A Petition for DSCC Removal Filed By Greg Diamond

Some background first; I filed a motion to have Greg Diamond removed from the DSCC for a number of reasons but in particular for reasons he was removed by the DPOC from membership last fall.  Additionally, his appeal for reinstatement to the DPOC Central Committee was denied by the CDP a week ago Friday night at the Convention at a hearing that ran late into the evening.

Witnesses tell me he verbally abused DPOC Treasurer and Region 17 coordinator Florice Hoffman with one person saying he screamed at her while invading her personal space on the way out of the hearing. Another witness turned to the committee and said, “See what we deal with!”  I’m curious how Florice violated the convention code of conduct.

So I decided to lend my name to a petition for his removal as an ADEM.  There are several CDOP eBoard members who signed on in agreement.  If readers want to see that, I’m happy to post.

Greg, oddly enough, decided to file a complaint against Florice. And he filed a counter claim against Lenore Albert and me.  I did not attend the convention due to business commitments.  The difference, he has no eBoard signatures nor the signatures of 30 delegates to make this stick, but its fun to read his tale of what he thinks is true.

Let’s count the typos!

Here’s the email Greg sent:

Subject line:  Petition to Remove Lenore Albert and Dan Chmielewski as Memberz (sic) of the DSCC

Sent to various members of the CDP Board

Please find enclosed our Petition to Remove Lenore Albert and Dan Chmiewlewski (sic) as a members of the DSCC. It is being timely filed within 7 days after the first day of the convention, files before 11:59:59 on June 7.  (Specifically, by my clock, at 11:56 p.m.)

Both respondents are being served via this email as well.

P.S. As another related matter: at 12:47 a.m. on Saturday morning, June 1, I filed a complaint under the Convention Code of Conduct against Florice Hoffman by sending a direct message to the officers and Chris Masami Myers, Chair Wagaman (I think Chair Shay) as well.  (The hotline number we were provided was unavailing for anything other than sexual harassment.)

This gave what I thought was time for it to have been acted upon during the convention itself.  I never heard another word about it, and when I wrote C.M. Myers to follow up about ten hours later I received no reply to that as well.  Given that it did not involve sexual harassment, but did otherwise fall under the plain language of this putative Code of Conduct, I am puzzled about why it was not addressed.  I would have included it as a separate complaint today if I did not think that I had already done what I had to do to get it into the hearing process.  Rather than ask Chris a third time, I hope that one or more of the Executive Offiers (sic) would pursue its status.  I exclude Chris (and Mike Wagaman) from this email only because I am following the example taken earlier today by Lenore, but I certainly don’t object to its being forwarded to either of them, and I am happy to take other directions as to how to proceed per CDP rules..

*****

PETITION TO THE EXECUTIVE OFFICERS OF THE CA DEMOCRATIC PARTY FOR

THE REMOVAL OF DSCC DELEGATES LENORE ALBERT AND DAN CHMIELEWSKI

 To:       Jenny Bach, Rusty Hicks, Alex Gallardo-Rooker, Dataka (sic) Larimore Hall, and Daniel Weitzman

From:   Greg Diamond, with others possibly joining at a later date

Date:    June 7, 2019

PREFATORY REMARKS

• If I ever had any illusions about these matters being proper legal proceedings, they were dispelled on the night of May 31, 2019. I therefore dispel with the use of legal pleading paper (being used against me in a petition filed today, by what I take to bea (sic) team of non-lawyers, which will be answered separately) and write to you in plain English. I will, however, number the paragraphs of the substantive assertions below for our mutual convenience.
• I presume that it will be easier to treat this petition at the same time and in the same manner as the complaint that the two people at whom I direct this, as well as others, directed at me earlier today. I will write presuming your familiarity with the other document. While I will incorporate some of this complaint into my reply to that one, this is not intended as a substitute for such filing.
• As I think that I have complained about before, I see no basis for invoking the normal sorts of procedures and protections normally available in disciplinary hearings. I would at this point, for example, move for the recusal of the of the Executive Officers in both cases, but I am not aware of any guide government motions and the basis of such motions. The filing against me contains allegations that I consider defamatory, but I don’t even know the full extent of the audience with which either document may be shared. I hope for guidance as to clarification of these processes, and please note that “ask Garry Shay” does not meet any reasonable standard for consistency.
• You are being asked to review substantial (I would even say ridiculous) amounts of information dealing with conflict between two factions among Orange County Democrats. The side that has a few people aligning with Lenore holds most of the official power; my side, while substantial, is at risk of sanctions on as flimsy a basis of those leveled at me. (italicized by editor) If you’re going to wade into this, rather that just leave both sides alone, you should plan on doing a lot of reading and taking it all very seriously. If not – and personally I think that it is a waste of your time, though I have to file this complaint so as to retain my legal remedies for outside action – that you shouldn’t be taking it on. If not enough of you want to devote that effort, both petitions should be sent away.
• SUBSTANTIVE ASSERTIONS
• 1. While I have been active in CDP party affairs since my removal from the DPOC last fall – presenting and answering complaints, participating in various internal election campaigns, and writing extensively in a Facebook forum for CDP delegates who were either existing or incoming delegates — I did not formally rejoin CDP until Friday May 31. This is therefore my first opportunity I have had to address misconduct by both Lenore Albert (hereinafter “Lenore”) and Dan Chmielewski (hereinafter “Dan C.”) in justification of their expulsion for actions taken during the past two-year term.
• 2. Unfortunately, some background is required (and will apply to both complaints. In 2014, I ran for Orange County District Attorney against our spectacularly corrupt incumbent, Tony Rackauckas, who is best known for was active in working with the then-Sheriff Sandra Hutchinson to arrange for compensated prisoners to spy on targeted prisoners in violation of their Miranda rights and otherwise violate the civil rights of prisoners. (He also engaged in other misdeeds, such as attempting to prevent the Superior Court judge who was investigating this scandal from participating in any capital cases that were less likely to make the national headlines.) Rackauckas is a Republican who was first elected in 1998, when he was a judge himself. He won a rematch against his well-respected candidate in 2002. By then he had so terrorized Orange County Democrats that no one would run against him, despite his abuses, until I made the decision to mount a protest campaign in 2014.
• 3. In 2017 and 2018, I encouraged Brett Murdock, like me an attorney residing of Brea, to run for the office. He did so, and I supported him in the primary – despite personal lobbying from Republican candidate Todd Spitzer, who from my writing knew me to be a strong and acute critic of Rackauckas, that I not do so because he (Spitzer) had a better chance to do so. I told him that I was bound not to support a Republican over a Democrat, even in a non-partisan race, but that it was my strong hope that whoever lost among him and Murdock would endorse the other. This would allow us to remove Rackauckas before he retired and chose a replacement, whom could he could then get the suppliant majority of County Supervisors (whom he had each – except Spitzer – long courted and protected against prosecution) to appoint.
• 4. I absolutely did believe Spitzer to be a better DA candidate than Rackauckas: for citizens of Orange County generally and for Democrats specifically. While he was far more “law and order” than I prefer, there was virtually no reason to think him corrupt. But my conversations with him had a second purpose. Murdock was capable of beating Spitzer in the Top Two primary if he could get Democratic funding and split the Republican and independent vote. If he got the funding, then I wanted Spitzer – along with other reform-minded Republicans, of whom there were many – to endorse Murdock even against his own party. I would have argued to Spitzer that this was in his own interest. Rackauckas knew that Spitzer would not protect him, and he wanted continued protection. The likeliest alternative, if Murdock lost a runoff to Rackauckas, was for Rackauckas to appoint a relatively young attorney named Michael Gates – City Attorney of Lenore’s hometown of Huntington Beach and a defender of that city’s powerful and violent white supremacists. Spitzer would be better of challenging Murdoxk (sic) than Gates in 2022.
• 5. The notion that trying to induce a non-corrupt Republican to support a non-corrupt Democrat over a corrupt Republican for the single most important job in Orange County government is somehow not in the interests of the Democratic Party is, to my mind, absurd. This is what smart politicians try to do. (The notion that Democrats had nothing to tell their constituents about this most important nonpartisan ace was more damning, but I never denied that the mistake of seeming cowardly was the party’s own prerogative to make, which is why I resigned from its Executive Committee before giving my personal endorsement.
• 6. We have evidence that my plan had a decent chance to work. Spitzer’s formed a de facto coalition with the endorsed Democratic candidate for Sheriff, Duke Nguyen – a rreformer (sic) running against Dan Bowles, the corrupt former assistant to Sheriff Hutchinson; who had been in charge of the “snitch” program (and also now stands accused of supporting eavesdropping on attorney client conversations) while he was Hutchinson’s top Undersheriff in charge of the jails. I helped to facilitate a joint appearance, and mutual statements of support (even if not endorsement), between Spitzer and Nguyen at a meeting of OC’s excellent community group “Los Amigos,”and promoted it strongly on the blog I manage (but do not own, and over which I do not have final editorial say.) The DPOC, in my opinion stupidly and cruelly, refused to do much of anything to promote Nguyen (beyond endorsing him and having his name on door hangers), expressly for fear of helping Spitzer. (While Spitzer had other prominent Democratic supporters besides me, including former CDP Chair Art Torres, Rackauckas had the support of of (sic) Democrats Lou Correa and Tom Daly, both of whom have been associated with corrupt Santa Ana Mayor Miguel Pulido. I do not use the word “corrupt” lightly here, and will happily provide as much evidence on the point and you’d happily read.)
• 7. This is where Lenore and Dan C. re-enter the picture. Even with the Democratic endorsement, Murdock was only going to have a chance to win the primary – and then, with Spitzer’s continued distance from Rackauckas, the general election – if he could raise enough money to compete in a county of 3,000,000 people – about the population of Iowa. He had heavy-hitters lined up to support him – and then Lenore – suspended from practicing law, recently filed for bankruptcy – entered the race proclaiming that she would be able to win because she was a woman running against three men. Dan C. celebrated her candidacy and disparaged Murdock, even after he received the DPOC endorsement. (And yes, she went to forums – when allowed – disparaging Murdock and Spitzer while giving at most muted criticism and implicit praise for Rackauckas. The OCDA can hand out many juicy favors – such as becoming trustees of estates of decedents and indigents – to favored attorneys, which is even better than a Co-Chair position on the CDP Credentials Committee.)
• 8. While, as with both of her recent attempts to run for Chair (as well as the likely next one), Lenore couldn’t plausibly win the DA seat – the appellate court considering her appeal of my victory over her in Superior Court wrote that it was beyond belief that another attorney suspended from the practice of law for non-cooperation of unethical and even criminal behavior would ever again run – she did seem likely enough to take some of the women’s vote and the Democratic vote, both of which would come disproportionately out of Murdock’s column. (Again, compare this with her CDP runs for Chair.) Her presence would foreseeably be enough to dry up Murdock’s fundraising – at least until he got the party endorsement and she was given the choice of either withdrawing or facing the prospect of removal from the party. With the help of a strong Democratic activist (and advocate for both the homeless and victims of police violence) named Mark Daniels, I filed a suit to remove Lenore’s ballot designation of “civil rights attorney” – which the judge rightly realized under the law applied to any designation as “attorney” at all – and to remove her from the ballot altogether because she was not qualified to practice law at the time she signed a form, under penalty of perjury, that she was qualified to serve. Her ballot designation was removed, but she was not removed from the ballot.
• 9. Murdock still had enough time to get the fundraising he would need to compete in the runoff if Lenore would quit the race in response to a DPOC endorsement and endorse her party’s candidate. That endorsement came in due course. Lenore did not quit the race – dooming Murdock’s fundraising – and continuing bashing her party’s nominee in forums. (Again, this modus operandi should be a familiar one.) I do not know whether filing an obviously frivolous campaign designed to split the vote and give her the respected seat of a chair in forums, which she then abused, is enough to justify removal under Article II Section 6 of the CDP Bylaws. However, staying in the race and attacking the Democratic candidate in forums, even after he has been endorsed, certainly is.8. In the informal Facebook forum open to existing and incoming CDP delegates this year, I at one point specifically asked Lenore if she had supported (or voted for, I will try to find the exact language) the endorsed Democrat in the OCDA race. She said that she had voted for herself, and that she was a Democrat, so she had not violated any CDP rule. I am aware that precedent does not seem to be all that much of a factor in these CDP decisions (there being no written “restatement” of our rules), but if that is the precedent that you want to set – that it’s OK to support a non-endorsed Democrat over an endorsed Democrat – then this petition puts the question squarely before you. I also think that the temerity of her statement should enter into how you judge her if she is found to have violated the rules.
• 10. Dan C.’s role in this tracked Lenore’s, but as a propagandist rather than as a candidate. He has not only treated her claims with absolute credulity – well beyond a reasonable degree, but in that same OCDA’s race he presented opposition research on Murdock as true – it was in fact specious – even after Murdock had been endorsed at a meeting interrupted by Dan C.’s heckling of him. I will present more examples of his providing a supportive home to those attacking Democratic candidates anonymously – which include copious attacks from white supremacists and their defenders agains (sic) HB-based Council and School Board candidates – as time permits, once I hear from the officers whether such depth of submissions is welcome. Exhibit A (containing five sequential screenshots of one of his stories on the DA’s race) contains some of the most important ones regarding Murdock during his race. I will offer some comments as bullet points below. “P#]” refers to the page number of Exhibit A.
• 9. When I violated the rules (as you’ll read in the sister complaint against me), it was in the hope of snagging a seat where a Democrat had entered the race at the last minute for an ex officio seat in party governance, and the NPP I supported had pledged to support our party in budget votes at a time when we still needed a supermajority and (until that election ended shockingly well) he had no confidence that we would have won, and I stopped planned new work on his campaign once the doomed Democrat entered the race. In other words, that maneuver was done in the service of coming up with a tricky maneuver to help out party when it had failed to put forward a candidate who would do more than just put up a few signs. This, by contrast, was purely in the interest of sabotaging a competitive Democrat for personal gain – fame (in the short term) and money, if the incumbent had won and appointed her to trustee positions.
• [P1] Note that Dan C. justifies his attack on Murdock by noting that he has the DPOC endorsement but not the CDP endorsement, apparently implying that any sanction could come from the DPOC but not the CDP. That, frankly, has been my impression as well with nonpartisan. However, he also was the primary author of a complaint against me today accusing me of having derogated an endorsed candidate in a City Council race (although that was on the grounds that he had and would continue to caucus with Republicans on Council to undermine the Democratic Mayor we had hoped to elect, who was defeated due to similar vote splitting. Clearly, this policy needs to be clarified and applied consistency. (I’d also say “evenhandedly.”)
• • [P1 & passim] I’m not going to address most criticism on errors I made in the press of events during an appeal of the portion of the case that I lost. I was not an experienced state appellate attorney, I was working under immense time pressure (and with inadequate help), and my stroke may indeed have had something to do with it. It bears noting, though, that Lenore – self-proclaimed experienced appellate attorney, able to file for free, made the same exact mistake.
  • [P2] Nope. Lenore was to review the Supreme Court docket for her expulsion status and didn’t.
  • OJ Blog had different ownership and management right years prior.
  • Towards the end of P2, note the disparaging discussion of “the desire to protect Brett Murdock as the sole Democratic candidate” – yes, because he was endorsed. (And the only viable one.)
  • [P3] My error was not filing a “Writ of Supersedeas’ – a term I hadn’t heard for 20 years – in my appellate court challenge. Lenore, again, made the same error, rendering her appeal moot.
  • [P4] Dan C’s correct that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Lenore lost the case against Spitzer and because she wasn’t licensed to practice law the judge filed a Bar complaint!
  • The penultimate paragraph is one example of his promoting Lenore and attacking Murdock.
  • The final paragraph is simply untrue. He heckled. I’ll provide witnesses if the Officers desire.

• [P5] Paragraph 1 is Dan in “Mean Girl” mode. All this nonetheless, he was duly endorsed.

• Par. 2 Brea Matters was/is a Republican scandal sheet that blows up spurious claims vs. Dems.

• Par. 3-5: “Civil lawsuit” was bogus. This was yellow journalism aimed to hurt the endorsee.

• Pars. 6-7 contain his justifications for why it was OK to attack Murdock’s character. Is it OK?

• The information contained in these attacks against endorsed OCDA candidate Murdock almost surely came from Lanore (sic) Albert herself, with the intent that they be used in such attacks. Just as Dan deserves blame for some of Lenore’s actions, Lenore deserves blame for these actions of Dan’s. That’s what happens when on enters into an actual conspiracy. Signed under penalty of perjury under California law this 7^th day of June, 2019, in the city of Brea.Greg Diamond/s/ Greg Diamondgregdiamond@yahoo.com(213) XXX-XXXX

  EXHIBIT A FOLLOWS IN-LINE

 

•  Address, Brea 92821
• DSCC Member, ADEM 55

Exhibit A is my April 11, 2018 Blog Post.