LET THE HATE BEGIN: Lawsuit seeking election reform stirring anti-Latino sentiments far and wide (and right here at home, too)

Just as we predicted, the anti-Latino hate-mongering and illogical diatribe has begun.

In our recent post about three Latinas who are suing the city for injunctive relief over what the suit alleges is the city of Compton’s illegal at-large election system, we noted that we expected as much.

News of the suit being filed on behalf of the city’s Latino community alleging that the city’s voting system is effectively stacked in favor of Black candidates was first reported by the Los Angeles Times on Dec. 3, the day after the claim was filed in Los Angeles Superior Court. The story spread like wildfire on the Internet, with many a news aggregating site and fundamentalist/rightwing blog and/or message board reposting or linking to the story.

These links and repostings have drawn the uneducated, the racist, the simple-minded and the undocumented-immigrant-loathing communities out in droves like cockroaches scuttling across a dark kitchen floor. It is stories like this that these types of folks revel in, as it presents them with yet another opportunity to spread their vile, ignorant, racist hate.

We are shocked and appalled at what some people, cowering behind bogus screen names that securely shield them from having to face the consequences of their offensive, hate-filled blather, have been writing. But, in all honesty, judging by the level of illogical nonsense that a majority of the general population in the United States considers meaningful or worthy of reflection, as well as the feverish rate of cognitive dissonance that we know is all too alive and well in 2010, we really aren’t surprised.

’Tis a sad day in America. We are aptly ashamed. Don’t get us wrong — we’re HUGE proponents of the First Amendment and freedom of speech and the press. But sometimes, even though legal, certain speech is simply so unproductive, hurtful, insensitive, offensive or downright demonstrative of backward, bigoted, uneducated thinking that we believe it at least deserves a thorough once-over, a raking over the coals of reason and factual information, to illustrate that most of these folks spewing hate all over the Internet are really very devoid of any reasonable arguments and much more caught up in their imaginary dream world of an ill-perceived “Black vs. Latino” rights-to-representation war.

Allow us to illustrate that even the folks who are using the undocumented immigrant argument to debase this lawsuit are completely full of it. As to the number of residents who are here illegally, the fact is that there are still more legal Latino residents than there are undocumented ones, and the legal Latino population still outnumbers the city’s Black population.

Don’t believe us? OK, we’ll prove it.

The complaint cites the Latino population in Compton as numbering 63,400. A 2009 Los Angeles Almanac estimate of undocumented residents who live within the local school district’s boundaries tallies that population at 24,000 (and keep in mind that Compton Unified School District serves students outside of Compton, meaning this estimate is larger than an estimate of undocumented immigrants living in Compton would be). That leaves 39,400 Latinos who are here legally — just fewer than 9,000 more people as compared to the city’s Black population, which, according to the numbers cited in the lawsuit, totals 30,555 people.

And with that, let us take you on a virtual tour of the villainous hate-posts.

The Americans for Legal Immigration Political Action Committee‘s website features a forum post about the suit entitled “Latinos gear up to take over Compton, CA.” It immediately devolves into pure racist banter. And just as expected, the posters appear to be allowing this nation’s immigration crisis to completely eclipse the matter at hand — fairness at the voting booth.

The irony runneth over in browsing some of ALIPAC.com’s users’ comments. Take this gem, for example: User “uniteasone” writes sarcastically and offensively that all Latinos do is “LOOK OUT FOR THEMSELVES” and incorrectly asserts as fact the ill-informed idea that “most are here illegally.”

The irony kicks in after reading this user’s posting signature, which quotes Paula Johnson: “When you have knowledge, you have a responsibility to do better.” Apparently this user has a lack thereof (knowledge), as illustrated by his or her discriminatory, fact-lacking assertions.

User “dregerk” picks up where “uniteasone” leaves off with the sarcasm, arrogantly asking: “And the reason that the Latino’s did not win was? Nobody was legal enough to vote?”

“Bowman,” another ALIPAC.com user, however, takes the cake for both the most offensive and the most uneducated statements, clearly illustrating a complete lack of knowledge as to the purpose or stipulations outlined in California’s Voting Rights Act of 2001.

“Somebody needs to file a friend of the court motion demanding all the illegals be deported since they are taking representation from American citizens,” Bowman writes. “Hispanic population then drops to a minority and they have no case, problem solved.”

First of all, no one has taken anything away from any American citizen relative to this lawsuit having been filed. Secondly, the suit does not seek to force a Latino candidate into office; on the contrary, it merely seeks to level the playing field when it comes to the ability of any candidate who runs for office to succeed. And finally, as a valid protected class of voters, those who have filed suit are already legally considered a “minority.”

Duh.

Wait! We’re not done yet — it gets even worse.

The hate- and fear-mongering are taken to a whole new level in a Typepad.com blog called Creole Folks, which is, as you probably have guessed, geared toward the nation’s Black Creole population.

The author of this blog appears to have no problem victimizing Blacks, whom the blogger asserts are being disenfranchised via a secret government program that, with the help of corporations, pipes undocumented immigrants into Black communities for the sheer purpose of “water(ing) down Black areas and Black political power.”

Yeah, right. The government couldn’t even get it together enough to stop the highly preventable Sept. 11 attacks, and its pathetic response to Hurricane Katrina made the U.S., for a time, the laughingstock of the world. We’re so sure, however, that it’s got what it takes to mobilize corporations to import undocumented immigrants into Black communities with the sole aim of destroying them. Why would the government waste its time when it already has the COINTELPRO of the 21st century hard at work criminalizing Black youth, pumping drugs and arms into Black communities and propagating the gang problem as a manner of staving off that which this nation fears the most? (That would be Black nationalism, in case you aren’t so polished on your Black and Civil Rights history.)

The blog post, “Latinos Take Over Compton, Ca from Blacks. Price of illegal immigration,” is sordid and fails to cite any references to back up its paranoid, racist claims that stray into a short commentary on the issue of the disenfranchisement of Black-owned banks, which we’re still trying to reconcile in terms of how on earth that issue has anything in the least to do with vote dilution in the city of Compton. But, again, we digress.

The blogger then goes on to bash the myFOXla.com employee who posted a news wire story about the lawsuit on the local TV news station’s website, incorrectly assuming that the employee is the author and referring to him as a “typical liberal western hick.” Apparently the blogger failed to notice that little bit of text above the poster’s name that reads: “Text Story by: City News,” as in City News Service (CNS is more or less a localized version of the Associated Press, for those of you whom we might have lost just now.)

The blogger then asserts that the author of the story is suggesting that Blacks in Compton are stealing elections. The story suggests nothing of the sort, and this is merely the blogger’s frantically paranoid interpretation (though, in a roundabout way, he more or less has hit the nail on the head in terms of the April 21, 2009, citywide election being more or less stolen by the current administration). Bordering on sheer stupidity, it is then asserted that voter turnout statistics prove that “many of them (Latinos) are criminals.”

As it turns out, this blogger is not afraid to show his face, so to speak, and signs his post “Nicolas Duplessis.” Some quick online research reveals he is a Louisiana native living in Hollywood whose ethnic background is a mix of Italian, French Creole and African American, according to his blog’s “About me” page.

On that page, he states: “After Hurricane Katrina (08/05) it became even more important that natives of the region start reporting and blogging in hopes of shedding light on the real old roots of ETHNIC racism against my heritage in the region and also to highlight the progress and endurance of my people. Consider myself a relayer of information that is blunt, hard core and not sugar coated — so I hope your ready to hear the truth about some hard issues affecting our community.”

The truth? Oh, no, no, no, Mr. Nicolas Theodore “Ted” Duplessis. On the contrary. You see, the truth can be supported by facts. And, well, to tell you the truth, the only factual information in your blog post about the Compton lawsuit is the story about the suit itself. All else is misinformed opinion (albeit you are entitled to think what you will) spun with what we’re interpreting as a sense of victimhood that we highly suggest you attempt to shake. For your sake, of course.

Even a post on the city’s social networking website, HubCityLivin.com (which is run by a resident, not by the city), illustrates the racism with which some Blacks are responding to news of Latinos wanting a fair shot at being elected in Compton.

Of special note is a post by the city’s Planning Commission chairman, Michael Hill, who asserts the lawsuit is nothing more than the Latino community’s uneducated way of circumventing the electoral process. All we have to say is this: Isn’t it funny how people who attempt to come across as if they know it all actually only end up illustrating the very opposite?

And this brings us to the issue of the sheer hypocrisy with which many African Americans are responding in their instantaneous assumptions that Latinos in Compton do not have the right to fair representation in the political arena because of this nation’s illegal immigration crisis. Have they not stopped to think about what’s really transpiring? The city has the power to level the playing field when it comes to elections, but refuses, and thus has inadvertently solicited itself a big, fat civil rights lawsuit. The city does not, however, have any power relative to border security or the citizenship of its residents, whether they be Americans, Mexicans or even from the moon. Does this mean Latinos in Compton are any less human and deserving of the ability to have someone advocating for their human and civil rights in a city that is run as though Willie Lynch and Jim Crowism were still alive and kicking?

How soon some apparently forget regarding the severe atrocities Blacks suffered back in the hay days of the Civil Rights Movement, when lives were lost and others shattered in the hard-fought battle to secure equality in the voting and elections arena. Discrimination is discrimination, regardless of who is on the giving and receiving ends.

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. would be understandably disappointed and is likely now rolling over in his grave fraught with shame.

This just in: Drama in the City Attorney’s Office

Former, current attorneys for city were in 2009 embroiled in legal battle involving alleged death threat, defamation; Courts of Appeal issues final ruling based on technicalities

COMPTON—It appears that there might have been some major drama going down in the City Attorney’s Office last winter — at least, it does based upon a recent Metropolitan News-Enterprise report detailing the outcome of a state appellate court decision in a defamation case filed by a former city of Compton employee against his supervisor.

And boy, is this one juicy!

The Nov. 15 edition of Met News featured a story about former City Hall staffer Robert Edwin Ware, a lawyer who briefly worked in the City Attorney’s Office, and his suit against the city and his former supervisor, Deputy City Attorney Anita Aviles. The suit alleged that Ware was wrongfully terminated and that he was the victim of defamation at the hands of Aviles.

Poor Ware (note: the italics denote sarcasm). His name joins the already overcrowded list of former city employees who have sued the city for wrongful termination over the past several years.

Div. 4 of the state Courts of Appeal ruled earlier this month that Ware was properly terminated based on technical grounds, according to Met News. Basically, this translates to the appellate court ruled based on a legal technicality rather than the basic facts of the case.

Justice Nora Manella reportedly wrote in an unpublished opinion that Ware was given the opportunity by the trial court to amend his complaint and had the ability to object when the trial court dismissed the case with prejudice, but he failed to act on either.

So what actually went down that led to Ware being fired and his subsequently filing claims against the city and Aviles?

According to Ware’s complaint, he began working in the City Attorney’s Office in September 2008 on a probationary basis. His employment, however, was short-lived; he was discharged several months later in February 2009.

Could it be that he simply wasn’t cutting it as an attorney for the city and was rightfully discharged based on poor performance? The lawsuit, after all, could have been his last-ditch effort to save his paycheck. Or, could it be that Ware had to be fired after discovering some less-than-legal activities at 205 S. Willowbrook that he refused to take part in or ignore?

The fact that he represented himself on appeal is not a good sign in terms of whether Ware had much of a case. There’s a saying in the legal world, according to one of our good attorney friends, that a lawyer who represents him or herself has a fool for a client.

Either way, this is all pure speculation at this point, and, unfortunately, we may never know exactly what went down.

Ware claims that he got the boot after Aviles falsely accused him of threatening to kill her. She also lied on his performance evaluation, and the city denied him a hearing to clear his name, his suit alleged.

Let’s back up a bit, here. Accusing him of threatening to kill her? THREATENING TO KILL HER?

Holy cow! Can someone pass us the popcorn?

To only have been a fly on the wall when all of whatever it is that led up to THIS went down! What on earth could have taken place that would have escalated to the point at which (a) an employee would make such a threat or (b) a supervisor would falsely accuse his or her inferior of such a crime (yes, it is illegal to threaten to kill someone)?

The defendants — the city of Compton and Aviles — demurred to the complaint and filed a motion to strike under the anti-SLAPP statute, Met News reported. In plain English, they basically asserted that while the facts of the case may be true, the plaintiff had no case based on a state law aimed at protecting free speech.

The First Amendment Coalition describes a SLAPP as generally a civil complaint or counterclaim that is filed against individuals or organizations arising from their communications to government or their speech on an issue of public interest or concern.

At trial, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Richard L. Fruin granted the defense’s motions to strike all claims minus the defamation cause of action against Aviles, for which he ruled the demurrer was moot, Met News reported.

We’re still unsure as to how the city was able to successfully argue that Ware’s case was, in essence, a SLAPP — meaning the court found that Ware’s suit would have had a chilling effect on public participation in, and open debate on, important public issues — but this is, after all, the Los Angeles County Superior Court system, so for now, we’ll leave it at that.

The trial court’s Fruin reportedly ruled that Aviles’ performance evaluation of Ware was privileged. Because Ware’s defamation claim was based on information contained in the evaluation, Fruin granted Ware 20 days to amend his complaint to allege a cause of action that was not based on the evaluation.

We might never know all the details of what happened next, but Met News reported that rather than amend his complaint, Ware entered into a settlement agreement with Aviles. The agreement reportedly blossomed after Ware appealed his other claims having been stricken and Aviles cross-appealed the defamation claim’s having not been stricken.

But then something peculiar happened — Ware “unilaterally revoked the agreement,” the appellate court said, according to Met News.

Upon revocation, Aviles filed ex parte to dismiss the case because Ware had failed to amend his original complaint within the allotted 20-day time-frame. What’s even more strange is that Ware failed to respond or appear regarding Aviles’ ex parte motion. This resulted in Fruin’s dismissing the case with prejudice.

Ware responded by moving to set aside the dismissal. However, he reportedly removed his motion from the court calendar after Aviles filed in opposition. Ware then appealed.

Here’s where things get even more jargon-y and chock full of legalese, so we’re quoting Met News for the finish:

“Manella, writing for the Court of Appeal, explained that when a demurrer is sustained with leave to amend, the court may dismiss on motion of the defendant if the plaintiff fails to amend within the time specified by the court.

“While Ware contended on appeal that the court did not sustain the demurrer with leave to amend, but ‘overruled’ the demurrer while requiring him to amend within 20 days, that argument was not made in the trial court and was forfeited on appeal, the justice said.”

Translation: Ware should have first argued that the demurrer had been overruled in the trial court. Because he failed to do so, he essentially forfeited his ability to have the Courts of Appeal consider and decide the legality of the action.

Back to Met News’ coverage:

“In addition, she wrote, Ware’s failure to oppose the ex parte application to dismiss, to appear at the hearing on the application or to move for reconsideration of the dismissal, coupled with the withdrawal of his motion to set aside the dismissal, constituted forfeiture of his right to appeal.

“In any event, she added, Ware’s failure to amend within the time allowed by the court constituted a valid ground for dismissal with prejudice under Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 581(f)(4), and there was no abuse of discretion.”

Aviles failed to return a call from Met News for comment, and Ware would not comment because he said he had yet to review the ruling, the legal news publication reported.

The full Courts of Appeals ruling can be read here: Ware v. Aviles, B222405.

Over and above all of the legal mumbo-jumbo and apparent technical posturing, what we really want to know is what actually happened. To that end, we plan to contact Ware and attempt to get him to spill the beans on this whole alleged-death-threat-and-subsequent-defamation deal. So stay tuned!