Jaywalking in Los Angeles*

CHILD ADVISORY: Some of the following content may not be suitable for adults!

On October, 3, 2001, controversial cartoonist/essayist/author Ted Rall was in Los Angeles when he was wrongly cited for jaywalking.  This is Crusader's official transcript of what really went down:

OFFICER WILLIE DURR: Hands where I can see them, up against the wall and spread 'em!

(Officer pushes Rall against wall)

TED RALL: Huh?  I'm just on the way back from taping Politically Incorrect with Bill Maher.  Why am I being stopped?

DURR: Who is Bill Maher?

RALL: If you don't know who Bill Maher is, I'm really fucked.

DURR: Hey, watch your language, there are two-dozen bystanders watching us; besides, only the cops can cuss, not the civilians.

RALL: Why are you handcuffing me?

DURR: What handcuffs?  I don't see any handcuffs.  I've never ever ever ever handcuffed anyone in my entire career as a cop!

RALL: Yeah, right.

(Officer Durr is whistling Dixie)

FEMALE BYSTANDER 1 (to Durr): Take off his handcuffs, take off his handcuffs, he didn't do anything wrong! 

FEMALE BYSTANDER 2 (to Durr): Don't you have real crimes to fight? You must have a real small willie!

DURR (to Rall): The light was red and you just did whatever you wanted and walked in the crosswalk. That's why I am writing you a ticket.

RALL: But I wasn't jaywalking, officer.

DURR: We'll see what my microcassette tape has to say about that 14 years from now. 

RALL: Are you serious?  Don't you need a warrant to record this?

DURR: Don't start spouting about your constitutional rights, cuz I don't give a shit; remember, I am a proud officer of the LAPD!

(Backup officer arrives)

OFFICER 2 (to bystanders): Nothing to see here, move along folks, nothing to see.

DURR (to Rall): Here's your driver license back, sir. 

(License being thrown in the gutter by Officer Durr)

(Durr whistling Dixie again)

FEMALE BYSTANDER 1: Did you hear that?  What made that sound?

FEMALE BYSTANDER 2: Sounded like a driver license hitting the gutter, wouldn't you say?

FEMALE BYSTANDER 1: Yes, it definitely sounded like a driver license hitting the gutter.  That cop is so rude!

RALL (to Durr): By the way, I'm new in town, do you know a good place to eat?

DURR: Do I look like 411?  Eat ME!

* PARODY - NOT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY *

The contents of the above parody are strictly a creation from Crusader's mind.  Crusader, who may not be of sound mind, is still solely responsible for the content of this parody.

"Hands Up, Don't Shoot, I'm Only Jaywalking!"

Although his bio on the Los Angeles Times website reads like a tombstone epithet ("Freelance editorial cartoonist Ted Rall no longer contributes to the Los Angeles Times"), there is plenty of life left in progressive cartoonist/essayist Ted Rall. 

The 50-something-year-old Ted Rall hails from Massachusetts, is a cartoonist, essayist,  and author of several books.

His latest book, a graphic novel entitled "Snowden,"  hits the shelves later this month and is available in both Kindle and paperback formats for a nominal price on Amazon.com.

He's got awards and award nominations and...well, forget all that crap; I love this cartoonist's chutzpah (but my mom warns me not to even think about marrying him unless he's Jewish).  

I literally haven't been this passionate about writing since my blog post about Justin Bieber in May 2012! 

Important emphasis here: Ted Rall is NOT, repeat NOT a "regular journalist" who writes unbiased articles about breaking news.  He's an opinionator, and that should factor into this entire ordeal.

I am no expert on media ethics, but my understanding is the "standards" for journalists versus columnists/political cartoonists are NOT the same.  I would venture a guess that opinionators are not held to many standards, except maybe decent grammar.

Here's where the most recent part of the saga begins.
On May 11, 2015, Rall wrote an opinion piece for the Times in which he criticized the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) for their campaign to crack down on pedestrian traffic violations such as jaywalking.

In the blog, Rall recounted a 14-year-old confrontation he had with LA's finest regarding a jaywalking ticket.  The LAPD and LA Times didn't like what he had to say.  Someone (presumably from the police union) turned over a so-called tape recording of the incident to the Times to discredit Rall's blog account.  With little if any real investigation, Rall was fired by the Times. Rall has published a detailed chronology of events on his blog.

My contention is that Rall (whom I don't always agree with) was not only wrongly fired by the Los Angeles Times, but publicly humiliated by Editor of the Editorial Pages Nicholas "Nick the Great" Goldberg.  People like me who wrote letters were pushed to the side.  "We simply can't be bothered by our subscribers/readers" I am sure is what they said privately.

In his note to readers published in the physical paper and on the Times website, Goldberg basically wrote "liar, liar pants on fire" and blabbed about the integrity of the newspaper being at stake because of Rall and warned all Times employees and contractors: 

"This is a reminder of the need to remain vigilant about what we publish."  Translated, that means if you cross the Great and Powerful Oz of Smoggy City (Goldberg), you are toast at the Times!

The first audiotape (widely available on the Internet) that I listened to is the equivalent of TV in the old days late at night: fuzzing and buzzing!  Most of it is inaudible and doesn't tell us jack!  But that was enough evidence for Goldberg to spout that the tape "proves" Rall lied in his blog.  I say fiddlesticks!

Since the firing, the good folks at aNewDomain.net put together funds to hire audio experts and that produced an audible tape that is very different from the "fuzz and buzz" the Times was supplied with.  Even so, the Times won't budge on its position, won't apologize to Rall and likely won't unfire him.
 
Ironically, many right-wing pundits (Bill O'Reilly, et al.) constantly lambaste the LA Times for being "left- wing loons," but Fox jumped all over the firing with glee when they wrote about Rall (go figure).  The LA Police union also jumped with joy when they heard the news.

I personally encouraged Brian Stelter, of CNN's Reliable Sources (formerly with The New York Times), twice, to book Rall on his program, but as of this writing, that has not happened.  Stelter did reply to me via Twitter, however: "thanks for the recommendation!"

The focus of Reliable Sources is supposed to be on the media, but Rall must be persona non grata not just at the Times.  I'm very disappointed that Stelter, who I have admired over the years, doesn't see the importance of this story.

I asked Rall why the mainstream media, for the most part, is not covering his ordeal. 

"If you're a reporter, or an editor, do you really want to go against a newspaper chain that owns 20 newspapers, knowing that you'll never get to work at one of them?" wrote Ted Rall in an email Q/A with Crusader's Corner.

Luckily, there are plenty of independent journalists, bloggers, and even The Guardian who have written about Rall.  And the Association of American Editorial Cartoonists (AAEC) eventually chimed in and called for "an independent investigation of the Los Angeles Police Department’s tape of former AAEC president and member Ted Rall's jaywalking stop in 2001."  Full disclosure: Rall is a past president of the organization.

The cartoon association further stated, on its website, "the Los Angeles Times should have demanded a higher standard of proof in this matter, and it is clear that Mr. Rall is owed a full and complete analysis of the 14 year old tape used to make a judgment about his actions."

However, the "Comics Community," in general, has not joined Rall in solidarity, writes cartoonist Mack White on his Facebook page, republished by Rall on his blog on August 21, entitled "Je Suis Ted"

When asked why none of the diehard journalists at the Times have spoken out publicly to support him, Rall said "Either they don't believe me or they understand that it would be the end of their careers."

For weeks after the firing the Times was silent regarding the matter (to Rall and readers like me). After I submitted a letter to the editor of the Times on the very day that "Nick the Great" told their readers Rall was axed, the Times replied to me via email on July 30:

"Dear Mr. Crusader:
"Thanks so much for writing to The Times.
"We are sharing your comments with our editors; we’ve heard from a number of readers, some pleased and others not.
"We are glad that you have appreciated this and other elements of The Times’ print and online coverage, and we are sorry you are disappointed with the decision.
"As Editor of the Editorial Pages Nicholas Goldberg explained, '… the recording and other evidence provided by the LAPD raise serious questions about the accuracy of Rall's blog post. Based on this, the piece should not have been published.'
"We hope you will continue to read the LA Times.
"Sincerely,
"Los Angeles Times
"Readers' representative"

On August 11, the Times finally broke its silence when one of their attorneys wrote Rall a very short and not-so-sweet letter which might as well have read "The Times is right; you are wrong; we stand by the firing.  Fuck off!"

Then, just recently, the Times wrote a dumb diatribe (online only, no print) about the entire controversy, again stating Rall is wrong, the Times and LAPD are right, bugger off.

I was so sickened by the diatribe, mid-way through reading it I said (to no one in particular), "That is the straw that breaks the camel's back."  I immediately unfollowed 65 LATimers on Twitter, some of whom have covered my activism during the past several decades.

I also deleted all Feedly newsfeeds from the newspaper and will get my California news elsewhere, thank you very much.

I find it fitting to use Nick the Great's words against him, because if the Times can't be a trusted news source because of how they handled this matter, I can't rely on them any longer for my news/commentary (nor should others).  And, if the so-called "investigative journalism" they failed at miserably regarding Rall is how they investigate other stories, we are all in deep doo-doo!

Just like at the LAPD, a few bad apples have tarnished the Times in my mind and I am proud to stand in solidarity with Ted Rall by no longer reading columns by the likes of Patt Morrison and David Lazarus or excellent articles/newsletter from Shelby Grad.

Crusader's Corner asked Rall if there were any surprises in the recent online Times accounting of the ordeal. 

"Perhaps the biggest one is that they are doubling down on the idea of the LAPD as opposed to the police union as the principal source of the tape," he said. 

"That and the fact that they don't seem to think it's necessary to tell the readers how the tape got from the LAPD or the union over to the LA Times."

He further stated, "Also, it's pretty weird that they had the tape analyzed but not enhanced.  Maybe they did, and they didn't like what they heard because it supports my story?" 

The Times handling of this matter has been so shoddy that journalist Gina Smith recently wrote an intriguing piece for aNewDomain.net "Times Trampled Own Ethics Policy.  Why?"
One of the saddest things to me about this entire mess is that very few in the journalism industry are joining Rall in solidarity. 

Independents probably have nothing or little to lose for taking a stand, but it would be nice for some of the heavy hitters to at least have Rall on their programs so that he can better defend his position against the Times.

Asked whether his firing sets a bad precedent for others who work or contribute to the Times, Rall said:

"It doesn't just set a bad precedent for people who work at the LA Times; police control over editorial policy sends a bad message to every journalist in the United States. I myself have never heard of such a thing before. Certainly, the police have often threatened journalists. But usually, their editors support them and tell the police to go away."

Apparently, LAPD is not the only Southern California law enforcement agency that is trying to pressure publications to stop publishing Rall's cartoons and/or commentary.
In an August 20, 2015, Pasadena Weekly article, Kevin Uhrich writes: "In his latest controversy, Rall suspects police officials told the Times to fire him, which would not be surprising. That same request was made of me many times by Pasadena police and other city officials."

Asked whether any attorneys indicated to him that litigation would be justified against the Times and LAPD on his behalf, Rall said "Yes."

I hope that in any litigation Rall may pursue against the Times and LAPD, that the legal complaint states under the Prayer for Relief: "No donuts for the LA Times or LAPD for one year."

In all seriousness, though, Rall doesn't mince words about law enforcement, which is perhaps one of his greatest attributes. 
"Not only do they [cops] want to shoot people and abuse them in the streets, they don't want anyone to know about it.  Do they really think the fact that they are a bunch of abusive thugs is a secret?"

ADDITIONAL LINKS:

LA Times should reinstate Ted Rall cartoonist Petition | GoPetition

Ted Rall Rallblog Page: http://rall.com/

aNewDomain: anewdomain.net

Follow Rall on Twitter: twitter.com/TedRall

Ted Rall Wikipedia entry:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Rall

GoComics: gocomics.com/tedrall

Justin Bieber: Not Just Another Pretty Face!

Love him or dislike him, there's much to be said about a kid who sells out Madison Square Garden in 22 minutes before he's even reached the age of majority (18)!

There's also something to be said about a young adult Christian who before age 18 started reciting the Shema (the holiest prayer in Judaism) prior to his performances.  He recites it in Hebrew, and although some may think he's just doing it out of respect for his Jewish staff (including manager/discoverer Scott "Scooter" Braun and music director/guitarist Dan Kanter), Justin Bieber seems sincere about the whole thing.

More info on this later in the article, but I just learned that a national gay newsmagazine in 2011 reported that Justin might be an "emerging ally" for the LGBT community. 

As I write this, the Biebs is in the Number 2 spot on Twitter (according to Twitter Counter), and is just a few thousand followers shy of the Number 1 position, currently held by Lady Gaga.  He has also logged over 15,500 tweets, so he might need a carpal tunnel surgeon before he turns 19 next March.

Even Forbes magazine has taken interest in Bieber and they are featuring him in their June 2012 edition. The photos and a four-minute video of the partial interview are available on Ryan Seacrest’s website.

I also recently learned that he's a huge belieber in the "pay it forward" concept of asking that a good deed be repaid by having it done for others instead.  I never heard about the concept until recently when I stumbled on the 2000 film "Pay It Forward," starring Kevin Spacey, Helen Hunt, and a very young Haley Joel Osment.  If you haven't seen it, don't miss it!


Not a Brat; Truly Sincere!
I recently posted on Twitter that Justin is a cross between Michael Jackson, Tim Tebow, and Claude M. Bristol (author of "The Magic of Believing," 1948).  He has the talent of Jackson, the faith of Tebow, and the positive thinking concepts of Bristol (whom the late Liberace happened to admire).

Justin thus far doesn't appear to be some type of snot-nosed rich kid.  My months of "research" (all for educational purposes, mind you) has convinced me beyond all reasonable doubt that he's the real deal when it comes to being positive, giving to others, reaching for the stars, and achieving what some of us only dream of.

His sincerity is evident in the "My Worlds Acoustic" (2010) digital booklet, where he thanks his fans.  It reads, in part: "So this album is taking it back to how we started together on YouTube - me and my guitar just singing.  You took a boy from a small town and made dreams he didn’t even know existed real.  So thank you, thank you, thank you.  This one is for you.  And we are just getting started!  Love you - Justin."


"Belieber!" Book is a Great Bieberpedia!

Before I go any further, it is important to note that this blog article started out as a lengthy e-mail "letter" I spent weeks drafting to Cathleen Falsani, the author of several non-fiction books that deal with religious, spiritual, and cultural issues.

Her tour de force is "Belieber!: Fame, Faith and the Heart of Justin Bieber" (2011).  I get no money for this plug, but her book is available from Amazon in paperback, audio CD, Kindle, and Audible formats.  The book is like an encyclopedia for everything Bieber and one will also learn about other musicians and some interesting insight about the author.

It is very important to note that "Belieber!" is not one of those trashy tabloid-type books that are often written about celebrities.  This is a well-written and thoughtful book that should interest every JB fan, no matter their age, religious beliefs, sexual orientation, and so on.

My draft correspondence to Falsani was was a very comprehensive account about my evolution in coming to appreciate Justin Bieber (hereinafter "JB"). I concluded it would be more beneficial to share my thoughts and feelings in this article to reach a wider audience (all five of you).  So, with all due respect to Falsani, I scrapped the correspondence to her altogether and instead incorporate much of it herein.

My Journey to Bieberland

At 51, I really have little interest in young boys or girls that sing "bubble gum" music so I never really gave much thought when I kept seeing the name "Justin Bieber" in the news.  I rarely watch live television, and he wasn't on any of the political-oriented podcasts I watch/listen to regularly, so I wasn't even sure what he looked like until recently.  I recall laughing out loud after seeing some headlines about his "old and new hairstyle," but now I understand what that is all about.

When he turned 18 on March 1, 2012, that was of interest to me since my birthday is also in March.  I then learned his favourite colour is the same as mine (purple), so that also piqued my interest. 

I then heard a story on an ABC News podcast about him posting a partial phone number (presumably his) on Twitter with the last digit missing, and young girls were dialing the phone number by filling in the missing digit, thinking they would eventually reach JB himself.  At least one elderly lady in Texas was not amused when she received calls from lots of girls asking for Justin.  I thought that was a scream! (JB is quite the prankster, and if you don't believe me, check out the Punk'd episode he hosted on MTV.)

It was probably shortly after BieberPhoneNumbergate that I made a conscious decision to find out what all the fuss is about this kid, so the first thing I did was check out all of his professional music videos that were available at no charge on Vevo via my former Xoom tablet. 

I'm more drawn to rebels such as Eminem and Rise Against, but after watching a few JB videos, I decided that even though it's not my preferred type of music, he definitely is talented and I now appreciate why he is a huge sensation and young girls can't stop screaming when he is in their presence.  In fact, even as an agnostic, I am very drawn to the song (and video) "Pray," which further demonstrates his commitment to changing the world.

What may have impressed me the most from watching the Vevo videos was the range of talent he has teamed up with in his musical numbers, which introduced me to musicians and singers I never even heard of (or rarely listened to in the past).  For example, I learned that actor Will Smith's son Jaden is a very talented young artist.

As a former longtime clarinet player in public school and short-time choir member in my synagogue, I could also appreciate JB's extensive musical history dating back to age 2, the range of his voice, and some of his dance steps remind me of the late and great Michael Jackson (who I later learned JB very much looks up to).

I have viewed the Bieber-sanctioned documentary "Never Say Never" (both versions) and was just mesmerized from beginning to end.  The director's cut does include about 10 minutes of clips not shown in the regular version.  There's also a very cool thing only available in the director's cut involving creative captions of the lyrics while JB performs one of his songs.

My first impressions were, "This is not just another pretty face; this kid is amazing talentwise, personalitywise, you name it."  It was then that I also came to the conclusion that this isn't a talent who is here today, gone tomorrow; he's definitely here for the long haul.

I watched two biebermentaries on iTunes which were informative and then I managed to find a bunch of radio interview podcasts via iTunes (including two with Ryan Seacrest) and those were interesting.  The one with Seacrest is also available in video format on YouTube, as are numerous other interesting radio interviews he has done around the globe throughout the years.
   
After watching the three documentaries, I continued my bieberquest on YouTube where I viewed his "It Gets Better Project" public service announcement and was really really thrilled  to see that.  Evidently, he was bullied as a kid, and to have someone of his caliber involved with that important anti-bullying project is very important.

After viewing his anti-bullying PSA, YouTube had recommended clips to me of interviews he did with Ellen DeGeneres on her TV program, so I watched those and that was when I believe (oops, I meant belieb) I first learned he wrote a book, since he autographed one for her during the program.
 
"Justin Bieber: First Step 2 Forever: My Story," by Justin Bieber, isn't available at Audible.com (my preferred format), so the next best thing was purchasing a copy from iTunes and using the text-to-speech feature which works okay since it isn't a lengthy book.

I was shocked Audible didn't have the book available and told them as much.  They were kind enough to respond, in part:
"Based on our research [the book] is currently unavailable in a digital audio download. However, I have forwarded your request to our Content Team. While we can’t guarantee a positive result, we are always working hard to expand our catalogue, so your suggestion is very valuable."

More on "Belieber!" Book
It was Audible that lead me to Cathleen Falsani's   book.  When I was looking for JB's book, I simply typed "Bieber" in the search field and her book title appeared in the results.  In fact, it is the only book to appear when using that search term.

When I first saw the words "faith" and "religion" connected to Falsani's book, I thought to myself:  "I don't know.  I want to read it, but as a Jewish gay agnostic, I wonder if I just might not appreciate the author's perspective on JB." (I know that was a close-minded thought, but it was my initial reaction.)
 
In the end, I decided to practice my lifelong mantra of being open-minded (easier said than done), and bought "Belieber!" from Audible and am really glad I did.

I nearly fell out of bed when Falsani starts the book with a quote from the Talmud (her book cites the Talmud at least one other time).  In fact, there is stuff about Judaism in her book I never learned (or at least do not recall learning) in my many years in Hebrew school, so that was a nice nugget. 

Her tidbits about things she learned from two rabbis she befriended, and her statement that Christians would benefit from learning more about Judaism is very cool.

Most important, her "Belieber!" book is clearly written from her heart and soul.  She definitely succeeds in offering a very unique and thorough perspective about the new King of Pop.

While it would have been interesting for Team Bieber to have participated in Falsani's book (they declined her offers), in the end I think it actually may have worked out better without them because it's easy to get influenced one way or the other by personal interaction with celebrities.  Without their direct input, she simply wrote what she observed, researched, and what her heart told her to write.  That is enough authenticity for me!

Falsani is to be commended for being inclusive of many faiths (and various social issues) in her book, which isn't always an easy thing to do.  After listening to the book, I have found that there is no doubt that JB has values that are lacking in many celebrities today, many twice his age or even older. 

I have to admit that when I hear people pray or talk about faith, I often jump to the conclusion they are going to be preachy hateful types (since I was surrounded with that growing up in Orange County in the 1970s).  As a result, it is often very challenging for me to not jump to that conclusion.  Falsani happens to reside in Laguna Beach, California, which is one of my old "stomping grounds."

Bieber an Ally to Lesbitrangay Community?

It's no secret that JB is a belieber in faith and Christianity, but he doesn't shove it in people's faces.  Also, he clearly isn't one of those redneck, right-wing, anti-gay fundamentalist types, or he'd never appear on Ellen, nor would he have participated in the "It Gets Better Project."  He seems to be rather open-minded; probably always has been. 

According to a 2011 report in the national LGBT news magazine, The Advocate, JB has been publicly supportive on LGBT issues.  It's a very interesting article that I just discovered while doing research for this article.

Charity Begins With Bieber
Near the end of "Belieber!," Falsani  lists numerous  organizations (some or all of which JB supports, if I recall correctly).

That list of organizations is very impressive and includes ProductRED, which is fighting AIDS globally.  I first learned about them on Twitter years ago, and as a result purchased a custom-made pair of Converse ProductRED tennis shoes (purple, of course, with my name embroidered on the sides).  It was so cool that I could design my own shoes and help fight AIDS at the same time.

JB, who is active with Make-A-Wish Foundation, has visited underprivileged, ill, and dying children during his travels throughout  the globe.

He's also active with Pencils of Promise (PoP), a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization that builds schools and increases educational opportunities in the developing world.  The organization was founded by Adam Braun, the brother of Scooter Braun (the man who discovered JB and helped put him on the map).

Many clips available on YouTube with JB on the The Ellen DeGeneres Show further demonstrate his commitment to giving back to the world, which he can do in a huge way because of his name recognition and financial success.  Just the same, the little people (like me) might be inspired by him to do our part (financially, or by volunteering, or just spreading the word).

My Make-A-Wish!

After listening to Falsani's book, I learned that JB has a custom-made Cadillac with "Batmobile" emblazoned on the trunk and the Batman bat insignia on the front grill (and the trunk).  A very cool ride, to be sure.  So cool, I challenged JB on Spacebook that if we would give me a ride in the Batmobile, I would be happy to loan him my purple tennis shoes (since I know he's a huge collector of sneakers)!  Short of being diagnosed with Stage 4 cancer, though, this will be something I will just have to keep dreaming about.  Or maybe I will just need to belieb more?

Official (and Unofficial) JB Websites
Justin Bieber Believe Charity Drive

Justin Bieber Music

The Official Justin Bieber Fan Club (Bieberfever)

Lesbian Who Look Like Justin Bieber

Top 10 Reasons Why Christine O'Donnell is Not a Real Witch

10) A real witch pays for his/her own stuff, while O'Donnell steals campaign funds to pay for her stuff.

9) Since a real witch might have problems hooking up for sexual relations, masturbation might be very important.

8) A real witch definitely does not wear white pearls with a black dress.

7) Historically speaking, homosexuals are huge fans of real witches, but they don't care for O'Donnell, so she can't be for real.

6) A real witch isn't as scary as O'Donnell serving in the Senate.

5) A real witch would take pride in her witchery and never say "I'm not a witch."

4) A real witch would never go to a tea party, since a witch prefers witch's brew.

3) A real witch knows that the freedom to cast spells and make potions is not protected by the First Amendment.

2) A real witch knows that "Bedknobs and Broomsticks" is a movie, not a case heard by the U.S. Supreme Court.

And, finally, the Number 1 reason why Christine O'Donnell is not a real witch:

A real witch uses a broomstick for transportation, whereas Christine O'Donnell shoved a broomstick so far up her ass that it caused permanent brain damage!

What Death Penalty?

(San Quentin, CA)  Associated Press writer Paul Elias recently reported that California's death penalty is "dysfunctional."  Tell us something we don't already know.

  "Only 13 condemned inmates have been executed from the time capital punishment resumed in the state in 1977 until February 2006, when U.S. District Court Judge Jeremy Fogel halted executions until prison officials revamped their lethal injection process," the article stated.

  Elias reports that capital cases cost the state an additional $125 million a year to administer and the Department of Corrections has spent $400 million for a new death chamber and death row.  

  I can't help but wonder how many children that money could feed and educate.

  In California, all death penalty cases are automatically appealed and cannot be waived by the inmate who has been sentenced to death.  In fact, the inmate cannot represent him/herself in these appeals.

There's Something Good in Everybody

  I have been corresponding with inmates throughout the United States for decades, primarily to assist with civil and human rights issues, wrongful convictions, and that type of thing.  However, I have also corresponded with "bad guys" because my father (to this day) tells me there is something good in everybody.

  I recently received a letter from one of those "bad guys" (or in this case, a badass mofo), San Quentin death row inmate Daniel Carl Frederickson.

  According to an archived article in the Los Angeles Times, Frederickson shot and killed Santa Ana HomeBase manager Scott Wilson (of Costa Mesa) during a June 13, 1996, botched robbery at the store.  Wilson was 30 at the time and Frederickson was around 33.

  In 1998, Frederickson, who acted as his own fool -- er, I mean attorney -- at trial, was convicted and sentenced to death by an Orange County Superior Court jury.  We have been corresponding sporadically since he's been on death row.

  Although we have been at odds with each other the majority of the time, I have to admit that Frederickson's letter to me in late March presents some interesting and challenging issues (legally and morally) when it comes to California's death penalty.

  In the letter to me, Frederickson says he doesn't want to represent himself, he simply wants to waive all appeals.  "I never asked them to let me represent myself on appeal.  I don't want an appeal, never did . . . . Everything has been against my right to be a man and step up to accept my culpability and punishment.  The system is set up to favor all liars and cowards and unrepentant people of no conscious (sic)."

California Supremes Say Forgeddaboutit!

  "The Supreme Court has received your undated pro se documents . . . in which you again seek to waive or abandon your automatic appeal . . . from the trial court's judgment of death," states a March 16, 2010, letter to Frederickson from Supreme Court of California Automatic Appeals Monitor Robert D. Reichman.  (Gee, is this the guy who always wanted to be hall monitor as a kid?)

  The letter goes on to cite various California cases and statutes that hold solid current law that criminal defendants have no right to "represent himself or herself on appeal" and that the supreme court has sole discretion to appoint "counsel on appeal from a judgment of death."

  Finally, the letter closes: "Your appeal cannot be abandoned or waived.  The documents you submitted will not be filed.  The court will not respond to any further correspondence regarding these issues."

  Personally, I am (and have always been) opposed to the death penalty.  At the same time, since criminal defendants (even those facing the death penalty) have the right to represent themselves at trial, why shouldn't the same hold  true on appeal?  Furthermore, if they want to waive their right to appeal, so what?

  Sorry for sounding like a Republican, but if the State of California were to grant Frederickson's request, it will save the taxpayers (and a nearly bankrupt state) lots of money which could be better spent in other areas of criminal justice.  Isn't that true justice?

Bumhole of the Month: Hollywood Publicist Howard Bragman

Enquiring minds want to know why openly gay Hollywood publicist Howard Bragman is representing at least one homophobic business owner, hotelier Doug Manchester. Has Howard "The Fagman" Bragman overdosed on poppers or is the recession really that bad that he has to work for his oppressors in order to pay his mortgage?

Manchester, who owns two Hyatt Hotel properties in San Diego, donated $125,000 to the successful just-say-no-to-gay-marriage Proposition 8 campaign, which was approved by California voters in November 2008. (It is important to note that the Hyatt Corporation is said to have an excellent record when it comes to the rights of sexual minorities, according to Human Rights Campaign, a leading lesbitrangay lobby group in Washington, DC.)

In July 2008, Californians Against Hate, headed by Laguna Beach activist Fred Karger, co-launched a very successful boycott of Manchester's businesses with Unite Here! Local 30, since Manchester also has a terrible record on labor issues.

The world famous El Coyote Mexican Cafe in Los Angeles was also added to the gay community's shit list after the manager gave $100 to a Yes on 8 group. Many people boycotted the restaurant and patrons were often greeted by angry protesters.

Most of the world found out about Bragman's association with homophobe Manchester in a May 8, 2009, Michael Stetz column published in the San Diego Tribune. Oddly, the only quote from Bragman in the column is: "I understand what he [Manchester] did and why he did it." Wow, could we be any more vague than that? Spoken like a true publicist!

According to information in the Stetz column, none of which has been confirmed, Manchester is offering money to LGBT groups and $100,000 in conference rooms for them to hold events. Manchester has repeatedly refused to rectify his problems with labor unions, so I cannot fathom that any deserving LGBT group (or individual) would now go to his properties and take advantage of these so-called free rooms.

Perhaps Bragman needs his meds adjusted because his current representation of gay-hater Manchester is a far cry from Bragman's own words in a November 2008 column published in The Huffington Post. At the time, Bragman wrote, "So am I really under some obligation to give El Coyote money that may eventually be given to groups that oppose my civil rights? I think not. I will guac elsewhere." [Lie #1]

In the same column, Bragman writes, "But unlike El Coyote and other 'Yes on 8' supporters, I am willing to stand by and own my political beliefs -- even when they may cause me economic harm." [Lie #2]

He ends his column with: ". . . don't expect to see me sipping a margarita at El Coyote. I will not fund my own demise and I won't go where I'm not wanted." [Lie #3; any more lies, Howard, and your nose will be bigger than Pinocchio's!]

After reading his forceful column in support of gay marriage, gay rights, but opposing those who oppress us, why on earth is Bragman now defending Manchester's actions? The $125,000 donation from the hotelier to Yes on 8 is way more than the mere $100 from the El Coyote manager. (If I scratch my head any longer trying to figure all this out, I may draw blood and won't be able to finish this column.)

I realize this is harsh, but Bragman brings the word "whoremonger" to an entirely new level! There's no better way to define the award-winning Bragman (APLA and GLAAD) who comes across as a staunch gay rights activist but then just six months later is getting a paycheck from a man who oppresses sexual minorities. "Whoremonger" can also be used to define former President Bill Clinton who refused to honour the gay rights/labor movement boycott by recently appearing at a function (for money) at one of Manchester's hotels.

What Bragman has failed to realize, according to Karger, is that Manchester's $125,000 donation was basically seed money for Yes on 8 in the early stages of the signature process. Without that seed money from Manchester (and from Terry Caster, owner of A-1 Self Storage), "There probably would not have been a Prop 8 and same-sex marriage would still be the law in California," Karger said.

Karger told Crusader's Corner that others in the LGBT community that he has recently talked with do not want to accept Manchester's offer of money.

"It is a very sad situation that Bragman has created. On one hand you have so many LGBT organizations that are in need of money, but they do not want to cross the picket line and accept his offer of free conference rooms for events at the boycotted hotel. It's a cruel strategy to try and divide the gay community like he is doing. That's very surprising for anyone who has an ounce of self-respect."

According to Wikipedia, Bragman resides in Los Angeles with his male partner, a horse trainer, which is a very good thing now that Bragman is most certainly a horse's ass!

Homophobic Ex-Police Chief Pleads Guilty to Financial Crime

(Canyon Lake, CA) Former Garden Grove, California, police chief Frank Kessler (and his wife) are finally getting payback for the years of torture and hate that at least Mr. K inflicted on the Orange County lesbitrangay community while he was the top cop in Garden Grove decades ago.

Kessler, who is also a former city councilmember of Canyon Lake (a gated community near Lake Elsinore), plead guilty to one count of embezzlement on February 24, according to North County Times. The plea deal was reached after this jerk went to town with a city-issued credit card! His wife, Suzanne, only recently got out of jail pending her anticipated criminal trial for 23 criminal counts, including borrowing nearly $1 million on false promises to repay AND writing nearly $100,000 worth of checks from a phony account.

When this writer was secretary to the board of directors of the Orange County Gay and Lesbian Community Center decades ago, Kessler came to one of our board meetings after the center had become a frequent target of vandalism, fire bombs, death threats (what today would amount to terrorism). At that time, Kessler told the board something like, “Just take that damn sign down and you won’t have so many problems,” which was in reference to a large sign with the name of the center on it in front of the facility on Euclid Avenue.

I actually testified about this incident as a witness in a federal civil rights case against the City of Garden Grove brought by Mac’s Landing, a gay-friendly bar.

Click here for an in-depth 1987 Los Angeles Times article that discusses the Mac’s Landing case and documents the history of anti-gay harassment by Garden Grove police under Kessler’s watch (and with his full knowledge and support).

California's Proposition 8: The Aftermath

Here's an e-mail I sent today (December 17, 2008) to Los Angeles Times columnist Steve Lopez:

Dear Steve,

I am the activist formerly known as Andrew Exler who overturned Disneyland's ban on same-sex dancing in the 1980s. I legally changed my name to Crusader more than a decade ago since the media often refers to me as a "civil rights crusader."

Your recent columns regarding Prop 8 have been excellent and have greatly encouraged dialogue between both sides of this controversial issue.

Yes, lesbigays should have the right to legally marry (forget about civil unions which are insulting and are not the same as real marriage, the same between men and women). Personally, I am totally anti-marriage (gay or straight), but I support it for those who want it.

Yes, people are free to donate to the political cause or candidate of their choice, and also have the right to speak out for or against those political causes and candidates.

Yes, consumers have a right to not do business with individuals or businesses for any reason whatsoever; it's called the free enterprise system.

No, people who donate to candidates or political causes do not have a right to hide their true occupations on the donation paperwork. After spending about ten hours of volunteer research for one No on 8 organization, I discovered numerous contributors to Yes on 8 (in the $25,000 range) were not really "housewives" or "retired," but actually owned small or large businesses and in fact had a real occupation.

State law requires donors to list their true occupation/business, yet I am convinced that there is definitely a pattern of Yes on 8 donors intentionally keeping that information secret, which violates the law, is dishonest and unethical. What and who are these folks hiding from?

The bottom line is that I'm more concerned about large contributors to Yes on 8 that hide behind occupations of "housewife" or "retired" than a small $100 contribution from a self-admitted Mormon restaurant worker.

Just the same, people have a right to protest and boycott El Coyote (or any other business) if that is what they want to do. A small amount of their tips and money spent at the restaurant did end up in the Yes on 8 side, so the protesters make a valid point. I just feel energies are better spent to expose and boycott the huge corporate donors to Yes on 8, which is a hateful and discriminatory law.

In the same light, if people are upset that Apple (and other corporations and individuals) donated large amounts to No on 8, then those people don't have to do business with Apple. They can also refuse to purchase or rent movies with Brad Pitt or directed by Steven Spielberg (both who are said to have donated $100,000 each to No on 8).

Quite frankly, I'm really sick of the religious zealots who say that they love lesbigays, they aren't bigots, they aren't homophobic, etc. It is an oxymoron to love people and then take steps to violate the basic rights of sexual minorities (or anyone else).

Crusader
Palm Springs, CA
(760) 799-xxxx (direct line) [redacted for blog post]
http://crusading4u.googlepages.com/

Calilesbigays Can Now Marry

(May 15, 2008) In a surprise ruling, the California Supreme Court overturned a ban on same-sex marriages in California today. In a nutshell, the gist of the 172-page decision is found on page 120:

"Plaintiffs are entitled to the issuance of a writ of mandate directing the appropriate state officials to take all actions necessary to effectuate our ruling in this case so as to ensure that county clerks and other local officials throughout the state, in performing their duty to enforce the marriage statutes in their jurisdictions, apply those provisions in a manner consistent with the decision of this court. Further, as the prevailing parties, plaintiffs are entitled to their costs."The majority decision was written by Chief Justice Ronald George with Justices Joyce Kennard, Kathryn Werdegar, and Carlos Moreno concurring.

"Although I agree with the majority's conclusion, I have to disagree with its path," Santa Ana civil rights attorney Ron Talmo told Crusader's Corner.

"I believe that a prohibition on same sex marriages is best analyzed as gender discrimination. The Court's distinction of the race cases made no sense. Equally burdening two groups on the basis of their gender is still gender discrimination. I fear the ramifications of that analysis in other civil rights areas. On the plus side, the Court's error on that point required them to address the sexual orientation classification issue. Here the majority concluded that sexual orientation discrimination is subject to strict scrutiny review. This is probably the more important conclusion than the broad view of marriage as a fundamental right conclusion."

Talmo is the attorney who successfully argued before the California Supremes that ladies' day discounts violated the Unruh Civil Rights Act (Koire v. Metro Car Wash, 1985). He also was victorious in convincing a conservative Orange County jury that Disneyland violated the rights of two young gay men who were ejected from The Gayest Place on Earth after disco dancing together at the Tomorrowland Terrace in 1980.

Gay Marriage Ban May Return in November

According to their website, a group calling itself Protect Marriage is waiting for the California Secretary of State to qualify Proposition 22 for the November 2008 Primary Election. That constitutional amendment seeks to legally define marriage in California as between a man and a woman.

"The Constitutional Amendment cannot pass," West Hollywood city council member John Duran told Crusader's Corner. "It is worth each of us giving everything we have to hold the court decision."

Duran, a longtime civil rights lawyer said that if the amendment passes, the only recourse is in federal court, which will be disastrous. "The US Supremes will not give us a favorable decision, so the federal courts will not protect us," he said.

Crusader's Corner recommends that people supportive of marital equality for everyone donate money to Human Rights Campaign California Marriage PAC.

Personally, I feel that marriage is highly overrated, but if lesbigays want to have the same rights, responsibilities, and heartache that their straight counterparts currently enjoy, so be it.

Today's gay marriage ruling was surprising to me because the California Supremes (with Chief Ronald George at the helm) ruled in favour of Boy Scouts of America's oppressive policies in two 1998 court rulings: one involving gay Eagle Scout Timothy Curran; the other dealing with two twin Boy Scout brothers (Michael and William Randall) who happen to be atheists.

Convicts (Even Sex Offenders) Are Entitled to Basic Civil Rights Upon Release

A recent murder of a registered sex offender in California demonstrates that some people just don't get it. Like it or not, once a person is released from jail, they basically are entitled to (or should be) to the same rights as everyone else.

By his own admission, 29-year-old construction worker Ivan Garcia Oliver killed 67-year-old convicted rapist Michael A. Dodele in Lakeport, California, just 35 days after Dodele's release from prison.

A December 10, 2007, article in the Los Angeles Times ("Megan's Law listing may have lead to slaying"), discusses the fact that the killing may have stemmed from a listing in a California Internet database that lists information about registered sex offenders.

I believe the basic concept of Megan's Law is that people be notified and have access to information about registered sex offenders so they can prevent themselves (or children) from being victimized by the offender. Unfortunately, the law has clearly been responsible for the violation of the civil rights of thousands of released offenders.

Not only has the law lead to witch hunts of registered sex offenders throughout the nation, but the information supplied on California's database is very vague and confusing. At quick glance, nearly everyone on the database appears to be a child molester because of the very brief description of the offender's crime(s), which is based on how the penal code is vaguely worded.

I even thought an acquaintance of mine in Palm Springs is a child molester because of how the penal code violation is worded next to his name on the State of California Meagan's Law webiste. Even after reading the penal code in detail, I'm still not sure what's what, and I'm a seasoned paralegal. If I can't figure it out, How on earth do we expect the "average Joe" to interpret the crime descriptions on these public databases?

The killer made the same mistake I did about my acquaintance, and thought Dodele was a child molester. According to the Los Angeles Times article about the killing in Lakeport, Dodele was convicted of violating adults, not children. Unwanted acts against adults and children are both bad, however Michael A. Dodele may still be alive today if it weren't for the sloppiness of California's database. His killer made it clear he went after Dodele because he thought he was a child molester.

I realize that I am in the minority, but whether someone molested, raped, sodomized, killed, stole, whatever; once they are released, they should be treated humanely so long as they are abiding by the rules.

A convict should be permitted to have a place to live, shop, eat, work, etc. without threat of eviction or disruptions from protesters who feel the convict should receive more punishment after their release.

On the flip side, it goes without saying that a child molester should not be permitted to work in a school (or live near one); an embezzler shouldn't be permitted to work in a bank; terrorists shouldn't be permitted to work in airports or for public transit entities.

More food for thought on this very topic is provided by veteran journalist Patt Morrison in her excellent December 13, 2007, commentary published in the Los Angeles Times ("Megan's law of unintended consequences").