From where I sit, Gil Cabrera and Marty Emerald look like twins. They are politicians careful not to rile the wrong people. But lately I've been feeling that Gil Cabrera is the twin who's hiding more. It's pretty clear what Marty's agenda is. She's a mainstream Democrat, defending the little guy to the extent acceptable to the powers that be. But what's up with Cabrera? What exactly is his agenda?
Why does he just go after small, technical violations of ethics laws, and steer clear of addressing true, deep corruption in our government and legal system?
Judith Hayes believes in free speech for some people, as shown by this ruling from Judge Hayes in the Digital Cornerstone v. Kevin Carmony case:
"...the Defendant had a bona fide noncommercial use for the website, the Court finds the general purpose of the website to be a free speech forum wherein Defendant criticized the management of Plaintiff. ..the Defendant at no time harbored a bad faith intent to profit from a registered mark and that his use of the website undertaken to inform consumers and criticize Plaintiff's management constituted a lawful use of the site."
But Judge Hayes came to a very different conclusion about free speech in a case where there was no attempt to fool people about who owned the website, and no profit was made.
The possible explanations for her behavior in my case are considerably narrowed by her recent ruling in Digital Cornerstone v. Kevin Carmony.
One difference between my case and the Kevin Carmony case is that I'm a school teacher, not a CEO, and I'm representing myself. Judge Hayes apparently sees me as someone whose rights can be easily violated, and no one will notice. Clearly, she sees Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz law firm as a group of people whom no schoolteacher should ever criticize, no matter how much money they charge the public or how many documents that refuse to produce. The firm walked out of its deposition, and the lawyer most involved in my case refused to show up for his deposition. This was fine with Judge Hayes. I wonder if Digital Cornerstone also walked out of its deposition? I'm sure Carmony's lawyer Gil Cabrera wouldn't let the plaintiff and Judge Hayes get away with such shenanigans. I'm trusting that in my case, the Court of Appeal will put a stop to the shenanigans of Stutz law firm and Judge Hayes.
The odd thing is that my case is much clearer and simpler than the Carmony case. My website is a purely public interest website. I never allowed advertisements on it, much less advertisements from competitors of the people I criticized. I never paid a premium ($6000) to get a domain name that was likely to fool people into thinking my site was owned by the very people I was criticizing, as Carmony did. My site has my own name: mauralarkins.com. Judge Hayes and her research attorney Monica Barry should have had no trouble seeing that my case was completely different from Del Junco v. Hufnagel, particularly since they found a difference between Freespire.com and the website in the Del Junco case.
Judge Hayes made the above ruling in the Carmony case just over a month after this ruling slapping me with $3000 in contempt sanctions for not erasing every mention of Stutz law firm from my website. (Hayes' ruling in my case is so brazenly unconstitutional that Michael Robertson look like a free speech advocate compared to this incarnation of Judge Hayes.) Clearly, Hayes knows how to act like a good judge when she knows she's being watched. She can be quite the stickler for the appearance of integrity. For example, it was rather extreme for her to recuse herself just because her bailiff's daughter was on a high school girls sports team. But she refused to recuse herself in my case.
I keep asking myself why Judge Hayes would act as she has in my case, regardless of whether she thought she could get away with it. What was her motivation? Perhaps District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis has a theory about this. She forced Judge Hayes out of the criminal courts even though both Dumanis and Hayes share a conservative philosophy. Dumanis seems to consider Judge Hayes' behavior on the bench to be unpredictable.
Freespire.com apparently exists to criticize Michael Robertson. From the home page of the website: "Freespire.com is dedicated to shedding light on the REAL Michael Robertson. Robertson tried unsuccessfully to shut down this site, as he clearly doesn't want the truth about him known. We've seen Robertson go to great lengths to create a skewed public persona, quite different from the one you will hear about from those who know him..."
I could say these same words about Stutz, Artiano Shinoff & Holtz, the lawyers who are suing me on their own behalf.
But my site isn't limited to criticizing one person or even one group of people. It covers a broad range of education issues.
Here's what Wikipedia says about Michael Robertson: "Michael Robertson (born 1967) is the founder and former CEO of MP3.com, which quickly became one of the most popular Internet music sites. In the years following his departure from MP3.com, Robertson launched several small start-up companies, including Linspire, SIPphone, MP3tunes, and Ajax 13..."
In an interview today with Linux-Watch, controversial Linux leader Kevin Carmony confirmed rumors that he had resigned as CEO of desktop Linux vendor Linspire on July 31. Carmony said he plans to work on several of his own business projects, and on Mitt Romney's presidential campaign.
Carmony said that, after six years at Linspire, it was time to move on. Projects he plans to work on include continuing as Chairman of the Board of Sadie's, a nationwide children's photography studio chain, and serving as CEO of Dating DNA, an online dating service based on social networks. In addition, Carmony will be working more on Mitt Romney's campaign to become the Republican candidate for the U.S. Presidency in 2008.
While he may be leaving Linspire, Carmony said, "I will always be a big supporter of Linspire and desktop Linux." And, "I will always be a desktop Linux user."
Carmony also said that Linspire is stronger than ever. "I can't speak for Linspire now, but I believe the upcoming release of Freespire 2.0 and open CNR (Click N' Run) will be great for Linspire and desktop Linux."
"With the new Freespire coming along, the continued push of Linspire to our OEMs [original equipment manufacturers], and CNR making it easy for other Linux desktop distribution users to install software, Linspire is doing great, and it was time for someone else to take it forward from here," Carmony added.
Carmony also said his resignation, contrary to some rumors, had nothing to do with any disagreement with Linspire's primary owner Michael Robertson, or with fallout from either of Linspire's recent deals with Microsoft, which covered technology licensing and patent indemnification.
Carmony joined Linspire, then known as "Lindows," in June of 2001 to become its president. Later, he became the company's CEO...
On Thursday, April 8, the San Diego Ethics Commission held a televised meeting to hear an appeal by Councilwoman Emerald of the amount of the penalty assessed against her for two errors made during her campaign. There was no argument that the errors occurred. It was simply a question of how much the penalty should have been.
I watched the event (and it most definitely was an event; the city should have sold tickets!), but what I saw was not what appeared in our local print news.
Perhaps this is a perfect occasion to lament the loss of our unbiased print media, but let's leave that for another time. I want to give you my view of what actually happened at the hearing.
I give credit to Commissioner Valdez for handling a very difficult situation. He didn't do it as well as I would have liked, but his hands were somewhat tied.
First, he invited the Ethics Commission attorney to introduce her evidence. She needed to prove that the errors made by the Emerald campaign were so awful that they had to levy the largest fine possible for the infraction. She called both Ms. Emerald and her treasurer to the stand. She then closed her case...
The evidence did show that the treasurer contacted the commission as soon as she realized there could be a problem, that this was an isolated incident and that the Campaign Committee fully cooperated with Ethics Commission staff. (You can find the relevant Municipal Code regarding penalties here, under section 26.0438).
The code does not allow for penalties to be assessed if the commission thinks that there might have been negligence, if they can make innuendo as to the intention to deceive or if the executive director dislikes the candidate -- as she seemed to make an effort to show by her actions at the hearing. There needs to be proof...
The Ethics Commission did not attempt with its witness testimony to put any evidence into the record to prove that this was the most grievous error a campaign could make and therefore deserved the highest possible fine. It was that arrogance, that belief that they needed to make no effort to prove their case, that was the most striking action of the day to me.
So, despite that there had been no evidence given which would have allowed for a penalty, the hearing continued.
Mr. Ottillie was invited to call his witnesses. Immediately, the objections began.
Ms. Fulhorst, the Executive Director of the Ethics Commission had no place objecting -- that was for her attorney to do. And yet, she disrupted any attempt by Mr. Ottillie to put forward his evidence. She objected, sighed loudly into the microphone, tutted and tsked all the way through. Several times, when it appeared the witness might say something she didn't want to come out, she jumped in and actually testified before the witness could. But most of all, she objected to the waste of time it was for Mr. Ottillie to put forward any evidence. It was as if she believed that the outcome of the hearing was a predetermined thing, and the hearing was just a complete waste of her precious time.
I think we can all agree that a lot of the questions asked by Mr. Ottillie seemed somewhat pointless, but he has the right to put forward evidence of his client's innocence and to do so without the constant harassment of the person responsible for the assessment in the first place...
"I have marveled at the silly things people have done in an effort to gain an imaginary advantage over a political opponent...In my experience, the folks who claim the commission staff was heavy handed are the ones who obfuscated and delayed the staff's investigative efforts at every stage necessitating more aggressive actions...Unfortunately, some people under investigation take shots at the commission publicly knowing that we cannot respond because of limits on our ability to comment on ongoing investigations." --Gil Cabrera Looking at 2010: Gil Cabrera's Ethics Scott Lewis Voice of San Diego January 7, 2010 3:20 pm
Gil Cabrera was considered the provocateur on the city of San Diego's Ethics Commission -- the one who pushed hardest, it seemed, in favor of things like lobbyist fundraising disclosure and campaign finance restrictions.
Among other laws, the Ethics Commission enforces the complex rules embodied in the city's Election Campaign Control Ordinance. For instance, candidates for City Council are not allowed to raise money for their campaigns until exactly one year before their Election Day.
The rules, and the fines the commission has exacted enforcing them, have infuriated local politicians (and, worse, their lawyers). The commission's funding, structure and leadership has been attacked.
Cabrera, a lawyer himself, was the commission's chairman and he served in that position quite well, I thought. But -- in a type of civic insult -- the mayor refused to reappoint him.
Now, Cabrera and other members of the commission are named in a lawsuit filed by a former City Council candidate, Phil Thalheimer. He is hoping to overturn many of the city's election laws.
I thought you might be interested in some reflections from Cabrera. I was.
What lessons do you take away from your time on the Ethics Commission?
Running for office is hard and the pressures associated with it and governing can lead to mistakes in judgment. I have marveled at the silly things people have done in an effort to gain an imaginary advantage over a political opponent. On a broader level, I have seen the inefficiency and disorganization within the city bureaucracy first hand. It seems things are often, if not usually, done with little pre-planning, that the departments are not usually pulling their oars at the same time and direction and that the private sector usually out negotiates the city...
