The Liberal OC’s Dan Chmielewski likes to complain that I like to set forth various possibilities for what might be happening and discuss each of them — as if there’s something wrong about trying to think through various possibilities in public. (I’ll have an exact quote when the transcript from Lenore Albert’s “third strike” trial before the California State Bar Court — where a third strike is generally taken to mean likely disbarment — becomes available. Chumley was her final character witness, choosing to talk smack about me while cooing to her (while she smiled like the former mascot of “Cracked” magazine, putative janitor Sylvester P. Smythe) that the two of them were “a lot alike” — they fight hard, hate to lose, hate those who don’t follow the rules, etc. — a written transcript (but alas, no audio recording) will be available later this year. (Note that his phrasing made himself his own character witness as well, which is the Chumliest thing ever. But I digress.)
For now, it’s tit for tat: I want to complain about one of his favorite practices: publishing vicious comments about others in OC’s political circles from pseudonymous authors who thus have protection against retaliation — while claiming that it’s legally protected (which it is) and — here’s where he goes off the rails — perfectly appropriate.
You can’t do this on this site. We do allow anonymous commenters — as constitutional law recognizes, there is a need for anonymous speech — but we don’t allow them to make anonymous attacks against others unless (1) we know who they are, or (2) we agree to adopt their statements as our own. Chumley, as I like to call him (because I hate to misspell surnames, partly), claims not to know who these people are — gosh, he has no idea! — and he claims immunity from libel suits because the words, so far as a reader can tell, do not come from his fingertips or at his solicitation. (We here are not convinced about either claim — but that’s not to the point right now.) And, he generally responds to these commenter by egging on their authors and promising never to release their IP addresses.
One such comment during the past week actually “made me look.” It starts with the a bunch of attacks on Vern that appear to be baseless, and then go back to Chumley’s favorite topic — a bad thing that Vern’s wife did out of jealousy years ago that Chumley claims provides us with real information (despite the denials of all with knowledge) of what Vern doesn’t do. (This may just be there to rouse Chumley to the point where he will publish anything that gratifies him.) It then turns to a swipe on Al Jabbar, then an attack on me, to which I feel I must reply. Here’s that latter portion, plus the lying last line of the attack on Vern:
As with Republican leaders like Trump and DeSantis, the meanness of pulling Al Jabbar and Julie Tait into this is part of the point: mess with the Lib OC-approved crowd and this sort of thing might happen to you and your friends. (For what it’s worth, I don’t think I’ve spoken to Julie Tait in years, and I have no reason to think that she hates me. If she ever did, that’s her right, even though I don’t know why it would be.)
But claiming that I said anything of this sort about Vicente Sarmiento is disgusting.
I’ve searched both our comments and our posts here for anything that could possibly contain such language — which I’d never write except possibly in jest or as a quote from someone else. But Chumley publishes it without complaint or concern because apparently it suits his purposes.
It’s disgusting. More people should say so. But — as with Trump — people just don’t want to get into the sights of his slime rifle.
One nice thing is that in my search I did rediscover something I wrote about the firing of David Cavazos by the City Council, which I think stands up pretty well. In the comments, you’ll find a parody of “A New Argentina” from Evita that I really wish I’d thought to drag out for last year’s Santa Ana elections. (Maybe they’d have gone better.)
This is your Weekend Open Thread — except not Weekend anymore. Talk about the above or anything else you’d like within broad bounds of decency and discretion.
Anyone who knows Greg would find it highly unlikely that he un-ironically, non-facetiously referred to anyone as a “lowly Bolivian.” You just need to read this blog to note that it is not replete with insults to others’ nationalities, and certainly there is no indication that he is a snob when it comes to Bolivians.
Don’t know Vern, but have to say, people don’t change until they want to. Hopefully he already has, otherwise alcoholism can continue to cause havoc.
As to Dan, don’t know him either, but it seems he is a “character witness” for a woman facing a third prosecution by the Bar. To testify she always follows the rules and has good character is to testify to something which is pretty much objectively false if she has a history of not following the rules, getting caught, and continues to do so.
Typically courts want to know if a character witness knows about the facts alleged against the defendant (or whatever they are called in Bar processes). If upon being asked, the response is “I don’t know” combined with a look worth of the SouthPark Underpants Gnomes explaining how to achieve profit, that isn’t very meaningful testimony.
I would even venture a guess that such could be considered unfavorable testimony. I mean, it may sound nice and fluffy, and warm her innards when she hears it, but it isn’t what the Court would likely want to hear.
Imagine if you will a third strike criminal defendant who had gang members come into trial and attest to his good character for never violating any laws and always being a good citizen. The judge might just conclude that this person is surrounded with an echo chamber of Kool-Aid drinking sycophants, that they are part of the problem, and that the actual odds of rehabilitation are in fact less if these are the kind of folks the person on trial keeps around them.
Just sayin.’
On the bright side, perhaps he can also become one who testifies to sorts of other preposterous concepts, such as the elegance and visual appeal of Donald Trump’s combover, or the tendency of penguins to fly to the equator to sun themselves.
I’m glad that my reporting of the hearing was evocative enough to elicit this sort of response. Clearly, you’ve got all the antlers!
Meanwhile, the comment prompted me to do some searching of the archives (for the height of members of a certain landlocked Latin American Country) and while that search came up dry, I also came upon this story which today’s Anaheimers and DPOCmembers might want to review:
https://www.orangejuiceblog.com/2015/07/chumley-prints-pro-disney-dpoc-member-leak-of-dr-morenos-dpoc-only-email-on-tax-free-disney-vote/
The more things change….
Indeed! A quick look at the State Bar Court website docket shows one can download for free the closing briefs, so I did. The one from the State Bar actually lists her repeated attempts to question the character of other attorneys as an “aggravating factor.” So, in the eyes of the State Bar (if not the Court) at least, that part of the defense was actually less effective than if one went into court and said “Ah crap, you got me! Sorry!”
I am not sure, but imagine that most lawyers would consider making the situation WORSE to be a counterproductive strategy. But to each their own.
I cannot wait for the trial transcript to become available. There’s so much more to add, but I don’t want to misquote anything. It’s quite unclear what she thought firing blasts at me in her trial would accomplish. If I’m mean to her, that makes it OK for her to practice law while suspended? Weird.
Well, I’m looking forward to this story. Lenore is still suspended?
She’s been active (hence her ability to take on Mrs. Cameron’s case) and is still listed as such. Her trial was last month and I think that the Judge said that he expected to produce his decision around the end of next month, give or take a fortnight, though of course it could come earlier if the spirit moves him.
One can’t practice law without active supervision and oversight while suspended — that’s what the most recent charges are about, based on her signing papers identifying herself as the attorney in one or both of two federal cases in the Eastern District of California. She claimed that the judge in one of the cases told her that it was OK for her to do so; the prosecution subpoenaed and called in the judge to ask him if that was true; he said that it was not. My sense is that the issue is whether she will just receive an admonishment or suspension again, or whether the “three strikes and you’re disbarred” rule will apply.
Is she still suspended? No.
Yeah, technically if she’s suspended as a result of this hearing it will have been “suspended again” rather than “still suspended.”
But “exonerated” seems a lot less likely than “disbarred.”
Speaking of our archives, I’ve noticed a sudden burst of interest in a story of ours about Basil Kimbrew, who blasts out emails repeatedly for upcoming elections.
https://www.orangejuiceblog.com/2014/05/poorly-rehabilitated-felon-cherry-picks-facts-to-slam-major-democratic-donor-and-assembly-candidate-simona-farrise/
The only explanation I can think of is that people are getting one of Kimbrew’s many email blasts regarding Kimbrew’s choices for the ADEM elections. All I can say about that is that that list will likely contain (1) people who paid Kimbrew for the mention, (2) people whom the Democratic Party leadership (which allowed Kimbrew to infringe on the Democratic Party’s trademark for YEARS so long as he kept promoting the people in power) have asked him to, (3) favors to candidates from whom he hopes to gain business in the future, and (4) random names of weak candidates tossed in for the sake of apparent legitimacy. Unless you also see a name endorsed by another source you trust, a Kimbrew endorsement is a sign to back away from that candidate slowly.
Kimbrew has for some time been joined in this project by a woman who sometimes does and sometimes doesn’t also use his surname, so this applies to her as well.
Here’s what you’re looking for if you want to see if you’ve been Kimbrewed; I’ve mixed together some of their “credentials,” but you can easily tell who put up which front:
Chef Basil Kimbrew, Army Veteran
Chef Lizet Angulo, MBA, Management Business Services, Editor [look for **]
Chef Basil’s Broken Soldiers
CA Friends of the African American Caucus
Veterans Voices
California Democratic Media Guide
CA Judicial Voter Guide Publication
Chef Basil’s Veterans Publication
Judicial Media Guide
Independent Publication Voter Guide
CA Democratic Voter Guide Publication
Progressives Media Publication
Management Business Services, President
Ladies TKO, President/Founder**
Empowering Women with Influence**
CA Latino Media Publication
California Latino Voter Guide Publication
California Latino Guide Media Publication
California Latino Voter Guide
California Friends of the Latino Caucus
Education Media Guide
College, Schools, Water Boards Publication
ADEM Delegate Candidates Listing
Note that Kimbrew used to style his publications as “official” until, after I raised objections through official channels, he was told to stop. Note further that Kimbrew’s publications styled as “Latino” (or, in the past, Asian, etc.) are not necessarily produced by people from that demographic group, but rather simply target them. He does appear to be an Army veteran and to have served as a Chef at one time, so I’ll grant him that — though I wouldn’t bet a clipped off fingernail on either.
I noted Ms. Albert had posted on linked in the State Bar was trying to disbar her. Her “romantic partner” responded that the Bar was out to get her, was just like the “Star Chamber” and had spent more on her than it did on El Chapo. Or something.
Way to go as far as taking it seriously. That’s supposed to be something you do when you are facing charges, right?
If I ever get a pet howler monkey I am going to name it Lenore.
First, howler monkeys should not be kept as pets! Hafven’t we learned anything from the sad story of Marcel the capuchin monkey on friends?
Second, if I’m the source of the “romantic partner” quote in your first line, I must disavow it. Lenore may be Chumley’s inamorata — in the yearning rather than carnal sense, before I throw up a little in my soul — but that doesn’t mean that he is her inamorato. He’s just been useful to her. And speaking of “useful”….
As for “taking it seriously” — she took it seriously enough to take over LC’s case from me and make this do-goodism the center of her “mitigation of penalty” defense in her hearing. But the seriousness apparently gave way when she then summarily dropped the representation — blaming me, though whatever I had and hadn’t done were already known to her before she started her own trial — and apparently left LC adrift as soon as she’d used up her usefulness. (I’m taking this from a comment left on Chumley’s site.)
I still can’t discuss that case (and dispute Lenore’s accusations) due to attorney-client privilege until and unless I have a complaint or lawsuit filed against me (or other publicization of what happened.) But I’ll tell you what sort of squishy naif I am: I was shocked by what Lenore reportedly did and feel pity for LC.
This guy didn’t say anything about Dan. I know the poor sod who appears to be Lenore’s inamorato. We were friends 15 years ago and used to protest the Iraq War together.
(Or do you know that it was Dan who wrote that Star Chamber El Chapo shit?)