WEATHER »
Attorney James Segall-Gutierrez speaks to media in the police department lobby

Paul Wellman

Attorney James Segall-Gutierrez speaks to media in the police department lobby


Operation Falling Dawn Defendants File Slander Claim Against City, Police

Six Individuals Are Each Seeking Over $1 Million


Friday, January 17, 2014
Article Tools
Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
iPod friendly
Comments
Share Article

Ten days before Judge Colleen Sterne will decide whether or not to approve a preliminary gang injunction for the City of Santa Barbara, Los Angeles attorney James Segall-Gutierrez filed a claim for damages Friday against Santa Barbara and its police department. Gutierrez represents six people whose mug shots were displayed when the SBPD announced an ongoing gang suppression effort — dubbed “Operation Falling Dawn” — at press conference on November 20.

At that gathering, Police Chief Cam Sanchez and police spokesperson Sgt. Riley Harwood told reporters that 68 people had been arrested or cited, or their cases referred to the District Attorney’s Office, as a result of the year-and-a-half-long, multi-agency crackdown. The busts resulted in the confiscation of $72,000 in drug sale proceeds, several firearms, and moderate amounts of of meth, cocaine, and marijuana.

The mugshots displayed above a table of evidence, Sanchez and Harwood said, belonged to people who were either full-fledged gang members, associates, or drug customers. And the operation, they went on, was in response to an increase in severe crime and evidence that Santa Barbara gangs are now more involved with the Mexican Mafia. Chief Sanchez said his public announcement was not connected to the city’s proposed gang injunction, which has been tied up in court since 2011. Of the 68 arrestees, six were juveniles (not pictured on the wall), 18 were women, and four are named in the injunction. At the time, none of the arrests had resulted in convictions because many were in the process of going through the court system.

Chief Cam Sanchez explains how both perpetrators and victims tend to be gang members or associates (Nov 20, 2013)
Click to enlarge photo

Paul Wellman

Chief Cam Sanchez explains how both perpetrators and victims tend to be gang members or associates (Nov 20, 2013)

Now, two months later, Gutierrez’s two-page claim — the precursor to a lawsuit — argues Marci Estrada, Joseph Castaneda, Adriana Guerrero, Jessica Perez, Sergio Sanchez, and David Castro were “falsely and negligently” identified as active gang members during Operation Falling Dawn. The claim — which includes allegations of slander per se, negligence, libel per se, intentional inflectional of emotional distress, invasion of privacy, and false light — seeks “in excess of $1 million” per client. Gutierrez explained the claim also gives city officials the opportunity to publicly apologize for Operation Falling Dawn and drop the gang injunction. If they reject the claim, Gutierrez says he has six months to file a complaint.

Suing public servants (like police officers) for slander is rare and somewhat unprecedented. Government officials have immunity to civil liability as long they are pursuing their duties. The question, therefore, could become if holding the press conference and publicly displaying the 68 names and photographs was within the scope of their duties.

On Friday, Gutierrez told reporters that none of his clients are active gang members, and that they had only been cited with infractions or misdemeanors. He said the fact that Sanchez named gang affiliates and family members was unacceptable. “You’re either pregnant or you’re not,” he said of whether a person is a gang member or isn’t. Gutierrez said his clients are young people — mostly in their 20s and all Chicanos — who are part of Santa Barbara’s working class. “These are people who are being affected in a very real way in terms of jobs and relationships,” Gutierrez said. Two of the claimants attended Friday’s press conference.

Claimant Marci Estrada, who has a 16-year-old daughter and a 15-month-old granddaughter, was arrested at the Milpas Street residence where she rents a room. She said she rushed home one day after receiving a call that police officers were raiding the house. When she got there, she said one of the officers was holding a bag of marijuana that he said he found in her bedroom. She was cited with an infraction and is in the process of fighting the ticket in traffic court. She said she does not have a criminal record.

Esterada said that ever since she realized she was named in Operation Falling Dawn — its announcement was publicized in a number of media outlets, including The Santa Barbara Independent — she’s been fearful, has experienced a lot of “unneeded stress,” and is worried her employer will find out she was among the 68 listed names. Her photo was not publicized.

Another client, Adriana Guerrero, who is 27 years old and eight months pregnant, said she found out she was named in Operation Falling Dawn via Facebook. “People are already talking about this,” Guerrero said. “They don’t even know me or my story.” Guerrero said she was driving her two daughters — now 2 and 9 years old — to the dentist one day in November 2012 when an unmarked police car followed her from her parents’ house near Elings Park to a street near Santa Barbara High School.

The detective, she said, detained her and called her mother to pick up her two little kids. She said she was taken to the police department where she was interrogated about her husband, 25-year-old Luis Jaimes. Guerrero said Jaimes is not in a gang and is being punished for associating with people he grew up with. “[The gang injunction] is going to affect a lot of people in a negative way. It is setting people up for failure,” Guerrero said. Guerrero is charged with three felony counts of accessory in aiding, harboring, and concealing her husband with the intent that he might avoid and escape arrest. Jaimes has a pending robbery case with a gang enhancement.

PODER (People Organizing for the Defense of Equal Rights) representatives and other community advocates joined Gutierrez on Friday as he walked into the police department to present the claim. Gutierrez had intended to file the claim at City Hall, but it is closed on furlough every other Friday. Gutierrez said he plans to follow up with city officials next week.

PODER representative Marissa Garcia, whose husband is named in the proposed gang injunction, spoke against legal filing. Several people vehemently criticized the order at the last City Council meeting, arguing it facilitates racial profiling and lacks transparency. Republican Liberty Caucus secretary Brandon Morse called for an accurate breakdown of which crimes the 68 people each committed.

“Cam Sanchez can’t even get the gang injunction in its own merit. In his eagerness, he has trampled all over these people’s rights, and that is unacceptable,” Gutierrez said. “He has to fabricate and sensationalize the stats so he could get public support for the gang injunction. That is unacceptable.” Gutierrez added the proposed gang injunction is a violation of the Fourth Amendment — which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures — and freedom of assembly.

“Gangs are an American phenomenon. Each minority who comes to this country has been marginalized by the dominate culture,” Gutierrez said. “It’s created mutual aid societies. That’s what gangs are, they create sub-economies. It’s unfortunate. My hope is that we will move beyond that and incorporate Mexicans who were here before this was America.”

Last Friday, Gutierrez filed a $10 million wrongful death claim against the city and the police department on behalf of 18-year-old Brittany Tacadena whose father, Brian Tacadena, was shot and killed by a police officer last Labor Day weekend.

Gutierrez said he plans to file more claims in relation to Operation Falling Dawn as he anticipates more people will come forward.

Related Links

Comments

Independent Discussion Guidelines

Appreciated getting the police response to this nonsense suit that explained easily why each person shows up on this list.

Look alike Saul Alinksy is buying up a lot of empty real estate in this town. Even more of a joke was seeing the Planned Parenthood self-congratulatory abortion ad listing the "Hon. Daraka Larrimore- Hall".

This is an honorific title reserved for elected positions. Huh, what is with these people, these unelected PODER, community organizing mobs controlling the public debate with fear and intimidation.

Probably too late to turn the clock back once enough people know mobs equal power in this town and in this state. But they are taking their cues from the community organizing play books - overwhelm and obstruct the functioning of the city until you get your way. Then what?

foofighter (anonymous profile)
January 17, 2014 at 6:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

How dare these people organize and petition their government for redress?

Herschel_Greenspan (anonymous profile)
January 17, 2014 at 6:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Petition is an orderly process. Stomping, cheering, intimidating and shouting down the opposition is just the opposite. It is a mob, and a mob of thugs in action. I thought you of all people would know the difference.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
January 17, 2014 at 7:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

First Amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petitition the Government for a redress of grievances.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
January 17, 2014 at 7:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Appreciated getting the police response to this nonsense suit that explained easily why each person shows up on this list. "

The first one police claimed to have found a bag of marijuana in her room.

I hope she gets $2 million.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
January 17, 2014 at 7:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The old saying goes, "The best defense is a good offense." Darryl Genis has been doing this for years. I hate to agree with Foo Fighter, in fact I won't. However, these people got themselves into trouble by participating in criminal activities and/or associating with criminals. There was a time in my life when I could have been so associated and I would have deserved to be arrested and publically shamed for such associations. Lucky for me that I wised up before I got introduced to the justice system. Instead of getting a lawyer to go on offense for them, these folks need to wise up and get their respective and collective acts together, cooperate with the police and the DA, and, as my WWII pilot dad always used to say, "straighten up and fly right."

Eckermann (anonymous profile)
January 17, 2014 at 7:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

This city thinks tasing me in the back of my head for national television was part of their duties....

On a lighter side of the news...
A local councilmen was see picking up Ann Coulter's latest conservative page turner. Looks like he's ready to read through another protest!

Have a electric spine tingling day Santa Barbara!
I know i will...

touristunfriendly (anonymous profile)
January 17, 2014 at 7:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Is the anagram for PODER prophetic or what? "Doper." If the shoe fits.

whatsinsb (anonymous profile)
January 17, 2014 at 9:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The first person to benefit being named in a gang injunction is the gang member himself. or herself. I'll agree with you: straighten up and fly right. The reward of living a good life, is the good life itself. Not a criminal life.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
January 17, 2014 at 10:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Does this attorney only represent dirt bags?

Validated (anonymous profile)
January 17, 2014 at 10:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

This attorney qualifies to be on the staff of Obama's DOJ civil rights division. Strikes me as a community organizer, in this case looking for clients with issues that a city, such as ours, will find it less costly to settle than proceed through a civil trial. A true ambulance chaser. I'm sure we will all agree even a "dirt bag" is entitled to representation. I surely hope the PD did their homework and double-checked the "suspects" they identified on their board. Given the apparent lack of leadership at the department I won't hold my breath waiting for positive results. A review of the PD presentation must have proceeded straight up the chain of command from detective to chief before it was presented. (If) people were improperly posted on their gang board how did these persons get by reportedly knowledgeable, competent & experienced police personnel? In the end, the city will likely fold, pay taxpayer dollars to some of these clowns and the attorney will load his share into his "ambulance" and drive to the next city with an issue.

whatsinsb (anonymous profile)
January 18, 2014 at 7:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I wish Darryl would run for city council.
At least we know he'd stand up to the Chief and the Administrator!
This council acts like they've had a gag in their mouth since birth....
but that's the way the beanie baby crowd like their politicians.
I like to call it "capitalism".

touristunfriendly (anonymous profile)
January 18, 2014 at 9:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I'd like to see a junk yard dog for city attorney as well. Someone who can stare down the ACLU and take this city back for the residents, who pay to support it.

Guess what, "capitalism" supports the massive PERS and CalSTRS public employee pension promises. Chew on that contradiction for a while.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
January 18, 2014 at 9:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)

This is what your gang injunction will look like in the future- neverending litigation by people who are falsely accused. Winners=Justice system, law enforcement Losers=The people of Santa Barbara.

AZ2SB (anonymous profile)
January 18, 2014 at 12:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

They dont mention that she has 2 sons also that are facing attempted murder charges in SB... 18 and 19 year old boys

my3cents (anonymous profile)
January 18, 2014 at 5:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Which "she?"

whatsinsb (anonymous profile)
January 18, 2014 at 5:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Estrada......kids last name is Ybarra.. A seven-week investigation has led to the arrest of two alleged Santa Barbara gang members who allegedly attacked a man with a hammer in a local park in what authorities are calling a hate crime.

David Roberto Ybarra, 19, is facing charges of attempted murder, attempted robbery, participation in a criminal street gang, and commission of a hate crime in connection with the June 22 attack, said Sgt. Riley Harwood

my3cents (anonymous profile)
January 18, 2014 at 6:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Gang injunctions have been very successful in Oxnard and in LA and elsewhere and have been upheld by the courts. If the six are gang members they may go to jail for perjury. If they are not gang members, the police can probably demonstrate that they associate with gang members, act like gang members, and therefore libeled nobody. They always show up with their lawyers, and always lose. The measured result of the gang injunctions is a clear reduction in violent crime. That can't be argued with. At least, not logically and knowledgably.

PD12345 (anonymous profile)
January 18, 2014 at 10:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

PD12345, you are making to much sense the posters on here aren't that bright or educated they hide behind their keyboards making idiotic claims that even they can't support…

Touristunfriendly, can you tell me when the SB City Council became "Capitalists"??? Just guessing by the amount of taxpayers money spent on "Liberal" BS programs and the never ending "Homeless" city sponsored camps. It's these bleeding heart liberals who control "Growth", "Taxes", "Policing" and your money. These idiots have never heard the old saying, "Build it and they will come" before...

To Foofighter, you said, "Guess what, "capitalism" supports the massive PERS and CalSTRS public employee pension promises. Chew on that contradiction for a while."

Even though, "Capitalism is an economic system in which trade, industry and the means of production are controlled by PRIVATE OWNERS with the goal of making profits in a market economy."

Foo, can you explain how "Private Owners" support "Public employee's"?

God (I think I can still say that word) I've got a headache……….

Priceless (anonymous profile)
January 19, 2014 at 8:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)

This is why I never hire Hispanics....
save yourself a lot of grief.

zuma7 (anonymous profile)
January 19, 2014 at 9:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)

CalPERS and CalSTRS are heavily invested in the stock market as two of the largest sovereign wealth funds in the world.

They depend on "greedy corporations" to make them money in order to fulfill pension promises extracted by the powerful public employee unions, who have hijacked the election process with their wealth, power and member discipline.

The massive public pensions funds projected a sustained 7-8% return rate in order to support their promised payouts to their public pension beneficiaries. They counted on "capitalism" to deliver the goods for their members.

Therefore, I have included the stock market into the broader definition of "capitalism" and thus its unholy alliance with the public employee union schizophrenic attitude about this fundamental economic engine. You may quibble about that definition of "capitalism", if you like.

However, one finds it is odd the public employee unions so strongly backed the Occupy anti-Wall Street, anti-corporation movement since that is biting the hand that will be later feeding them.

But during the Occupy days the public unions were far more interested diverting attention away from their own plush and disproportionate public salaries and benefits, and instead tried to put the onus on "greedy corporations" and private industry CEO "income inequality" so they could retain their own poor victim status and not be exposed as the real fat cats they had become in the past few decades.

The spot light however needs to remain on the public employee unions with their over-reaching and politically savvy hands stuck deeply inside the public trough.

Best way to reform the real economic inequities: (1) convert all future public pensions to defined-contribution plans; and (2) phase out all present defined-benefit plans.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
January 19, 2014 at 9:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Eckermann wrote:
"…these people got themselves into trouble by participating in criminal activities and/or associating with criminals."

Is there a legally usable definition of "associating with criminals."

Let's imagine a person who is a member of a gang but has never committed a crime goes out some night, robs a convenience store, and is later convicted; upon conviction, does his wife then become an associate of a criminal, at which time it's constitutionally defensible to invade her privacy, slander and libel her, and intentionally inflict emotional distress?

If not, what then could make that person's wife, or parent, or child, or friend, none of whom has ever committed a crime, an associate of a criminal, and what penalties should the justice system mete out to them?

The crimes come home, become tyranny, and ooze down from the top.

Have most people even noticed that the USA federal government does not even pretend to be acting legally anymore when it uses a flying killer robot to murder a brown person (and anyone else within 100 yards) on the other side of the planet?

Formerly it claimed it was killing a "militant"; now it typically claims a "suspected militant"; i.e. a male standing outside a mud hut 7000 miles away who happens to be carrying a rifle, as most males do in that part of the world.

This article is about the local version of such racism and breakdown of the rule of law.

JohnTieber (anonymous profile)
January 19, 2014 at 10:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Here is the deal. Gangs are a plague. You do what you do when there is any deadly infectious agent in your community. You isolate them as long as they show symptoms of the disease.

You isolate those with infectious medical maladies and that too also affects everyone who used to associate with that person.

Gang members need to be isolated from the rest of society. Their call whether they want to continue acting out this deadly sickness or not. They are luckier because their disease is a disease of choice; not like other infectious agents which strike at will.

Gang members are a disease and this will help you understand the consequences of those so afflicted by this disease. Isolate and quarantine them to prevent the spread of their pathological conduct.

Gang members are not victims of anything other than their own choices. If they or their family members don't want to suffer the consequences of their pathological conduct, they alone can make choices to get out of the gang. Otherwise, they are choosing to inflict these consequences on those around them.

Not everyone is a victim in life. Some people are co-conspirators in what happens to them and those around them. Their call. Get out and get on with their life. Or create a deadly downward spiral for everyone around them.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
January 19, 2014 at 12:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Are all those who cozied up to Ty Warner and/or Joe Armendariz also guilty of "associating with criminals" and subject to injunctification?

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
January 19, 2014 at 1:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Taking out a "suspected militant" half-way across the world works for me! What are Americans or any other innocent person(s) identified as when a "suspected militant" straps a bomb to their ass and kills themselves along with many innocent civilians. We are "infidels." That is all these "suspected militant" animals need to know to justify killing us. This wimpy lying president will get many people killed before he's done if he doesn't get his head out of his rear end.

whatsinsb (anonymous profile)
January 19, 2014 at 1:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

foofighter wrote:
"…and that too also affects everyone who used to associate with that person…"

"Everyone who used to associate with that person" is so vague it's meaningless, and so broad that it's preposterous.

But let's go on to:

"Gangs…Gang members…Gang members…Gang members…"

I'm certainly no fan of criminal street gangs, which I assume is what you mean, rather than simply any group that playfully considers itself a "gang."

Ex-governor Jesse Ventura considers the Democratic and Republican parties to be gangs, as they operate in the same manner as criminal street gangs, and he suggests these gangs are even more devastating to society, as they affect much larger numbers of innocent people.

He states:

"The Crips and the Bloods, the street gangs, while they can be devastating to a certain small part of the population, the Democrats and the Republicans affect everybody in this country…"

Jesse Ventura: Politicians Are like Criminal Gang Members
[04:59] VIDEO: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63bx_...

Certainly no one would deny that many tens of thousands of members of both the Democratic and Republican parties have been convicted of crimes, and thus are criminals. Is the percentage of criminals of these gangs sufficient to consider the gangs themselves criminal?

Assuming you agree with me that it is not, and further assuming then that society shouldn't practice pre-crime against all those who consider themselves members of what I refer to as the blue gang (Democratic Party) and the red gang (Republican Party), then:

• How is the determination made, and who determines it, that a gang is a criminal street gang?

• How is the determination made, and who makes it, that someone is a member of that criminal street gang?

• Is someone who considers him or herself a member breaking any laws by doing so?

• If not, should it be illegal to simply be a member? If so, why? And how would such a law be administered and enforced?

JohnTieber (anonymous profile)
January 19, 2014 at 2:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Gangs carry knives and directly kill or grievously wound people as a sanctioned and required gang activity. Physical violence inflicted upon other human beings, without their consent.

Cute ploy to play games with the definitions, but if you stick with this proffered definition and your confusions will cease. That way you won't get gangs mixed up with your local manicurists or the Von's butcher.

Cosmetic surgeons do operate only after obtaining consent to cut, wound, maim and even possible kill their patients. But gangs never think to get signed waivers before they practice their trade. If they can get these consent agreements from their victims, you can start talking about a whole new transaction.

Be sure you don't drop those consenting victims on the Cottage door step though. Clean up your own messes on your own dime; not ours.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
January 19, 2014 at 5:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

He or she doesn't indicate, but assuming "Cute ploy to play games with the definitions..." refers to my comment at January 19, 2014 at 2:40 p.m.:

I'm confident most readers would have no problem following the structure and logic of my comment, but for any who cannot: simply ignore everything except:

• How is the determination made, and who determines it, that a gang is a criminal street gang?

• How is the determination made, and who makes it, that someone is a member of that criminal street gang?

• Is someone who considers him or herself a member breaking any laws by doing so?

• If not, should it be illegal to simply be a member? If so, why? And how would such a law be administered and enforced?

JohnTieber (anonymous profile)
January 19, 2014 at 5:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Gosh Tieber, you seem to be nit picking where it is unnecessary. Police agencies have been fighting criminal gangs for nearly 100 years. Gang members often self-identify (out of pride). Some even wear distinctive clothing and tattoos just to make sure that everybody knows to which gang they belong. Yes, the police have to be careful with ethnic profiling (all Italians are not in the Mafia, all Irish-Americans are not members of the Boston gangs, all African-Americans are not in the Crips and Bloods, and all Hispanics are not members of gangs in the Southwestern U.S.). But skillful detective work has had a good track record of sorting out the good guys from the bad guys. Finally, yes, if you are member of an organization that exists to commit crimes, it should be illegal for you to be a member of that organization. Just as, if your husband robs a liquor store and returns home and gives you some of the money to buy groceries, you have committed a crime. It is really not all that nuanced.

Eckermann (anonymous profile)
January 19, 2014 at 6:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Eckerman wrote:
"Finally, yes, if you are member of an organization that exists to commit crimes, it should be illegal for you to be a member of that organization. "

• Who, then, makes the determination that the organization "exists to commit crimes," and how is it determined?

• How would such a law be administered and enforced?

• What would the penalties be?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

These are very simple questions.

JohnTieber (anonymous profile)
January 19, 2014 at 8:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Regarding:

"Just as, if your husband robs a liquor store and returns home and gives you some of the money to buy groceries, you have committed a crime. It is really not all that nuanced."

I agree that the example above is really not all that nuanced, but if it's supposed to be equivalent to....

"Let's imagine a person who is a member of a gang but has never committed a crime goes out some night, robs a convenience store, and is later convicted; upon conviction, does his wife then become an associate of a criminal, at which time it's constitutionally defensible to invade her privacy, slander and libel her, and intentionally inflict emotional distress?"

...at January 19, 2014 at 10:45 a.m., it falls far short.

JohnTieber (anonymous profile)
January 19, 2014 at 8:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Being a member of a gang is the first offense, with later acts leading to inclusion on the gang injunction list.

Yes, anyone who associates with known gang members under this injunction are now put on notice. That is the point. Then, the two of them can discuss what the next moves will be.

The gang members always has the option to forswear gang activities. If he cares about those around him; he will. If not; then they all go down together. It is a choice made by consenting adults. No free passes.

There are no innocent parties when there are associations with known gang members who fall under the gang injunction. Your example doesn't make any sense.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
January 19, 2014 at 8:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Tieber, I believe you asking rhetorical questions. The Hells Angels is a motorcycle riding club and have always claimed to be just that that. However, as a group they have been involved in the transportation and sales of illegal drugs, assault, murder, rape, and extortion. It has been determined by not only law enforcement officials but by anybody with any common sense that the Hells Angels is a criminal gang. One of the laws against being a member of a criminal gang and participating in its activities is called the Racketeer-Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). It is administered and enforced all the time. Finally, the penalties involve prison. My example of a domestic partner being complicit in gang activity by gang activity of his or her partner does not fall short. It is a real example that happens all the time. Criminal complicity is often just going along to get along, but it is still an ethical decision for which there should be social consequences.

Eckermann (anonymous profile)
January 19, 2014 at 9:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Eckermann wrote:
"Tieber, I believe you asking rhetorical questions."

You are incorrect; all five of my questions have been the exact opposite of rhetorical.

Going back to the beginning: You wrote, at January 17, 2014 at 7:31 p.m.:

"However, these people got themselves into trouble by participating in criminal activities and/or associating with criminals."

I responded, at January 19, 2014 at 10:45 a.m. :

"Is there a legally usable definition of "associating with criminals"?

"Let's imagine a person who is a member of a gang but has never committed a crime goes out some night, robs a convenience store, and is later convicted; upon conviction, does his wife then become an associate of a criminal, at which time it's constitutionally defensible to invade her privacy, slander and libel her, and intentionally inflict emotional distress?

"If not, what then could make that person's wife, or parent, or child, or friend, none of whom has ever committed a crime, an associate of a criminal, and what penalties should the justice system mete out to them?…"

At January 19, 2014 at 5:39 p.m., responding to foofighter, I wrote:

"• How is the determination made, and who determines it, that a gang is a criminal street gang?

"• How is the determination made, and who makes it, that someone is a member of that criminal street gang?

"• Is someone who considers him or herself a member breaking any laws by doing so?

"• If not, should it be illegal to simply be a member? If so, why? And how would such a law be administered and enforced?"

You responded: "Gosh Tieber, you seem to be nit picking where it is unnecessary…Finally, yes, if you are member of an organization that exists to commit crimes, it should be illegal for you to be a member of that organization."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Regarding: "It has been determined by not only law enforcement officials but by anybody with any common sense that the Hells Angels is a criminal gang." — the common sense reference of course is irrelevant, and it's not clear to me whether by "determined" you are referring to a legal determination, but if you are, it still doesn't answer (though, of course, you're not obligated to) how this relates to what's happening locally; I've followed the injunction issue, though not extremely closely, and I don't recall reading anything regarding starting with a legal determination that certain local gangs are criminal, and how that then allows the authorities to conduct pre-crime measures.

You seem (at least to me), to be going in circles to the effect that "gangs are bad, and there oughta be a law." The first clause I clearly indicated I agree with; regarding the second, my questions are succinct and specific, not rhetorical, and regard how that could be practical as well as constitutional.

[THIS COMMENT CONCLUDED IN MY NEXT COMMENT]

JohnTieber (anonymous profile)
January 19, 2014 at 10:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

[CONCLUSION OF PREVIOUS COMMENT]

Of course you are under no obligation to respond to my succinct non-rhetorical questions, but if you want to, here's a summation:

At January 17, 2014 at 7:31 p.m., you wrote:

"However, these people got themselves into trouble by participating in criminal activities and/or associating with criminals."

My question in response was:

"Is there a legally usable definition of "associating with criminals"?

"Let's imagine a person who is a member of a gang but has never committed a crime goes out some night, robs a convenience store, and is later convicted; upon conviction, does his wife then become an associate of a criminal, at which time it's constitutionally defensible to invade her privacy, slander and libel her, and intentionally inflict emotional distress?"

Regarding my other questions, in response to foofighter…

(1) How is the determination made, and who determines it, that a gang is a criminal street gang?

(2) How is the determination made, and who makes it, that someone is a member of that criminal street gang?

(3) Is someone who considers him or herself a member breaking any laws by doing so?

(4) If not, should it be illegal to simply be a member? If so, why? And how would such a law be administered and enforced?"

…you responded "Finally, yes, if you are member of an organization that exists to commit crimes, it should be illegal for you to be a member of that organization."

…but not to my questions as to how that could actually work:

• Who, then, makes the determination that the organization "exists to commit crimes," and how is it determined?

• How would such a law be administered and enforced?

• What would the penalties be?

JohnTieber (anonymous profile)
January 19, 2014 at 10:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

JT: these questions have already been asked and answered by the city attorney's office. Contact them for your follow up as the best primary resource. But I think you already knew that.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
January 20, 2014 at 10:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)

foofighter:

Setting aside...

(1) your baseless and erroneous conjecture ("you already knew that"), and

(2) what compels you to think that referring a question outside of this forum is appropriate or necessary

... I'm 100% certain that this question (and perhaps the other four as well), in response to Eckermann's "However, these people got themselves into trouble by participating in criminal activities and/or associating with criminals, " has not been "asked and answered by the city attorney's office":

"Is there a legally usable definition of "associating with criminals"?

"Let's imagine a person who is a member of a gang but has never committed a crime goes out some night, robs a convenience store, and is later convicted; upon conviction, does his wife then become an associate of a criminal, at which time it's constitutionally defensible to invade her privacy, slander and libel her, and intentionally inflict emotional distress?

"If not, what then could make that person's wife, or parent, or child, or friend, none of whom has ever committed a crime, an associate of a criminal, and what penalties should the justice system mete out to them?"

JohnTieber (anonymous profile)
January 20, 2014 at 12:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

At the time this operation was reported, apparently none of those identified had bee convicted. Therefore, they were still not found to be guilty. How many of the 68 have completed their trials or pleaded guilty? Have any of the six individuals who have filed claims had charges dropped?

I hate to disagree with so many commenters but I still believe people are not guilty until proven so beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury of their peers.

buckwheat (anonymous profile)
January 20, 2014 at 12:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The question remains: why would the gang member inflict this situation on his family members. You have everything backwards, JT.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
January 20, 2014 at 1:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Gang injunctions exist in a constitutionally sanctioned intermediate place - between presumption of innocence and conviction. They work and they hold up in court.

Your thinking is still too narrow at this point. It is not either/or; it is *and*. Gang injunctions are valid public safety tools. The person who benefits most from a gang injunction, is the gang member himself.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
January 20, 2014 at 1:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

foofighter wrote:
"The person who benefits most from a gang injunction, is the gang member himself."

I've clearly indicated that I'm not primarily concerned with criminal admitted members (i.e. those who have committed crimes) of criminal gangs, whatever that means (i.e. how is it determined that a gang is criminal, and who does the determining?).

Rather:

(1) Those who the authorities claim are gang members (i.e. how is that determined?)

(2) family members of those the authorities claim are gang members, who have committed no crimes

(3) friends and other "associates" (i.e. how is "associate" defined) of gang members

JohnTieber (anonymous profile)
January 20, 2014 at 1:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Mr. Tieber, do you realize you're argueing with a political operative?

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
January 20, 2014 at 2:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ken:

If you are referring to someone in a professional position, no, I did not, and didn't suspect it, due in part to the baseless and erroneous conjecture directed to me at January 20, 2014 at 10:40 a.m.

But obviously this is going nowhere, as comments obviously directed to my clearly stated question from my very first comment here, that I've repeated several times since, simply talk around it while claiming to answer it, so my comment prior to this one was intended as my final comment here anyhow.

JohnTieber (anonymous profile)
January 20, 2014 at 2:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Why is it that so many of you aren't as intelligent as Mr. Tieber?

buckwheat (anonymous profile)
January 20, 2014 at 3:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

JT: you don''t ask The Car Guys for a recipe for lemon meringue pie either.

Ask the City Attorney if you really want answers to your questions about the gang injunction specific to this town. Anything less will not serve you well. If you keep refusing to go to the city, and are more interested in a hypothetical discussion perhaps an ACLU-type forum is the better choice for you.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
January 20, 2014 at 4:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

So wait, we put some gang members in jail, and then what? Next year we have a whole new crop. Why? Because of the war on drugs. There is a never-ending supply of gang members, it is never going to go away until you get to the root of the cause.. which is obviously the war on drugs.

Mr. Tieber brings up many excellent points which continue to go unanswered.

I used to hang out with a gang member many years ago, he was my next door neighbor. One of the most respectful people I've ever met. We smoked weed together often. I guess I should be on the injunction too since I committed a non-violent crime with a known gang member. Of course I'll never get on the injunction because I'm white.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
January 20, 2014 at 5:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"This is why I never hire Hispanics....
save yourself a lot of grief."

- zuma7

zuma, as much as I respect your first amendment right to be a racist ashole, and as a true defender of freedom I even respect your right to make the decision not to hire hispanics, did you know that you are in fact committing a federal crime here?

Your entire family and all of your business associates have now been placed on the gang injunction.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
January 20, 2014 at 5:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Bravo Loonpoint

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
January 20, 2014 at 6:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

zuma is a savvy business man. Interesting book by a Somali-born, Swedish raised chef who would not hire black men for his chic NYC restaurant Red Rooster. Read his book "Yes Chef" and learn why.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
January 20, 2014 at 7:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You really have no control over how repulsive you are do you Foo? That chef desreves to go under as does Zuma, anybody who'
d make a blanket statement about hiring people based on race is NOT a good businessman. Good business people select the best they can, regardless of race, gender or sexual orientation. Bad business men kill their business by selecting employees strictly on surface appearances such as race.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
January 20, 2014 at 8:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

We are talking a very high-profile author who made that prejudicial hiring statement. Obama picked that very same Somali/Swedish chef, Marcus Samuelsson, to provide his first state dinner in the Obama White House for the Prime Minister of India, and his NYC restaurant is the site of many high rolling Obama fund-raisers.

Read the book "Yes, Chef" KV - his hiring choice; not mine. I found it surprising too. Trash him, not me for reporting a similar experience that zuma also found in the business world. Agree, it is shocking. Which is why it is interesting to delve into the reasons why.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
January 20, 2014 at 8:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If you study your words you seem to approve of such philosophies, taken in conjunction with your racist slang in past comments dosn't paint a pretty picture.
I'm sorry I'm not impressed by high profile anything, I'm impressed with high quality people, the majority of whom are unknown.
Nor do I read ghost written pulp.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
January 20, 2014 at 8:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You mean you did not read "Dreams From My Father" by Bill Ayers?

foofighter (anonymous profile)
January 20, 2014 at 10:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm sorry I'm not impressed by high profile anything, I'm impressed with high quality people, the majority of whom are unknown.
Nor do I read ghost written pulp.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
January 20, 2014 at 8:38 p.m

I too want the quality things.

"Why is it that so many of you aren't as intelligent as Mr. Tieber?"

buckwheat (anonymous profile)
January 20, 2014 at 3:24 p.m.

Because some of us aren't intelligent by any standards, but we make up for our lack of intelligence by trying hard.

I was born with an I.Q. of 54, well below the limit of "special needs". By the time I'd reached 4th grade, my !I.Q. was only 66, and I heard all the slurs, insults, and defametory comments one could hear. ("Tard" "Tardelicious" and so forth) But in 5th grade I hooked up with a teacher named Mr. Quackenbush, who taught me to believe in myself.

At that time, I had a 20-word vocabulary among which were the words "Reagan" "Mondale" and "playpen". By the end of 5th grade I could do basic math. Quackenbush, along with Mrs. Duckworth, worked with me and by ninth grade I could perform integral calculus, was reading Cicero, Bertrand Russel, theophosical missives by Madame Blavatsky, dissertations on theology in Aramaic, Greek, Hebrew, and Sanskrit, as well as designing computer startup programs for MIT--and all this by the time I was 17. Amazingly, my I.Q. has never been tested at more than 68.

The message here is that it isn't how intelligent you are, but rather what you do with your abilities.

dolphinpod14 (anonymous profile)
January 20, 2014 at 10:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)


"You mean you did not read "Dreams From My Father" by Bill Ayers?"

foofighter (anonymous profile)
January 20, 2014 at 10:29 p.m.

No you silly goose, I meant "Dance with my Father" by Luther Vandross.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_mzw...

dolphinpod14 (anonymous profile)
January 20, 2014 at 10:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

There is a theory that people who gay-bash are repressed or "latent" homosexuals and using this theory I conclude that the racist Zuma is a repressed Hispanic (don't panic, you're Hispanic) and equally racist Foo is black. Embrace your Negritude Foo. it's ok to come over to the dark side--literally.

dolphinpod14 (anonymous profile)
January 20, 2014 at 11:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Buckwheat hit the nail on the thumb by reminding us that the trophy photos at the news conference were of persons arrested but not yet convicted of their alleged crimes. Foo's response about gang injunctions occupying a gray zone between presumption of innocence and conviction may have its merits, but the City may have gotten carried away with itself this time. But I have zero expertise on the gray zone (?) between routine reporting of arrests and press conferences. Anyone care to shed light on this legal point?

Adonis_Tate (anonymous profile)
January 21, 2014 at 3:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)

@foofighter: "Interesting book by a Somali-born, Swedish raised chef who would not hire black men for his chic NYC restaurant Red Rooster."

Yes, Samuelsson decided it would be wise discriminate against black men in his high profile, Harlem restaurant.

As you usual, you are simply making things up.

EatTheRich (anonymous profile)
January 21, 2014 at 3:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)

no waste time on trollfoo, KV, he doesn't read and only pastes-in...

DrDan (anonymous profile)
January 21, 2014 at 6:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I read the book by Samuelsson about a year go. It's very interesting, especially in the first half, wherein the author describes his early upbringing in Sweden and his preparation as a classically trained chef in European kitchens. I recall nothing about his "refusal" to hire black men to work in his NY restaurants.
In fact, he made a conscious choice to locate his flagship restaurant in Harlem and to reach out to young people in the area to train in high-end restaurant careers.

zappa (anonymous profile)
January 21, 2014 at 6:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)

P.S. He's Ethiopian-born, not Somali.

zappa (anonymous profile)
January 21, 2014 at 7:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Adonis - "But I have zero expertise on the gray zone (?) between routine reporting of arrests and press conferences. Anyone care to shed light on this legal point?"

I'm no legal expert but I believe arrests by police and photos of those arrested can be distributed to the general public without any problems. I suspect a problem arises if police report a person being arrested, convicted of a crime or a member of a gang if neither are true.

It will be interesting to learn how much of a negative impact being identified as an "associate" of a "gang member" will have on the "associate." There are many variables that could come into play. We will just have to wait and see what the "ambulance chaser" identifies in his filing(s) regarding the (negative) impact on a person incorrectly identified as an "associate."

What value could or should be attached to a person incorrectly identified by police of being an "associate" of known gang members?

whatsinsb (anonymous profile)
January 21, 2014 at 8:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Absolutely right, zappa. My brain glitch: Ethiopian; not Somali.

His insights being raised in Sweden are equally interesting, because he left that "socialist" society with a very keen work ethic.

That keen, inbred work ethic also explains why Sweden's fundamental economic system works there, but does not necessarily translate elsewhere with the same success, when those same work ethic values are not mutually shared elsewhere.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
January 21, 2014 at 9:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Samuelsson's hiring experiences with certain kinds of workers at his NYC Red Rooster restaurant are set out in the final chapters. He was quite candid in his blunt assessment of his own experience. The book I used was the "talking book" format, that can be downloaded from the Santa Barbara Public Library. Available to anyone online with a BlackGold library card

foofighter (anonymous profile)
January 21, 2014 at 9:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Gang injunctions do not exist in a vague "gray zone", but in an court sanctioned intermediate zone existing between presumed innocence and final court convictions.

Gang injunctions have bona fide legal standing as a result significant court rulings over the merits of their applicability, effectiveness, scope, limits and constitutionality.

Jurisdictions using this public safety tool have sound legal authority, when applying gang injunctions today. And like all legal matters in our system of criminal justice, elements of gang injunctions will continue to evolve.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
January 21, 2014 at 9:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)

sorry Priceless. I didn't call the council "capitalist". I called them paid shills for the rich montecito crowd.
They are in every essence, CAPITALISTS!

Live it, learn it, love it.... or give up the name!

touristunfriendly (anonymous profile)
January 21, 2014 at 12:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

This lawyer is a joke he really is. Leave Sanchez and the rest of the SBPD alone they are protecting our community from trash or what will become trash. Did you ever hear the saying where there is heat there is fire well guess what my picture isn't on there is yours ? No because we aren't playing in the trash and not involved with there wanna be gangsta wankstas. If they don't want their picture or name blasted on the news or I the web go get a job or go to school so SBPD cant include you into any of these things they are investigating. If I was Sanchez I would file charges on that goofball lawyer for trespassing on police station property at minimum What now our officers have to be afraid to arrest gangbangers out of fear of lawsuits ?? Its bullcrap.

djc123 (anonymous profile)
January 21, 2014 at 12:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

James Segall-Gutierrez your a moron go back to east LA your not wanted in SB your trash....

djc123 (anonymous profile)
January 21, 2014 at 12:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"...your a moron.." take a look in the mirror. LOL

Herschel_Greenspan (anonymous profile)
January 21, 2014 at 3:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I actually took another look at Samuelsson's book, _Yes,Chef_, and there's absolutely no evidence of what you allege about his supposedly discriminatory hiring practices, none whatsoever.

zappa (anonymous profile)
January 22, 2014 at 7:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I stand by what I heard on the SB Public Library "Yes Chef" talking-book which may have been read by the author himself. He provided vivid examples of his difficulty hiring and retaining straight black men for his Red Rooster restaurant, but had no problems with gay black men or black women.

No reason to make this up; but perhaps good reason to eliminate these observations in later print editions? You can down load the "talking booK" version yourself. I shared surprise at his candor as well as his high profile within the Harlem community in NYC. It was a cautionary tale.

If you interpret my comments to mean he created an established public policy, that would be an inaccurate as well as illegal. The author represented his personal difficulties and eventual reluctance to hire a certain population sub-group, based upon an ethnicity profile. That was the point. It happened, and he explained why.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
January 22, 2014 at 9:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)

What was the over-under on foofighter having actually read the book? What's the over-under on foofighter having read *ANY* books?

@foofighter: "I stand by what I heard on the SB Public Library "Yes Chef" talking-book which may have been read by the author himself."

I'm still taking the under bet.

@foofighter: "He provided vivid examples of his difficulty hiring and retaining straight black men for his Red Rooster restaurant, but had no problems with gay black men or black women. "

Oh, for Pete's sake.

That's *not* what you initially said. You said that Samuelsson "would not hire black men for his chic NYC restaurant".

That's not the same thing - AT ALL - as Samuelsson having "difficulty hiring and retaining straight black men." In fact, it indicates that Samuelsson is actively looking hire black men (and he does hire them, actually, because 'gay black men' are still 'black men').

@foofighter: "The author represented his personal difficulties and eventual reluctance to hire a certain population sub-group, based upon an ethnicity profile. "

Yeah - you can't even keep your story straight, so anyone who believes Samuelsson actually has a reluctance to hire 'a certain population subgroup, based upon an ethnicity profile' - that's simply you looking to reinforce your own racial prejudice at the expense of someone else. It bares *no* relation at all to Samuelsson's real experience hiring employees at his Harlem restaurant.

In other words, stop putting your racist ideas to other people's mouths in order to make yourself feel better. No one is buying it.

EatTheRich (anonymous profile)
January 22, 2014 at 10:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The same whiny losers got an ambulance chaser. Nothing new here, the same squeaky wheel getting the same dose of grease. This attempt is going to fail.

blahblahmoreblah (anonymous profile)
January 22, 2014 at 5:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I'll just let you continue to have this conversation with yourself, Eat the Rich. More enlightening that way.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
January 22, 2014 at 6:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

@foofighter: "I'll just let you continue to have this conversation with yourself, Eat the Rich. More enlightening that way."

Especially true considering your inability to contribute anything of value to the conversation...

EatTheRich (anonymous profile)
January 22, 2014 at 6:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ever.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
January 22, 2014 at 7:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Okay, in the interest of fairness, truth etc., Samuelsson does refer to "straight black men" "with a chip on their shoulder" who could not "deal with authority figures" and he cites the case of one employee whom he reluctantly fired because he couldn't seem to get it together to do all the things necessary to do his job well (vs. "gay black men" who were able to adapt to his required kitchen discipline). See pp. 308-09 of the hardcover edition.
However, that's _not_ what you stated and your broader implications were simply not factual. I do hope people read the book though. It's much more than a celebrity chef-type memoir.

zappa (anonymous profile)
January 22, 2014 at 7:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Thank you for the opportunity to expand my first superficial comment and provide the back-up page numbers for more appropriate context.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
January 22, 2014 at 8:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Multicultural Craft Program: Japan

Join us for the first session of our multicultural craft ... Read More