We cannot load blog data at this time.
Subscribe to Blog via Email
- July 2015 (6)
- June 2015 (2)
- May 2015 (2)
- April 2015 (4)
- March 2015 (5)
- February 2015 (2)
- December 2014 (4)
- November 2014 (8)
- October 2014 (6)
- September 2014 (4)
- August 2014 (5)
- July 2014 (6)
- June 2014 (12)
- May 2014 (22)
- April 2014 (18)
- March 2014 (12)
- February 2014 (6)
- January 2014 (7)
- December 2013 (6)
- November 2013 (1)
- October 2013 (8)
- September 2013 (6)
- August 2013 (5)
- July 2013 (6)
- June 2013 (8)
- May 2013 (15)
- April 2013 (7)
- March 2013 (6)
- February 2013 (11)
- January 2013 (9)
- December 2012 (10)
- November 2012 (15)
- October 2012 (20)
- September 2012 (12)
- August 2012 (7)
- July 2012 (7)
- June 2012 (3)
- May 2012 (10)
- April 2012 (6)
- March 2012 (10)
- February 2012 (9)
- January 2012 (7)
- December 2011 (18)
- November 2011 (16)
- October 2011 (10)
- September 2011 (13)
- August 2011 (13)
- July 2011 (28)
- June 2011 (19)
- May 2011 (19)
- April 2011 (22)
- March 2011 (13)
- February 2011 (15)
- January 2011 (17)
- December 2010 (18)
- November 2010 (8)
- October 2010 (14)
- September 2010 (13)
- August 2010 (9)
- July 2010 (5)
- June 2010 (5)
- May 2010 (9)
- April 2010 (3)
- February 2010 (1)
- January 2010 (1)
- November 2009 (2)
- September 2009 (7)
- August 2009 (3)
- May 2009 (2)
- February 2009 (2)
- December 2008 (4)
- November 2008 (1)
- October 2008 (21)
- May 2006 (1)
- Mohsen Loghmani: Another lawsuit bites the dust
- Jan B. Tucker for Vice President: Immigration, the Border & Civil Rights
- Jan B. Tucker for Vice President: Real Socialized Health Care
- Jan B. Tucker for Vice President: LGBTI issues
- Jan B. Tucker for Vice President: The Aftermath of the Foreclosure Crisis
I arranged for Sweet Alice Harris to be honored at today’s gala as Mother of the Year. Here are some photos of our Mercy Mission Bear Hospital activists.
Meet & Greet Sandra Fluke, Candidate for California State Senator
- Heroine of the Feminist Movement
- Barred from Testifying before Republican Controlled House Committee regarding the necessity of Birth Control being included in Affordable Care Act insurance plans
- Called a “SLUT” by Rush Limbaugh on national media
In February 2012 the Republican controlled House Oversight & Government Reform Committee refused to allow SANDRA FLUKE to testify about the necessity of requiring health insurance policies to cover contraceptive care for women. That was bad enough and then RUSH LIMBAUGH went mental on his radio talk show and publicly called her a “SLUT.”
Today, Sandra is an attorney admitted to the California Bar and is running to succeed Ted Lieu in the State Senate (Ted’s running for Congress).
Friday, May 16, 2014 6:30 p.m.
2277 El Dorado Street (Corner of Amapola Ave)
Torrance CA 90501
Hosted by Jan B. Tucker
To RSVP by Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/events/1485409901689149/?ref_dashboard_filter=upcoming
To see why I’m running for Board of Equalization–where only a single candidate qualified for the California Primary Ballot–see my first post on the subject:
Now, here’s what you need to do to write me in on the California primary election ballot:
1. Bring a pen or pencil with you to the polling place (they should have one available but don’t count on it)
2. Don’t vote for the Office of District #3, State Board of Equalization, where only the incumbent, Jerome Horton, is on the ballot
3. Write the office name “State Board of Equalization” and “District 3″ and then my name, Jan B. Tucker, as illustrated below:
First, check out this link:
Now, explain to me why people think it’s appropriate to conduct a candidate forum for left of center candidates at the Venice United Methodist Church??????? The facts speak for themselves and as an OH BY THE WAY, California League of Latin American Citizens is calling a picket line starting at 5:00 p.m., May 6, 2014 in front of the church to protest Dr. O’s homophobia and racism. I’m not giving these candidates a pass on using this facility and if they’re really against homophobia and racism they would no more cross our picket line than they would cross one to go into a KKK building for a candidate forum.
LATE BREAKING NEWS: Southern California ADA, very much to their credit, has changed the location of the debate to Oakwood Recreation Center 767 California Ave Venice CA 90291. WE ARE STILL GOING TO PICKET THE CHURCH at Victoria/Lincoln at 5:00 p.m. and then go to the congressional forum. There are some key questions that need to be asked of these candidates who want to represent us in the House of Representatives:
1. On March 5, 2012 a demand was made on the Venice United Methodist Church for copies of their corporate IRS Form 990 pursuant to 26 USC 6104(d)(1)(A). The church has never complied, suggesting that they have something to hide inasmuch as compliance is mandatory and Form 990s are supposed to be public record. Will you ask the IRS to investigate VUMC to find out why they refuse to release their Form 990s? (To see the demand that has been ignored by VUMC, click here).
2. With the critical and unstable conditions in Nigeria that enabled Boko Haram to kidnap hundreds of schoolgirls with impunity, Nigeria doesn’t need further instability being instigated by Igbo tribe separatists who want to start yet another Nigerian civil war. What should the U.S. do about MASSOB operations being conducted right in our district in Venice United Methods Church by Dr. Ogbonnaya?
WRITE-IN Jan B. Tucker for Board of Equalization District No. 3
For the past several years, I’ve been saying “never again” when asked to run for office. But since I share my date of birth with Sean Connery fate made it inevitable that I’d have to emulate the title of his 1983 James Bond movie, Never Say Never Again. In the past I’ve run for President (1996), U.S. Senate (2000) Governor (1982), Lieutenant Governor (1978), Assembly (1976), and twice each for State Treasurer (1994, 1998), House of Representatives (1980, 1990), and State Senator (1974, 1992). I hold the all-time highest vote record for any Peace & Freedom Party candidate achieved in the California primary election (ever, in the entire history of the party) 1998, which is one reason why the current party leadership cabal despises me and envies my ability to reach ordinary voters.
This year a record number of elections in California will be conducted in the primary with only one candidate on the ballot for all of the voters to select. This is a direct result of the Secretary of State’s deliberate decision to ignore a law that allows third party candidates to qualify for the ballot by getting 150 signatures so that poor and working people can avoid the filing fee and her requiring them to get thousands of signatures instead.
The incumbent, Jerome Horton is a good public servant with an accomplished record, BUT I will raise an issue in this race that nobody else is talking about. For the past several years there have been legislative efforts emulating a Michigan law that seeks to extend the sales tax to the sale of services along with the sale of products that it already covers. With our increasingly service oriented economy that makes some sense BUT it should not be extended to services that implement or exercise constitutional rights. Examples: Freelance Reporters exercise First Amendment rights; Lawyers, Private Investigators, Process Servers and Expert Witnesses implement their clients’ right to Due Process of Law under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.
You can download the petition to qualify me as a Write-In candidate at the following link; we need the signatures back to me so that I can file them by May 20, 2014 and then don’t forget to write me in on election day, June 3. Make sure when you write me in (ask the precinct officials how to do it or if voting by absentee ballot, call me at 213.787.5476 and I’ll explain the process) MAKE SURE THAT YOU DON’T VOTE ON THE BALLOT FOR JEROME HORTON even though he’s the only candidate on the ballot for that office.
The way the “Top Two” primary works, if I get more write-in votes than any other candidate in the primary, I will go on to the runoff ballot in November!
To see a map of District 3, go to:
By JONATHAN D. MELROD and MARY MOORE
May 1, 2014, 3:00 AM
(A letter to the Editor printed today, May 1, 2014)
District Attorney: No decision yet on charges in Lopez shooting
PD Editorial: Let Jill Ravitch build on her first term
The Press Democrat editorial endorsing Jill Ravitch for district attorney (“Let Ravitch build on her first term,” April 13) raises a fundamental question of critical concern for Sonoma County: What exactly do we want and expect from our district attorney? Of course we want unfettered honesty, diligence, unbiased thinking and dedication to serving the entire community regardless of social, economic and ethnic differences.
With those criteria in mind, let’s review Ravitch’s credentials and record with regard to the Oct. 22 shooting of 13-year-old Andy Lopez by Deputy Erick Gelhaus.
Four years ago, one of Ravitch’s central campaign planks called for more expeditious review of officer-involved fatal incidents. Her campaign pledge to speedily adjudicate filing criminal charges in officer-involved fatalities grew out of a painful 20-year background for victims and families of police-related deaths in Sonoma County.
In fact, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights held hearings in Sonoma County in 1998 due to a spate of officer-related, civilian deaths in the mid-90s, and in a 2000 report it sided with community concerns. This report listed 26 recommendations ranging from improved training to a civilian complaint process to an overhaul of “the policies on use of force … to incorporate mediation techniques and less violent methods of resolving a critical incident.”
Had that particular policy recommendation been implemented, Andy Lopez might be alive for his 14th birthday on June 2.
To date, only a few of the 26 recommendations have been implemented. Since the report, there have been an additional 56 deaths resulting directly from police-related incidents. Andy Lopez is only one of the most recent of those victims.
While no district attorney is solely responsible for implementing those recommendations, Ravitch has shown no leadership as the county’s top law enforcement official with regard to any substantive policy change recommended by the commission.
Further, Ravitch continues to walk a precarious legal and ethical path with regard to the Lopez case. While she recused her office from prosecuting Supervisor Efren Carrillo, she has refused to remove herself from adjudicating the criminal liability of Gelhaus, despite repeated attempts by many attorneys, individuals and organizations such as the NAACP to prevail upon her to remove herself.
Soon after the Andy Lopez killing, a group of us met with Ravitch to ask her to remove herself from the case on the grounds that her ties to Sheriff Steve Freitas rendered it impossible to fairly, and in an unbiased manner, judge whether a deputy had acted improperly. She declined.
Under the leadership of the Santa Rosa law firm of Adams Fietz, 18 Sonoma County attorneys signed a letter to Attorney General Kamala Harris asking her to disqualify Ravitch from the Lopez case, further requesting that a special prosecutor be appointed to handle the case. As legal authority for seeking Harris’ intervention, the letter cited appropriate provisions from the California constitution, the state government code and national prosecution standards.
Six months have passed since the shooting death of Andy Lopez, and no decision has been forthcoming regarding the fate of Gelhaus. Ravitch has had this case since January with no indication that there will be a decision before the June election. In fact, as of Tuesday, 90 days have passed since she received the final report, but the community is still waiting.
Even more telling was Ravitch’s quote in The Press Democrat from a recent candidates’ debate in which she said that her office lacks the financial resources and expertise to adjudicate Gelhaus’ criminal liability. This leaves little hope for a fair, transparent and equitable outcome, which is precisely why Ravitch needs to remove herself from any further adjudication and call for an outside special prosecutor.
Jonathan D. Melrod, a Sebastopol attorney, and Mary Moore, a community activist, are both members of the Justice Coalition for Andy Lopez.
There’s lots of talk in media, both conventional news and social media, on the subject of whether Donald Tokowitz Sterling can be forced to sell the Los Angeles Clippers and if so, how much he will profit from the sale. There’s no reason why the Clippers should be sold nor is there any reason why he has to profit from a sale: if the powers that be had the gonads they could RICO Sterling and get a court ordered forfeiture of every last penny he owns. Of course I’ll truly be shocked if anybody in the government has the gonads to do what should be done because that kind of justice is never meted out to the rich.
18 USC 1962(a), part of the Racketeer Influenced & Corrupt Organization Act (RICO) says in pertinent part:
It shall be unlawful for any person who has received any income derived, directly or indirectly, from a pattern of racketeering activity or through collection of an unlawful debt in which such person has participated as a principal within the meaning of section 2, title 18, United States Code, to use or invest, directly or indirectly, any part of such income, or the proceeds of such income, in acquisition of any interest in, or the establishment or operation of, any enterprise which is engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce.
What is a “pattern of racketeering activity?” 18 USC 1961 identifies a whole slew of federal and state laws that when broken constitute such a pattern and all you need is two (2) or more violations to meet the legal definition. One of those laws is mail fraud (18 USC 1341), which states:
Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, or to sell, dispose of, loan, exchange, alter, give away, distribute, supply, or furnish or procure for unlawful use any counterfeit or spurious coin, obligation, security, or other article, or anything represented to be or intimated or held out to be such counterfeit or spurious article, for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice or attempting so to do, places in any post office or authorized depository for mail matter, any matter or thing whatever to be sent or delivered by the Postal Service, or deposits or causes to be deposited any matter or thing whatever to be sent or delivered by any private or commercial interstate carrier, or takes or receives therefrom, any such matter or thing, or knowingly causes to be delivered by mail or such carrier according to the direction thereon, or at the place at which it is directed to be delivered by the person to whom it is addressed, any such matter or thing, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. If the violation occurs in relation to, or involving any benefit authorized, transported, transmitted, transferred, disbursed, or paid in connection with, a presidentially declared major disaster or emergency (as those terms are defined in section 102 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5122)), or affects a financial institution, such person shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both.
Now for background, read my last blog on the subject of Donald Sterling and pay special attention to his Beverly Hills Properties behavior in trying to unlawfully evict tenants from rent-controlled apartments in Santa Monica: http://janbtucker.com/blog/2014/04/27/happy-birthday-donald-tokowitz-sterling-you-jewish-oreo/
There’s absolutely no way that you can conduct the kind of operation described in Sterling’s Santa Monica apartments without engaging in mail fraud, not to mention that if Beverly Hills Properties ever used email or a fax machine to carry out its scheme then 18 USC 1343 (wire fraud) also comes into play, without devising “….any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises….” Believe me, I’ve done criminal defense and criminal offense on these kind of cases and it’s virtually impossible to carry this kind of scheme out without falling afoul of one or the other or both of these laws, both of which are “RICO predicate acts” which trigger the RICO law. There are also plenty of other RICO predicate acts listed in 18 USC 1961 which are hard to avoid violating when pulling these kinds of stunts.
So, how should the government proceed:
1. The City of Los Angeles should have the Department of Building & Safety and the City Housing Department go door to door in every single one of Beverly Hills Properties managed apartments and distribute a leaflet to the tenants asking them if they want to blow the whistle on any potential violation and in follow up investigations find out if they ever got a letter by US Mail, an email, or any other wire communication from the company that was false or contained falsehoods.
2. The City of Santa Monica should review its existing investigative files to determine whether anything they already uncovered constitutes a RICO predicate act.
3. The U.S. Department of Justice and the private attorneys that previously sued Sterling’s businesses should review their files for RICO predicate acts.
4. The U.S. Department of Justice should file either a criminal RICO action or a civil RICO action if they find sufficient (like, two or more) RICO predicate acts and under 18 USC 1963(b) order forfeiture of all of his property derived from RICO activity or derived from money invested from RICO activity (like everything he owns) or order divestiture of his property under 18 USC 1964(a).
Our elected representatives have an opportunity to prove that the laws of the United States of America apply to billionaires with this scenario or in the alternative that they lack gonads.
by Private Investigator Michael Ferrari:
April 28, 2014
Jose Guadalupe Ramirez-Cervantes has lived in the United States for 18 years. He has been married to the same woman for 20 years, has a son in college in Mexico, an 18 year old daughter, 13 year old identical twin sons, and a 3 year old son.
Jose and his children are bi-lingual. The mom, Carmen, speaks very little English.
The parents are better “citizens” than most actual U.S. citizens. They are hard-working and were reluctant to accept assistance, and Jose insists that everyone helping keep track of what he owes them so he can pay them back when he is released. As another example, when I last visited him he told me that $300 had mysteriously appeared in his commissary account, which had only had $5 in it. He said he couldn’t touch it because it was not his. The church had deposited it, and Jose only reluctantly agreed to use it only if he is deported.
The family has lived in the area for 16 years, and moved to Pleasanton so the children could attend good schools. For 15 years, Jose has worked at a McDonald’s in Livermore where he was assistant store manager (and would be welcomed back).
His problems with ICE began 11 months ago when he was arrested for a very minor domestic violence incident (a slap). He has no prior criminal record (not fully verified). Even though Alameda County supposedly only reports persons who have serious violent crimes to ICE through the Secure Communities program, an ICE hold was placed.
Without being able to notify his family, he was transferred to federal custody in a contracted facility, the Contra Costa Sheriff’s West County Detention Facility in Richmond.
I became involved in November when contacted by the pastor of a church asking if I could try to stop the eviction of his family from their two bedroom apartment. Mom had fallen into clinical depression, and had ignored the notices — the eviction was already scheduled by the Alameda SO. I got the SO to hold off for a few days.
We later found out that one of the boys had figured out what was going on and was arrested for shoplifting to try to get money to pay the rent. I got him into a diversion program. Both boys are now attending church youth activities, and enjoying them. Several church members are acting as father figures.
The manager of the apartments confirmed that until Jose was jailed, there was no problem with the family. It was only after his arrest that the twins began hanging out with older, rougher kids.
Until the daughter reached out to the church, Carmen had not started preparing for the move. I visited with the pastor, who is bi-lingual. The church arranged to put their things in storage, and for lodging at a nice motel which served continental breakfast. The church also arranged for supplemental food. The pastor asked Carmen how she imagined life in 5 years. She replied: I want my children to have a stable home, I want them to do good in school and be able to earn a better living than me, and I want to speak English.
I contacted every DV program which offered transitional housing. Even with the help of a county supervisor’s office, they are still on a waiting list. One housing specialist said that there was a perfect 3 bedroom unit which had just become available. It was reserved for persons with physical disability.
Since there was no one with disability waiting for it, the city suggested that they could just “mistakenly” answer that there was a disabled person and the place would be theirs. Carmen refused because a disabled person might need it.
As far as the legal saga:
Before I was involved, Jose was asked to translate between a private attorney and his client because there were no jail interpreters available. The attorney said he would take Jose’s case and Jose could pay when he was released on bond.
Jose had one prior deportation, years ago, because apparently he fell victim to one of those fake “immigration counselor / attorneys.” He has a social security card and driver license bearing his name (How hard would it be for the feds to weed out these slimy operations?).
When I contacted the attorney, he said they were pursuing an asylum exemption because Jose had left Mexico under threat of death. The family had provided a police report. The attorney declined my offer to, pro bono, look further into that, and to verify the circumstances of the DV, perhaps even getting a statement from the officers involved. The attorney felt he had all that was needed at the time, but did say he would use me as a conduit to communicate with Jose.
After an extended period where the family, Jose and I had not heard from the attorney, I got through to counsel. He explained that bond had been denied, and that Jose was found to be deportable, but the attorney was filing an appeal. I went to see Jose and learned that the attorney had not been to see him, nor had he received any written communication from the attorney.
I prepared a Declaration regarding the non-communication, and his daughter sent it to the court with a cover letter she wrote explaining to the Court, in effect, that her Dad had ineffective assistance of counsel.
I am absolutely amazed, after President Obama’s instructions that discretion should be used in selecting deportees, that people like Jose are still being subjected to the proceedings. Obama identified the combination of characteristics for those for whom discretion should be used:
1. Alien with minor children who are citizens;
2. Alien is supporting the children/family
3. No significant criminal record
4. Long-time resident in the U.S.
I don’t know if the President identified #4 specifically, but long time residence without problems is about the best confirmation that someone is a good candidate for being a citizen (Someone who “waits in line” is still a dice roll as to their U.S. residency will progress). I would also note that with all of the changes in law, such as random changes in what constitutes a legal gun, plus mandatory reporting laws coupled with in essence treating DV as seriously, in some cases more seriously, than some violent felonies, nowadays, it is pretty hard for anyone to reach age 30 without having some kind of criminal record.
The bottom line is that despite the president’s guidance, depending on which statistics are quoted, 50 to 70 percent of persons deported are without a record of serious criminal conduct. Somehow, despite Alameda County guidelines on who to report, and supposed guidance on discretion by ICE, it is mostly people like Jose who are being deported.
If this is happening in San Francisco, it makes you wonder what the government is doing with “illegals” in other districts — shooting them on sight? All of the immigration attorneys say there is no logical pattern. Some suggested that if ICE and local law enforcement don’t keep the “flow” up, there would be lay-offs (This is somewhat supported by the fact that both Alameda and Contra Costa counties have surplus jail space, even after “renting” to other agencies).
Beside the humanitarian issues, it makes no sense for the taxpayer. Jose stopped contributing to the economy; his family is now receiving social services (despite Carmen working three low-pay jobs); the kids are facing more challenges. Since Co Co County has work furlough and gps monitoring programs, I cannot fathom the logic in having Jose remain in custody all of this time.
Once denied bond and then further asylum proceedings, “jailhouse lawyers” advised both Jose and his family that it would be easier and better for his family if he accepted deportation and just returned. Jose refused, because he was tired of being illegal, and thought — based on what Obama said — he would ultimately prevail in court.
Anyhow, I believe this family has a compelling story. They are grateful to now be sharing a one bedroom apartment.
TAKE ACTION–Jan B. Tucker
Email President Barack Obama and ask him to halt the deportation of Jose Guadalupe Ramirez-Cervantes: http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/submit-questions-and-comments
Write ICE and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and ask them to stop the deportation of Ramirez-Cervantes:
To contact ICE leadership, please write to
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary Thomas S. Winkowski
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
500 12th St., SW
Washington, D.C. 20536
To contact DHS leadership, please write to
Secretary Jeh Charles Johnson
Department of Homeland Security
Washington, D.C. 20528