Anthony Kuo, Mathur's one-time protégé, is now Don Wagner's political pal (and they're owned by developers)

     Have you seen that campaign sign all over Irvine, the one emblazoned with WAGNER KUO SHEA in big orange letters?
     Don Wagner’s running for mayor and the other two—Anthony Kuo and Christina Shea—are running for City Council.
     You remember Wagner. Before he joined the state Assembly, he was on the SOCCCD board of trustees from 1998 until 2010, serving as Board President much of that time. A staunch religious “conservative,” he was a truly awful trustee. Still, toward the end of his run as trustee, he was burned one too many times by some Mathurian connivery, and he thus became Chancellor Mathur’s sworn enemy. It all happened in one day; he literally went around fuming and yelling and muttering how he was gonna fix that bastard. People were astonished.
     There’s no stopping Don’s wrath when you’ve crossed the line. His need for revenge will not be denied.
     Alas, Don’s newfound reason for living ran afoul of County Republican bigwig (and SOCCCD trustee) Tom Fuentes’ tidy local machine, which counted Mathur as among its cogs. Well, sparks flew. There was snortage and screaming and curious machinations. (See A new board majority? Fuentes gets hopping mad, December 11, 2009.)
     The rest is history.
     Christina Shea? Well, she’s nothing special around these parts. She’s your standard gay-bashing, Evangelical Christian Republican. (Years ago, she and her husband pursued an initiative removing homosexuals’ protections against discrimination.)
     And Anthony Kuo? Nearly twenty years ago, Kuo was a student and Raghu Mathur’s protégé here at IVC. That kid was in the catbird seat.
     Some of us old-timers will recall a dark period when the Gooster’s assorted loathsome pals kept getting prizes at the college. “Professor of the year” went to a notoriously goofy and awful science instructor—he and Mathur went way back. “Administrator of the year” went to a particularly unstable and violent Mathurian hire who was eventually dragged off campus by the cops. He was a lunatic. (See College Dean Is Abusive, Five on Faculty Complain, LA Times, 6-29-02.) Kuo got some prizes too, as I recall. Mathur seriously Republicanized the kid.
     Kuo eventually became a communications and strategy consultant. “His government relations practice has included community organizations, the hospitality industry, national trade associations, investment banks and real estate developers.” (About Me.)
     By the new millennium—Mathur started his Presidency gig in 1997—Anthony Kuo, then a student body president, emerged as Mathur’s indefatigable defender. This was at a time when virtually no faculty member or student had anything good to say about the creepy former Chemistry instructor. (Students actually sued him.) Mathur, a narcissist, made up stories about his success and popularity. Remember the time he published a “thank you” to “all the faculty” who showed up to his ill-fated “sack lunch”?
     That’s right, nobody had showed.

Kuo, Shea, Wagner

     By 2002, Kuo was still defending Mathur. Mathur, staunchly supported by the odious board (including Wagner), moved up to the Chancellor’s chair in February of 2002. But, by then, he (and the board) had been on the losing end of a series of First Amendment-related lawsuits.
     Natch, Goo and his supporters complained. They gnashed their nasty little teeth.
     In 2002, I wrote about this:

     Well, the district’s demagogic satellites are spinning again. In response to the Times’ coverage of the recent court victory against the district by students, [Mathur’s pal]… Ray Chandos—evidently, chair “for life” of IVC Accreditation—wrote the editors to say:

Your article about the South Orange County Community College District Speech and Advocacy Policy neglected certain basic facts … The policy was written in part to respond to some faculty-sponsored activities that were disruptive or life-threatening. One event called for students to smash a car with a sledgehammer as a “blow” against the administration. Students were hospitalized as a result…. (Times; 3/31/02)

     Chandos, like [Saddleback College's Ken] Woodward, can always be counted on to whitewash the Empire’s dirty linen and to invent lurid rebel atrocities. The car-smashing event (apparently, car-smashings are commonplace on campuses) was not, as he suggests, a political demonstration; rather, it was a non-political fund-raiser for the Honors Society….
     True, at one point, a peripatetic wag named Jeff spontaneously sprayed “El Presidente” on the side of the car, causing Armando Beyondo to soil his trousers, but that hardly justifies Chandos’ description of the event as an anti-administration demonstration! Further, though, at some point, a student was mildly injured by flying glass (she was not, as far as I know, “hospitalized”), nothing about this event was remotely “life-threatening.”
. . .
     Ray went on to write:

Some faculty newsletters attack ethnic background, integrity, families, religion and the gender orientation of district employees….

     Do you suppose Ray is referring to ‘Vine/Dissent? D’ya think?. . .
     At a recent Academic Senate meeting in which Ray was in attendance, I stood up to read his Times letter [in defense of Mathur and the district]; I remarked on the Rayster’s stunning disregard of the truth. I then turned to Ray and said that, if he is going to accuse people [he seemed to be referring to me and Dissent] of racism, homophobia, and the like, at the very least, he is obliged to cite concrete instances. I sat down.
     More than three weeks have passed, and I have not heard a peep from the fellow.
     Ray’s letter to the Times was accompanied by a similar epistle by one Anthony Kuo, president of the IVC Associated Students, who, despite his role as student advocate, wrote to “commend Raghu Mathur for four years of superb service to the college as president.” According to Kuo, IVC has been beset, not by a tyrannical rights-violating college president, but by “rebel faculty…and a small number of students” who “have tried to make our campus a war zone by using hate literature….”
     About two weeks ago, I wrote Mr. Kuo. Referring to his accusations regarding the use of “hate literature” by “rebel faculty,” I said:

I hereby request that you show me exactly what it is that I have written or published that constitutes “hate literature.” If I…or some unnamed person or persons…[are] to be publicly charged with “using hate literature” by you, surely you are obliged to provide evidence…I await your response.

     There’s been no response.
     Student government officers tell me that, despite the care I took to fashion my letter as a “request,” Kuo is describing it as a threat.
     I’m told that Mr. Kuo has made the best of the situation, for he has distributed copies of my letter to members of the Board Majority.…

     Kuo's bio suggests that he has long been groomed for public service in Republican World. In 2011, he was finally appointed to an office.
     By a Republican.
     According to his bio,

     In 2011, Anthony was appointed by then-Councilman Steven Choi to serve on the City’s Planning Commission. He was elected Chairman of the Commission by his peers in 2013, and has been unanimously re-elected to that post four times. As a commissioner, he has led efforts to review and advance proposals ensuring responsible and high quality development in Irvine, including those in the Irvine Business Complex (IBC) and at the Orange County Great Park. He has focused on ensuring the delivery of important improvements to the City’s roads and infrastructure. Anthony also serves on the Commission’s IBC Sub-Committee and previously served as the Commission’s representative to the city’s Task Force on Housing Needs for the Developmentally Disabled and the Ad Hoc Committee on Veterans Affordable Housing.

     He’s also done time with the Exchange Club of Irvine. He’s been on the Board of Governors of the Irvine Valley College Foundation. He does prayer breakfasts. (He’s a Mormon.)
     Yadda yadda yadda.
     Um, he’s got memories:

[G]rowing up, my grandmother used to live with us, and would trespass onto Irvine Valley College and steal oranges from the orange groves across Jeffrey. (An Interview With Irvine City Council Candidate Anthony Kuo)

     Golly.
     For Kuo, the hardest part of being a Commissioner is having to follow agreements:

[P]art of the challenge of being a Commissioner is being bound to rules, agreements and development entitlements which were entered into years ago. Sometimes we are faced with projects which we might not be happy with, but are guaranteed a certain unit count because of a 5-, 10-, or even 15-year old development agreement made under previous leaders. (An Interview With Irvine City Council Candidate Anthony Kuo)

     Oddly, when Kuo was asked about his (especially political) mentors, he doesn’t mention Mathur, (who, no doubt, lined up his Foundation gig, 2001-2005):

My first job in politics was with Christina Shea who was the mayor of Irvine then. I worked for her again on the city council as a policy aide and community liaison and learned how to listen to the public (our boss). My first job in the private sector was for Christine Iger who had a boutique government affairs firm; Christine was a former California Director of Housing under Governor Deukmejian and former Deputy Attorney General, so I had a great deal to learn from her about the nitty gritty of public policy. The late Marian Bergeson, who was a mentor to many, and I shared many private moments where she always encouraged me to stay involved and to pursue my love for serving the community. I will always be grateful for her friendship and leadership.

     Again, oddly, Mathur’s name does not appear on Kuo’s list of supporters (See WE SUPPORT ANTHONY KUO). As you know, Mathur loves to lend his illustrious name in support of his political pals. So what gives?
     We know that Kuo was under Mathur’s creepy wing at least up through the early 2000s. We know that, starting in late 2009, Wagner and Mathur became bitter enemies. And we know that, nowadays, Kuo and Wagner are political pals.
     Golly.

* * *

Raghu and Don

     It turns out that both Wagner and Kuo have turned out to be your standard, corrupt rich-special interests-pleasing politicos. Yeah, the thing that ties Wagner and Kuo together are certain well-healed supporters.
     Developers.
     (Remember, Kuo is on the Irvine Planning Commission.)
     The facts are nicely layed out in a recent piece in the OC Register ($1.1 million in PAC money flows into Irvine elections (OC Reg; Nov 2)):

     Political action committees have funneled $1.1 million into the Irvine mayoral and City Council races as of Tuesday, according to a Register analysis, dwarfing campaign contributions candidates are raising and spending on their own.
     Forty-three percent of that money has been used to attack Mary Ann Gaido, a candidate for mayor who has promised to halt new residential developments in the city. Gaido, a planning commissioner, said developers are pouring money through independent expenditure committees.
. . .
     “I think it really undermines the system,” Bob Stern, former president of the Center for Governmental Studies and a campaign finance expert, said about independent spending by PACs [who, unlike individuals, are not limited in the amount they can receive].
     Although independent expenditures have nothing to do with candidates, he said, they allow wealthy people to wield more influence than individuals who give money directly to candidates.
     Independent expenditure committees are pouring money into crowded Irvine city elections, featuring five candidates for mayor and 11 for council, because they are close races, Stern said.
     Four PACs have spent $466,908 in media ads, literature and mailers attacking Gaido, according to campaign finance reports. That trumps the $91,596 she’s received in monetary contributions this year, the most of any Irvine candidates.
     In addition, two of the PACs have spent $95,839 opposing council candidates Melissa Fox and Farrah Khan, both of whom are endorsed by the Democratic Party of Orange County, along with Gaido.
     It’s sometimes difficult to trace what groups, companies or individuals are funding PACs because money can go through multiple committees before being spent on candidates in various races.
     For example, the California Homeowners Association [which pays for the aforementioned WAGNER KUO SHEA signs] committee has spent over $255,305 opposing Gaido and $172,140 supporting mayoral candidate Don Wagner and council candidates Christina Shea and Anthony Kuo. The PAC received $49,000 from developer Starpointe Ventures, which has stakes in Irvine projects.
     Moving Orange County Forward – funded by such entities as the Building Industry Association of Southern California PAC, Orange County Business Council PAC and Disney Worldwide Services – has spent over $93,000 supporting Wagner and incumbent Shea, as well as contributing to PACs opposing Gaido.
     Building Industry Association of Southern California PAC received $100,000 from FivePoint, which is overseeing the development of thousands of homes near the Orange County Great Park, $75,000 from the Irvine Co., and $50,000 from Starpointe Ventures.
Starpointe and FivePoint officials said they had no comments for this article.
     Independent expenditure committees have spent $274,065 in support of Wagner, which is nearly 25 times the amount the Republican state assemblyman has spent for his mayoral campaign through Oct. 22 – $11,177.
     Despite receiving support from these PACs, Wagner said he’s frustrated with outside spending because he cannot control the messages. Candidates are not allowed to coordinate with independent expenditure committees.
. . .
     Shea also said she’s not a fan of outside spending. In the past, it was her opponents who received support from independent expenditures, she said.
     Shea said she would like to see independent expenditures banned. However, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that freedom of speech prohibits the government from restricting them.
     “I totally believe that these independent expenditures, they just don’t create a fair playing field, and it’s really driven by political agendas of people,” she said.
     Wagner blames the low contribution limit to candidates for the excessive independent expenditures in Irvine.
     Kuo said the $470 cap is too low to send out messages to the more than 119,000 voters in Irvine. Santa Ana, for instance, has a $1,000 limit per election cycle.
     Wagner and Kuo stressed they would not be beholden to special interest groups funding independent expenditure committees that support them.
     “They like things I stand for,” Wagner said. “They don’t like things Mary Ann stands for.”
     Gaido said Wagner, as a seasoned state assemblyman, must be aware that the $23,308 he has raised isn’t enough to fund a campaign in a large city like Irvine.
     Wagner says he’s raising enough to get his positive message out.
     “He’s allowing big developers to totally fund his campaign and smear my name and character,” Gaido said about Wagner. “It is very disappointing.”

     It’s nice to hear that Wagner and Kuo don’t owe anything to “special interest groups.”
     Yep.

A blast from the past (a song about Raghu)

     From the popular musical, "'Goo' means 'shit' in Hindi!,"* offering a slightly fictionalized account of the life of Raghu P. Mathur in song:

You Did a Raghu Thing (2000)

What’s that stuff across the floor?
What’s that shit upon my door?
What’s this memo over here?
And that crap right under there?

You did a Raghu thing
You did a Raghu thing
You put that shit up on my door
You did a Raghu thing

You been lyin’ like a rug
You been dressin’ like a thug
What’s that guff you’re givin’ me?
So you bought a Ph.D.**?

You did a Raghu thing
You did a Raghu thing
You put that shit up on my door
You did a Raghu thing

I saw you grabbin’ someone’s plant
Saw you grinnin’ at the bank
You put a stink into my world
Don’t you point that thing at me

You did a Raghu thing
You did a Raghu thing
You put a stink into my world
You did a Raghu thing

Good people tellin’ me
Also Glenn is tellin’ me
Everybody listen up!
Everybody listen up!

You did a Raghu thing
You did a Raghu thing
You did a Raghu thing

*I looked it up. I had referred to Mathur as "Goo," an allusion to Mr Magoo, for quite some time without realizing the meaning of "goo" in Hindi. What a bonus!
**Yes, I know. An Ed.D. isn't actually a Ph.D. But who wants to sing about Ed.D.s?

Mathur still a contender for Laguna Hills City Council

According to Chris Nguyen of OC Political (Five File for Laguna Hills City Council: Wild Race Set with Blount, Gilbert, Hunt, and Mathur), Laguna Hills City Council candidates are Andrew Blount (R), RAJ Djowharzadeh (R), Dore Gilbert (R), Bill Hunt (R), and Raghu P. Mathur (R). (Two of these five will be elected to the Council.)      Nguyen rules out Djowharzadeh, based on past performance. According to Nguyen, the contenders are: • Blount is a businessman.... Blount’s gathered the endorsements of various elected officials, including District Attorney Tony Rackauckas, Assemblyman Jim Silva, and various City Councilmembers from across Orange County.  • Gilbert is a former Trustee on the Saddleback Valley Unified School District.... He is a doctor who joined the Army at the age of 60 and is currently a Lieutenant Colonel in the United States Army Reserve.  • Hunt is the former Orange County Sheriff’s Lieutenant who unsuccessfully challenged incumbent Sheriff Mike Carona in the 2006 election. … He now owns a private investigation business in Laguna Hills. Hunt’s gathered the endorsements of various elected officials, including Senator Mimi Walters, Assemblyman Don Wagner, the majority of the Laguna Hills City Council, and various City Councilmembers from South Orange County.  • Mathur is the former Chancellor of the South Orange County Community District, the former President of Irvine Valley College, and a former Trustee on the Saddleback Valley Unified School District, serving from 1983-1992. Mathur has gathered the endorsements of various elected officials, including District Attorney Tony Rackauckas, Orange County Board of Education President Dr. Ken Williams, and several City Councilmembers from across Orange County.

News about Gustavo Arellano, who, again, won't be commencement speaker

     Our pal, OC Weekly editor Gustavo Arellano, recently published a book—Taco U.S.A.—and, yesterday, it received a very positive write-up in the New York Times. Check it out:

How the Taco Gained in Translation (New York Times)

     According to the Times writer, Arellano’s book is "an absorbing account of how a few foods (salsa, tacos, chili, tequila) from the complicated and enormous cuisine of Mexico managed to slip into the mainstream of American taste."
     I mention all of this only because, on at least two occasions, the committee at IVC that forwards candidates for commencement speaker to the "decider"—eternally clueless IVC Prez Glenn Roquemore—has forwarded Gustavo, and, each time, Glenn made a heroic effort to avoid choosing the fellow.
     When Glenn passed on choosing Gustavo two years ago, UCLA chose him instead. In the meantime, Glenn chose the snoozular Jack Scott to blather at the folks at IVC.
     Some who fell asleep during Scott’s address have yet to wake up. Poor devils.
     Just sayin’.

     Last night, I happened to mention that trustee Dave Lang has endorsed former Chancellor Raghu P. Mathur in his bid to join the Laguna Hills City Council. This evidently came as a surprise to some. So, for those who don’t keep abreast of such events in our benighted portion of Orange County, here are Mathur’s endorsements:

Mathur running for Laguna Hills City Council: he's all about "the modern needs of our citizens"

     Well, he’s back, and with his trademark pidgin English, too!

SEE

Dear Friends and Neighbors,

     Many of you may recognize me from my past contributions to our community. Now I want you to know me for my next contribution. I am Raghu Mathur, and I’m delighted to tell you that I’m a candidate for Laguna Hills City Council in 2012.
     I am a former President of Laguna Hills Homeowners Association, before Laguna Hills officially became a city in 1991. In 1983, I was elected by the public to the Board of Trustees of the Saddleback Valley Unified School District (SVUSD) and was subsequently re-elected and completed my second term in 1992. [When his reelection bid failed, he wrote an amusingly bitter public letter: SEE.]
     I am a veteran community and education leader. I have served as President of Irvine Valley College for five years and Chancellor of the South Orange County Community College District for nearly nine years. Currently, I serve as the Chair, College of Education, at Argosy University in Orange, CA. [Gosh. No mention of those three votes of "no confidence"? See No confidence vote third for Mathur (LA Times)]
     Laguna Hills is a beautiful and wonderful city. The ideas and management styles of incumbent Laguna Hills City Council members who presided over 20 years no longer adequately serve the modern needs of our citizens. Our city needs a NEW VISION for the 21st Century. The New Vision consists of the following major components:

• Ensure Laguna Hills delivers needed services to residents in the most efficient and cost-effective manner.
• Ensure Laguna Hills is a safe and secure place to live, work, play and raise a family.
• Ensure Laguna Hills offers its residents of all ages choices in dining, shopping and recreational activities through business-friendly climate.
• Ensure Laguna Hills residents have abundant opportunities to participate in city governance through citizen-based commissions in the areas of budget audit, planning, parks and recreation, traffic, youth services and senior services.
• Ensure Laguna Hills City Council makes governance decisions in the most transparent, inclusive and collaborative manner possible. [Funny. Mathur's turn as IVC Prez and SOCCCD Chancellor was characterized by zero transparency and zero respect for "shared governance." See Mathur the unpopular]

     I invite you to join me in making Laguna Hills a better City for all of us.

Sincerely,

Raghu P. Mathur, Ed.D.

Gary’s ChancePers

     SOCCCD Chancellor Gary Poertner has issued a kind of update/opinion piece, evidently sending it to all members of the district community. It’s called “Chancellor’s Perspective.”
     Some (well, I) have carped about the lack, this semester, of a Chancellor’s Opening Session, an innovation for which, no doubt, there are very good reasons. I suspect that this “Chancellor’s Perspective” (or “ChancePers,” as I shall call it) in some ways replaces the old opening session—a much-anticipated spectacle that once provided festive fun, fraud, and foolishness, such as Raghu Mathur’s Carnac, his brother-in-law’s Elvis/Neil Diamond impersonation, and, of course, the Las Vegas Nude Review and Spiritual Puppet Show, sponsored by the Pacific Research Institute.

     How I miss those days.
     Evidently, Gary will have none of it. Here, he straight-forwardly lays out the state budget facts and their implications for community colleges. In this ChancePers, he notes that our particular district is spared some of the budget’s more lurid horrors owing to our “basic aid” funding, but the situation could get more serious, even for us. Gary urges us all “to attend the upcoming budget workshops on Jan. 19 (IVC) and Jan. 20 (SC) where Vice Chancellor Debra Fitzsimons, the college fiscal directors and other members of DRAC will discuss the state budget in more detail.” Sounds like a good idea. Fitzsimons strikes me as pretty sharp. Don’t know about the rest of ‘em.

Say what you like about the man, but former Chancellor Raghu P. Mathur sure does put on a hell of a show.

     At the last board meeting, trustees fretted about “recent stories regarding [the] Orange County Board of Supervisors plan to take $73.5 million in property tax intended for local school districts to make up for its own county budget shortfall.” Looks like we’ll just have to wait and see about all that. In the meantime, we need to chill.
     Gary ends by noting the recent reveal of the Statewide Student Success Task Force’s “final report.” Their recommendations are summed up (says Gary) by State Chance Jack Scott as follows:

“The … recommendations will make community colleges more responsive to the needs of students and the economy, which is increasingly demanding college-educated workers. It is aimed at rebalancing priorities to focus on the core missions of remedial education, workforce preparation, certificate and degree attainment and transfer. Students who make progress toward meeting their goals will be rewarded with priority enrollment, and colleges will adjust course offerings according to the needs of students based on their education plans. The recommendations also will improve the student assessment process and promote better use of technology to help students reach their educational goals on time.”

     Looks like we’ll be clearing out some deadwood.
     Exciting times ahead. Let's hope we and our State survive 'em.

Mathur footnotoriety

     I just came across a two-week old announcement on something called “NRI Internet.com.”

INDIAN AMERICAN REPUBLICANS OF CALIFORNIA (IARCA) FORMED

     As near as I can tell, "NRI" refers to “non-resident Indians,” a complex concept that seems to include Indian-born persons who have become citizens of other countries.
     According to the announcement,

A meeting of Indian Americans from different Organizations was held on October 12, 2011, at the Haveli Restaurant, Artesia to form and elect a Board for IARCA. K.V.Kumar was unanimously elected as the Statewide Chairman….

Mathur: planning a return?

     The article goes on to list other officers, including committee co-chairs.
     Among the latter: Raghu Mathur.
     As I recall, Mathur has long been listed as the chair of the Indo-American Republican Club (or something very like that) on the Republican Party of Orange County website. (Nowadays, the website’s “join a club” button doesn’t work.)
     There’s a long-standing rumor that Mathur seeks a seat on the SOCCCD board of trustees. Unless I am very much mistaken, Mathur resides in the area now represented by Marcia Milchiker. (Is that right?)
     But Marcia was just elected in 2010: she isn’t up for reelection (should she seek that) until 2014. Hmmmm.

I don't get it

.  

  .....Gosh, it’s been a tough week for one member of our Board of Trustees—namely, fading OC rightwing guru and Prince of Darkness Tom Fuentes. That’s mostly ‘cause it’s been a tough week for some of his mentees.
.....MIKE CARONA. Take pious family man Mike Carona. You shoulda heard Fuentes’ introduction of the Sheriff at IVC’s 9-11 ceremony back in September. I covered the event for Dissent, thinking, “How come all these people are so respectful of this manifest rat bastard? What’s the matter with ‘em?”
.....I know, these are silly questions. Somehow, I never seem to stop asking them. I must have a screw loose, a hole in my head. Something.
.....Not long after the ceremony, the excrement hit the fan, what with federal indictments, etc.
.....Carona and crew (Schroeder, et al.) did what they always do: they nakedly pursued their interests, the public interest be damned. So, natch, Carona did not step down but instead took a leave only to return to work this week. He’s getting paid, but, essentially, he’s leaving the actual work of Sheriff to an underling.
.....How very righteous. Er, not. But he’s still got that flag pinned to his shirt. He still goes around praying and rolling his eyes.
.....That’s when the LA Times called for a recall (Recall Mike Carona) of the fellow, arguing

Carona has every right to his day in court, to fight the charges that he traded access to his office and power for gifts and money. But he and his department never would have reached this day, never would have come under scrutiny in the first place, had he run his department with an ethical hand. Instead, from his first day in office, Carona has been selling out the title of sheriff, providing supporters and others close to him with extraordinary favors. Just one example: hiring two top political supporters as his chief assistants even though they were patently unqualified for the jobs, so much so that Carona needed special dispensation to make the hires legal.

.....Um, those two guys are now in jail. Eventually, if there is any justice (silly me), Carona will join them there. But his unsavory (incompetent, reckless, hypocritical, etc.) character was manifest long before the indictments.
.....That didn’t prevent Fuentes from praising him to the heavens four months ago.
.....I just don’t get it. How come the people who go out of their way to stand for piety, rectitude, and patriotism are so often the least pious, the least righteous, the least other-regarding? Why are they so often the ones who cause the biggest headaches for those who actually do the good works that need doing? Tell me that!

.....CHRISS STREET. Yet another Pal o’ Fuentes is OC Treasurer Chriss Street, yet another manifestly ratular Rat Bastard. Fuentes advised him during his successful run for that office.
.....According to today’s Times (Public agencies withdraw from O.C. investment pool), things are going from bad to worse for Street:

Four of the seven public agencies that voluntarily participate in Orange County's investment portfolio have withdrawn almost all their cash in recent months amid concerns over Treasurer Chriss Street, and others are reviewing whether to keep their money in the pool, according to public finance managers. …Since becoming treasurer more than a year ago, Street has been beset by investigations into his private business dealings before entering office and questions about his handling of county business. …Street came into the treasurer's office as the hand-picked successor to now-Supervisor John Moorlach, whose management of the office for 12 years after the bankruptcy was largely admired. But Street ran into trouble even before he was elected. Questions emerged about whether he engaged in self-dealing while overseeing the affairs of a bankrupt trucking firm, which has since become the subject of a federal investigation. Local prosecutors are examining whether he sought to steer contracts for county work to friends and business associates….

.....Let’s face it: those close to Street must’ve been pretty clear about what kind of guy he was/is before he took office (in fact, the unpleasant facts about Street’s “business dealings” were reported long before the election).
.....But that was OK with them. How come?
.....Again, I don’t get it. The people I know—admittedly, many of them are progressives, atheists, skeptics and the like—would never dream of doing the nasty and corrupt things that Fuentes’ friends do as a matter of course. Nor would they support someone who would consider doing these things.
.....How come, when the Fuentes crowd lay claim to righteousness whilst dismissing my crowd as wicked and benighted, nobody calls ‘em on it? I be stupefied.
.....It’s like the President. He’s obviously a loutish and base kinda guy. So what’s with all the endless respectfulness? How come Brian Williams doesn’t just say, “Well, here he is again, embarrassing us with his cluelessness and naked cynicism and dishonesty. Um, he was in Israel today pretending to give a shit. It’ll be a great day when someone half-way intelligent and decent takes over the Presidency.”
.....So what’s with Brian? It’s as if it would be less-than-objective to state an obvious fact. Is Brian less-than-objective when he takes a side in the shape-of-earth “controversy” (it’s round)? Don’t think so. So why is it different noting the obvious facts re Bush?
.....How does that work exactly?
.....Sometimes, I think it goes like this: if one makes a great show of one’s “faith” and patriotism—not by actually doing anything, but mostly by wearing little flags, pledging at big flags, praying in hushed halls, engaging in eye-rolling whilst facing the heavens—one is ipso facto a soldier of the Right and the Good.
.....Even if, notoriously, one has a very hard time living up to the “values” of official rightness/goodness (that’s Fuentes all over), the fact that one loudly aligns oneself with respectable religion (Christianity or Judaism, not some silly “sect”) and a kind of unreflective and uncritical love of country common among Kohlbergian ten-year-olds, then, no matter how far one strays from the path of virtue, one is fundamentally one of the good guys, and no amount of intelligence and decency achieved by a “secularist” or “humanist” can ever compete with those credentials.
.....It’s a kind of Moronic Logic for a Moron Age. If that’s the thinking, then I may as well go back into that cave over there.

.....JEFF NIELSEN. Another member of Fuentes’ team of pious rat bastards is Jeff Nielsen, who was again in the news this week.
.....Yesterday, the OC Weekly (BOY, OH, BOY!) reported that

Jeffrey Ray Nielsen, the once-cocky Orange County political activist who espoused conservative principles while molesting underaged boys, will enter a pre-prison program in the coming weeks with one more headache: One of his victims has filed a civil lawsuit seeking $1.35 million. …The plaintiff, whom we'll call John Doe, filed the suit in late December in Fairfax County, Virginia. It was there, in the city of Falls Church, in 1994 and 1995, that Nielsen used his positions as an aide to Congressman Dana Rohrabacher and a church youth counselor to rent a room from a Virginia family with a 13-year-old son, Doe. The family had no clue that Nielsen, a Bible thumper with friends in high places, was a clever sexual predator interested in sleeping with middle-school and high-school boys. …The Weekly first reported Doe's tale in September 2006. Nielsen—who, at the time, faced criminal charges for repeatedly molesting a Westminster High School freshman—angrily denied any pedophile conduct. Indeed, the man who keeps stuffed animals on his bed called the allegations "delusional" and the Weekly part of a liberal conspiracy to frame him because of his friendship with Rohrabacher and Scott Baugh, chairman of the Orange County Republican Party. Last March, a Newport Beach jury deadlocked after Nielsen's lawyer, Paul S. Meyer, savagely attacked the teenage victim on the witness stand while Nielsen posed as a generous, caring Christian with lofty ideals about mentoring troubled youth. …In December, after four years of angry denials, Nielsen finally admitted to molesting both youngsters. In exchange, he won a reduced prison sentence of three years, though he will have to register as a sex offender for the remainder of his life….

.....RAGHU MATHUR. This reminds me of a moment during the Chancellor’s Opening Session on Wednesday. The Chancellor hates Rich McCullough and is responsible for M’s retirement as President of Saddleback College (Rich is slated to retire in June).
.....But that fact didn’t prevent Mathur from singing Rich’s praises on Wednesday and handing him a big plaque. Listening to the Chancellor, you’d swear that Rich had no greater friend in this world than Raghu P. Mathur.
.....Now, see, I’d never do that. I’d be thinking, “I hold this fellow in low regard, cuz he refused to be a team player [i.e., helping me to screw my enemies, micromanage the shit outa things, etc.], and so, I’m willing, I guess, to brush up against the endless tributes to him, but I sure as hell ain’t gonna join in them, cuz that would be seriously dishonest and cynical and fundamentally corrupt. It would be a kind of gross hypocrisy, and I ain’t goin’ there, nope.”
.....But that’s just me. And my friends. You know: all those nasty atheists and progressives and godless America-bashers, the "liberals" who do all the work in this goddam district whilst enduring endless attack from Mathur (“faculty leaders” seek to “control” the district), Fuentes (over-paid faculty work a “36-hour week”), and all their equally corrupt and appalling rightwing, church-going, flag-wearing friends.
.....I don’t get it.

Mathur bloviates (Q&A at IVC)

CHANCELLOR RAGHU P. MATHUR’s “Q & A” at Irvine Valley College this afternoon was a bust. Aside from administrators, only a handful of classified employees attended.

Except for me, no faculty attended.

Mathur was in “bloviation” mode. There weren't many questions, so he held forth.

Fearful employees nodded subtly. The sound of his voice reverberated in the empty room with its high ceiling and odd blackness.

After a few minutes, I just got outa there.

Later, I asked someone how it went after I left. They said, “His mask slipped.” For a moment, the real Raghu was in full ghastly view.

REMEMBER that email two days ago? The one from Mathur that “encouraged” the colleges to “add any comments about the inclusion of the District...Response...as deemed appropriate, particularly if such additions would enable the accreditation chairs to appropriately include their signatures on the reports”?

The team at IVC did just that. IVC's chief Accred writer added two brief paragraphs that explained the facts concerning the district's inclusion of the “response.” That, of course, is just what it would take to get those signatures.

That's all.

Guess what?

Mathur rejected them.


BUT I SEE THE FUTURE. I see a dark time ahead for Raghu and his patrons. Angry commissioners. Peevish goblins. Foul incubi. Wakeful, sweaty Mathurian nights.

Spooky, ain't it?

Mathur sues Bauer/Burgess but lives to regret it

I’ll start with an excerpt from

MATHUR DISMISSES ANOTHER CHAIR: —But then El Ced comes to the chair’s rescue, and simpers; By Chunk Wheeler [aka Roy Bauer]

[Dissent 51, 9/12/00]

September 1, 2000: it’s 12:45, and I get a cell-phone call from Wendy P [today, she’s Wendy G], who’s been teaching all morning. She tells me that she has just served Raghu Mathur with papers regarding his “Judgment Debtor’s Exam.”

I should explain. You see, back in January of 2000, Mr. Goo filed a suit against Terry Burgess—and me—regarding my reports (in three issues of Dissent) regarding Mathur’s violation of a student’s right to privacy as delineated by a federal law (FERPA). That Mathur had violated that law was, at any rate, the conclusion of the district’s lawyer, Spencer Covert (yes, Covert—I’m not makin’ this stuff up!), who had been asked, by then-IVC president Dan Larios, to provide an opinion on the matter. Ironically, Mathur, a man who can neither detect nor pronounce irony, believes that the Dissent stories amounted to a violation of his privacy rights, and so he sued us for $50,000. According to Mathur, the only way I could have secured the documents I reported on was through the help of Terry Burgess, formerly the VP of Instruction. (That’s nonsense. The documents had been readily available on campus for years.) Thus Burgess was included in the suit.

Unfortunately for the Gooster, the great state of California has a law (the anti-SLAPP statute) designed to protect citizens from lawsuits that are filed by powerful interests—developers, politicians, et al.—merely in order to silence legitimate criticism. SLAPP suits are burdensome annoyances, or worse, for defendants, but they produce a chilling effect on potential criticism by others as well. They thwart free speech.

To make a long story short, we responded to Mathur’s suit by appealing to the anti-SLAPP statute, which yielded a quick dismissal. In court, Judge Brenner noted that my Dissent reports were both true and newsworthy and that, further, there was no evidence whatsoever that Burgess provided the information regarding Mathur that I had reported. In fact, he hadn’t.

As per the law, Brenner ordered Mathur to pay Burgess and me costs and attorneys fees. That amounted to $34,000 and change. Ouch! That occurred months ago.

But, as of this day (Sept. 1), Mathur hasn’t paid. In such situations, the prevailing side files for a “Judgment Debtor Exam.” Once it is granted, the “judgment debtor” is served papers that inform him that he must appear in court on a certain date. “If you fail to appear…you may be subject to arrest and punishment,” say the documents.

On August 29th, Carol Sobel, my attorney, filed for a debtor’s exam for Mathur. The order was granted on that day. So, on this day—the 1st of September—Wendy serves Raghu with the papers:

“Hi Raghu. I’ve got something for you!” chirps Wendy.

He stares but doesn’t move. She hands him the papers, smiling broadly. Eventually, he takes them, glumly thanks her, and then disappears behind the door of his office.

Later, someone tells me that she thinks she heard Mathur crying and banging his head against a chair. But she isn’t sure.

Could be, though. The document orders Mathur to bring 27 kinds of document, including

All checkbooks, registers, and canceled checks for all savings, checking, credit union, bank, mutual fund accounts and/or all other accounts owned by you and/or you and your spouse for the past three years…All payroll check stubs for you and/or your spouse for the past three years…All passbooks for savings, checking, credit union, bank, mutual fund accounts, and/or all other accounts owned by you and/or your spouse for the past three years…All financial statements listing your assets…during the past three years…All stock registers or other records of stocks presently owned by you…All documents evidencing any partnership interest in property owned by you…All credit card applications…Ownership documents…Your state and federal income tax returns for the past thee years…

—and so on. Jeez, I’d cry too. The exam is set for September 19th….

--7-19-00
In the end, Mathur was forced to fork over about $32K (that’s what we settled for).

Mathur turned around and sued the district for not protecting him from me—despite the fact that I sued him only in response to his suing me for reporting a demonstrable fact about his misconduct.

At first, the district simply rejected Mathur’s suit. In the end, however, the trustees gave ‘im about $40K (as I recall) and soon made him Chancellor the district.

Really.

Below are some Dissent stories about our adventures in court in connection with Mathur’s unfortunate suit:

SUIN’ SAFARI!

by Chunk Wheeler [aka Roy Bauer]

[Dissent 46, 3/6/00]

February 29: After lunch, Carol, a friend of hers, Wendy, and I headed for Judge Michael Brenner’s courtroom in Santa Ana. Our hearing was set for 1:30.

We entered the building at about 1:20 and found our way to the elevators, where dozens of besuited lawyers stood around like hamsters, nervously eyeing the elevator doors while intermittently consulting wrist-watches. Even Carol seemed worried. Someone murmured: “Type A personalities.” I said: “Hey, don’t worry, baby! It’s 1:23, and we’ve got all the time in the world!”

Three minutes later, we were anxiously climbing the stairs to the third floor. We reached Brenner’s court just before 1:30, but its doors were locked, which meant the earlier session had not finished. A docket crudely posted outside the courtroom listed “Mathur vs. Bauer” dead last out of 24 cases. “What the hell does that mean?” I asked. “It means we’re last,” someone said.

My friend Jan, a lawyer, joined us. “They often put the most interesting cases last,” he said. “So we’re interesting, are we?”, said I. I wasn’t sure I wanted us to be interesting.

The door swung open at 1:40, and we filed in along with all the suits. Mathur was nowhere to be seen. We tried to guess which guy was Corfield, Mathur’s lawyer. Wendy had encountered him—or someone who might have been him—a few days before in Laguna Beach. She described him to me as “kinda a surf bum.” I scoured the room for such a person. I spotted one—way off to the left. He seemed to be lookin’ for the perfect wave. Sand fell from his pockets.

We watched the bailiff, who didn’t seem to have anything to do but swagger. I mentioned that, for many years, trustee John “Brown Boy” Williams was a bailiff. We watched this one as he slowly transferred a piece of paper from one end of the courtroom to another.

At 1:55, for some reason, the courtroom became eerily silent, and everyone stared in anticipation. But Brenner still didn’t show. At 2:00, a man in a judge costume started hangin’ around by the back door chewin’, but he was just teasin’ us, I guess, ‘cuz nothin’ happened.

Brenner emerged at 2:15, and he sure did look like a judge. The first case was Martinez v. Somethin’-or-other. Brenner told the lawyers he wasn’t up to speed, and so let’s do this another day. “My fault,” he said. In the next case, someone didn’t file something, and that wasn’t so good, apparently. Then, in the next case, a lawyer neglected to file the “opposition,” and so Brenner granted the summary judgment. Bang!

A case concerning “Commercial Wastepaper” was up next. Brenner spoke of a “grudge match” that had been going on for a long time. While that went on, I looked over at Corfield, who happily played Beach Blanket Bingo on his legal pad.

The judge said some critical things about the opposing parties. Wendy whispered something about “Judge Wapner” into my left ear. Meanwhile, Brenner evidently had to impose a $1000 fine on somebody, but he wasn’t sure quite how he oughta do that, and so, after a few moments of Solomonic reflection, he said, “I’ll tell you what; let’s split the difference. Five hundred dollars each.”

Wow. I hoped he wasn’t gonna pull this splittin’ maneuver in my case.

A suit involving “American Funds Service” was next. Someone wanted attorneys’ fees, but Brenner turned ‘em down flat.

By 2:45, the court had moved on to something amusingly referred to as “Green Burrito litigation.” Corfield had had enough; he went outside to wax his surfboard.

We passed notes around. In her note, Carol opined that Brenner “certainly is very cordial,” and that he has a sense of humor, unlike some o’ those surly and pompous judges she’s used to in Federal Court. Just then, Brenner looked at a one of the lawyers and said, “It’s a pleasure to see you”—which, I figure, was just his juristical way of sayin’: “How’s it goin’, asshole?”

By 3:00, the court had moved on to Klein v. Somebody, and a lawyer or the judge said that the case was just a “rehash.” This talk of rehashing led to more loose talk, and soon, a lawyer misspoke, asserting something about “heat.” “I’ve seen lawyers in heat,” quipped Brenner.

A short, attractive, blond dynamo got up to argue for her client in McCornan v. Pine Creek. Evidently, a landlord refused to rent to a guy because he was an African American. Wow. As the judge and the lawyers spoke, they referred to “sexual orientation,” “homosexual animus,” “outrageous conduct,” and whatnot. We all stared intently: it was just like an episode of LA Law.

At 3:30, Brian Wilson left the room again. Brenner expressed skepticism about something Surfer Girl said….

At 3:35, Brenner called for a ten minute recess, apparently to give the court reporter’s digits a rest. We went outside and jawed. I noticed that the case that had just been heard immediately preceded “Mathur v. Bauer” on the docket!

At 3:53, we were back inside, and, sure enough, “Mathur” was next. Here are my notes, which are pretty spotty:

BRENNER: Brenner notes that the case is a motion to strike. [That is, it’s a motion to dismiss the suit.] He asks attorney Sobel what she has to offer.

SOBEL: Carol refers to the purpose of the anti-SLAPP statute…she says something about “encouraging” resolution at the earliest possible stage. [The statute is designed to protect people against “Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation.” In other words, it’s designed to combat the chilling effect of lawsuits against people who speak out on matters of “public significance.”] The defendant’s burden, she says, is “miniscule.”

She says the sole cause of Mathur’s action is “invasion of privacy.” If any of the 4 key elements (which she lists) of such a case fails, the case must be dismissed. It is clear, she says, that Mathur is a public official. (Relative to…?) Mathur needs to make a case that the facts are false—or that’s it.

The articles and documentation in the newsletter concerned Mathur’s conduct as a public official, and the conduct of such people is always a matter of public concern. Hence, Mathur can’t prevail in this case. Keep in mind: he [Mathur] doesn’t contest the facts reported in the newsletters, and they’re enough to “puke a dog off a gut wagon!” [Well, I made up the part about the “gut wagon.”]

Invasion of privacy involves the public disclosure of private facts (and that’s not involved here). Mathur is a public official…

In these cases, the burden shifts to the plaintiff, who needs to provide “competent evidence” that he will [likely] prevail (in a trial). Mathur has not met that burden. His papers are devoid of (evidence of the requisite sort).

[Corfield projects cockiness during Carol’s remarks. Now, someone whispers, “Surf’s up!”]

CORFIELD: There’s an important distinction. The defendant’s counsel refers to defamation(?), but our complaint concerns, not defamation, but invasion of privacy. Mathur is suing because the defendant (and Mr. B) stole documents from a file…Bauer and Mr. B stole a letter that is privileged; they stole and published something that is confidential. The issue of truth or falsity—to which defendant’s counsel refers—is a “red herring.”

Corfield says that Bauer’s attorney hasn’t succeeded (in showing the applicability of the anti-SLAPP statute?).

Bauer, repeats Corfield, has stolen Mathur’s records.

Defendant’s counsel today tells us, says C, that Mathur must prove his case. Corfield refers to “Briggs.” …So I don’t have to prove my case; rather, I am obliged only to STATE A CASE.

The defendant’s moving papers, says C, are largely (1st Amendment?) boilerplate; (hence) they offer “obtuse” [sic; he means “abstruse”] language.

Bauer’s counsel is [comparing?] apples and oranges. We need to look at Schulmann (a Supreme Court case?).

BRENNER: “They” [the defendants] stole documents, you say. But there’s no evidence of that (in your papers). You don’t show how this defendant got these papers.

[NOTE: They’re referring to a letter of reprimand (of Mathur), which I had reproduced in Dissent (in January of 1999), that, evidently, is part of Mathur’s personnel file. But, of course, that I had possession of a copy of that document does not suggest that I, or anyone else, stole it from Mathur’s file.]

CORFIELD: (Says something; not much; I took no notes. Corfield describes Mathur as the “president of a university.”)

BRENNER: This defendant [Bauer] got the papers (the letter of reprimand) somehow…How Mathur performed his job in the past is newsworthy.

(Corfield argues that the events to which the “papers” are related occurred very long ago. In his filings, he refers to them as “ancient”--and thus unnewsworthy. Brenner seems to reject that adjective--“ancient”-- as applied here.)

SOBEL: Can I respond? [Sobel begins to discuss Schulmann…]

[At this point, Wendy briefly borrows my pen and tablet, and so my notes have a 2 minute gap.]

BRENNER: (He reads aloud from Schulmann.)

SOBEL: Carol directs Brenner to a section of Schulmann. The lawyers argue about the “standard” that must be met by the person who brings the suit. The judge favors Carol’s interpretation.

She refers to a “misdirected fax” (from Mr. B to the chancellor), which is cited by Mathur as evidence of my alleged “theft.” [The fax was a copy of a letter in which the district’s attorney, Spencer Covert, opines that Mathur had indeed violated federal law by distributing a student’s transcripts. In fact, Covert’s letter had been widely distributed on campus not long after it was sent by Covert to IVC.] The fax, she says, was sent to the chancellor two days after the publication of the first Dissent at issue in this case. There is no evidence that the fax even got to the defendant (Bauer). The faxed Covert letter never appeared in the newsletter. So where’s the evidence of theft?

BRENNER: Brenner opines that the Dissent stories are newsworthy. Further, there’s “no showing” that the reports were untruthful “that I can see.” There “is no showing” that, in the case of this defendant, the papers were unlawfully obtained. The evidence doesn’t seem to be here.

CORFIELD: Look at Schulmann. It isn’t about theft (?).

BRENNER: You keep saying (that the defendant engaged in theft). But there’s no evidence.

CORFIELD: We don’t have to prove that there was theft. He refers to 425.16 [California’s anti-SLAPP statute] and the Supreme Court.

BRENNER: …Brenner asks (I think) whether there is evidence that the defendants (Bauer and Mr. B) conspired…

Brenner says: I’ve denied these motions before, but the defendant [Bauer] is exercising his 1st Amendment rights. He is reporting on a matter of public interest.

Finally, Brenner says: I don’t think there’s any evidence…I will grant the motion [to dismiss Mathur’s suit].

CORFIELD: [Corfield looks as though someone has stolen his Woody.] C sputters something about a “leave to amend.”(?)

[Apparently, this “leave to amend” business is a desperate move on C’s part; Brenner responds as though Corfield has committed a faux pas. He indicates that he has made his ruling and that’s that.]

* * * * *

Well, we left the courtroom, and we were pretty damned pleased. Jan, who was very impressed by Carol’s performance, stepped back from her and intoned: “I’m not worthy.” Others squealed or laughed. We wandered down to the hall to the elevators, talking and joking.

As we waited for the elevator to arrive, Mr. Corfield snuck up behind us and then rudely interrupted, asking Carol about Mr. B’s attorney, with whom he wanted to arrange a conference. Wendy turned to him and said that Corfield was looking for her. As he commenced speaking, Surfer Joe poked Wendy hard in the shoulder, like she was Annette Funicello or somethin’. She kicked sand in his face. (Well, not really. She was very professional.)

Next: attorneys’ fees. Fun fun fun! —CW

March 2, 2000,
IRVINE WORLD NEWS
College president’s suit against professor dismissed

By Laura Hayes

On Tuesday, an Orange County Superior Court judge granted professor Roy Bauer a special motion to strike an invasion of privacy lawsuit filed against him in January by Raghu Mathur, president of Irvine Valley College.

“The motion was based on legislation to protect people like me when they are speaking the truth about a public official,” said Bauer.

The lawsuit charged that Bauer had published in his newsletter “Dissent” in January 1999 a confidential memorandum that Mathur claims was stolen from his personnel file. The 1996 memo centered on administrative concern with Mathur’s handling of a student’s transcript.

Carol Sobel, Bauer’s attorney, said the statute employed by the court is aimed at stopping at an early stage a lawsuit aimed at preventing citizens from participating in the legislative process.

“If the basis in the lawsuit is related to free speech and concerns a matter of public concern, then the lawsuit should be stopped at the earliest possible moment,” said Sobel.

Judge Michael Brenner ruled that how Mathur performs his duties as college president is a matter of public concern and he didn’t see anything in the published statements that appeared untrue, said Sobel.

After hearing from both sides, the motion was granted when the judge determined there was not enough evidence that Mathur would prevail in the invasion of privacy claim.

“You’ve got to show that you’re likely to win,” said Bauer.

Michael Corfield, Mathur’s attorney, said the judge only considered the defamation of character issue and failed to focus enough attention on the invasion of privacy issue. He said he will talk to Mathur about the possibility of an appeal.

MATHUR IN A LATHER: A SLAPP-SUIT COMEDY

By Big Bill B [aka Roy Bauer]

[Dissent 47, 3/20/00]

Background: on the 29th of February, Judge Michael Brenner of OC Superior Court granted a motion to dismiss Raghu Mathur’s lawsuit against me. Mathur had accused me of invading his privacy by reporting (in the January 11 & 19, 1999, issues of Dissent) his violations of a federal law that, ironically, protects the privacy of students. Brenner had ruled that the reports were “newsworthy” and that I should be afforded the protection of the 1st Amendment and California’s anti-SLAPP statute. Two weeks later, on the 14th of March, Judge McEachen, sitting in for Brenner, issued a ruling on Terry Burgess’ motion to dismiss (Burgess had also been named in the suit). Terry had been accused of conspiring with me to break into Mathur’s personnel file, thereby securing a copy of Larios’ reprimand of Mathur plus a legal opinion from the district’s attorney, Spencer Covert. According to Covert’s opinion, Mathur had indeed violated the federal law and district policy by distributing a student’s transcripts (in a failed attempt to discredit an administrator).

The misdirected philosopher:

MARCH 14: Addled by hypoglycemia and still hobbling from a nasty fall in the shower, I entered the big downtown court building, and, as usual, I didn’t get past the metal detector. At least they didn’t make me take off my shoes and belt, as they once did in the federal court building in LA!

Eventually, they let me in, and I headed upstairs to the 3rd floor, but I couldn’t find the courtroom anywhere. I consulted a directory: Brenner was on the 5th floor, not the 3rd! I headed up, arriving fifteen minutes late, at about 1:45. Entering courtroom 112, I beheld a stranger on the bench: a Judge David T. McEachen. Evidently, McEachen had taken over for Brenner for the day.

As I sat down next to Wendy, a pissed off lawyer was addressing the court about a company named “Paradigm.” “Paradigm took this money!” said someone, according to the lawyer. When the lawyer ceased yammering, Judge McEachen turned to the other guy, smiled benevolently, and said: “It’s your turn.”

Meanwhile, Wendy wrote me a note that said that we’re number 15, and McEachen’s now on number 9, and it shouldn’t take him long to get to us, ‘cuz most people didn’t file their 378s. —Lawyers talk that way.

The pissed off lawyer—a Mr. Burger—was fumin’ again, referring to another judge as “Black Jack Ryan,” which evoked laughter among the lawyers and bemusement or irritation from McEachen. The other guy responded with: “Mr. Burger will strike me if I’m wrong,” but he was wrong (I think), and Burger didn’t lay a finger on ‘im.

The next case concerned “Mass Mutual.” “You got the tentative,” said McEachen to the attorneys.

The tentative ruling:

Maybe they got it, maybe they didn’t. Wendy wrote me a note, saying that there was a tentative ruling in our case, too , but she was unable to secure the damned thing. The day before, we learned of its existence but were told that “Brenner doesn’t issue tentatives.” It turns out that Corfield and his partner—Mr. Rovell—were in the same boat as us, the HMS Clueless.

“Mass Mutual is taking it out of her hide,” said one lawyer, over on the right. The left lawyer, an Aussie in an ill-fitting suit, looked from my perspective (directly behind him) like he was standing at a urinal. The first guy—in his early 60s and dressed for a trip to Palm Springs—said he was “emotional” about the case. “I probably screwed up,” he confessed. They discussed the concept of “surprise.” “Surprise is not enough,” said someone.

I had no idea what they were talking about.

Suddenly lapsing into abominable incorrectness, someone spoke of the “lady lawyer up in Idaho,” but no one seemed to care. The Palm Springs guy seemed upset about the tentative judgment, which, he said, “is unjust in the extreme.” Then the Aussie stopped urinating, zipped up, and referred to the “shenanigans” of the Palm Springer, who, in response, pivoted slowly on his tasseled golf shoes with affected indignation. I looked over at the bailiff, who affected wariness, and then over at the court reporter, who affected consciousness. Blah blah blah, said the judge. My eyes glazed over. I lapsed into unconsciousness.

Love never had a chance:

Right about then, Wendy shoved at me and ordered me to get the hell out of the way. Apparently, it was showtime! I gave her and Diana G, the other attorney, a wide berth as they filed past me and then through the little gate—into the “inner sanctum,” as Wendy calls it. This time, Brian Wilson (Corfield) was benched, replaced by his partner Mike Love (Mr. Rovell).

Love never had a chance.

McEachen, wasting no time, referred to the tentative ruling—the one we had not yet seen—as we studied his face for clues. He announced that our motion to strike—i.e., our motion to have Mathur’s suit dismissed—had been granted, at least in the tentative ruling, by Brenner. (Whoopee!) According to Brenner/McEachen, the plaintiff—that’s Mathur—had not met “his burden” of showing that he would probably prevail in court. (According to the anti-SLAPP statute, the plaintiff must show that he will likely win, or the suit is thrown out right at the start, and the defendant gets attorneys’ fees.) He had accused Terry and me of stealing “private” documents (a reprimand and a legal opinion) from Mathur’s personnel file, but, said the judge, there was no indication of where the documents in question had actually come from. (They sure as hell didn’t come from Mathur’s personnel file!)

Last month, in her response (on my behalf) to Mathur’s complaint, Carol Sobel (my attorney) had argued that the Dissent articles about Mathur and the student’s transcripts were “newsworthy.” According to the new tentative, the plaintiff again hadn’t “controverted” that claim. Neither had he controverted the claim that Mathur is a “public official.” (I think Brenner even noted that, in the case of one document—the legal opinion by Spencer Covert—there is no evidence that I even received it. Maybe that was because, though the Dissent had referred to Covert’s opinion, it had never actually quoted from it.)

The upshot: Slam dunkage.

The judge closed with an analysis: “same facts, same result.” He was saying, I think, that Mathur’s opposition (his filed response to Terry’s motion to strike) simply repeated the failings of Mathur’s earlier opposition to my motion to strike. Ouch.

The Rovel grovel: a malarkey switcheroo

Back on the 29th, Carol had argued that the anti-SLAPP statute, which is designed to counter the chilling effect of lawsuits against those who speak out against the powerful, applies in this case, and we had prevailed on that basis. The two issues of Dissent in question (January 11 and 19, 1999) reported that Mathur violated a federal law—FERPA—plus district policy. (Such, again, was the opinion of the district’s own attorney, Spencer Covert.) Essentially, Mathur’s lawsuit complaint was that I had violated his privacy by revealing this fact, which, he argued, was of no public interest.

When in doubt, reverse gears! Now Mathur’s lawyers argued, not that I had revealed a fact, but that the fact was no fact. That is, though Mathur had indeed disseminated a student’s transcripts, that didn’t mean he violated FERPA (and district policy). I think the idea was that, since Mathur’s dissemination occurred “internal” to the college, it was not an illegal dissemination. In effect, Rovell and Co. were abandoning their original “privacy” malarkey in favor of “defamation” malarkey.

Rovell yammered a bit about the anti-SLAPP statute and then focussed on the notorious January 13 (1999) “misdirected fax.” That was Burgess’ fax of the Covert opinion, which had been sent, accidentally, to the District! Evidently, on the 21st of January, Chancellor Sampson wrote Burgess concerning that fax, and Burgess responded with a letter dated January 29. Rovell now argued that, in the January 29 letter, in a key line, Burgess made an admission that shows that his more recent “declaration” (a sworn statement submitted to the court) is perjurious! (At that moment, Wendy, showing admirable self-control, refrained from socking Rovell in the jaw. I was impressed.)

Rovell also referred to a declaration, in which an instructor describes the widespread availability of the Covert opinion by 1996 and its location in the academic senate’s files as part of the public record. Rovell rejected the entire declaration, arguing that its author’s opinion that these academic senate files are public is “entirely conclusory,” i.e., not supported by the facts.

The Dissent reports were “offensive,” said Rovell, who began to shine with nervousness. He seemed to say that the Covert opinion was a matter of attorney/client confidentiality. (Rovell failed to notice that the opinion was not written for Mathur, but for the district, which had requested a legal opinion regarding the fellow’s actions.) Clearly, said Rovell, the reporting of the Covert letter (and Larios’ reprimand of Mathur) would be “offensive and objectionable to any reasonable person.”

“Lastly,” said Rovell, we must address the matter of “newsworthiness,” regarding which there are “six elements.” One is the “social value” of the facts. Covert’s opinion notwithstanding, Mathur never violated federal law, said Rovell. “How can a false fact have a social value?” An instructor’s personnel file, he said, is “inviolate.” We’re talking about attorney/client documents, he said, inexplicably.

At this point, the court reporter stopped Rovell, asking him to slow down. “Go ahead—slower,” said McEachen. Rovell, glistening with sweat, slowed down, but he kept shinin’.

Newsworthiness: that’s the key

It was Diana’s turn. “Newsworthiness,” she said, isn’t the “last issue,” as Rovell suggested; it’s the “first.” Brenner had decided two weeks ago that the Dissent reports were “newsworthy,” that they had reported matters of “public concern.” How a public official performs his job—Mathur had been the Chair of the School of Physical Sciences at the time of his misconduct—is newsworthy.

Diana referred to Burgess’ January 29 letter. If one reads Burgess’ comment in context, she said, it is clear that he does not acknowledge having ultimately sent the fax to Bauer. (In fact, I never received this document from Burgess.)

Actually, it makes no difference, said Diana, who provided Bauer with the Covert letter, because the report of Mathur’s violations of FERPA were newsworthy, and that’s the key. Still, there’s no evidence that Burgess was the source.

Diana referred to testimony that Covert’s legal opinion was “in circulation” around campus already in 1996. She referred to a declaration by an individual who had sent a letter to trustees in September of 1997; the letter included a copy of the Covert opinion. Clearly, Bauer could have received the Covert letter from many others besides Burgess.

Diana noted that the plaintiff’s attorney is ignoring the three cases she cited in her motion, which delineate which publications constitute a violation of privacy. A misdirected fax, she says, doesn’t cut it.

Diana reminded the court that it had already ruled that the facts reported in the two issues of Dissent were “newsworthy,” and so the plaintiff doesn’t have a leg to stand on. There is absolutely no evidence, she added, that Burgess (or Burgess and Bauer) “stole” documents from Mathur’s personnel file.

The bottom line: the president of IVC, when the head of an academic department, violated district policy and federal law, said Diana. That is a matter of public concern, and that’s what Dissent reported. Further, “plaintiff has not and cannot dispute that Mathur is a public official.” Therefore, he cannot show, as he must, that he will probably prevail in this suit.

Yogi Berra:

McEachen then gave Rovell an opportunity to provide a brief response. Brenner’s opinion of the 29th was “very unfortunate,” said Rovell. There’s an “abundance” of new facts that show, he added, that Mathur never violated the law. Diana’s point about Burgess’ January 29 letter relied on a “play on words,” said Rovell. Facts “can be true or false.” The facts reported in Dissent are false. Mathur does not deny that, internally, he sent around these transcripts, but that’s not illegal. Blah blah blah.

Finally, the judge spoke. He said that he had read Brenner’s notes. And then: “I’m granting the motion. To quote the esteemed Yogi Berra, it’s ‘déjà vu all over again.’” BOOM!

Out in the hallway, we yucked it up pretty good. When Corfield and Rovell approached us with outstretched hands, we shook ‘em. “If Brenner were here, he would have denied the motion,” said surfer dude Corfield. He was kidding, I guess.

Diana, still hangin’ ten, called Carol with her cell phone. “Hey Carol, we’re done. We won,” she said. Wendy turned to me: “Yeah, they got thumped.”

We walked with Diana downstairs. Out front, her ride drove up. She said: “Next, fees.”

Yeah. —BBB [Roy Bauer]

We successfully wield the anti-SLAPP statute against Mathur & his lawsuit

MATHUR DISMISSES ANOTHER CHAIR: —But then El Ced comes to the chair’s rescue, and simpers; By Chunk Wheeler [aka Roy Bauer]

Dissent 51, 9/12/00

September 1, 2000: it’s 12:45, and I get a cell-phone call from Wendy P [today, she’s Wendy G], who’s been teaching all morning. She tells me that she has just served Raghu Mathur with papers regarding his “Judgment Debtor’s Exam.”

I should explain. You see, back in January of 2000, Mr. Goo filed a suit against Terry Burgess—and me—regarding my reports (in three issues of Dissent) regarding Mathur’s violation of a student’s right to privacy as delineated by a federal law (FERPA). That Mathur had violated that law was, at any rate, the conclusion of the district’s lawyer, Spencer Covert (yes, Covert—I’m not makin’ this stuff up!), who had been asked, by then-IVC president Dan Larios, to provide an opinion on the matter. Ironically, Mathur, a man who can neither detect nor pronounce irony, believes that the Dissent stories amounted to a violation of his privacy rights, and so he sued us for $50,000. According to Mathur, the only way I could have secured the documents I reported on was through the help of Terry Burgess, formerly the VP of Instruction. (That’s nonsense. The documents had been readily available on campus for years.) Thus Burgess was included in the suit.

Unfortunately for the Gooster, the great state of California has a law (the anti-SLAPP statute) designed to protect citizens from lawsuits that are filed by powerful interests—developers, politicians, et al.—merely in order to silence legitimate criticism. SLAPP suits are burdensome annoyances, or worse, for defendants, but they produce a chilling effect on potential criticism by others as well. They thwart free speech.

To make a long story short, we responded to Mathur’s suit by appealing to the anti-SLAPP statute, which yielded a quick dismissal. In court, Judge Brenner noted that my Dissent reports were both true and newsworthy and that, further, there was no evidence whatsoever that Burgess provided the information regarding Mathur that I had reported. In fact, he hadn’t.

As per the law, Brenner ordered Mathur to pay Burgess and me costs and attorneys fees. That amounted to $34,000 and change. Ouch! That occurred months ago.

But, as of this day (Sept. 1), Mathur hasn’t paid. In such situations, the prevailing side files for a “Judgment Debtor Exam.” Once it is granted, the “judgment debtor” is served papers that inform him that he must appear in court on a certain date. “If you fail to appear…you may be subject to arrest and punishment,” say the documents.

On August 29th, Carol Sobel, my attorney, filed for a debtor’s exam for Mathur. The order was granted on that day. So, on this day—the 1st of September—Wendy serves Raghu with the papers:

“Hi Raghu. I’ve got something for you!” chirps Wendy.

He stares but doesn’t move. She hands him the papers, smiling broadly. Eventually, he takes them, glumly thanks her, and then disappears behind the door of his office. 

Later, someone tells me that she thinks she heard Mathur crying and banging his head against a chair. But she isn’t sure. 

Could be, though. The document orders Mathur to bring 27 kinds of document, including

All checkbooks, registers, and canceled checks for all savings, checking, credit union, bank, mutual fund accounts and/or all other accounts owned by you and/or you and your spouse for the past three years…All payroll check stubs for you and/or your spouse for the past three years…All passbooks for savings, checking, credit union, bank, mutual fund accounts, and/or all other accounts owned by you and/or your spouse for the past three years…All financial statements listing your assets…during the past three years…All stock registers or other records of stocks presently owned by you…All documents evidencing any partnership interest in property owned by you…All credit card applications…Ownership documents…Your state and federal income tax returns for the past thee years…

—and so on. Jeez, I’d cry too. The exam is set for September 19th….

--7-19-00
In the end, Mathur was forced to fork over about $32K (that’s what we settled for).

Mathur turned around and sued the district for not protecting him from me—despite the fact that I sued him only in response to his suing me for reporting a demonstrable fact about his misconduct.

At first, the district simply rejected Mathur’s suit. In the end, however, the trustees gave ‘im about $40K (as I recall) and soon made him Chancellor the district.

Really.