Unique Pages Served: 77912
Total Sessions: 940004
Total Page Hits: 3144895
Unique Pages Served: 77912
Total Sessions: 940004
Total Page Hits: 3144895
Article by Chris Peel in the Occidental Weekly:
March 7 2017 LA Election Recommendations
City of Los Angeles
Ho-Hum….Eric Garcetti is going to win. It’s a fait accompli. It’s not that he hasn’t done anything decent; he has. When it comes to following through on promises he made to me and mine four (4) years ago….well there’s just no track record. For example, read: http://janbtucker.com/blog/2017/01/10/dr-robert-shomers-death-is-a-clarion-call-for-law-enforcement-reform/ Take note that even though I asked for any documentation as to whether in four whole years Eric has done anything about changing the LAPD’s unscientific and effectively racist eyewitness identification procedures that I requested on December 27, 2016, I’m still waiting for a response. The city keeps giving me one compliance deadline after another, most recently promising compliance after the election on March 24. Technically they were supposed to comply within ten days of December 27, 2016. Do Black, Brown and Yellow lives matter or do they have to wait another four years to reform effectively racist procedures?
City Attorney and City Controller
As much as I like Mike Feuer and Ron Galperin they’re unopposed because Los Angeles maintains onerous filing fees and petition requirements that discriminate against poor people and working class candidates….and those laws are remain on the books because limousine liberals like it that way. For more on this issue: http://janbtucker.com/blog/2010/12/30/abolish-ca-filing-fees/.
City Council District 1
The only candidate who showed up at our NOW and CALLAC forum on sexual harassment and racism in the district was Jesse Rosas. He’s well spoken and supportive of our issues.
City Council District 15
Caney Arnold is supported by all the Berniecrats I know.
Board of Education District 2
Carl Petersen submitted an outstanding questionnaire response to SFV/NELA NOW and has our endorsement.
Community College Board of Trustees Office 2
Vote AGAINST Steve Veres. When he was on the San Fernando City Council he was in the pocket of developer Sev Ashkenazy, who is a pig.
Community College Board of Trustees Office 4
Vote for Dallas Denise Fowler without hesitation. She’s great. Incumbent Ernie Moreno botched an investigation into corruption at Mission College when he was President—which would be excusable except that I’d given him written advice which he declined to take beforehand that would have prevented the debacle. His statements to my face about planning for a satellite campus were also proven false when I got his own emails under the California Public Records Act.
Community College Board of Trustees Office 6
Nancy Pearlman is the best thing since sliced bread on the College Board. See http://janbtucker.com/blog/2013/05/13/nancy-pearlman-is-our-community-college-trustee/. In the past I’ve supported her opponent Gabriel Buelna, but I suspect that he got suckered by the “Mexican American” [read that like “Negro” as opposed to Black or African American, and as juxtaposed to Chicano] political hacks around town to run against Nancy. The hacks of all stripes have wanted to take her down for years because she’s too damn honest and principled.
If you have immigrant employees, documented or undocumented, if they’re detained by ICE that disrupts your business. Following is a leaflet you can give your employees to instruct them on their rights to consular protection under the Vienna Convention. To download the brochure in PDF find it at: http://janbtucker.com/resources
This gallery contains 37 photos.
More photos by Donna Dymally at https://www.facebook.com/jan.b.tucker/media_set?set=a.10208825344972721.1073741897.1286600320&type=3 Tweet
I only met Behrooz “Bruce” Yasmeh once. Little did I realize when I met him that he’d be the nexus between a case I became peripherally involved in on disability rights and my infamous blog posting on The Small Freaky World of White Collar Crime [http://janbtucker.com/blog/2013/04/28/small-freaky-world-of-white-collar-crime/].
Yasmeh, along with his brother Alfared “Fred” Yasmeh and two business entities, INE CAPITAL HOLDINGS, LLC and AMERICAN PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, LLC, are being sued in Los Angeles Superior Court Cases BC527112 and BC553653 for violations of the Unruh Civil Rights Act and the Disabled Persons Act. At a hotel they own and operate, they refused to allow a disabled person to rent a room with his assistance animal unless he paid a non-refundable $300.00 “cleaning fee.” When a relative offered to pay the fee, they still refused to rent the room, according to the lawsuit.
Judge Richard L. Fruin—a millionaire and then some according to his Form 700 (Statement of Economic Interests)–threw one of the cases out of court. The Court of Appeals unanimously reversed him in a published decision [See below, Osborne v. Yasmeh (Cal. App. 2nd Dist., Div. 4, July 28, 2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 1118].
A few months later, Yasmeh’s reported missing by his family: http://www.lapdonline.org/home/news_view/61420. Later his body was found by the ocean. Here’s where it gets weird. One story is suicide, which, given that Yasmeh was a very religious Iranian Jew is just not plausible. My sources tell me however that what’s more plausible is that he owed money to “Mr. W” of the Jerusalem Network of the Israeli Mafia that can be very hazardous to your health. Look for the reference to Mr. W in the link above for The Small Freaky World of White Collar Crime.
Quoting from a 2013 memo I provided to a federal law enforcement agency about the inner workings of the Jerusalem Network in Las Vegas—where Bruce Yasmeh had all kinds of interests:
YE succeeded SA as accountant for the Jerusalem
Network. SA had been murdered by the same Bulgarian hit team
that killed SLKB, RT’s girlfriend. I am told that SA was murdered at the behest of the Jerusalem Network because he’d screwed up the accounting for their money laundering operations, inherently a death penalty offense within the Jerusalem Network’s framework.
SLKB was murdered as a message to RT to not withhold his “tax” payments from the W Brothers. It is believed that AW ordered her murder. Allegedly, the Bulgarians were living in a bungalow on the premises where Sherry was staying. She knew DBB and he was assigned to get her to open the door, whereupon the Bulgarians did their thing. I am told that the Bulgarians were questioned by local police and let go, whereupon they split the country.
Incidentally I’m told that after killing SLKB they left her and RT’s infant son alive at the scene with his dead mother.
Before the lawsuit was ever filed against Yasmeh, word had it that he was “the beard” for another Iranian Jewish family whose patriarch had been the money launderer for the late Shah Reza Pahlavi of Iran. A “beard” is a front man and his role had purportedly been to launder $40 million that went missing from a bank owned by one of the family members (that family member got federal prison time for it). Much of the money I’m told was invested through a plaza in Las Vegas with properties and businesses flipped back and forth to muddy up the money trail.
Then too there’s Bruce Yasmeh’s criminal past. On December21, 1981 he was sentenced to up to two years in prison in Oklahoma for First Degree Arson. Oklahoma law, 21 OK Stat § 21-1401 provides that:
A. Any person who willfully and maliciously sets fire to or burns, or by the use of any explosive device, accelerant, ignition device, heat-producing device or substance, destroys in whole or in part, or causes to be burned or destroyed, or aids, counsels or procures the burning or destruction of any building or structure or contents thereof, inhabited or occupied by one or more persons, whether the property of that person or another, or who willfully and maliciously sets fire to or burns, or by the use of any explosive device, accelerant, ignition device, heat-producing device or substance causes a person to be burned, or aids, counsels or procures the burning of a person shall, upon conviction, be guilty of arson in the first degree, which is a felony, and shall be punished by a fine not to exceed Twenty-five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00), or by imprisonment in the custody of the Department of Corrections for not more than thirty-five (35) years, or by both such fine and imprisonment.
Did that case come back to haunt him?
So suicide? I can think of at least 40 million other reasons why a lot of people would have wanted Bruce dead if what I’m told is true…
Speaking before the Conservative Political Action Conference President Donald Trump has pronounced about the news media: “They shouldn’t be allowed to use sources unless they use somebody’s name,” he declared. “Let their name be put out there.”
THIS IS AN ATTACK AGAINST THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION:
ARTICLE I, SECTION 2.
(a) Every person may freely speak, write and publish his or her sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of this right. A law may not restrain or abridge liberty of speech or press.
(b) A publisher, editor, reporter, or other person connected with or employed upon a newspaper, magazine, or other periodical publication, or by a press association or wire service, or any person who has been so connected or employed, shall not be adjudged in contempt by a judicial, legislative, or administrative body, or any other body having the power to issue subpoenas, for refusing to disclose the source of any information procured while so connected or employed for publication in a newspaper, magazine or other periodical publication, or for refusing to disclose any unpublished information obtained or prepared in gathering, receiving or processing of information for communication to the public.
Nor shall a radio or television news reporter or other person connected with or employed by a radio or television station, or any person who has been so connected or employed, be so adjudged in contempt for refusing to disclose the source of any information procured while so connected or employed for news or news commentary purposes on radio or television, or for refusing to disclose any unpublished information obtained or prepared in gathering, receiving or processing of information for communication to the public.
As used in this subdivision, “unpublished information” includes information not disseminated to the public by the person from whom disclosure is sought, whether or not related information has been disseminated and includes, but is not limited to, all notes, outtakes, photographs, tapes or other data of whatever sort not itself disseminated to the public through a medium of communication, whether or not published information based upon or related to such material has been disseminated.
(Sec. 2 amended June 3, 1980, by Prop. 5. Res.Ch. 77, 1978.)
In Constitutional law, there are rights, privileges, and immunities. Article I, Section 2(b) establishes an immunity. It means that the press is immune from a contempt proceeding for refusing to disclose confidential sources.
This provision was passed by California voters in response to court decisions Rosato v. Superior Court, 51 Cal. App. 3d 190 (1975) and Farr v. Superior Court, 22 Cal. App. 3d 60 (1971), both of which affirmed orders compelling reporters to divulge sources of information regarding pending criminal trials.
After this 1980 amendment to the state constitution in New York Times Co. v. Superior Court, 51 Cal. 3d 453 (1990), the California Supreme Court held that a civil litigant has no interests sufficient to overcome the constitutional reporter’s privilege. Id. At 456. In Miller v. Superior Court, 21 Cal. 4th 883 (1999), the Supreme Court held that a prosecutor in a criminal action has no interests sufficient to overcome the reporter’s immunity. Id. at 901. The Supreme Court explained in Miller, “the absoluteness of the immunity embodied in the shield law only yields to a conflicting federal or, perhaps, state constitutional right.” Id.
CALIFORNIA MUST DEFEND ITS CONSTITUTION
California’s legislature should draw a line in the sand and pass a resolution denouncing the President’s attack on our Constitution. I am going to ask my union, the Freelancer Unit of Pacific Media Workers Guild, Local 39521 CWA, AFL-CIO, CLC in turn to pass a resolution asking the California legislature to take this position.
After days of bizarre and even paranoid responses to reporters’ questions about the wave of anti-Semitic attacks throughout America, Donald Trump finally told Craig Melvin of MSNBC that they were “horrible.” As Mark Potok of the Southern Poverty Law Center pointed out on MSNBC’s 11th Hour with Brian Williams,”that and 50 cents” will get you a cup of coffee. Of course Potok was dating himself as it won’t even get you a coffee.
The most bizarre episode is when a frum [Frum (Yiddish פֿרום; [frum. | frim]), meaning “devout” or “pious,” is a Yiddish adjective. To be frum means to be committed to the observance of Jewish religious law that often exceeds the bare requirements of Halakha, the collective body of Jewish religious laws] reporter from Ami Magazine, Jake Turx, asked Trumelthinskin a polite and frankly sympathetic question about what he was going to do about anti-Semitic attacks. Pointing out with reverence and respect that Trump was “Zayde” [a Yiddish word for grandfather which in this instance conferred great cultural respect] to Jewish children, what Jake got for his efforts was a dose of vitriol from Donald who weirdly interpreted it as an attack on himself, personally. Watch the exchange for yourself: http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/news/ywn-videos/526481/watch-this-trump-slams-frum-reporter-turx-in-press-conference-calls-his-question-insulting.html
The defense against charges of anti-Semitism by Trump amounts to my daughter is Jewish so I can’t hate Jews. Maybe not, but he’s still bigoted and prejudiced openly spouting offensive stereotypes to Jews in their face. When he appeared before the Jewish Republican Coalition in December 2015 he tells them:
“Look, I’m a negotiator like you folks; we’re negotiators,” he said, criticizing President Obama’s Middle East policies and nuclear deal with Iran. “And by the way, did you ever see a negotiation take so long?”
“This room negotiates perhaps more than any room I’ve spoken to, maybe more,” he said. [http://www.npr.org/2015/12/03/458329895/trump-to-jewish-republicans-im-a-negotiator-like-you-folks]
I’ve got news for you, we’re not all a bunch of Shylocks which is the stereotype that makes Jews cringe when we hear stuff like that from Gentiles. When you put it in the context of Trump being grandson of a draft dodging pimp and son of a KKK member, Trump sounds more like what we call “trailer park Goyim” than a college educated real estate mogul when he says things like this.
What a President, any President, Should
Say about Anti-Semitic Terrorism
On May 2005 Joe Navarro, recently retired FBI profiler, keynoted the California Association of Licensed Investigators conference in Reno and explained that 89% of all terrorism in America is domestic terrorism by white supremacist/Neo-Nazi groups. Eighty Nine Percent! In spite of all the public hoopla, the other 11% is actually considered by professionals to be statistically insigificant. Navarro spent 25 years as an FBI agent and supervisor in counter-intelligence and counter-terrorism and he would know. At subsequent seminars I’ve attended under the auspices of POALAC (Peace Officers Association of Los Angeles County) and the FBI sponsored InfraGard it has been consistently pointed out that this statistical analysis remains sound.
So why haven’t you heard this loudly and clearly from the White House under any President….or congress?
Because there’s more money to be made by those who can employ lobbyists for the government to spend money protecting us from a statistically insignificant threat.
What we need is a President and a Congress to redirect resources against the real 89% threat from right-wing extremists.
COMMENT FROM HARRIET ELLIOTT:
FIGHT BACK AGAINST SEXUAL HARASSMENT
IN NORTH EAST LOS ANGELES
See how Univision, KMEX Channel 34 covered the event:
WHERE: Metro Studio, 114 N Ave 58 Los Angeles CA 90042
WHEN: Sunday February 26, 12 Noon
WHY: SFV/NELA NOW and CALLAC (California League of Latinos And Chicanos) are calling on candidates for First District Los Angeles City Council and the 34th Congressional District to boycott THE YORK ON YORK, until it resolves a sexual harassment lawsuit and reforms its personnel practices. At this meeting we will plan for:
picket lines and demonstrations
organizing the workers into a union
demanding that City Attorney Mike Feuer file a lawsuit to enforce the Unruh Civil Rights Act against allegations that the restaurant discriminates against Latino customers. The Unruh Civil Rights Act says in part that “Whenever there is reasonable cause to believe that any person or group of persons is engaged in conduct of resistance to the full enjoyment of any of the rights described in this section, and that conduct is of that nature and is intended to deny the full exercise of those rights, the Attorney General, any district attorney or city attorney, or any person aggrieved by the conduct may bring a civil action in the appropriate court by filing with it a complaint.”
San Fernando Valley/Northeast LA Chapter of the National Organization for Women, The Valley’s Voice for Choice,” is launching a campaign against sexual harassment, labor law violations and racism at The York on York, a bar and restaurant located in Highland Park. The York, located at 5018 York Blvd Highland Park, is a well known hot spot frequented by politicians and their staff members and it’s owners also run Sonny’s Hideaway. It is also being sued in Case No. BC 604740, Perez v THE YORK PROJECT LLC, for violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (”FEHA”) based on Sexual Harassment, Racial Harassment, Discrimination based on race, gender, and Disability and/or perceived Disability, Retaliation, Failure to Prevent, Failure to Investigate and Correct, among other violations of the California Government Code Sections 12920 et seq., Violation of Labor Code Section 1102.5, Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy, Violation of California Wage & Hour Laws & Regulations, Violation of the California Family Rights Act, Defamation, Sexual Battery, Assault and Battery, Invasion of Privacy, Violation of the Right to Privacy and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress.
While the principle that defendants even in civil cases ought to be judged by a jury applies, when the Plaintiff, Brenda Perez, obtained her personnel file, the Defendants’ intention to retaliate against her for opposing sexual harassment was openly and brazenly documented in her file.
SFV/NELA NOW has emailed or Facebook messaged almost all the candidates in Los Angeles for all offices, asking them to:
1. You commit to personally boycott The York and to prohibit any of your campaign staff from patronizing the establishment;
2. Commit to accepting no campaign contributions from the company or any of its agents, employees, or owners;
3. Hold no campaign fundraising events there;
4. Given that longstanding AFL-CIO policy is that no candidate is eligible for union endorsement for any office unless they agree to support “neutral card check” for the unionization of any business in their jurisdiction and to promote management neutrality towards the efforts of workers to organize collectively, we ask that you formally reiterate or adopt your support for these efforts and commit to endorsing the unionization of The York’s employees;
5. Commit to introducing a federal law or municipal ordinance based upon the principles of AB 1617 from the 2002-2003 legislative session to put teeth into the laws against workplace harassment and discrimination.
The lawsuit alleges that:
Case No BC804740, Perez v TheYork
During Plaintiffs employment with Defendants, Plaintiff learned that Defendants Ng and Thomas engaged in a practice of wage and hour violations. For example, Ng and Thomas would steal tips from the employees by intentionally withholding loose cash received in tips and distributing to the employees only a portion of the tips which was considerably lower than actual tips that the employees earned on a daily basis. Defendant Ng also forced Plaintiff to clock out of work early, thereby preventing Plaintiff from working and earning money to pay her bills Plaintiff complained about these violations to Ng who responded by continuing to steal tips from
Plaintiff and the other employees, just not as much. As Plaintiff raised concerns about the illegal practices of being forced to clock out early, being verbally and sexually harassed by Defendants and complained about them and informed Ballinger that they needed to be corrected, Ballinger ignored her and failed to investigate and correct the FEHA violations. Instead, Defendants began a campaign of retaliation against Plaintiff due to these complaints. Ng harassed, demeaned, insulted, falsely accused and defamed Plaintiff in retaliation for her raising these many issues of legal violations and work environment concerns. Ng made racist, derogatory and belligerent comments and statements to Plaintiff, including, but not limited to, “Shut the fuck up!” “That Mexican bitch has nothing on me,” and “Brenda’s incompetent.”
Another allegation is that:
While Plaintiff was employed by Defendants, Thomas, the Assistant General Manager, engaged in sexual harassment against Plaintiff as well as other female employees, creating a hostile, vulgar and offensive work environment in violation of the law. Thomas’ outrageous sexual harassment included inappropriate, repulsive sexual and gender-biased comments about females’ body parts, such as, “Show me your nipples” and forcing Plaintiff to watch a video of him having sexual relations with another woman. Thomas also engaged in physical sexual battery and assault, such as by grabbing and slapping Plaintiff on the buttocks. The York’s management was fully aware of Thomas’ harassment, sexual battery and assault but failed to take corrective action to stop the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) violations and instead, ratified, condoned and permitted Thomas’ harassment against Plaintiff and other female employees to continue.
(Note: many patrons know “Thomas” as “Patrick,” he is actually Patrick Thomas aka Patrick Duniven)
Come to the meeting on February 26th
If you can’t make it, email us to stay in touch at firstname.lastname@example.org
If you have experienced, seen, or know somebody who has knowledge of discrimination or harassment at The York let us know immediately
Go to http://www.theyorkonyork.com/contact and email the management of your concerns and demand that they (a) adopt a “management neutrality” policy if their employees want to unionize, (b) use a team from SFV/NELA NOW to train their management staff against sexual harassment and discrimination, (c) authorize an independent investigation into their employment practices in accordance with the principles of AB 1617 (2002-2003 legislative session).
Sisterhood is Powerful!
Gentrified Business The York Bar is facing Lawsuit for Sexual Harrassment, Racial Harrassment and Discrimination
In a small community just Northeast of Los Angeles Highland Park is facing Gentrification and the displacement of its resident and businesses. York Blvd has become ground zero for Gentrification in Highland Park and incidents of racism and discrimination by newcomers has been going on for years. But now there is a lawsuit against The York Bar
Brenda Perez former employee of The York Bar has filed a lawsuit in Case No. BC 604740, Perez v THE YORK PROJECT LLC, for violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (”FEHA”) based on Sexual Harassment, Racial Harassment, Discrimination based on race, gender, and Disability and/or perceived Disability, Retaliation, Failure to Prevent, Failure to Investigate and Correct, among other violations of the California Government Code Sections 12920 et seq., Violation of Labor Code Section 1102.5, Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy, Violation of California Wage & Hour Laws & Regulations, Violation of the California Family Rights Act, Defamation, Sexual Battery, Assault and Battery, Invasion of Privacy, Violation of the Right to Privacy and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress.
Plaintiff claims that Defendants, Thomas, the Assistant General Manager, engaged in sexual harassment against Plaintiff as well as other female employees, creating a hostile, vulgar and offensive work environment in violation of the law. Thomas’ outrageous sexual harassment included inappropriate, repulsive sexual and gender-biased comments about females’ body parts, such as, “Show me your nipples” and forcing Plaintiff to watch a video of him having sexual relations with another woman. Thomas also engaged in physical sexual battery and assault, such as by grabbing and slapping Plaintiff on the buttocks. The York’s management was fully aware of Thomas’ harassment, sexual battery and assault but failed to take corrective action to stop the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) violations and instead, ratified, condoned and permitted Thomas’ harassment against Plaintiff and other female employees to continue.
There was also incidents were former Manager Gerry Ng called Cinco de Mayo “Douche Bag Night” Spanish speaking customers were made fun of and were ignored and not served . One incident the plaintiff was called a “Mexican Bitch” Several Latino Residents have told stories that they were ignored and never served when they visited The York Bar.
What in the world makes these restaurant owners think they can get away with behavior like this–in California, in the twenty-first century? Just the fact that the restaurant is in Southern California doesn’t make it exempt from Californian values; we don’t like people treating our neighbors this way, that the owners and management need to stop stealing tips and work hours from people of color. Please tell them that the fair and humane way of dealing with workers is also the smart way–that workers who feel respected by owners and managers are more likely to attract and keep customers.
I hope this one finally goes through.
What in the world makes these people think they can get away with this kind of behavior–in California, in the twenty-first century? The owners and management need to 1) stop stealing workers’ tips and work hours
2) grow up and keep their hands to themselves. BTW, the fair, humane way of treating workers is also the smart way; service providers who feel respected by those for whom they work attract and keep more customers.
INFORMATION WANTED, GOOD BAD OR UGLY ON:
Mark Christopher Gatmaitan
Maria Margarita Gatmaitan
Megan Grace Gatmaitan
Please email any information you have on these people, whether positive or negative, to email@example.com
Alternatively use the comment form at the bottom of this blog.
My letter to the head of ICE Removal Operations
February 16, 2017
Marlen Piñeiro, Assistant Director for Removal, Enforcement and Removal Operations, U.S Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 500 12th St., SW Washington D.C. 20536
Honorable Assistant Director Piñeiro:
First I want to express my concern that there have recently been social media reports—that I am personally receiving in real time—of eyewitnesses to ICE Checkpoints throughout Los Angeles indiscriminately checking people’s immigration status on a geographical basis rather than on a focused basis of convicted criminals. Are these reports true?
Second I want to bring a specific situation to your attention. This is in regard to:
Name: GATMAITAN, MARIA MARGARITA
Date of Birth:
Citizenship: El Salvador
Ms. Gatmaitan holds a restricted California Real Estate license because of criminal convictions, Salesperson license 01318653. Quoting from the findings of fact in Bureau of Real Estate Case No. H-29423LA, OAH No. L2002040455. The following are findings of fact in that case:
On March 6, 1998, in the Municipal Court of Santa Anita Judicial District, County of Los Angeles, State of California, respondent was convicted on her plea of nolo contendere of violating section 487(a) (Grand Theft) of the Penal Code. This crime was a misdemeanor involving moral turpitude.
On March 16, 1999, in the Municipal Court of California, County of Los Angeles, Pasadena Judicial District, respondent was convicted on her plea of nolo contendere of violating sections 666-484(a) (Petty Theft With a Prior) of the Penal Code. This crime was a misdemeanor involving moral turpitude.
Question No. 25 on respondent’s application asked, “HAVE YOU EVER BEEN CONVICTED OF ANY VIOLATION OF LAW?” Respondent answered, ”NO.” This was an attempt to procure her license by fraud, misrepresentation, or deceit, or by making a material misstatement of fact.
Respondent is not rehabilitated. The above crimes are recent. It has been less than six months since her summary criminal probation ended. During her testimony in the hearing in this matter, respondent denied culpability for both of the above crimes. This was not believable. In explaining why she answered ”no” to Question No. 25, she testified that she thought “conviction” meant being in jail. This was not believable. She has admitted that she failed to disclose her convictions because she was afraid that if she did reveal them, her application would be denied. Neither of the above convictions have been expunged. Much of respondent’s testimony was not credible and was inconsistent. It lacked honesty.
In that case her application was denied by the Administrative Law Judge. When she later obtained a restricted license she did not conduct herself honestly and was sued civilly for 1) Breach of Contract, 2) Breach of Fiduciary Duty, 3) Fraud and Deceit in Los Angeles Superior Court (LASC) Case No. BC 315479 filed May 13, 2004. The basic allegation was that Ms. Gatmaitan embezzled $13,000 of client funds. The case was settled within five months with virtually no court proceedings, which suggests (based upon my 46 years of experience as a licensed investigator and I have court qualified as an expert witness on various fraud related issues) that means that she had no defense and caved in to a settlement to preclude the Plaintiff from reporting her to the Bureau of Real Estate.
Ms. Gatmaitan is currently being sued by her neighbors for her family’s ongoing campaign of harassment in LASC CASE NO. EC 064228. This includes causes of action for 1. Private Nuisance, 2. Quiet Title to Enjoin Adverse Possession, 3. Battery, 4. Ralph Civil Rights Act Sections 51.7 and 52 of the Civil Code, 5. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, and 6. Trespass. The Third Amended Complaint (TAC) survived a demurrer with these causes intact and is a verified complaint. The Ralph Civil Rights Act cause is based in part on racist statements made by Ms. Gatmaitan that her neighbors, all of whom are native born American citizens, are “wetbacks” from Mexico, i.e. undocumented immigrants.
One of the allegations in the TAC is that:
…Defendant Maria Gatmaitan is a Salvadoran national and they have been observed to associate at their home with people openly displaying MS13 (Mara Salvatrucha, a criminal organization officially designated by the United States as a “Transnational Criminal Organization”) gang tattoos.
Ms. Gatmaitan is also harboring at her home her daughter Megan Gatmaitan who (the last time I checked) was wanted on outstanding arrest warrants from Orange County Superior Court, Case Number: 15CM00680 (for theft) and Case Number: 15CM01353 (public intoxication). Maria Gatmaitan is fully aware of these outstanding warrants as they have been alleged in the lawsuit pleadings and Orange County police detectives have come to the neighborhood looking for Megan.
Maria Margarita Gatmaitan is precisely the kind of person who should be deported by ICE.
Respectfully Yours, Jan B. Tucker