KUSI reports campaign allegations as fact; is Prop D so incendiary that it causes KUSI to compromise its journalistic integrity?

How Political Spin Became Fact on KUSI
Keegan Kyle
Voice of San Diego
August 31, 2010

Here's a lesson from the budding campaign over Proposition D that shows how quickly political spin can become accepted fact.

Last week, journalists received an e-mail blast from opponents of Proposition D, the sales tax measure on November's ballot. The opponents announced a meeting with "over 300 business and community leaders" for the "launch of (a) grassroots effort." They took a stab at Proposition D supporters, too.

[Excerpt from email:] Proponents of Prop D will have $1 million or more from labor unions and special interests to spend in their campaign ... We cannot match that special interest money. Fortunately, our "No on Prop D" campaign has the support of the grassroots in San Diego -- a broad spectrum of hardworking small business owners, neighborhood activists and community leaders.

KUSI covered the meeting live and reported the campaign's claims to its audiences as fact. Here's one excerpt from the exchange between anchor and news reporter (emphasis is ours):

Anchor: I understand the Prop. D campaign has quite a bit of money behind it to see it through.

Reporter: They do. They have about a million dollars for those supporting Proposition D, for their campaigns. Some of that is funded by some of the unions around San Diego city and county as well. The campaign here, the No on Prop. D campaign, does not have that kind of money. This is a purely grassroot effort. This is a fundraiser tonight so they're actually trying to get some people to donate to their campaign, but what they're to do is get as much support behind this as they can. They've already got a substantial portion of the business community supporting the No on Prop D campaign.

Anchor: Sounds like they're putting up a pretty good fight, though. Alright, Tom, thank you.

In those four highlighted sections, the reporter presented the same talking points about unions, special interests, business and grassroots efforts that came from the anti-Prop. D press release. He claimed the pro-Prop. D campaign had $1 million, which actually went a step further from the press release, which only forecasted that sum...

Fox news hammers another nail in the coffin of fair and balanced reporting: $1M gift to Republican Governors Association

News Corp. defends $1M gift to Republican Governors Association
By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
August 17, 2010

Rupert Murdoch, who has never been shy about making his political views known, has voted with his sizable checkbook.

Murdoch's News Corp. has made a $1 million donation to the Republican Governors Association, triggering swift criticism from Democrats that a contribution of that magnitude casts a shadow on his media properties, particularly Fox News.

"For a media company -- particularly one whose slogan is 'fair and balanced' -- to be injecting themselves into the outcome of races is stunning," Nathan Daschle, executive director of the Democratic Governors Association, said Tuesday. "The people owning Fox News have made a decision that they want to see Democratic governors go down to defeat. It's a jaw-dropping violation of the boundary between the media and corporate realm." ...

The NCT may have fooled some readers into thinking that a MiraCosta College mediator spoke with the authority of a judge

See MiraCosta College posts.

San Diego's retired judge David B. Moon, Jr. is not a judge, he's a mediator-for-hire. He is famous in some circles for his successful efforts to help employers get away with mistreating employees. However, when the employee in question is someone who has run an organization, and has worked closely with the lawyers for the organization, it seems that Mr. Moon does his best to get the employee an extremely good deal. In the case of MiraCosta College, a appeals court has ruled that the deal Moon got for former college president Victoria Richart was so generous that it was illegal.

Mr. Moon's statements should be given no more weight than those of any other mediator who is paid to be biased. But the North County Times, by focusing on his status as a retired judge, makes it sound like his personal opinion has some special value:

"...before the 2007 settlement, a retired judge retained by the college board found that Richart had a valid claim for damages against MiraCosta and some of its trustees worth 'in excess of $2 million'" (emphasis added).

Reporter Paul Sisson should have described Moon as a mediator, not a judge.



Across town, the San Diego Union-Tribune has broken the link to the following story it published on the same subject:

"This is Google's cache of http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/aug/13/judge-says-former-miracosta-president-must-repay/. It is a snapshot of the page as it appeared on Aug 14, 2010 00:28:07 GMT. The current page could have changed in the meantime.

Judge says former MiraCosta president must repay $1.3 million
By Pat Flynn, UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER
Friday, August 13, 2010 at 5:05 p.m.

A judge has ordered the former president of MiraCosta College to repay about $1.3 million in compensation she has received from the college district under a 2007 settlement in which she agreed to step down and waive her right to sue over employment issues.

Victoria Muñoz Richart and the district agreed to a $1.6 million settlement after the faculty cast a no-confidence vote against her over her investigation into the illegal sale of palm trees that belonged to the college.

Leon Page, an attorney who lives in Carlsbad, quickly sued, contending that state law prohibits public agencies from granting more than 18 months’ worth of salary and benefits in terminating contracts.

He lost at the trial level, but in November the 4th District Court of Appeal agreed that the deal was an unconstitutional gift of public funds and declared the settlement contract void. The appellate court sent the case back to Superior Court to sort out what to do next.

In his ruling, Judge William S. Dato said the solution is to return the parties to the status they had before the agreement was reached, ordering Richart to repay the money within 90 days and reinstating her right to pursue legal claims against the district.

“Technically, she is also relieved of her obligation to step down as president of the district, but the significance of that fact is far from clear,” Dato wrote, noting that the college has a new president (since March 2009) and that “it is unlikely Richart would want to resume the position even if the district board was willing to permit it.”

The ruling also ordered the district to withhold the approximately $300,000 remaining to be paid under the settlement.

Neither Richart nor her attorneys could be reached for comment Friday.

“This was an abusive, corrupt bargain,” Page said of the deal he torpedoed, saying his role was to stand up for the college and taxpayers “since nobody else did.”

Although he has no role in any future dealings between Richart and the Oceanside-based district, Page said, “I think now this can very easily be settled.”

He said he envisions a scenario in which Richart is able to “hold back” some of what she has been paid.

“I don’t think it’s necessary to squeeze every last penny out of Victoria,” Page said.

Michael Gibbs, an attorney for the college district, said that while there have been no discussions since Dato released his ruling Thursday, a settlement is possible.

“I am sure there will be a good-faith effort to reach a resolution,” he said.

And if that doesn’t happen, there “may well be” more litigation in the case, he said.

My apology regarding SDUT's Sign On San Diego website

San Diego Union-Tribune

I apologize for my mistake about how
the SDUT published comments. I've
erased this page, and am working on
a full explanation which I will
publish in this space. I mistakenly
thought I posted a comment on one
web page of the SDUT, but I had
actually posted my comment on
another page. I kept looking at the
first page (the one that had everyone
else's comments), waiting to see my
comment, and, of course, my
comment never appeared.

Why did the San Diego Union Tribune talk about Francisco Escobedo's other school district, but never mentioned Lowell Billings' other district?

New CVESD superintendent Francisco Escobedo

Who is in charge of the San Diego Union-Tribune's editorial policy regarding Chula Vista Elementary School District? The editor who (mis)handled the story of the "Castle Park Five" was Don Sevrens.

Once again, the SDUT fails to give the full story about Chula Vista Elementary School District. Until he was voted out of office in 2008 (and replaced by Russell Coronado), CVESD board member Patrick Judd was an employee of CVESD Superintendent Lowell Billings in another school district, The Accelerated School (TAS) in Los Angeles. At TAS, Lowell Billings was on the board that chose Patrick Judd as executive director of the school.

But here's the big difference between the two situations: Escobedo didn't personally hire Coronado. Lowell Billings, on the other hand, was personally involved in the hiring of Patrick Judd, and Judd was personally involved in hiring Lowell Billings.

The board minutes for CVESD do not indicate that Patrick Judd recused himself from voting for Lowell Billings' employment, nor does it appear that Billings recused himself from voting for Judd's employment.

See blog posts about The Accelerated School (TAS) in Los Angeles.

Shame on the San Diego Union Tribune for cherry-picking the facts it gives to readers. This story reminds me of the "Castle Park Five" story, in which the SDUT was outraged that five teachers were transferred, but never told readers that several of those teachers were deeply involved in illegal actions. The district had paid $100,000s to defend them. The teachers weren't grateful for the district's assistance in covering up their wrongdoing, however. When they were transferred, they filed a complaint against the district!


Chula Vista superintendent candidate had inside track
The president of the school board works for him at another district
San Diego Union Tribune
By ASHLY McGLONE
August 2, 2010

One candidate for superintendent of Chula Vista’s elementary school district had an inside track — one of his employees is the president of the school board.

Francisco Escobedo last week was named the sole finalist for the job, which paid its last occupant $247,000...

It wasn’t mentioned in the news release, but The Watchdog has learned that Escobedo is Coronado’s boss at the South Bay Union School District. Escobedo is assistant superintendent of educational leadership there, a post he has held since 2007. Coronado is the director of student services.

Coronado was one of two board members on a selection committee, which also included a parent, a principal, a labor representative and a taxpayer. That committee passed along three finalists to the board, which narrowed the field to one by a unanimous vote that included Coronado.

Coronado on Monday said his relationship with Escobedo at the South Bay district was not a conflict-of-interest and had no bearing on the recruitment at the Chula Vista Elementary district...

Still, Coronado said, he has decided to recuse himself from the final vote to hire a superintendent, possibly on Aug. 17, “so that there wouldn’t be any misinterpretation.”

Escobedo said he sees no conflict with applying for a job controlled in part by a subordinate.

“I wouldn’t say that is the case,” Escobedo said. “[Coronado] has two roles to play: one as the school board president when he works for Chula Vista. He does an exceptional job at differentiating what his roles are in those two positions.”

Larry Cunningham, the other board member who served on the selection committee, said the relationship between Coronado and Escobedo was “not a discussion item” but that he was aware that they worked together. Asked whether he knew that Escobedo was Coronado’s boss, he said, “I don’t know what the structure is.”

[Maura Larkins' comment: Come on, Larry. Don't be so afraid to admit the truth. If Escobedo is the superintendent, then he's the boss of every employee in the district. I wish you would start giving straight answers to questions. This evasiveness is getting to be a very bad habit.]

Jim Groth, former president of the teacher’s union for the district, said he was unaware of the connection.

“As far as my reaction to it, it’s not uncommon, but it would be proper for a board member not to vote on the process,” said Groth, now a member of the California Teachers Association board. “Everybody in leadership kind of knows everybody else in leadership. To directly supervise them though, in the state of California, I am sure it happens, but as an elected official, you need to be very careful.”

[Maura Larkins comment: But you didn't want Lowell Billings to be careful, did you, Jim? At least not regarding issues that you and he were hiding from teachers and voters, right?]

The successful candidate will replace Lowell Billings, who will retire midway through his ninth year as district superintendent in December. His salary is $247,000, although a replacement with less experience might be paid less.

At South Bay Union, Escobedo’s salary stands at $144,000, and Coronado’s is $124,000.

Escobedo, who has a doctorate in education and has worked in education for 22 years, should not be excluded from the Chula Vista job because a board member happens to work for him, Billings said.

“Do you exclude someone that you really really like because you have a history with them? He is a really good educator,” Billings said. “You have to look at the track record of the candidate that has been selected, and it is immaculate.”

Billings said there was no problem with the news release quoting Coronado praising Escobedo, without disclosing their outside relationship.

“I think you have to put it in the context of how pleased the other board members are,” Billings said. “One board member is not the board. He is not giving his sole opinion. He is voicing the consolidated opinion of the board. He doesn’t speak for himself.”...

Daniel Schorr's Legacy: Speaking Truth To Power

Daniel Schorr's Legacy: Speaking Truth To Power
by David Folkenflik
NPR
July 24, 2010

He wasn't the most handsome, nor the most famous, of the dashing "Murrow Boys" of CBS News, the ones who defined ambitious broadcast journalism in the middle of the last century.

Nor was Daniel Schorr among the first. It took years of freelancing abroad, and even a brief try-out at The New York Times, before Schorr caught the attention of Edward R. Murrow and was hired by CBS in 1953.

But Schorr, who died Friday at 93, left two unquestionable journalistic legacies all his own.

First, he exemplified the mission of bearing active witness to history, in his case, the decades that chronicled America's rise after World War II. His reporting and interpretation of developments provided important insights for generations of readers, viewers and listeners.

He covered the Army-McCarthy hearings in 1954; a few years later, as Moscow bureau chief for CBS, Schorr won the first sit-down television interview with Soviet Premier Nikita Krushchev — the first by a television news outlet from any country, including the U.S.S.R. He covered the Cold War from West Germany, too; and the Johnson administration's anti-poverty efforts when he returned to the U.S.; and, perhaps most famously, Watergate and the ensuing revelation of CIA abuses.

Schorr took a pride in his name's appearance on President Nixon's infamous "enemies list" that could not be underestimated. It served as a verbal talisman during his later appearances on NPR, particularly as he observed some parallels between the pushes for secrecy in the Nixon years and in the administration of President George W. Bush (especially as embodied by then-Vice President Richard B. Cheney).
Dan Schorr Memorial Special

Then, there is his second legacy: He uncompromisingly stood up to power.

Murrow famously tangled with network executives — all the way up to CBS chairman William S. Paley himself. But to the outward observer, Schorr seemed as fearless as his mentor...

Truly independent American journalists don't work for big organizations

Jul 4, 2010
America's good, subservient press
On Independence Day, noting that the truly independent American journalists don't work for big organizations
By Dan Gillmor
Salon.com

Journalists tend to take themselves too seriously, and their craft not seriously enough. So it is apt that some famous and obscure quotations and aphorisms about the value and function of a free press adorn the tiled walls of the restrooms at Rhodes University's African Media Matrix -- the building that houses what is widely considered the continent's top journalism school.

One of those quotes is from Nelson Mandela, spoken in 2002, and it feels dismayingly correct today:

“A bad free press is preferable to a technically good subservient press."

In the wake of a major journalistic scandal in the United States, broken open in the last week, I have to say that America's establishment press has never been technically better, but never more pathetically subservient. My hopes increasingly ride on an often bad free press that is getting better all the time.

Let me also say, upfront, that there are honorable exceptions in the top ranks of America's major media organizations. But in what may well be seen someday as a seminal event in U.S. media history, senior people at the two newspapers widely considered to offer the most comprenensive political coverage have admitted -- and, God help us, defended -- their technically good subservience to the American government.

Salon colleague Glenn Greenwald has discussed in detail the truly disheartening response to a Harvard study showing that the Washington Post and New York Times skewed their coverage of America's post-9/11 torture policy, using the Bush administration's newspeak language -- "harsh interrogation techniques" was a favorite -- instead of plain old "torture," the word they'd previously used to describe the same acts.

And then, when asked why, top editors and spokespeople at both papers effectively said that once the Bush administration and Republican allies had pushed for the new language, the news organizations were duty-bound to use it, too, or else be seen as slanting the news.

That the news organizations had changed their language was itself disgraceful. That they then compounded the damage, with a defense that was almost the definition of a subservient press, was heartbreaking.

But George Orwell was rolling in his grave -- perhaps with joy that he's been proved so right, but also pure despair...

The New York Times and Washington Post have done wonderful work through their modern existence. But their failures are so profound in recent years that it's hard to maintain any confidence in them.

So for all of the excellence they've fostered, the editors at these famous institutions who refused to call torture what it was -- bowing to the bogus and odious idea that channeling partisan propaganda was serving their readers -- harmed their organizations with those cowardly word games.

And when they defended their acts of cowardice and dismissed criticism as tendentious, they went beyond harm. Their pride in subservience was a disgrace.

Gary Stoller of USA TODAY reveals planes with maintenance problems have flown anyway

Planes with maintenance problems have flown anyway
2/4/2010
A jet takes off from Indianapolis in this 2000 file photo. Since 2003, 65,000 U.S. flights with maintenance problems have taken off anyway.
By Gary Stoller, USA TODAY

Alerted by a brake warning light in the cockpit, the captain on a U.S. airline flight last August warned passengers he was making an emergency landing and called for firetrucks to be standing by.

The trucks weren't needed, it turned out. The Boeing 767-300 jet landed safely, the pilot said in his account to NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System, which allows airline employees to report incidents confidentially and without identifying the airline or the flight.

The pilot reported that he later was told by mechanics that the incident was caused by a landing-gear wheel that was missing a part and had been installed incorrectly.

The passengers on the unidentified international flight were on a jet that should never have left the ground. Improper repair work made it unsafe to fly. It was no isolated incident.

During the past six years, millions of passengers have been on at least 65,000 U.S. airline flights that shouldn't have taken off because planes weren't properly maintained, a six-month USA TODAY investigation has found.

FAA FINES TELL TALE: Number, total show extent of problem
BAGGAGE FEES: Extra money no guarantee of better handling, tracking

The investigation — which included an analysis of government fines against airlines for maintenance violations and penalty letters sent to them that were obtained through the Freedom of Information Act — reveals that substandard repairs, unqualified mechanics and lax oversight by airlines and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) are not unusual...

Jim Hilkevich, Chicago Tribune reporter, should correct statement about 767s flying themselves

The cockpit automation myth that won't die
There's plenty of blame to go around for why bad information trickles out to the public and becomes "fact"
By Patrick Smith
Salon.com
June 24, 2010

Illegitimi non carborundum

Picking up from where I left off ...

For the longest time I've toyed with the idea of renting out a simulator and recruiting volunteers in order to demonstrate the immense difficulty a nonpilot would have at the controls of a jet. Logistics and cost, unfortunately, would make this extremely difficult (the tab would likely be in the tens of thousands of dollars).

Recently I learned that something like this has already been done. Several years ago, researchers in Denver gathered together 112 private pilots and put them to the test in an old Boeing 737-200 simulator. Of the 112, only 23 managed to get the plane from 35,000 feet to a reasonably intact landing -- in clear weather, with instruction from the ground. Approximately 50 percent were unable to manage anything at all. Mind you these were FAA certificated pilots.

Anyway, I never heard back from Jim Hilkevich. That's the Chicago Tribune reporter who, in covering the story of the American Airlines flight attendant pressed into cockpit duty after one of the pilots fell ill, said of the Boeing 767: "In fact, the sophisticated plane, equipped with an array of computers, can fly and land by itself."

I e-mailed Mr. Hilkevich a note of cordial disagreement. I'm not sure what to make of his silence. As both an air travel writer and a pilot with more than a thousand hours of 767 time under my belt, I felt that my protest would carry some weight and credibility. Alas it was met with silence. Perhaps big city reporters don't take kindly to lowly airline pilots explaining what it is they actually do for a living. I suppose I wouldn't mind so much if not the fact that Hilkevich is the paper's transportation writer, and in that capacity, with its presumed expertise, he ought to be more careful...

Journalist-turned-commentator Marsha Sutton reveals her biases regarding school attorney Dan Shinoff and Del Mar USD's firing of its superintendent

See all posts re Del Mar Union School District.

Five will get you ten that Marsha Sutton was all worked up emotionally after talking to Dan Shinoff when she wrote the article below. Did the whole MiraCosta College fiasco completely slip her mind when she wrote it? In the article Ms. Sutton wrote one of the most bizarre sentences I have ever read from a school journalist:

Can we use common sense and ask ourselves why the board would proceed with firing McClain if it were not evident – not unanimously evident – that there have been legal violations?

Good heavens, Marsha. You know very well, and have failed to report, that other school administrators have committed legal violations and not been fired. And most firings are done for political reasons. So the answer is NO, Marsha. We can not assume that there have been legal violations.

Shame on you for publishing such a statement. Do you also assume, Marsha, that everyone charged with a crime has committed one? I have to wonder if you're taking your instructions, as seems to have happened in at the San Diego Union Tribune and North County Times as well as the Chula Vista Star-News (click on name of paper to see examples) from Del Mar USD attorney Dan Shinoff. A judge found that Shinoff himself had violated rules of professional conduct when representing MiraCosta College, but Shinoff wasn't fired. So why are you pretending that a school firing is necessarily due to legal violations as opposed to politics? And why are you pretending that illegal actions normally lead to firing?

Later in the same article Marsha comes up with another doozy:

And why is one speaker’s offhand comment that this action could cost the district $500,000 repeated in the press as if it were an accepted fact? How often, if ever, was it pointed out that not a dime would be spent if McClain was released for cause? Five will get you ten that that $500,000 pulled-from-the-air figure will grow to $800,000 or even $1 million before the month is out.

Maybe, Marsha, the speaker knows that Shinoff advised MiraCosta College to give $1.6 million to Victoria Richart when she hadn't even filed a claim. And you know very well that releasing someone for cause often results in expensive lawsuits.

Finally you let us know that you are relying on the authority of a single man whom you cravenly admire. Why didn't you refer to actual cases in writing this article? Here are you own over-the-top words:

Can we ask why one of the most highly regarded education attorneys in San Diego, Dan Shinoff, feels confident that McClain violated her contract, and perhaps the Brown Act and other breaches as well? Does it make sense that the board would, on a whim, do this without solid legal grounds?

Marsha, school board generally do what Dan Shinoff tells them to do. They rely on him. But neither the Superior Court nor the California Court of Appeal always backs up Shinoff's determinations. Schools who do what Shinoff tells them to do often end up much poorer. Did the whole MiraCosta fiasco completely slip your mind when you wrote this article?

Marsha, I don't see how you can pretend to be an unbiased journalist regarding legal affairs in schools in San Diego after writing this article. You should stick to commentary from now on. And I am disappointed in SDNN now that I know what kind of an education editor it hired. It seems that Voice of San Diego is the only major publication in San Diego with any journalistic ethics.



Sutton: Can we withhold judgment on Del Mar?
By Marsha Sutton, SDNN
April 9, 2010

It was during my just concluded 10-day vacation in Washington, D.C., visiting all the historic sites and the exquisite cherry blossom trees (by chance, we caught them blooming during the three days each year when their breathtaking floral beauty is at its peak), that the Del Mar Union School District exploded into the news. But unlike the blossoms, this explosion is hardly of the beauteous kind.

For months I’ve been asking and waiting and asking again, to see when and if the deed will get done, only to learn that the board took action and released former superintendent Sharon McClain while I was away.

I’ve covered the Del Mar Union School District closely for the past 15 years, and have witnessed the rise, and fall, of former superintendents Rob Harriman and Tom Bishop. Both men reigned supreme until they were both dismissed by their school boards under clouds of suspicion, the reasons for which were never formally revealed. And now we have the demise of a third.

The reports so far on this latest firing have offered readers an infuriatingly limited presentation of the problems confronting the DM district.

San Diego: I would ask all those who are following this drawn-out saga to suspend judgment until all the facts, those facts that professional journalists should have reported but failed to extract, can be revealed.

Depressingly, the reports to date reflect a hell-bent, torches and pitchforks mission that does little to provide people with accuracy and balance. I plead for patience because everything I’ve read so far has served only to increase hysteria.

During these last few days of spring break, can we have patience? Can folks hold off on condemning this board until more facts have been exposed?

Can we use common sense and ask ourselves why the board would proceed with firing McClain if it were not evident – not unanimously evident – that there have been legal violations?

Can we ask ourselves why board president Comischell Rodriguez, after months of apparent agreement, would suddenly decide at the last board meeting to switch her position and vote against the board majority? Is this an act of integrity, to suddenly flip-flop and play to the political arena? Or was there some new evidence revealed that only she was privy to?

Can we ask why Steven McDowell inexplicably abstained? What’s up with that? Cowardly? Or something borne of conviction?

Do Rodriguez’s and McDowell’s actions now put the board at greater risk for litigation? A unanimous decision to vote her out is quite different than a 3-1-1 vote. By flopping and flipping and crumbling to please the crowd, without regard to the law, is McClain’s case strengthened?

Can we ask why one of the most highly regarded education attorneys in San Diego, Dan Shinoff, feels confident that McClain violated her contract, and perhaps the Brown Act and other breaches as well? Does it make sense that the board would, on a whim, do this without solid legal grounds?

Read more education stories

And why is one speaker’s offhand comment that this action could cost the district $500,000 repeated in the press as if it were an accepted fact? How often, if ever, was it pointed out that not a dime would be spent if McClain was released for cause? Five will get you ten that that $500,000 pulled-from-the-air figure will grow to $800,000 or even $1 million before the month is out.

Questions to ponder.

Meanwhile, I’m going to reflect on the memory of that one last look at the carpet of cherry blossoms falling off the trees like so much drifting, snowy confetti – grateful for the few days of respite, ironically taken in our nation’s capital, from the political turmoil of a tiny school district three thousand miles away.

[Maura Larkins' comment: You didn't smoke some of those cherry blossoms, did you, Marsha?]

SDCERA lawyers screw up big time, and Voice of San Diego's Rob Davis does their legal research

It seems that the California Bar Association has given law degrees to several people who shouldn't have them. But that doesn't explain why SDCERA would hire such people, does it? Perhaps the answer is suggested by the name of Rob Davis' blog: "In the muck."


Outsourcing to Pension Consultant Is Illegal, Attorney Says
April 1, 2010
Rob Davis
Voice of San Diego

Two weeks ago, when the county pension fund agreed to solicit offers to outsource its 10-member investment team, Lee Partridge planned to submit a bid.

Partridge, the San Diego County Employees Retirement Association's top investment consultant, had the blessing of the organization's attorney, Steven Rice. Even though Partridge had proposed creating the work, which would've paid his company more than $10 million annually, SDCERA's attorney said it was legal for him to bid. A perceived conflict existed, Rice said, but not an actual one.

Then I asked questions about whether Partridge's bid would violate a specific law that prohibits government employees from benefiting financially from contracts they're involved in creating. I found a state Attorney General's opinion that suggested it would be illegal.

I gave the opinion to County Supervisor Dianne Jacob, a pension board member, who in turn asked for a legal analysis of my questions.

Today, the board got its answer: What it wanted to do is illegal. Partridge can't get the work...

Why did the North County Times erase its 2003 puff piece on SDCOE attorney Daniel Shinoff?

The North County Times loves controversial San Diego County Office of Education Attorney Daniel Shinoff, or at least it seemed so when they created a pretty puff piece about him in 2003. So why have they erased the story from their archives, and in such a clumsy manner?

My guess: because he asked them to do so.

Why? Because it contained information that proved that Shinoff filed a false (or at least highly misleading) document as an exhibit for his declaration in a defamation suit. It was an important declaration. The judge relied on it to make her decision in a summary judgment.

In some cases Stutz doesn't seem to evaluate the law and the facts of the case, just whether their public entity client can get away with wrongdoing.

Shannon Lopez of the San Diego Union Tribune is my journalistic hero of the month

See all Sally Smith posts from San Diego Education Report blog.

Ever since Sally Smith got ousted from the Serra High School site council, I've been trying to find a story I read a few months ago about a woman who was ousted from a planning board, and reinstated by a judge.

I searched the SDUT archives and Google, all to no avail.

But today Shannon Lopez, Assistant to the Editor, answered my request for help.

HERE'S THE STORY I COULDN'T FIND:


Veterinarian kicked off panel prevails in court
by Greg Moran
SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE
Sep 27, 2009
Dr. Almeda Starkey of Pine Valley sued to regain her seat on a county conservation program committee after county officials ousted her.

SDNN refused press passes by police until they “prove” themselves

San Diego really is a police state: SDNN refused press passes by police until they “prove” themselves
OB Rag
March 26, 2009
by Pat Flannery

I recently got dramatic proof of this shortly after joining a team of young journalists at San Diego News Network, SDNN, a new online news journal. I was supposed to become its political analyst and columnist. I was looking forward to probing the underbelly of San Diego politics with young idealistic journalists. Unfortunately it was not to be.

Unbelievably, the Mayor, through his Police Chief, refused them press credentials until they “prove themselves”. He has put them on a six months probation! After six months of reporting the news to his satisfaction, he may extend press credentials to them. SDNN acquiesced. I quietly withdrew.

In a way, I am not surprised. I was already aware of the control the Mayor and the police have over the local media. They are used to it. There has been only one real training ground for print journalists in San Diego for decades and that has been the Copley press. Many Mayoral and City Council staff are ex-UT people, all nurtured in the same symbiotic coziness. They tear up anybody, like Mike Aguirre, who will not be cozy with them.

What surprised me was how quickly these young SDNN people, barely out of journalism school, accepted it all. How are San Diegans ever going to learn the truth about their city government if the police department, directly under the Mayor’s control, licenses all who may ask questions at city press conferences? Should a journalist be foolish enough to displease somebody important at City Hall (e.g. by asking “impertinent” questions) an editor will quickly assign somebody else to kiss up to the offended potentate.

New ownership at the U-T will not bring change and SDNN is not about to challenge the established order. That became painfully obvious this week. The faceless manipulators at City Hall will still exert their enormous power.

As I said, this is not new. A good example of how journalists become pawns of City Hall is what happened at South Eastern Development Corporation (SEDC) last year is. Will Carless, a journalist with Voice of San Diego, in answering a question from Tom Fudge on the KPBS radio program “These Days” in June 2008, revealed how it works. Fudge asked Carless why he started investigating certain bonus payments paid to SEDC’s President, Carolyn Smith. Carless revealed that he had received an insider tip.

Voice of San Diego then put Carless on the story full time for months. He doggedly pursued what were undoubtedly unauthorized payments to Smith, who was subsequently fired in disgrace. But was that the whole story? I doubt it. I had uncovered a dubious land deal involving SEDC’s chairman, “Chip” Owen and Jim Waring, the Mayor’s land use Czar at the time...

Linda Rosas' Star-News covered five Castle Park teachers, so why did she keep secret the $100,000s in legal fees CVESD paid?

2005 Sweetwater District Alumni Hall of Fame Inductees: Standing, L-R: Sweetwater Board President Jim Cartmill, Duane Sceper, Board Member Arlie Ricasa, Linda Rosas Townson, Pedro Anaya, Vernor Vinge, Howard Chang, Board Member Pearl Quiñones, Superintendent Edward Brand; Seated, L-R: Dr. M. Brian Maple, Richard Lareau, Annette Peer, Roger Cázares, Vidal Fernandez, Don Wigginton.

See also Principal Ollie ("Oly") Matos

In 2004, the Chula Vista Star-News and the San Diego Union Tribune wrote story after story about the "Castle Park Five," but both papers refused to reveal how much money in legal fees the Chula Vista Elementary School District had paid to protect four of those teachers, Robin Donlan, Peg Myers, Nikki Perez and Stephenie Parker-Pettit in the Maura Larkins v. CVESD lawsuit. The case was the result of an odd confluence of circumstances, and at the same time it was a typical event in the system that prevails at many schools across the United States. This system values politics and personal loyalty among adults over the duty to educate and protect children.

See summary of case.

DISTRICT LAWYERS BRING THE CASE BACK TO COURT IN 2007

As fate would have it, however, my case
is back in court. CVESD’s law firm,
Stutz, Artiano, Shinoff & Holtz,
brought this case back to San Diego Superior Court
in 2007 by filing a defamation suit against me
for publishing this website.

So it’s still possible that justice and sanity
will find their way back to Chula Vista Elementary
School District.

by Maura Larkins

District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis is now the most powerful politician in San Diego

Voice of San Diego is following the important story of the District Attorney who got into office by campaigning as a centrist, then almost immediately moved to the extreme right. (Sounds like a national figure who ran for office in 2000, doesn't it?)

Voters don't seem to be paying attention to what Bonnie Dumanis does. I voted for her in 2002, and I confess I was bamboozled. So how did she get reelected? I guess the story below explains that.

In addition to the power described below, Bonnie Dumanis has an interesting relationship with San Diego County Office of Education.


How Bonnie Dumanis Became San Diego's Most Powerful Politician
January 3, 2010
Voice of San Diego
By KELLY THORNTON

Sheriff Bill Kolender walked into Thornton Hospital in La Jolla two years ago to visit District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis' dying father. In one of the sheriff's signature moves, he removed his silver-star lapel pin, leaned over Abe Dumanis and attached it to the beaming 82-year-old's hospital gown.

"Don't worry," the sheriff told him. "I'm going to take care of your daughter."

And he has. No matter that years ago Kolender endorsed Dumanis' opponent, incumbent Paul Pfingst, in the 2002 election.

The immensely popular sheriff and the new district attorney went on to create a political and personal liaison like no other -- one that has elevated Dumanis to the highest level of political power in San Diego County and could catapult her into the San Diego Mayor's Office or beyond.

Kolender's recent retirement means the woman who began her legal career as a typist in the office she now runs is arguably the county's most adept and influential politician...

Journalists like Evan Thomas now admit the Clinton scandals were bogus

Time for the media to fess up
Journalists like Evan Thomas now admit the Clinton scandals were bogus. When will they admit they played along?
By Joe Conason
Oct. 9, 2009

"Better late than never" isn't always true, but public candor from people and institutions that have misled us for many years can be refreshing -- and sometimes even liberating.

Prodded by recent events -- including publication of "The Clinton Tapes," historian Taylor Branch's fascinating account of his contemporaneous private conversations with President Bill Clinton; the unwholesome reappearance of healthcare reform nemesis Betsy McCaughey; and perhaps even the death of retired New York Times Op-Ed columnist William Safire -- certain media myth-makers of the Clinton era have suddenly uttered startling acknowledgments and even a grudging confession or two.

At this late date, it is scarcely radical to suggest that Whitewater and all the other "scandals" deployed by the Washington press corps to besiege the Clinton White House (before the Lewinsky affair) were without substance. In the pages of the New York Times and the Washington Post, which created and promoted those stories, even such media mandarins as Thomas Friedman and Evan Thomas now casually assure us that they were overblown, even "bogus." And former New Republic editor Andrew Sullivan today admits that the famous takedown of the Clinton healthcare reforms he published in 1994, Betsy McCaughey's "No Exit," was essentially a fake too.

Belated as those affirmations are, by more than a decade, they may still matter -- if only because they arrive at a time when the mainstream media is just beginning to descend into some of the same bad habits that plagued us during the last Democratic presidency and the far right is already talking impeachment...

The rise of Iran's citizen journalists
Digital Planet
Dave Lee
BBC World Service
30 July 2009

It has been 40 days since Neda Agha-Soltan, a young Iranian woman, was killed during an anti-government protest in Tehran.

Within hours, graphic scenes showing her final seconds of life dominated newspapers and bulletins over the world.

Yet this moment wasn't recorded by a professional journalist working for a big news organisation. Instead, a regular bystander captured the powerful footage and uploaded it online.

The clip of Agha-Soltan's death is just one of hundreds of pieces of citizen journalism to come from Iran in the past few months.

With journalists forced to stay in their hotel rooms, or even leave the country, these amateur recordings quickly became the only means of getting uncensored news out of Tehran.

No entry

With no correspondents allowed on the ground, the BBC, like almost all major news organisations, is forced to rely on the honesty of citizen journalists to provide details from the protests.

Inevitably, with valuable information comes deceptive mis-information and programme makers have to make difficult decisions about how to harness social networks.


We look at what's going on on Twitter, and then we follow it up in order to verify
Azi Khatiri

Download the podcast

"On Twitter you see people tweeting on various protests that have happened," Dr Azi Khatiri, an interactive producer for the BBC's Persian TV service, said.

"But, as a news organisation we have to make sure what we report is accurate and correct.

"We look at what's going on on Twitter, and then we follow it up in order to verify," she told the organisation's Digital Planet programme.

"We have various contacts inside of Iran that we call up so they can tell us that, for example, a protest has actually happened."

Flood of information

Since the disputed election results, BBC Persian has been inundated with content sent in by viewers.

Far from being a hindrance, Khatiri says the great flood of information helped the team decipher content and identify reliable information.
Protest in Iran
Protests have continued since the 12 June presidential election

"We literally get hundreds on days that massive protests happen inside Iran," said Dr Khatiri .

"When somebody tells us that something has happened, and then we get 10 or 20 pieces of film coming in from mobile phone footage, it shows the same thing: it actually did happen."

However, Bill Thompson, a technology journalist, said the move to citizen journalism didn't necessarily spell the end of the professional.

"Anybody can now have access to these sources," he said.

"But of course there's no validation or verification of the stuff coming out. The role of the journalist is not just to be the person who gets the information, but the person who puts it in context and makes sense of it."

"When it comes to complex political situations, where people's lives are at risk, the mainstream news organisations come into their own because they have done this before. We know how to check something, we know how to get the balance right," he added.

He said that he was also concerned that citizen journalism was only representing the young, web-savvy community of Iran, and that the older generation, with perhaps different views, are being drowned out.

However Dr Khatiri is adamant this isn't the case.

"A lot of the older generation have also been out in the street.

"This is not just the one-sided, young and youthful and funky sort of a protest. You would think, 'OK, do people in the provinces really give a damn? Is it really their cause as well?' I say that yes, it is."

Judith Miller seemed like a hero protecting sources, but turned out to be a mouthpiece for the Bush administration

Karl Rove had asserted in an interview with the FBI that he had learned the identity of Plame from a reporter. That reporter turned out to be Judith Miller.



Judith Miller (journalist)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Judith Miller (born January 2, 1948), is an American journalist. Miller, based in Washington D.C., was a prominent New York Times reporter with access to top U.S. government officials. Her coverage of these officials, especially regarding the Bush administration’s conclusions about Iraq’s alleged Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) Program in 2003 and her involvement in the Plame Affair, made her a high-profile media personality. The work that Miller and Michael Gordon did in presenting the case for WMDs has been questioned. Miller eventually lost her job over these reporting issues though Mr. Gordon has remained a reporter for the New York Times. Miller announced her retirement from The New York Times on November 9, 2005.

Miller was a mouthpiece for the Bush administration
New York Times career: 2002-2005

Miller was criticized for her reporting on whether Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (WMD). On September 7, 2002, Miller and Times reporter Michael R. Gordon reported the interception of metal tubes bound for Iraq. Her front-page story quoted unnamed "American officials" and "American intelligence experts" who said the tubes were intended to be used to enrich nuclear material, and cited unnamed "Bush administration officials" who claimed that in recent months, Iraq had "stepped up its quest for nuclear weapons and has embarked on a worldwide hunt for materials to make an atomic bomb."

Miller added that "Mr. Hussein's dogged insistence on pursuing his nuclear ambitions, along with what defectors described in interviews as Iraq's push to improve and expand Baghdad's chemical and biological arsenals, have brought Iraq and the United States to the brink of war."

Shortly after Miller's article was published, Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell and Donald Rumsfeld all appeared on television and pointed to Miller's story as a partial basis for going to war. Subsequent analyses by various agencies all concluded that there was no way the tubes could have been used for uranium-enrichment centrifuges.

Miller would later claim, based only on second-hand statements from the military unit she was embedded with, that WMDs had been found in Iraq. "Well, I think they found something more than a smoking gun," Miller said on The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer. "What they've found is a silver bullet in the form of a person, an Iraqi individual, a scientist, as we've called him, who really worked on the programs, who knows them, firsthand, and who has led MET Alpha people to some pretty startling conclusions." This story also turned out to be false.

On May 26, 2004 a Times editorial acknowledged that some of that newspaper's coverage in the run-up to the war had relied too heavily on Chalabi and other Iraqi exiles bent on regime change. It also regretted that "information that was controversial [was] allowed to stand unchallenged." While the editorial rejected "blame on individual reporters," others noted that ten of the twelve flawed stories discussed had been written or co-written by Miller.

Contempt of court
Further information: CIA leak grand jury investigation and CIA leak scandal timeline

On October 1, 2004, federal Judge Thomas F. Hogan found Miller in contempt of court for refusing to appear before a federal grand jury, which was investigating who had leaked to reporters the fact that Valerie Plame was a covert CIA operative. Miller did not write an article about the subject at the time of the leak, but others did (most notably, Robert Novak), spurring the investigation. Judge Hogan sentenced her to 18 months in jail, but stayed the sentence while her appeal proceeded. On February 15, 2005, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit unanimously upheld Judge Hogan's ruling. On June 27, 2005 the US Supreme Court declined to hear the case.

According to sources reported to have firsthand knowledge, Karl Rove had asserted in an interview with the FBI that he had learned the identity of Plame from a reporter.

On July 6, Judge Hogan ordered Miller to serve her sentence at "a suitable jail within the metropolitan area of the District of Columbia." She was taken to Alexandria City Jail on July 7, 2005.[19][20]Testimony at the Libby Trial

On Tuesday January 30th 2007, Miller took the stand as a witness for the prosecution against I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Jr., Vice President Dick Cheney's former Chief of Staff. Miller discussed three conversations she had had with Libby in June and July 2003, including the meeting on June 23, 2003 Miller said she could not remember during her first appearance in front of the Grand Jury. According to the New York Times when asked if Libby discussed Valerie Plame, Miller responded in the affirmative, "adding that Libby had said Wilson worked at the agency’s (C.I.A.) division that dealt with limiting the proliferation of unconventional weapons."[38]

The trial resulted in guilty verdicts for Libby.

Marsha Sutton exposes cheating students, but keeps mum on interesting antics at SDCOE

Below is an interesting story by Marsha Sutton. I'd like to ask Martha: why are you reluctant to expose dishonesty among adults in schools? Don't you think there might be a connection between the behavior of kids and the behavior of their role models? Years ago I asked you to look at what was going on at SDCOE. You ran a big story that appeared to account for SDCOE's entire budget, but you left out legal expenses and liability insurance. Haven't you been apathetic regarding the moral lapses of officials at SDCOE and in the schools?

Marsha Sutton: Scandal exposes district problem
San Diego News Network
By Marsha Sutton, SDNN
May 26, 2009

I don’t know which is worse - the fact that dozens of kids were caught cheating at Canyon Crest Academy or the apathetic way parents and administrators regard the moral lapse.

Under pressure to bury the story, which was brought to my attention because of the wide scope of the sordid affair, I’ve had to sort out what it is about this issue that’s causing so many people to exhibit a jaded attitude tinged with resentment at my inquiries.

[Maura Larkins: It appears that you weren't under as much pressure to bury this story as to bury the SDCOE JPA story and the school legal fees and liability insurance story.]

“What’s the big deal?” is the most common refrain I’ve heard. “It goes on everywhere.” “Why are you picking on our school?” “What are you trying to prove?” “It doesn’t help to write about bad news.”

Well, golly. I was under the impression that journalism’s job was to expose corruption (and cheating certainly falls into that category, by my lights), hold government agencies accountable, inform the public, and increase awareness of trends and concerns.

[Maura Larkins comment: Your impression was correct. May we expect a story on Diane Crosier? And all the money taxpayers pay to help school officials cover up wrongdoing?]

A single incident of cheating involving 50 to 60 kids at one of San Diego County’s highest performing high schools is news, but bigger news is that apparently many feel it’s not news at all...

Once, this was just a story about a single incident. But it has broader implications. How is it that cheating is now so common that many consider it “no big deal?” And why are so many people not just puzzled, but perturbed, that this is being aired publicly?

[Maura Larkins' comment: Maybe the kids saw the adults getting away with it, and figured that's how business is done nowadays. And they're right, Marsha, aren't they?]

...Cheating by students - almost all of them juniors and seniors - was discovered in CCA’s two Advanced Placement psychology classes. Combined enrollment for the two classes exceeds 80 students, more than half of whom have been charged with a form of cheating....

There were those students who were said to have cheated on homework assignments and those who cheated on tests - an important distinction that appears not to matter when applying consequences...

The SDUT confidentiality agreement for employees asks for confidentiality and a whole lot more

Apparently SDUT reporters have to go to their graves with any and all knowledge they dug up while working at the SDUT that the editors decided shouldn't be printed. My question is: what if the reporter starts from scratch and interviews people all over again, and tracks down documents again? Can the reporter then write the stories that were covered up by the SDUT?

Click HERE to see the confidentiality agreement and more information about SDUT secrets.

U-T Clamps Down on Potential Rivals
Voice of San Diego
RANDY DOTINGA
May 22, 2009

In an unusual move for a newspaper, the recently sold San Diego Union-Tribune is requiring employees to sign a confidentiality agreement forbidding them from wooing current or former co-workers to a competitor.

The agreement appears to put a crimp in any employee's plans to create or join a rival company -- such as an online news site -- and bring recent colleagues on board, even those without jobs.

The president of the newspaper industry's leading labor union said he's never seen such an "outrageous" restriction before, and a local professor said it will have a "chilling effect" on those who want to start competing businesses.

A U-T spokesman declined to comment.

Unlike other states, California doesn't allow companies to prevent their employees from working for competitors. But the state does permit "non-solicitation" clauses like the one in the U-T agreement, said Ruben Garcia, an associate professor at California Western School of Law.

The two-page confidentiality agreement states: "I shall not solicit directly or indirectly, any person who is a SDUT employee or who has been employed by SDUT within the prior six (6) months for employment by, or any business relationship with, a competitor."

The agreement says the restriction will be in place for two years after a worker's employment ends.

The U-T is "asking a lot, especially in this climate," said Bernie Lunzer, president of the Newspaper Guild. "I would expect it would make people very upset."

The Newspaper Guild represented hundreds of employees at the U-T until 1998, when workers voted to kick out the union.

Garcia said the wording of the agreement is unusual because it forbids indirect solicitation. "I don’t know what it means to 'indirectly' solicit someone," he said.

He added that non-solicitation clauses generally require that employees be given something in return for agreeing to them. The U-T confidentiality agreement states that the newspaper provides employment in return for signing the contract.

If the U-T asks an employee to sign the agreement while already working at the paper, the agreement states that "additional consideration, to be determined by the SDUT" will be provided...

The confidentiality agreement apparently applies to both current employees and those who are being laid off.

Today is the last day of work for many of the 192 employees laid off by the U-T earlier this month, although they will be paid through July 6.

Newspaper Guild at Sacramento Bee: a union that makes us proud

Sacramento Bee union staffers vote on pay cuts
AP
By STEVE LAWRENCE
March 6, 2009

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — Union members at The Sacramento Bee are deciding whether to accept pay cuts of up to 6 percent.

Approval of the cuts by the Newspaper Guild would save 19 union-covered jobs in the newsroom and advertising departments, at least for now.

The paper plans to cut 34 of the union's 268 positions regardless of the vote results. Rejection of pay cuts could put those 19 additional jobs in jeopardy, too.

Results are expected to be announced after 5 p.m. Friday, Pacific time.

If approved, the proposal would allow the newspaper's management to require employees to take a week of unpaid leave.

The Bee is owned by the McClatchy Co., based in Sacramento.

Sri Lanka (Ceylon for boomers) is sealed off from reporters and the Internet

Image: The southern tip of India and Sri Lanka
Geology.com


Invisible Boundary in the Internet Age
By Emily Wax
Washington Post Foreign Service
February 12, 2009
COLOMBO, Sri Lanka

The men looked sleepy as they slumped in their chairs in the afternoon heat, watching the Scooby Doo cartoon. Their boss, Kusal Perera, the head of a Web site that has been critical of the Sri Lankan government's war, sighed.

His news site, www.lankadissent.com, had to be closed down, one of many media outlets that has been made to censor itself, especially after the death of Sri Lankan journalist Lasantha Wickramatunga, 52, a critic of his country's government.

Wickramatunga's murder was seen as part of a growing pattern of intimidation by the government, according to Human Rights Watch and the Committee to Protect Journalists. It all happened during a recent push to wipe out the separatist Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, or Tamil Tigers, in a war that has persisted for more than two decades, one of the world's longest-running conflicts.

"There were immediate threats to us," Perera told me. He shook my hand for a long time and later tried to hug several visiting journalists in a show of solidarity. "In this modern world, we thought there could no longer be an island with the Internet and text messages. But in Sri Lanka it has really happened. And it's such a pity for those civilians who are suffering."

I knew that coming to this beautiful, palm-fringed Indian Ocean nation to cover what has been characterized as the end of the war would actually be tough: how much information would we have access to? The war zone had been sealed. Would we be able to interview the civilians?

Two bricks for Leslie Devaney and the San Diego Union Tribune for hypocrisy and secrecy

I'm concerned that attorney Leslie Devaney's demands for openness at Tri-City Healthcare are actually an attempt to STOP OR SABOTAGE THE FORENSIC AUDIT. Which does the public need more: an effective audit of financial shenanigans, or a long fight at a board meeting at which the final outcome was predetermined since the majority had all the votes they needed no matter who showed up? I think that the shortness of the meeting was merely an effort to protect the psyches of the board members, who apparently don't have much of a taste for being yelled at. I think they need to toughen up and summon up some courage. They're way too afraid of Leslie Devaney and Ray Artiano and the bigshots who hired them. The board needs to do some homework, to make sure it really understands the situation, and then stand up and go to bat for what it believes in. Too many board members across the spectrum of public entities simply do what their lawyers tell them to do.

This blog has awarded a big brick to attorney Leslie Devaney for hypocrisy and secrecy. Since 2001 Leslie Devaney's law firm Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz has been paid $100,000s of tax dollars by Chula Vista Elementary School District to cover up crimes and other violations of law.

Yet Devaney has the temerity to denounce the new Tri-City Healthcare board majority for lack of openness. Why is she doing this? Apparently to stop the board's investigation into possible criminal activity by her clients Art Gonzalez and seven of his fellow administrators.

But it gets worse. At the same time that Devaney is denouncing board members for putting administrators on leave during a forensic audit, she and her partners at Stutz law firm are suing this blogger (Maura Larkins) for defamation, and REFUSING TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS RELATED TO THE CRIMINAL ACTIONS AT CVESD.

How do I know these documents exist? Because I have over half the pages from the 87-page set of Bate-stamped documents--the ones that were cherry-picked by CVESD because they were less incriminating. The documents were collected by Daniel Shinoff at Chula Vista Elementary School District during the fall of 2001, and Bate-stamped with the number “1” (not “01” or “001”) through 87, inclusive.

In order to make it impossible for Stutz law firm to claim that they couldn't identify the documents, I sent them copies of many of the documents from the set. Still, Stutz says it can't find the documents, and blames a paralegal.

Here's where the story gets humorous: Stutz is suing me for saying that "Daniel Shinoff keeps documents locked up in his office."

* * *

And here's a brick to the San Diego Union Tribune for hypocrisy and secrecy on behalf of Stutz law firm, for publishing tirades against CVESD for transferring the "Castle Park Five" while at the same time keeping secret the $100,000s of tax dollars the district had paid to defend many of those same teachers.

Don Sevrens goes to bat against new Tri-City Hospital board, and once again supports Stutz, Artiano Shinoff & Holtz

It's Leslie Devaney, not Dan Shinoff, this time, but San Diego Union Tribune editor Don Sevrens has once again gone out on a limb for his pals at Stutz law firm.

[Note: Don Sevrens does not make these decisions alone. He got full approval from editor Karin Winner for the cover-up of Stutz law firm's involvement in the Castle Park fiasco discussed below, and I'm sure Winner approved of all the protection the paper has given Stutz law firm over the years.]

Sevrens told a caller today that he will publish corrections to his December 7, 2008 editorial about Monday's Tri-City Healthcare board meeting. Apparently quite a few people called to complain about inaccuracies in his writing.

Here is my response regarding the inaccuracies.

Currently Sevrens is supporting Leslie Devaney, attorney for Tri-City CEO Art Gonzalez. She's the lawyer who helped Laurie Madigan fleece the City of Chula Vista.

But Sevrens and the SDUT seem more strongly connected to Devaney's partner, Dan Shinoff. The San Diego Union-Tribune has never told the full truth about one of Mr. Sevrens' favorite stories, the "Castle Park Five." Mr. Sevrens championed the teachers in story after story. Many letters of support were printed. But Mr. Sevrens never mentioned that the district was paying $100,000s to cover up illegal actions by teachers, with most of that money going to Daniel Shinoff. The SDUT supported the school board candidacy of Felicia Starr, a parent who was deeply involved with the teachers who had initiated illegal actions at the school. Of course, this may have been designed to split the anti-incumbent vote and ensure the election of board member Pamela Smith, who was authorizing the expenditure of taxpayer dollars on the cover-up.

The SDUT and Sevrens got help in the coverup from Linda Rosas Townson, publisher of the Chula Vista Star-News. Townson published the rants of a couple of former PTA presidents from Castle Park School, including Kim Simmons, who was later arrested for embezzling $20,000 from the PTA. The Star-News didn't bother to present the true story, though it had possessed documentation of wrongdoing at the school long before anyone decided to transfer the "Castle Park Five."

Both Sevrens and Star-News reporter Kelley Dupuis pretended that Castle Park teachers were perfectly ordinary teachers and that nothing out of the usual had been going on in the teachers lounge.

George Orwell's characters seems to be alive and well as the San Diego Union Tribune redacts its archives

Scott Lewis wrote this story before he learned how very seductive the power of an editor can be: you can cause trouble for people you don't care about, and protect others who are equally or more guilty of wrongdoing. Voice of San Diego has been very careful not to demand public records from San Diego County Office of Education. If Diane Crosier doesn't want to hand them over, VOSD politely accepts her decision.

See more posts regarding Scott Lewis.


U-T Decides to Redact Its Archives
Voice of San Diego
by SCOTT LEWIS
October 30, 2008

Uh oh. Backtrack alert. We've got some historical revision going on.

I pointed out below how the U-T had posted a blog two weeks ago revealing that the paper received SEDC's "unredacted" legal bills, which we've been trying to get for weeks.

We discovered right away when we looked at those same documents that they were, in fact, totally incomplete -- missing, crucially, the number of hours worked -- and Will Carless hounded the agency for the weeks to get the full, unredacted, legal bills.

The agency finally released those today, but the U-T suddenly decided in its post today that the bills it received weeks ago were actually "heavily redacted" and not satisfyingly -- as it had declared only weeks earlier -- "unredacted."

So I did the post today wondering if they were going to decide which was actually true.

Looks like the paper would prefer to pretend it never was confused at all. The U-T has gone into its archives and taken the word "unredacted" out of the sentence explaining what happened.

Here's a screen shot of the Oct. 15 sentence as it has stood for two weeks until just now.




And here's the way it looks now, a couple hours after I put up the below post :




There's no acknowledgement anywhere that the paper changed the substance of its story.

You simply can't do that. Journalists, in order to maintain credibility, have to let readers know if they change anything of substance on their sites. We do it all the time.

But you can't just change reality.

This deserved a correction -- below the post at least.

Don Sevrens and the SDUT help Bertha Lopez hide wrongdoing

On August 30, 2008 the San Diego Union Tribune published a sorry excuse for an editorial in its south county edition that includes the following statement:

"We have criticized from time to time Bertha Lopez, a busy individual, for failing to respond to media and public inquiries. We have never criticized her integrity."

This editorial appears to me to be the work of Don Sevrens, who regularly manages to avoid logical consistency in his opinions. In fact, Don Sevrens and the SDUT have been kept well-informed about Bertha Lopez' wrongdoing, but they have kept her secrets for many years. Even when writing about the "Castle Park Five," Sevrens and the SDUT kept quiet about the concurrent court case that involved wrongdoing by Bertha Lopez and the rest of the CVESD board as well as several members of the group of five teachers transferred out of Castle Park Elementary.

Anti-Cheryl Cox demonstration

La Prensa reports demonstration against Cheryl Cox.

The FBI v. Joshua Wolf case

FBI v. Wolf
Citizen Media Law Project

The Federal Bureau of Investigations subpoenaed video blogger and freelance journalist Josh Wolf for information regarding a political demonstration that resulted in harm to a police officer. The FBI sought the identities of protestors who appeared in Wolf's video recording of the protest, which Wolf claimed was an attempt by the government to use a journalist (himself) as an investigative tool.

On July 8, 2005, Wolf filmed a San Francisco demonstration against the G8 summit in Scotland. During the course of the protest, a San Francisco police officer was injured, and protestors allegedly damaged a police car. Wolf published an edited version of the video on independant news site Indybay and also sold footage to local TV station KRON.

As part of an investigation into the officer's injury, the FBI subpoenaed Wolf to appear in front of a federal grand jury. The subpoena asked Wolf to produce the full video and any other documentation regarding the protest. The subpoena also sought information regarding the identities of individuals who appeared in the video.

Wolf filed a motion to quash the subpoena, claiming protection under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and California's journalist shield law. The North District of California denied Wolf's motion to quash. The court focused on federal journalist protections and held that Wolf was required to comply with the subpoena because he had not demonstrated that the grand jury investigation was conducted in bad faith.


After Wolf again refused to comply with the subpoena, the court ordered him to show cause as to why he should not be held in contempt of court. Wolf again asserted his First Amendment rights, as well as his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. Wolf's arguments were supported by amicus briefs by the American Civil Liberties Union and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.

The court rejected Wolf's and the amici's arguments on grounds similar to those in its denial of Wolf's motion to quash. It held Wolf in contempt and ordered that he be confined until he complied with the subpoena. Wolf and his lawyers appealed the order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.

On appeal, the 9th Circuit granted a motion allowing Wolf to leave prison on bail. However, the court soon after revoked bail persuant to a motion by the FBI. The court then affirmed the district court's contempt ruling and ordered Wolf to testify and reveal the unpubished portions fo the tape. The 9th Circuit's decision agreed with the district court's holding that Wolf could not legitimately refuse to comply with the subpoena without demonstrating that the grand jury was conducted in bad faith.

The FBI and Wolf ultimately settled the case. Wolf published the full version of the video online and filed a DVD copy with the court. In return, he was released from prison and did not have to testify in front of the grand jury. Wolf had served 226 days in prison, the longest term ever served by a journalist for refusing to disclose unpublished source material.

Attorney Bradley Marshall tries to intimidate Seattle Blogger

Apparently a lot of lawyers think that bloggers are easy to intimidate. I also have had the honor of having an eminent lawyer (actually, a whole firm of them) try to intimidate me into silence.

Lawyer Tries to Intimidate Seattle Blogger

From Hominid Views: People, politics, science and whatnot
July 31, 2008

What is this world coming to when a high-powered attorney to sports stars (and a now-deceased famous talk-radio host) goes on the attack against a lowly blogger?

You see, Bradley Marshall, attorney extraordinaire (well… if you don’t count the recent 18 month suspension of his license) just sent a letter to Seattle liberal blogger and journalist (and friend of mine) Michael Hood at Blatherwatch requesting that Michael yank some old blog posts and cease writing about him.

Michael is certainly not the first blogger to get such requests, but it must be quite the honor for Michael to get a letter from a lawyer of such stature...

Columbus Dispatch on the story that the San Diego Union Tribune covers up

The San Diego Union Tribune has a habit of killing stories that embarrass school districts--unless the story is too big to cover up, or some editor has a personal ax to grind.

I have experience with the antics of the Chula Vista Elementary School District, where board members Patrick Judd, Pamela Smith, Larry Cunningham, Bertha Lopez and Cheryl Cox/David Bejarano have received reports of possible teacher misconduct, including a possible Columbine-style shooting by a teacher, and then decided that the safest course of action to ensure their re-election would be NOT TO INVESTIGATE.

Fortunately, the Columbus Dispatch has taken the issue of school district cover-ups head-on.

"[The system] puts the rights of teachers before those of students. It hides information from parents and potential employers. It allows secret deals with troubled teachers. A 10-month Dispatch investigation, a first-of-its-kind analysis of the system, found that 1,722 educators have been disciplined since 2000 for everything from shoplifting to murder. Two-thirds were allowed to return to the classroom or start school jobs..."


The newspaper was attacked for reporting these problems.

"Reporters Jennifer Smith Richards and Jill Riepenhoff were accused of "doing this to ruin my life" and "doing this to drag my name through the mud."

Those words are strikingly similar to what public entity attorneys Daniel Shinoff, Lesley Devaney, and Ray Artiano are saying in their defamation lawsuit against me regarding my website.

What went wrong at the San Diego Union Tribune--and lots of other institutions

Letter by Fred Jacobsen, Apollo Beach, Fla.
published by Voice of San Diego
July 28, 2008
"I retired from The San Diego Union-Tribune years ago, and years too early. I left after working there became no longer enjoyable.

"The turning point came when middle managers were deemed to be the cause of all problems there, and were not made part of the solution.

"New faces and high-paid consultants became the new fonts of salvation.

"Continuous planning was substituted for continuous improvement.

Browbeating was substituted for constructive conversation..."

Broadcast news more negative toward Obama

Media Biased Against Obama
By David Knowles
Jul 28th 2008

...The claim comes to us from George Mason University's Center for Media and Public Affairs, which has studied network newscasts for 20 years running. After analyzing the nightly ebb and flow of our current race, the center's researchers see a pattern (Via the Los Angeles Times):

...that ABC, NBC and CBS were tougher on Obama than on Republican John McCain during the first six weeks of the general-election campaign.

You read it right: tougher on the Democrat.


...when network news people ventured opinions in recent weeks, 28% of the statements were positive for Obama and 72% negative.

...with 43% of the statements positive and 57% negative, according to the Washington-based media center...

So, could the pro-McCain bias be having an effect on the race? No doubt. Maybe it's the x-factor that commentators like Robert Novak have been searching for to explain why Obama still has only a 9-point lead over McCain in national polls...

Who will follow up on this commenter's suggestion about Lowell Billings?

The media will tell you that Superintendent Lowell Billings gave pink slips to hundreds of teachers in Chula Vista Elementary School District.

But it is your fellow readers who will tell you the story behind the story, which is why I'm willing to wade through the bizarre gibberish in the comments section of news stories.

Today I came across this gem:
"April Jehnssen Chula Vista, CA"
"Lowell Billings just came back from a safari in Africa! Did you shoot us any jobs to bring back home Lowell?"

http://www.topix.com/city/chula-vista-ca/2008/05/hundreds-protest-looming-school-layoffs

The comment was based on a Channel 7/39 NBC news story.

I'm guessing that the commenter didn't use his or her real name, but he/she raises an interesting question. Did Lowell Billings just get back from a safari in Africa? How about it, San Diego media? Why don't you ask him?

In court last December during the Danielle Cozaihr case, Billings pretty much admitted that all he does is walk around and smile. I think this man needs a pay cut.

For me, Lionel Van Deerlin was always Mr. San Diego

Former US Representative Lionel Van Deerlin died yesterday, and it seems his death was a very good one. He spent his last day putting the final touches on a San Diego Union Tribune column, and died peacefully at the age of 93. We were lucky that he was with us for so long.

Lola Sherman keeps them honest

Daniel Shinoff and MiraCosta College trustees just don't get it.

Attorney Daniel Shinoff boasts that he's an expert in the Brown Act. (The Brown Act says public entity boards must keep all meetings open except in specific circumstances.)

But Shinoff apparently hasn't been urging his clients at MiraCosta College to obey the Brown Act.

Here's the point, Dan: The issues in the MiraCosta debate are serious public issues, not a private matter between trustees.

You and Richart and the majority trustees have threatened the minority trustees because they discussed Richart with the media. But you and the majority trustees don't seem to want to discuss ANYTHING in public.

Thank goodness that Lola Sherman of the San Diego Union Tribune was present at a recent meeting to represent the public's right to hear the debate. How else will the public know whom to vote for if they don't know what the board members say and think?

Sure, there might be some personality clashes as a result of the $3 million investigation you and Victoria Richart masterminded, but this is not some sort of couples counseling. These are public officials making decisions, and the majority seems to have made some very bad decisions.

< Minority bloc MiraCosta College Trustee Jacqueline Simon

I think the majority board members simply want to threaten the minority in private, out of earshot of the public.

Stay strong, Gloria, Judy and Jacqueline! Elections are coming, and help is on the way.

Ninth Circuit Denies Full Immunity for Web Service

Ninth Circuit Denies Full Immunity for Web Service in Roommates.com Case
April 10, 2008

On April 3, 2008, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling in Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, et al., v. Roommates.com, LLC that merits consideration by online services generally. Roommates.com (Roommates) was sued by the housing council for violating fair housing laws, but the company had successfully argued at the district court level that, as an interactive computer service, it should be immune from liability for the content posted by its users under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA). The Ninth Circuit, en banc, held that the website was not entitled to this immunity because it "materially contributed" to the "development" of unlawful content. Most notably, as a condition to registering for the site, users were required to create a profile by selecting from pre-populated answers to various unlawful, discriminatory questions about their housing preferences.

Under Section 230(c), "[n]o provider . . . of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." The statute makes clear, however, that immunity does not apply if the service provider also participated as an "information content provider," that is, a party "responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development" of the offending content.

Patrick O'Toole goes looking for a friend--and finds one!

Patrick O'Toole, head of the Public Integrity Unit in the San Diego District Attorney's office, has been having a hard week. He's been trying to convince a juror that when Steve Castaneda asked how much a condo would cost, that proved he intended to buy one. And that even though O'Toole didn't uncover wrongdoing during his lengthy investigation, Castaneda should be convicted of perjury FOR SAYING HE DIDN'T INTEND TO BUY A CONDO, WHICH HE, IN FACT, DID NOT BUY.

So you can see how O'Toole would be going around scouting up someone who would make him look professional.

O'Toole found Martin Garrick, R-Carlsbad, who agrees that O'Toole needs not one, but TWO, grand juries to help him find public officials who might say something he disagrees with during grand jury proceedings.


Martin Garrick is the sponsor of the two-criminal-grand-juries-for-San Diego bill, who apparently thinks that San Diego prosecutors have done such a fine job with the Public Integrity Unit and cases such as the indictment by a grand jury of the innocent 15-year-old brother of murder victim Stephanie Crowe, that we really should skip preliminary hearings more often.

After all, who needs a judge deciding if prosecutors should go to trial?


Garrick and O'Toole seem like petty, malicious versions of Don Quijote, tilting at people who oppose their favorite politicians.

They say a prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. Maybe Martin Garrick thinks there are too many ham sandwiches walking around free.

Or maybe he needs another grand jury to investigate Cheryl Cox?

Mass Media Distribution Newswire investigates press release

This press release has been removed until we further investigate it's accuracy
January 25, 2008
Scott A. Wahrenbrock, attorney for The Copley Press, Inc. Responds to the press release as follows:

Press Release Statement: “Despite subpoena, San Diego Union-Tribune journalist refuses to answer claims she took money to discredit local businessman.”

Response: It is absolutely false that Ms. Crabtree ever took money from anyone to discredit Mr. Brodie, or his companies. Any claim to that effect is false and defamatory.

Press Release Statement: “Penni Crabtree, staff writer at the newspaper, is amongst journalists being investigated for taking money from a rival pet company.”

Response: Penni Crabtree is not being investigated for taking any money from a rival pet company.

Press Release Statement: “Investigators for Simon Brodie, the inventor of a revolutionary pet diagnostic product and developer of new breed of ‘lifestyle pets’, including the hypoallergenic cat, are investigating claims that Penni Crabtree, a reporter for the Union-Tribune newspaper in San Diego, may have taken money from Idexx Laboratories to discredit Brodie in a number of articles written in their newspaper during 2006.”

Response: Ms. Crabtree is not being investigated by any entity and there are no credible allegations or “claims” she ever took money from Idexx in exchange for discrediting Mr. Brodie in articles she has written. Ms. Crabtree has never taken any money from Idexx and claims made by Mr. Brodie she may have done so are false.

Press Release Statement: “Although Crabtree was subpoenaed by Brodie's attorneys, she has so far failed to agree to any questioning."

Response: Ms. Crabtree was subpoenaed Mr. Brodie’s company, Allerca, as part of a civil suit Brodie filed against a former employee, in which he alleged that the former employee sold the newspaper confidential information. As with all journalists in California, Ms. Crabtree asserted her right not to provide unpublished information pursuant to the Reporter’s Shield law set forth under the California Constitution, Article I, section 2. The implication in the press release that the subpoena related to an investigation being conducted into Ms. Crabtree taking money from Idexx is patently false.

Press Release Statement: "The articles written by Crabtree began appearing a few weeks after Brodie's veterinary diagnostic company Cyntegra issued legal proceedings against Idexx Laboratories."

Response: The first article about Allerca was published on June 8, 2006, while Brodie’s company Cyntegra's lawsuit against Idexx was filed three weeks later on June 30, 2006.

Press Release Statement: "In one of the articles, she accused Brodie of illegally taking donations through an animal non-profit (so the headline read), even
though she was aware that the non-profit web site was a pure design concept, had not been launched and no donations were ever taken."

Response: The Allerca Foundation Website was active and accepted
donations when the article was written. The Foundation's Website claimed that every gift was tax-deductible and described itself as a nonprofit corporation of the State of California. The IRS and the California Attorney General's Office confirmed that Allerca had not registered as a nonprofit and had no nonprofit status, even though the
Foundation's Website was actively soliciting donations as a nonprofit. The foundation also claimed on its Website to be working with the Audubon Zoo in New Orleans to clone the rare clouded leopard, and with the Feline Conservation Center in Rosamond to add genetic samples of endangered species to the foundation's DNA bank. Both organizations confirmed that they were not working with Brodie or his foundation.

Press Release Statement: "In the articles written by Crabtree, she failed to mention any of the details for the Idexx case, even though she was made fully aware of Idexx's actions and the serious threat this action would cause too many of the
country's pets."

Response: Novartis Animal Health, the maker of the Sentinel line of pet medicines, sued Brodie, Allerca and another Brodie company, GeneSentinel, alleging infringement of Novartis' trademark and cyberpiracy. A month later, Novartis was granted a permanent injunction against Brodie and his companies. Around the same time, GeneSentinel laid off several employees, to whom it collectively owed unpaid wages, and changed its name to Cyntegra. Brodie also revealed in a prospectus for GeneSentinel (Cyntegra) that the animal diagnostics technology that he claims to have invented were the subject of a threatened lawsuit by Minneapolis-based Fair Isaac Corp. Fair Isaac's informed Allerca that if it moved forward with the diagnostic technology, Fair Isaac would take legal action if it believed Allerca was using or disclosing Fair Isaac's confidential information.

Press Release Statement: "For Brodie, these revelations have struck like lighting: It makes absolute sense now. The articles appeared just after we sued Iddex.
Crabtree wrote a number of negative articles about me, my lifestyle pets business ALLERCA and our hypoallergenic cats, but never once mentioned Idexx. So let me get this right: Crabtree somehow forgot to write about a large company like Idexx squeezing out life-saving groundbreaking new technology, an action that now threatens people's pets, and as important, has the potential to save thousands of human lives as well?"

Response: As to Brodie's claim to inventing "life-saving groundbreaking new
technology," he and Cyntegra lost the lawsuit in October 2007 that they filed against Idexx. U.S. District Judge Philip Gutierrez granted Idexx's motion for summary judgment and ordered Cyntegra to pay $7,100 in costs. Brodie has appealed this decision. The Judge's order stated, "The evidence shows that Plaintiff's (Cyntegra) sole employee and founder, Brodie, has little background or experience in the market of molecular diagnostic testing. Brodie is unaware of the difference between certain common diagnostic testing techniques, in addition, Brodie testified at deposition that he has never taken a course of a technical or scientific nature, or any courses that focus on management or business. The evidence shows that any steps Plaintiff took to engage in the proposed business were only preliminary or exploratory in nature...In addition, Brodie never developed a formal business plan, Plaintiff had no other employees besides its founder Brodie, Plaintiff never acquired a laboratory or employed a laboratory manager, Plaintiff never contacted an investment bank or venture capital firm to raise capital and Plaintiff never obtained a license to sell the canine influenza test, one of the few products it purported to sell. Furthermore, despite claiming to have a patent pending for its veterinary diagnostic system, aside from Brodie's declaration, Plaintiff has failed to provide the Court with any other evidence regarding the patent."

Press Release Statement: "Crabtree also reported Brodie to the California business authorities when she claimed that his company was taking deposits for a
proposed franchise program; however, after investigation, the authorities proved that Crabtree's claims where in fact false as the company had never taken any franchise based funds. Much of this information used in these articles came from a laptop computer that Crabtree was aware had been stolen from the company."

Response: Ms. Crabtree did not "report" Brodie to California business authorities. As it turns out, the Department of Corporations confirmed Brodie and Allerca had never registered the cat franchise it was marketing, even though it was promoting them on its Website. The Department of Corporations investigated and ordered Allerca and Brodie to" desist and refrain" from the further offer or sale of Allerca franchises "for the protection of investors" until the cat franchise business was
registered, or declared exempt.

Press Release Statement: "She did provide a brief written response in which she refused to answer questions but at the same time Crabtree may have committed perjury when she stated she had not had any communication with a former disgruntled employee.”

Response: After receiving the subpoena, Ms. Crabtree’s counsel informed Allerca that Ms.Crabtree was asserting her rights under the California Constitution not to reveal unpublished information. Ms. Crabtree submitted a declaration to Allerca’s counsel stating if called to testify should would invoke her rights under the California Constitution and California Evidence Code not to provide unpublished information. Ms. Crabtree never perjured herself and has never provided “a brief written response” to any of Allerca’s questions.

Press Release Statement: "Brodie had received a number of serious threats from animal rights activists and that his personal security was always a concern. Says Brodie: Crabtree's response? Publish my address in her next article, which caused me to move and put my partner and child in danger. I guess she was really trying to provide the best service possible to Idexx.”

Response: A July 16, 2006, story correctly stated Brodie had been evicted in February 2006 from the downtown 777 Sixth Avenue Lofts complex for nonpayment of rent. On October 8, 2006 we reported that according to a recently filed U.S trademark application for the Ashera cat filed by Brodie, Brodie and Allerca resided at The Grande condo complex in downtown San Diego. The information was public record and readily available to anyone who wanted to go to the U.S. Patent office Website and look up the Ashera cat. No specific address was ever provided and Mr. Brodie's “guess” Ms. Crabtree reported certain facts to “provide the best service possible to Idexx” is defamatory.

Press Release Statement: “A few weeks after the Union-Tribune articles appeared, one of Allerca's hypoallergenic cats was successfully tested on a number of national, live television shows. Brodie's company has since delivered dozens of these special cats to very happy customers, many of whom are willing to extol the cat's virtues on the Allerca website. The cat was subsequently voted one of TIME magazine's best inventions of 2006. Says Brodie: Conveniently, Crabtree, Grens and others failed to mention our success.”

Response: On November 15, 2006, Allerca announced it was relocating the company to Los Angeles, citing its strategic growth plans, which we reported in an article that ran November 16, 2006. Within that story, we also noted that Time magazine had placed the sneeze-free cat on its Best Inventions of 2006 list.

http://www.mmdnewswire.com/despite-subpoen-2823.html