banks:

One thing I don’t believe most people know is: McGovern probably became a senator because of the Indian vote in South Dakota. In his first election to the senate he won with less than 600 votes. He had his hand out to Indians. He needed their vote. Once elected, he never did anything for Indians, except he did work with Senator Ted Kennedy to improve Indian education. Other than that he did not do a whole lot for us.

I met him when he flew onto the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation during Wounded Knee. He came on a helicopter. He thought he was coming to save the hostages. The so called hostages never wanted to leave. We had not told them they could not leave.  When McGovern came they informed him they did not want to leave – though they eventually left anyway. He was only there for about 45 minutes.

Once he got elected I think he fell into the Democratic Party’s good ole boy club. Even in Washington, he did the same thing. He was a good ole boy.

One thing I remember is he always resisted giving any land back to Indians. He fiercely fought against it. In South Dakota, there are the Black Hills. He would never agree to give any part of it back to Indians.

His legacy among Indians is: There are some Native people who think he was very helpful. I know he was never on the American Indian Movement’s side.  [For more:  http://www.nativenewsnetwork.com/dennis-banks-comments-on-russell-means-george-mcgovern-presidential-election.html]


Posted in Anecdotes & Adventures, Ideas & Opinions | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Marge Buckley’s Freedom of Info & Privacy Act Request to FBI


By signing up, you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.

This is a lesson on how to do a Freedom of Information Act and a Privacy Act request to federal agencies.  It is also a commentary in an oblique way into the ethics of Kevin D. Akin, who attempted to keep Marge Buckley off of Roseanne Barr’s slate of Presidential Electors for the Peace & Freedom Party, because Marge had once sent him a cease and desist letter to stop his slanderous attacks on yours truly, acting as my attorney:

Marguerite May Buckley, October 19, 2012

 Federal Bureau of Investigation, Attn: FOI/PA Request, Record/Information Dissemination Section, 170 Marcel Drive Winchester, VA 22602-4843

 By Fax: (540) 868-4391/4997  By E-mail: foiparequest@ic.fbi.gov

 Dear FOI/PA Officer:

 First, I am indigent and living on minimal social security and other government assistance and I request that any and all fees for this request be waived. This request is for journalistic purposes as I intend to use this information (a) to write a book, (b) to be provided to bloggers and reporters, and (c) to provide it to libraries and non-profit institutes, including but not limited to the Southern California Library for Social and Studies & Research and the Meiklehjohn Civil Liberties Institute. My life story is of great historical interest to the public, educational institutions and the media if for no other reason than that I argued and won a 9-0 U.S. Supreme Court decision (Lubin v Panish) which was hailed by the Harvard Law Review as the landmark 14th Amendment Case of the 1970s. I intend to provide this information at no cost to any and all organizations for no fee.

 Pursuant to 5 USC 552 and 5 USC 552a I am requesting all records as defined in the Privacy Act concerning my activities and any other facet of my life maintained by the FBI and/or any other federal agency in the possession of the FBI or of which the FBI is cognizant. In accordance with the Privacy Act I am requesting that you convey this letter to any other federal agency which may have possession and/or control over any such records.

 My basic personal statistics are as follows:

DOB/POB: May 29, 1932 at approximately 11:30 pm in Florence Crittendon hospital in Detroit, Michigan.

AKA: (Married names: Koti (married to Charles Koti) I was also married to Richard Davidson but did not formally adopt his surname.

 Biographic Information which may assist your search for records:

 Attended Gabriel Richard elementary school; Denby High School 1945 to 1949; Detroit Michigan.

 Attended University of Michigan, Ann Arbor , Michigan. from 1949 to 1950, 1951-1954; worked for Stockwell Dormatory (1049-50,Married Charles Koti in Detroit Michigan about October 22, 1954.  divorced 1959.

 Admitted to legal practice in Detroit, Michigan on January 5, 1958. On or about March 8, 1958 was in automobile accident and hospitalized at Mount Carmel Hospital with  broken jaw, heart injuries and major bruises and contusions from March 8,1958 to April 1958. Thereafter was confined at home for period of time.

 Began practice of law with John Houston and Wallace McClay (former Vice President Henry A. Wallace’s nephew) – both members of National Lawyers Guild from about 1959 to 1960/6 in Pontiac, Oakland County, Michigan.

 I was a member of the Labor Youth League at the University of Michigan probably in 1952. Was secretary of Youth for Henry Wallace in 1948 and went to Philadelphia for the Convention in which Henry Wallace was nominated for president. Then Institute of Social Research, Ann Arbor, Michigan Wayne State University Law School from 1954 to 1955, 1956 to 1958., worked at Stouffers Restaurant in Northland Mall in Detroit, Michigan as waitress; then worked fo attorney Bland Pugh as secretary – 1955 to 1956.  

 In 1961, I  drove across country to Los Angeles, California and lived in El Monte, California with mother and sister of a friend secretary of attorney in whose office I exchanged services for space.   I lived with them for about 9 months in El Monte. 

 In 1962, I went to work for the State of California at Juvenile facility in Los Angeles California as a probation counselor

 In 1962, I was hired to work in the law Division of Union Bank in Los Angeles, California.  I was hired on condition that I take the California Bar Exam which I did, passing on the first attempt and being admitted to practice on January 5, 1963, I worked  at Union Bank until about 1968 at which time I filed an EEOC complaint against the bank and was represented by the Justice Department in two actions which went up to the United States Supreme Court.

 In 1965, I spent my vacation working for three (3) weeks with the National Lawyers Guild office in Jackson, Mississippi – working on freedom house issues. Returned to Los Angeles as the Watts Rebellion /riots had occurred. Worked with NLG and ACLU after work to have prisoners released from jail.

  In 1968, I went to work for the Los Angeles Neighborhood Legal Services Society (herein LANLSS) – as an attorney assigned to the East Los Angeles office, I undertook a legal audit (unsolicited) of the current case files. As a result, I was appointed Area Director of LANLSS with the main office in Venice, where I worked and supervised the attorneys in an office in Hawthorne. 

 In 1969, I spent part of my free time working with a community project in Santa Monica at the Synanon designated as the Square games.

In December, 1969, I married Richard Davidson, architect and chairperson of my Advisory Board at LANLSS. We were divorced to the best of my memory in 1980.

Marge Buckley (L of Peace & Freedom Party Presidential Candidate Dr. Ben Spock who at the R end of press conference table), 1972, running for Los Angeles County District Attorney

In 1969 I became active in the Peace and Freedom Party and ran for Attorney General. I also was active working with the Free Venice Movement during 1969 through the 70s. I also ran for Los Angeles County District Attorney in 1972. I participated in a Die-In demonstration against the Vietnam War in front of Richard Nixon’s LA headquarters which resulted in my being tried for a misdemeanor and confined briefly to the Los Angeles County Jail system.

Around 1973, I was terminated from LANLSS. I was told that President Richard Nixon had ordered me to be fired by the administration.

I worked providing free services  to the Amerian Indian Movement in Los Angeles during the 1970s. I also worked with the Piutes in Bridgeport, California for a number of years. I spent six weeks at Wounded Knee in Pine Ridge, South Dakota representing the Indians who were being released from jail in 1973. All of the work I did was on a pro bono basis.

Around 1970 I taught law at the University of West Los Angeles. Around 1963-64 I taught at the American Institute of Banking. I also participated in a non-teaching capacity with the Los Angeles based Peoples College of Law around their first year of existence.

I have represented various community organizations throughout my entire career. I have attended meetings and demonstrations in Washington, D.C., Colorado, Michigan, Arizona.

Marge was gassed twice in 1999 during the World Trade Organization protests in Seattle

In 1999 I participated in the Demonstration at the World Trade Center demonstrations with the Los Angeles Free Press and as a witness 24-7 with the fledgling Independent Media.

 I have been a member of the National Lawyers Guild from 1958 to my retirement in 2010/11.

 I continue to serve as a NLG witness at various occupier demonstrations in Los Angeles county.

 Under penalty of perjury, I hereby declare that I am the person named above and I understand that any falsification of this statement is punishable under the provisions of Title 18, United States Code (U.S.C.), Section 1001 by a fine of not more than $10,000 or by imprisonment of not more than five years, or both; and that requesting or obtaining any record(s) under false pretenses is punishable under the provisions of Title 5, U. S. C., Section 552a(i)(3) as a misdemeanor and by a fine of not more than $5,000.

 Executed this 19th day of October, 2012, at Torrance, California.

 Marguerite M. Buckley

Posted in Anecdotes & Adventures, Ideas & Opinions | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Sherman vs Berman in the 30th District


By signing up, you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.

A couple of the members of the Board of the San Fernando Valley/Northeast Los Angeles Chapter of the National Organization for Women (SFV/NELA NOW and of the California League of Latin American Citizens (CALLAC) received an e-mail from a long time, well-respected San Fernando Valley Chicano activist that began, “Did i read that your group  endorsed Sherman over Berman?   I hope i am wrong.  Yes, i realize Berman did not meet with you so i understand you held that against him.”

The rules of the Same Page/Misma Pagina Coalition do not allow us to discuss what a candidate said in their questionnaire responses to us or what they tell us in an interview without their express permission, but they do not preclude us from discussing a candidate’s non-response, so I need to set the record straight on Howard Berman, whom we expressly DID NOT ENDORSE.  There was far more to that story than Berman’s simply not meeting with us.

First and foremost, Howard Berman has not given us the time of day that I can remember, and I’ve been around in Los Angeles and San Fernando Valley politics a long time….and as many know, I have just about the longest memory in the State for what politicians have done and not done….more on that later.

When Bobbi Fiedler represented the San Fernando Valley, her staff initiated contacts with us, not just the other way around when we wanted something.  When Howard Berman got elected in 1982 to the House of Representatives, well, I just can’t remember any time when we ever heard from him or even got feedback when we’d contact his office.  Brad Sherman’s staff for years has been far more solicitous of our views and concerns; he personally came to the National Latin Congreso in Los Angeles and specifically sought us out there several years ago, before he was ever concerned with a redistricting situation that forced him to run against a fellow incumbent.

Carol McArthur & others performing that the meeting which Sherman’s representative attended and Berman’s campaign skipped

Both Sherman and Berman’s campaigns promised to send representatives to our annual Holiday Party and Election meeting last year.  In fact, both campaigns sought us out to find out where and when and to make sure that they could be represented.  Sherman’s office followed through; nobody from Berman’s office showed up nor did they call to apologize after we’d already publicized that both candidates would have speakers.

Next, both candidates’ campaigns had specifically sought out the procedure for how to seek our endorsement.  It starts with filling out our coalition questionnaire.  Both campaigns were sent the instructions on where to download it.  Additionally, our instructions point out that if they have any problems or need more information on the issues, they can feel free to contact us and we’ll be happy to help them with it (it’s not like a closed book timed test in high school).

When do we hear from Howard Berman’s office? When he wants our endorsement….i.e., rarely

Brad Sherman submitted his response.  Berman never responded.  In fact, we heard absolutely nothing back from his campaign.  Apparently they lost interest in getting our endorsement, because, after all, they got the endorsements of Republican Senators John McCain and Lindsay Graham and a whole host of other Republican House members so they probably figured they didn’t need us.

With that record alone, why does anybody have the gall to fault us for not endorsing a candidate who was not in fact seeking our endorsement?  If you don’t submit the questionnaire, you’re not asking to be endorsed.  It really is that simple.

Now let’s get down to cases and records.

It’s no secret that the policy wonk for years behind Democratic Party gerrymandering schemes in California has been Howard Berman’s brother Michael and at this point, let me make the same conflict of interest disclosure publicly that I made for the Same Page/Misma Pagina interview committee.  In 1978 my candidate (Peace & Freedom Party) for State Assembly in the Northeast San Fernando Valley got 4% of the vote and the Democrat lost by 2%.  In 1980, I ran against ranking California Congressman James Corman who that year alone had voted for the MX Missile, the Neutron Bomb, and Draft Registration (all of which his Republican opponent opposed, as did I).  Additionally, the only candidate in the race supporting the NAACP-ACLU “Together for Integrated Education” program was me.  I polled almost three times as many votes as Corman needed to win, and the Berman brothers were majorly pissed because it completely upset the apple cart for their reapportionment (read gerrymandering) plan for the State of California.  As far as I know, this was the only time in California history that a third party had achieved “balance of power” status in two back to back elections in the same geographical area with the ability to knock off incumbents.

Michael Berman came up with plan A and plan B for reapportionment.  Normally, political parties get thrown off the ballot in America for not getting enough votes.  In authoritarian countries, like the old Soviet Union, Burma, and Nazi Germany, parties get thrown off the ballot because they actually have support.  Michael Berman’s plan A was throw the Peace & Freedom Party off the ballot with what Democratic Party hacks publicly called “the Jan Tucker bill” so that they could cut district lines with 1,500 vote Democratic Party margins, or else they  had to use plan B in which they failed to kick PFP off the ballot and instead had to cut districts with 3,000 vote Democratic Party margins.

Howard Berman and his “gang of four” in the Assembly shoved the bill through that house with threats and coercion.  There were several hold out Democrats defying the “caucus vote,” including Larry Kapiloff, Ken Meade, Sam Farr, Tom Hannigan, Mike Roos and even former Assembly Speaker Leo McCarthy.  When you vote against an official “caucus” position, you can be stripped of all of your committee assignments, so it’s not something one does lightly and then only out of absolute conscience.  Berman was one vote short for the bill, so he went over to Tom Hannigan and threatened him with loss of his committee assignments and twisted his arm into becoming the 41st vote for the bill.

There are many reasons and many states where we depend on the Voting Rights Act, like the San Fernando Valley where it’s supposed to protect us from the Berman Brothers.

We killed the bill in the State Senate where it never came up for a vote.  We pointed out that in the entire 20th Century up till that point, no African American, Asian American, Mexican American, or Native American had wound up on the general election ballot in the four (4) California counties that have prior Voting Rights Act convictions–unless they were running on the Peace & Freedom Party ticket.  If the bill passed and we won a Voting Rights Act conviction, that fifth conviction would have put California under the “pre-approval” process like the old thirteen (13) former Confederate States.

Then of course there is the history of the Berman brothers in consistently gerrymandering the San Fernando Valley to prevent any Chicano/Mexicano/Latino from getting elected to Congress….until of course when this year’s District lines were created by an independent commission that the Berman brothers couldn’t control.

1972: Nixon for President, Berman for Assembly. Really.

Okay, that’s the personal bone I had to pick with Berman, but as I said earlier, I have a very long memory and here’s where it goes back to 1972, when Howard first got elected to the State Assembly against Charlie Conrad in the old 57th Assembly District.  At that time, I was supporting Grover Howard (PFP candidate for the 57th) and Ben Spock as the PFP candidate for President.  Charlie Conrad as a good Republican was supporting President Nixon.

This is quite timely as Democrat George McGovern (now lying on his death bed) thought he could at least count on the support of his own party’s nominee in the 57th Assembly District, but Berman sent out leaflets saying it was okay for people to support Nixon for President and Berman for Assembly.  That’s bad enough but there’s more.

Henry Waxman was head of the Assembly Elections & Reapportionment Committee which had created an Assembly seat for Howard Berman to run in, with the geographical center of the district being Berman’s home.  Safe and cozy, but alas, the State Supreme Court threw out the plan and Berman had a choice to make.  A very quick choice at that.

At the time, California law required a candidate to live in the district they were going to run in for at least one year prior to filing.  Howard Berman had to move into the 57th District in order to run.  How do I know this?  Because I was standing next to Lew McCammon of the PFP while Berman fessed up to Lew about what he had done in the candidate filing room at the old Registrar of Voters Office in Chinatown.

So Howard, inquiring minds want to know:  How long did you live in the 57th District before you filed to run in it and how exactly did you get away with it?

If anybody deigns to ask why we didn’t endorse Howard Berman, he needs to answer that question before I deign to give any other answer than this one.

Posted in Anecdotes & Adventures, Ideas & Opinions | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 8 Comments

Three Great Acts @ The Talking Stick


By signing up, you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.

The Talking Stick @ 1411 Lincoln Blvd in Venice always reminds me of the line in Bob Dylan’s Tangled Up In Blue that “There was music in the cafes at night and revolution in the air…”  World Music Night @ “The Stick” (as we affectionately call the place) has a line up for this Saturday (7:00 p.m. – 10:00 p.m.,October 20, 2012) that is NOT to be missed….be there or be square…..

This is how the multi-talented Lauri Reimer of Music Magique Productions describes this Saturday’s entertainment fest on Facebook:

Music Magique & Stefani Valadez are gonna do it a little differently this month. The term ‘World Music’ covers a broad spectrum from Latin Jazz to Middle Eastern Klezmer to African, Reggae, Folk-Rock from other lands, Celtic and more. This Saturday evening at the Stick will provide a forum for all of the above. So far on the line-up: Peter McGowan, Carol McArthur, Stefani Valadez, Lauri Reimer. If you’re interested in playing, please contact us asap. Otherwise, please c’mon down to the Stick and enjoy what we bring to the evening. There will be no cover, but requesting a minimum $7 donation for the musicians that offer their time to bring this music to you. Free parking front and back of building. Family friendly.

Finn MacCool

Marta Collier with Finn MacCool @ Kulak’s Woodshed in NoHo

Peter McGowan’s Finn MacCool band I have been following for, well, I think decades.  My great old friend and band member Marta Collier and I used to defend women’s clinics against Operation Rescue in the dark days of the blockades that prevented women from getting everything from pap smears to mammograms, frequently at clinics that didn’t even perform abortions.  You can see more about Finn MacCool at http://www.finnmaccool.com/ and http://janbtucker.com/blog/2012/02/21/music-revolution/.

Carol McArthur

Carol McArthur & Patricia Nazario singing “Happy Birthday” to Jan B. Tucker @ The Talking Stick

Carol is a tremendous performer and committed activist….last year she was elected to my NOW Chapter’s Board and is a fellow member of the California Peace & Freedom Party (although I didn’t recruit her for the latter affiliation; turns out she knows my fellow party member Frank Boeheim).  This is from her official bio:

Singer/songwriter CAROL McARTHUR has a big heart, a gentle spirit, and the voice of an ‘Angel’ (the title also of one of her fine originals) though she will wryly tell you that her halo “is a little rusted.” She has a lovely, lyrical, soaring voice, giving an elegant, wistful, romantic reading to a jazz standard like ‘Ghost of Yesterday,‘ then sounding very much like a classic folksinger with the haunting refrains of ‘Health to the Company‘ or ‘Night Driving.” She counts Ella Fitzgerald, Kate Bush, The Beatles, Elton John, Nina Simone, Elizabeth Frazier (Cocteau Twins), and Roberta Flack as the singers that have influenced her the most, but it is a testament to her talent to say she has her own unique sound and style.  She has been performing in front of an audience since age 6.  [More at:  http://www.newoceanmusic.com/Carol%20Bio.htm]

Stefani Valadez

Stefani Valadez Ensemble at the Talking Stick

Stefani’s bio explains that she is:

An unforgettable singer/performer whose haunting, soulful voice will linger on, long after you have been entranced and entertained . . .

Singer, guitarist, songwriter, Stefani Valadez offers a rich repertoire of soulful romantic and enchanting melodies from many nations. A third generation musician, Stefani has an international following of fans who have thrilled to her deep, haunting voice and the wide range of musical and ethnic lore she incorporates in her performances.

Stefani first learned to play guitar and discovered the beauty of harmony from her mother, a singer and pianist, and from Pete Seeger, and the Greenwich Village blues locals. She traces her musical inspiration to diverse musicians, such as Taj Mahal, Grace Slick, and Antonio Jobim. Her later interest in Celtic & international folk music led her to her first CD of World Music, “Other Voices”.

One of her newest albums is “Ladino Live,” a medley of songs from the Sephardic cultures of the Mediterranean, which Stefani collected while living in Spain. They speak of a time of peace and a flowering of civilization when the cultures of the three great religions coexisted peacefully together for 700 years. Stefani’s arrangements bring these ancient melodies, prayers and love songs into the moment with sensual and haunting vocals, soulful ethnic drums and delicious harmonies. The LA musicians on this CD have played with the legends of the music world and add layers of rich colors to an already deep and moving palette of music.

A strong vocalist, performer and arranger, Ms. Valadez also plays dulcimer and percussion and is a producer and recording artist.  [More: http://www.stefanivaladezmusic.com/index.html]


Posted in Anecdotes & Adventures, Ideas & Opinions | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Foreclosures Continue & Homeowners Fight Back


By signing up, you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.

Fort Hernandez Occupation in Van Nuys, San Fernando Valley

People have taken an interest in the “Fortress Hernandez” action in the San Fernando Valley where Occupy protesters have tried to prevent the eviction of the Hernandez family from their home by Bank of America [for background, see:  http://www.laactivist.com/2012/09/02/fort-hernandez-still-stands-as-foreclosure-battle-continues/].

In the unincorporated area of the Los Angeles Strip by Torrance, another Hernandez family has filed suit against New Century Mortgage Corporation, one of the key targets of the Federal Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission (FCIC) in Los Angeles Superior Court:


In Case No. TC 026900, filed at the Compton Courthouse (South Central District) of the Los Angeles Superior Court, the Complaint alleges that New Century Mortgage Corporation (NCMC) engaged in virtually every single sinister action against them that were part of a pattern testified to by former NCMC Internal Fraud Investigator Patricia Lindsay, who told the FCIC in sworn testimony that:

  • The definition of a good loan changed from ‘one that pays’ to ‘one that could be sold.'”
  • New Century was even selling securitized bundles before the loans were even made.

The Complaint also alleges that:

  • “The Plaintiffs  in this action were victimized by two practices of New Century
    that were excoriated in the FCIC report: “Piggyback” lending and “stated income”
    lending without a credit check or without any verification of income. Piggy back lending involved doing two mortgages at the same time, a small one in lieu of down payment and a large adjustable rate mortgage coupled with it, which would then be bundled for securities sale, because “Meeting investor demand required finding new borrowers, and homebuyers without down payments were a relatively untapped source.”
  • The non-translation of documents in this case should be translated into plain English as “Fraud”

    “Missal’s report also detailed how New Century was “brazen” in increasing its loans and extending them to borrowers who were increasingly unlikely to pay, precisely the situation with the instant case before the court in which the Plaintiffs were induced to enter into the loans without a credit check, with the broker supplying social security numbers while the Plaintiffs were told they did not need social security numbers, without receiving signed copies of the loan documents which were all in English (while they are only fluent in Spanish) and without providing a Spanish language translation as required by California law.”  [Special Examiner Michael J. Missal was appointed by the court in New Century’s bankruptcy case].

  • “Defendants induced Plaintiff to enter into a mortgage contract, i.e., a Deed 0f  Trust, with rates expressly based upon the London Inter Bank Offered Rate (LIBOR) under the Interest Only Period Fixed/Adjustable Rate Rider of the contract. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the LlBOR rate has been fraudulently  manipulated by major American and International banks and that they were required by this manipulation to make unlawful and excessive payments of interest on her loan in violation of public policy, wherein Plaintiff was and is owed both general, special, and punitive and exemplary damages in an amount offsetting any and all payments they purportedly have ever owed to Defendant NCMC.”

The California League of Latin American Citizens (CALLAC) is assisting the Hernandez Family of Torrance to try to keep their home and to combat these outrageous and criminal actions by the Banksters that want to throw them out.  If you want to help, email:  callac@janbtucker.com

Posted in Ideas & Opinions, Private Investigation Industry | Tagged , , , , , | 1 Comment

The Story of Ramsey Muniz, Political Prisoner


By signing up, you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.

How the US government used a Mexican drug lord to convict an innocent man

 Reprinted from:  http://friendsofjustice.wordpress.com/2012/10/16/how-the-us-government-used-a-mexican-drug-lord-to-convict-an-innocent-man/

From our sponsors:

Texas drug abuse hotlines:   http://drugabuse.com/usa/drug-abuse/texas/

By Alan Bean, Friends of Justice


Ramsey Muniz for Governor 1972

Ramsey (Ramiro) Muniz is a man of seventy who hobbles on a bad hip, but his spirit grows stronger with each passing day. Ramsey has now spent two full decades in federal prisons (including three years in solitary confinement) for participating in a narcotics conspiracy. Supporters feel that a septuagenarian with a broken body and a vibrant heart is a sterling candidate for a presidential commutation. I agree. But first we must face a troubling question. Somebody entered into a conspiracy with a Mexican drug lord, but was it Ramsey Muniz or was it the federal government?

Eager for a big media splash and an easy conviction, the Houston office of the DEA treated their counterparts in Dallas to a series of carefully staged events while intentionally obscuring the truth. Those who testified at trial had no idea what was going on; those who knew the truth did not testify. The DEA got a big media win, a drug lord got a plane ticket back to Mexico, and Ramsey Muniz got a life sentence.


In the early days of March in 1994, Denacio Medina flew from Mexico City to Houston, Texas. A week later, Ramsey Muniz was arrested in Dallas. Medina had a legal problem too big to be handled over the phone. Two of his brothers were in federal prisons facing narcotics conspiracy charges, one in El Paso, the other in San Diego. Neither brother stood a chance at trial, but Medina wanted to minimize the legal damage. More significantly, a new NAFTA-related law made it possible to transfer Mexican nationals convicted in the United States to Mexican prisons where, Medina hoped, they would be more likely to secure an early release (there is no parole in the American federal system).

Medina’s family was awash in drug money, and he intended to hire the best defense attorney on the market. Ramsey Muniz enters the story because he had a working relationship with Dick DeGuerin, a Texas attorney with a reputation for working miracles for well-heeled clients.

We don’t know how or why, but shortly after arriving in Houston, Denacio Medina was picked up by DEA agents and subjected to a thorough debriefing. Asked why he was in the United States, Medina likely told the truth: he had come to hire an attorney and his pending appointment with Ramsey Muniz was proof of that fact.

When the feds learned that Medina was talking to Ramsey Muniz their suspicions deepened. In the eyes of most Texas Latinos, Muniz was remembered as the Baylor educated attorney who ran for Texas governor on the La Raza Unida ticket back in the 1970s. But Muniz had gone to prison for five years in 1977 when one of his clients found himself in the same position Denacio Medina was now in. Muniz admitted he had attended meetings his clients’ illegal activities were discussed. He thought he was covered by attorney-client privilege—he was wrong.


Upton Sinclar in 1923, in a Los Angeles jail for reading the First Amendment to striking longshore workers at Liberty Hill in San Pedro

You may be asking why a man with two brothers facing long stretches in the federal prison system would cross the border to do a drug deal that could easily have been transacted by his family’s Texas affiliates. None of that mattered to the DEA. They had a chance to make a high-profile drug bust involving a Latino icon, and they intended to make the most of the opportunity. As Upton Sinclair has famously said, “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.”

There was only one way Medina could return to Mexico as a free man—he had to confirm the DEA’s darkest suspicions, and that meant making it appear that he and Muniz really were planning a drug deal. Medina may have procured the narcotics through his family’s Texas connections, but it is more likely that the DEA, eager to ensure Medina’s cooperation, supplied the swag out of their own stash. This would have been standard operating procedure.

Muniz was working as a paralegal at the time with a law firm in Brownsville, Texas and was scheduled to spend several days visiting with potential clients in Dallas, so the scam had to unfold in North Texas. The goal was to tie Muniz to a vehicle loaded with drugs. If that didn’t work out, Medina was hoping the feds would be satisfied with finding drugs in a car that could be traced to Muniz.


Juan Gonzales–rewarded for being a pawn in a frame up?

The day after being “debriefed” by DEA officers in Houston, Medina rented a white Mercury Topaz using a credit card belonging to Juan Gonzales, the man who was scheduled to drive Muniz to Dallas in a few days. According to the trial transcript, Medina told Gonzales that he needed to rent a car but lacked a Texas driver’s license. Gonzales had a license but no money, and his Sears credit card was $300 in arrears. Medina offered to pay off the Sears card if Gonzales would use it to rent a car for two days. This amounted to $250 in free money and the simple laborer from the Rio Grande Valley readily agreed.


What kind of a Fleabag hotel? A hotel where the fleas are rats that set you up and snitch you off…

Next, the Houston DEA informed Medina that a confidential informant using the fake Danny Hernandez had just booked into the Class Inn, a flea bag motel in Fort Worth. Hernandez had no identification because, as he told the man at the desk, his wallet had just been stolen. At low end motels nobody asks questions to paying customers. By sharing a room with Hernandez, Medina had a safe place to leave the rented Mercury Topaz without leaving a paper trail.

We know that Medina was staying at the Classic Inn on March 9th, the day after Muniz and Gonzales checked into the Ramada Inn in a North Dallas suburb. Phone logs show that Ramsey Muniz received a call from the Fort Worth motel that day. Since Medina flew from Houston to Dallas the evening of March 10th, we must conclude that he drove the drug-laden car to Fort Worth, then flew back to Houston where he boarded a plane back to Dallas. If Medina and Muniz were true conspirators none of this would have been necessary; but if the plan was to simulate a drug deal, a few weird gyrations had to be factored into the equation.

Legal records make it clear that agents in Houston staged the Muniz bust while their counterparts in Dallas were intentionally kept in the dark. After delivering the “load car” into the safe keeping of the mysterious Mr. Hernandez in Fort Worth, Medina returned to Houston so agents with the Dallas DEA could observe Ramsey Muniz picking him up at the Dallas airport.

We are dealing with a classic bait-and-switch scam. Dallas agents who were carefully shielded from the salient facts of the case testified at trial. The jury never learned about the DEA agents in Houston who orchestrated Medina’s every move.

Ramsey Muniz was attending the 75th birthday party of a family friend when Medina called asking to be picked up at Love Field. Muniz didn’t drive and Juan Gonzales was returning from an emergency trip to the Rio Grande Valley, but a young man at the birthday party agreed to drive him to Love Field. Medina told Muniz that his shuttle diplomacy between Dallas and Houston was designed to line up the $250,000 the Mexican businessman had agreed to pay Dick DeGuerin.

Moments before this rendezvous at the Dallas airport took place; the Houston DEA called up their counterparts in Dallas and asked them to check out two Latino males fitting the description of Muniz and Medina. Dallas agents followed Muniz and Medina for a couple of miles before breaking off surveillance at the request of the Houston office. Later that evening, Houston instructed Kimberley Elliott, head of the Dallas team assigned to the case, to drive to the Ramada Inn.

In her incident reports, and at pre-trial hearings, Agent Elliott claimed she drove to the Ramada Inn because she had received a call from Ramada employees who were concerned about a couple of suspicious men of “Latin” appearance who were using the lobby phone. Elliott abandoned this theory at trial, admitting that she drove to the motel at the insistence of the Houston DEA. Motel employees had not been the least bit suspicious of Muniz, it turned out and no one at the Ramada Inn had ever called the DEA. Elliott’s doctored reports and perjured testimony at pre-trial hearings were designed to obscure the involvement of the Houston Office from the judge, defense counsel and the jury.

If the Dallas DEA agents had maintained their surveillance, they would have seen Muniz and his companions return to the birthday party where Ramsey was scheduled to make a brief speech. Meanwhile, Medina moved from guest to guest offering handsome remuneration to anyone who could drive him to Fort Worth. A Fed Ex driver named Danny Gallardo testified at trial that he took Medina’s offer and was directed to the Classic Inn. Medina disappeared for a moment, then climbed back in the car and told Gallardo that his car wasn’t at the motel. Gallardo was instructed to drive to the Ramada Inn in North Dallas.

According to trial testimony, Muniz was walking across the Ramada parking lot carrying a bag of groceries when he was approached by Denacio Medina. The two men chatted briefly before a stranger standing in the shadows called Medina’s name. Medina promised to be back first thing in the morning then climbed into the stranger’s vehicle.

True to his word, Medina was back at the Ramada Inn the next morning. Juan Gonzales had returned from his emergency trip to the Rio Grande Valley just in time to join Muniz and Medina for breakfast. As the two men chatted over their bacon and eggs, Medina said he would be returning to Houston that morning and asked for a ride to Love Field. A DEA agent who was monitoring this conversation claims he heard Medina say something about a deal scheduled for 10:00. The agent learned nothing about the nature of this transaction or if the projected time was morning or evening. But the Houston DEA was insisting that all three men at the restaurant were big time drug dealers, so the agent concluded that Medina was talking about drugs.

The three men drove to Love Field where Medina entered the terminal and was taken into temporary custody by a DEA agent. As Gonzales made his way back to the interstate he made two surprising revelations. Muniz learned that Medina’s rental car needed to be moved from the Ramada Inn a mile south to the La Quinta. Gonzales reported that he had decided to remain in Dallas to look for work and would be staying at the La Quinta.

Since Juan Gonzales failed to testify at trial it is impossible to know with certainty what transpired between Medina and the hapless Mr. Gonzales. At some point, Medina asked Gonzales to return the rental car for him. Gonzales likely complained that the car was now five days overdue. Medina may have promised to pay for a room at the La Quinta if Gonzales agreed to return the car. Medina and Gonzales clearly worked out a deal of some kind, but Muniz was left completely in the dark. Since Gonzales ended up doing fifteen years for his part in the alleged conspiracy, it is unlikely that he knew Medina was working with the feds.

Ramsey didn’t mind losing his driver. His wife, Irma, had been asking him to fly home and phone logs show Muniz had been discussing travel plans with Southwest. He had one more legal consultation scheduled for noon after which he was free to leave Dallas.

But moving Medina’s car was a problem. Muniz had allowed his license to expire because he didn’t drive. Five years in prison had left him a bit paranoid about car ownership, and he found he got more work done if someone else was driving. But the drive would only take a couple of minutes so there was little danger of getting stopped. Muniz climbed behind the wheel of the Topaz and followed Gonzales to the La Quinta. Moments after parking the car, he was approached and questioned by Dallas DEA agents, $800,000 of powdered cocaine was discovered in the trunk of the Topaz, and Denacio Medina was on a plane back to Mexico.


Attorney Dick DeGuerin

The jury never learned that every move Denacio Medina made was scripted by the Houston DEA. Dick DeGuerin, Ramsey’s defense attorney, wasn’t told that Medina had been “negotiating” with the feds until moments before he delivered his closing remarks. DeGuerin didn’t unearth Medina’s relationship to Hernandez until midway through the trial and, because he wasn’t told that Medina was working with the Houston DEA, DeGuerin failed to grasp the significance of the Hernandez-Medina connection.

The jury was exposed to a simple narrative limited to the “evidence” witnessed by the Dallas DEA. Would the jury have voted to convict if all the facts had been on the table? Would a case this flimsy even go to trial? The Houston office of the DEA had good reason to keep its fingerprints off this case.

After twenty years in prison, the seventy-year old Ramsey Muniz should be released from prison on humanitarian grounds. But the man who ran for governor in 1972 on the La Raza Unida ticket has maintained his innocence from the moment the trunk of the Mercury Topaz was lifted. The record shows that Denacio Medina set up Ramsey Muniz to save his own skin. The Houston DEA offered assistance and advice at every stage of the operation and likely supplied the drugs found in the load car. This nasty business was completely legal and utterly immoral. If President Barack Obama ever takes a close look at the facts of this case he will issue an immediate commutation. It is our job to ensure this tragedy receives the attention it deserves.

Posted in Ideas & Opinions, Private Investigation Industry, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment