CATER Rumored To Not Be Doing Well In Its Lawsuit Against Angels MOU

Anaheim Insider here.

The word in legal circles is that CATER’s lawsuit against the Angels MOU isn’t going well. There was a court hearing last week, I’m told Superior Court Judge James J. Di Cesare’s attitude toward the verbalizations of Greg Diamond, blogger and CATER general counsel, was impatience with ground already covered, while giving CATER the opportunity to amend and cure the deficiencies in its allegations that the Anaheim City Council violated the Brown Act when it approved the now-expired negotiation framework MOU with the Angels.

More interesting and less surprising are reports of Doug Pettibone’s involvement with CATER’s lawsuit. Pettibone has reportedly been at the last two court hearings, sitting with Diamond and CATER leader Cynthia Ward at last week’s hearing. Pettibone lives down the street from Mayor Tom Tait, who recruited him to run for City Council last year on a slate with now-Councilmember James Vanderbilt. Pettibone abruptly ended his candidacy six weeks before the election when information surfaced about a 1998 domestic incident.

Pettibone markets himself as a “Last Minute Trial Attorneywhich is “an attorney known to be called upon at the last minute to assist or replace other attorneys just before trial commences.”

Perhaps is lending his expertise to Diamond, who seems to need it judging from a September 2014 filing asking the judge to postpone a hearing date “due to the fact that Plaintiff’s attorney was running ragged” and was unprepared. CATER’s combined litigation against Anaheim had created “a sufficiently great burden on CATER’s solo practitioner Counsel to defend them that they put him in danger of being unable to provide [CATER] with adequate representation. This is particularly disturbing because Plaintiff CATER is an independent nonprofit government watchdog group, operating on a low budget and primarily on volunteer research and deferred and uncertain compensation for its Counsel…” Diamond cited his “limited resources and relative inexperience in trial procedure” and lamented that CATER lacked “experienced trial counsel” to handle the lawsuit “given the inability of CATER to raise funds for a suitable retainer.” He tells the judge that postponing the hearing will “help CATER fulfill its role without completely destroying themselves.”

Is “Last Minute Attorney” Pettibone supplying the “experienced trial counsel” that CATER has been lacking?


  1. Anaheim Insider’s alive! I was wondering if you’d retired.

    Great post, by the way.

  2. Diamond’s filing with the court is the funniest thing I have read on the blogs in years. He’s practicing law from his kitchen table. He’s dipped into retirement savings. Diabetes. What does any of this have to do with seeking a continuance?

  3. The handpicked council candidate of Tait is seen helping in this case… just how much more do we need to get everyone to agree that Tait is anti-Angels? Think about that. The guy Tait thought was best qualified to represent the city is the guy now helping push the Angels away.

    I really don’t understand why Tait burdens himself with running a city he clearly has contempt for.

  4. Let’s be honest folks. DO we all really think Tait does not offer strategic advice to these folks about how to sue the city? Anyone? Doesn’t he have a fiduciary duty to the office he holds and the citizens of Anaheim? Oh wait, isn’t he a LAWYER who has higher ethics duties? I have heard that if someone can prove his connection, he can lose his bar license. Anyone willing to look into this? He is pathetic!

  5. Skadoosh Ryan. Typos happen. Point still made. After reading Diamond’s filing with the court, it appears CATER could win a lawsuit against Diamond based on his incompetence. Too bad Diamond left out that one of the reasons he was running ragged is his time consuming 5,000 word blog posts.

    Another interesting point. I believe Diamond’s hourly rate is, conservatively, $200 an hour. He put in 500 hours by mid-September and God knows how many since. If CATER wins and the judge orders the city to pay legal fees, Diamond is looking at a six figure check.


    • I simply love Dan’s set of comments here:

      Diamond’s filing with the court is the funniest thing I have read on the blogs in years. He’s practicing law from his kitchen table. He’s dipped into retirement savings. Diabetes. What does any of this have to do with seeking a continuance?

      After reading Diamond’s filing with the court, it appears CATER could win a lawsuit against Diamond based on his incompetence. Too bad Diamond left out that one of the reasons he was running ragged is his time consuming 5,000 word blog posts.

      Another interesting point. I believe Diamond’s hourly rate is, conservatively, $200 an hour. He put in 500 hours by mid-September and God knows how many since. If CATER wins and the judge orders the city to pay legal fees, Diamond is looking at a six figure check.

      “Diamond can’t afford an office so he’s working from home! Diamond had to cash in some of his retirement savings to stay afloat while working on the case. The stress from work on the case at the same time as the bond cases exacerbated his medical condition! And worst of all, if CATER wins, Diamond’s going to be looking at a six-figure check!

      I’d far prefer the three-or-low-four-figure check I’d have gotten had the City had the good sense to settle this matter immediately rather than using it as an opportunity to crush the watchdog group established to keep it honest, but it was their decision to do it the hard way. (By the way: how many figures are on the check that Rutan & Tucker will be cashing due to the City’s decision not to simply “do it over and do it right,” as CATER demanded? That’s how Brown Act cases usually end — an expensive lesson that one would think that the City had already learned from its dealings with Dr. Moreno’s case!

      • And if it doesn’t go your way, how will CATER pay the legal fees or cost of litigation the city will surely pursue against you?

        How many more hours have you billed to this client Greg? The lack of fundraising should tell you most Anaheim residents don’t support CATER.

        • You don’t know much about Brown Act or CPRA litigation, do you, PR-guy? We’d be docked costs only if our suit was frivolous. We’re pretty much long past that hurdle.

          I’ll divulge my total amount of billing when it is time for me to do so. Do you feel at funny making this sort of accusation on a post by someone who will not acknowledge his own identity (but who many believe to be a registered lobbyist), on a blog run by someone who won’t say who pays for it, and who won’t acknowledge any business arrangements he has with either party or any group associated with them?

          No, come to think of it, you probably don’t feel any sense of irony or shame there, if you’ve struggled for years to avoid feeling those emotions.

    • Improper use of the word “Skadoosh”.

      Come on Dan, if you can’t be relevant– at least be funny.

  6. I can honestly say that this is just about the most bizarre thing I have ever seen happen in the practice of law. I know that Anaheim City Attorney Mike Houston has gone out of town, so I presume that this really is a misguided freelance effort to get CATER to — well, actually, I can’t figure out the purpose, given that we’re all just sitting around right now waiting for the Judge’s decision on the City’s demurrer and the Angels” motion to strike to come out a week from Friday (or so.)

    I guess I shouldn’t complain, because if anything this sort of stunt works to my client’s benefit. I’ll address the factual errors back on Orange Juice Blog. I will have one brief retort to you “liberal” commenter, because what he’s said here is just too funny to leave it alone.

    I suggest that next time check in with the attorneys on your side, “Anaheim Insider” (whose identity just got closer to being revealed in discovery), before you try something like this. And if you take that as my daring you to do it again — well, it’s your shovel and your hole!

    • I think your post about Matt’s post on the opinion poll takes the prize for most bizarre, Greg.

      Is Pettibone providing you and CATER with legal assistance and advice on this lawsuit?

      • Well of course you think that, given the likelihood that you’re Matt and the virtual certainty that you couldn’t follow it.

        We’d love to hire someone of Doug Pettibone’s stature to work on the case; the only reason that I (as General Counsel) am also working as Trial Counsel is that I am distressingly affordable if push comes to shove. What arrangements that we do, may, or will ever have will become public if and when they must. That’s more than I can say for your identity.

        I will say that, if I were an attorney the City, it would certainly occur to me that after CATER has survived a demurrer we might be in a better position to afford more experienced trial counsel — which arguably could lead the City to do something really dire like just passing the Lease Amendment giving the Angels three extra years to exercise their opt-out clause again, but this time properly if they want to avoid what they may fear may come next. But I presume that they have their instructions from the Council about how they do (or don’t) want this case to proceed.

  7. Maybe Mr. Diamond should spend less time blogging and more time working!

    This guy is a real piece of work, first stepped in a courtroom in 2013!!

    I would venture to guess Diamond has never seen six figures of anything! But, my favorite part of all is his pretending that CATER is real! It’s Cynthia and her overactive imagination.

    • Oh. Forgot to ask: Is this Moreno fella he mentions the “Good” Moreno or the “evil” Moreno…What a buffoon.

    • Who the heck are you?

      To take your second question first: it’s not the “good” (Dr. Jose) Moreno, nor the “bad” (but not BAD bad) pretender Jose “Joe” Moreno, nor the (in my opinion) bad-at-her-job Finance Director Debbie Moreno, but Angels owner Arte Moreno. At one time I thought he was on the evil side; now I tend to think that he’s not “evil” so much as hypercompetitive, being used and abused by the City Council majority and its patrons to get some goodies that they couldn’t otherwise obtain, and (my guess is) increasingly aware of and pissed off by it. But maybe he really is evil and I’ve just let down my guard. We’ll see.

      As for me: I started law school in 1999 and “first set foot in a courtroom” in the summer of 2000 in an asylum case. (Most of my courtroom practice has been in administrative law, which is different from what non-lawyers think of as the standard criminal/civil court system. Technically, it’s part of the Executive Branch.) I did so often in 2002-03 when clerking for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal for a fantastic Circuit Court Judge. While working in large “white shoe” Manhattan law firm from 2003-2006 — and you are wrong about my income there — I “set foot in courtoom” as an attorney as second-chair to argue a motion in (I think it was) 2004. I also took part in various administrative proceedings, largely asylum, during that time, and have done other such proceedings since.

      Most of my work since leaving New York has been in plaintiff’s employment law; those cases usually settle.

      None of that is the same as taking a civil court case from commencement to verdict. I can do it, but I don’t have the expertise of someone my age who has been doing it for decades, such as Pettibone.

      You can go ahead thinking that CATER isn’t real, as you seem to have no involvement in the case and your delusions are therefore harmless. CATER has a working bank account; that’s real enough for me and for the City.

      • Greg, in reality you are a “loser”. How else could a man of your intelligence and education end up working for peanuts. The blogosphere is littered with your (I’ll be nice here) “unwillingness” or inability to pay your own way.

        I would suggest you pull yourself up by your bootstraps and get to work.

        To paraphrase Dean Wormer: “Fat, Lazy and Crazy is no way to go through life son”

        • Oh, a other anonymous Portrait in Courage here.

          I’m flattered, actually, at how desperately you anonymous operatives want me to stop using my energies and abilities to oppose corruption in Anaheim. And I’m moved by your lack of patriotic understanding that there truly are more important things in life than being wealthy.

      • Oh. So this is probably nameless/carpetbagger /Robert Darley again. Not worth a reply.

  8. Diamond's not a girl's best friend

    You want to know Anaheim Insider’s identity but won’t reveal the roster of CATER members. The case isn’t going your way but you still think you will win.

    • So one anonymous person takes the word of another anonymous person that one or more other anonymous people think that we’re losing the case. I disagree — but we’ll find out more in a little over a week.

      You get to know CATER’s officers, and you do. We have revealed the name of its General Counsel (me.) You can judge our credibility by that. The one thing that I’ve stated publicly, because it would otherwise invite charges of a conflict of interest, is that neither Mayor Tait nor his immediate family are involved. I can judge your credibility by your hidden identity and association with Matt.

  9. So Mr. Sharren, are you saying that anyone in America who reinvents themselves later in life is a loser of some kind? You do understand Diamond holds a PhD from a previous career, and had the backbone to chuck it all to follow his dream of becoming a lawyer, where despite competing with classmates who could be his kids (sorry Greg) he stood out above them to work as a Senior Editor on the Columbia Law Review
    and clerk for a silk-stocking firm in New York. I would also point out that despite his lack of courtroom experience, and being outgunned against the Angels very high powered (and astonishingly well dressed) legal team AND Rutan and Tucker’s vast stable of attorneys, paralegals, and legal Secretaries, coupled with the unlimited resources made available by the City Council, we are a year into this mess and their combined firepower has not yet dumped us out of the case. Yes my attorney uses FAR too many words to make his case, but make his case he does, and he does it well, and that is all that matters in court.

    There are a LOT of lawyers out there who have NEVER set foot in a courtroom in their entire careers, being a lawyer and being a litigator are different things, and it is not a deficit on Greg’s part that he has not been exposed to that experience until now. I am grateful he was willing to stick with a case he didn’t want, in an area of law unfamiliar to him, that has affected his ability to take care of the fledgling law firm he was comfortable running, forcing him totally out of his comfort zone. How many friends do you have that show that level of loyalty? All this for a case that should NEVER have been dragged out for so long, and at such public cost, all because our City Council lacks the testicular fortitude to stand by their September 3 actions and simply create a “do-over.” This is why CATER did not put up a retainer, nobody anticipated litigation in the face of the State equivalent of a fix-it ticket.

    This obstinate refusal to Cure and Correct the City’s own self-created defect also leaves Arte Moreno hanging in a way that is unforgivable. The City had the chance to show him they were acting in good faith and were willing to stand by their votes, even if they had to take a public drubbing to get there. Instead they hid behind lawyers, leaving him very much in limbo, as by the time the case is litigated, if the City loses and that 3 year opt-out window is rescinded, the Angels are WAY past the period they could leave with the original opt-out window expired. Wonder why the man does not want to negotiate with the City? Have they behaved honorably toward him? As Greg reviews the clear misrepresentation of facts over here, perhaps we will also go over the timeline and show how badly both the Public and Arte Moreno have been hosed over. I do not blame Moreno for not wanting to deal with people who fail to stand by their word, and it is clear from hindsight that someone has badly misused the team owner for their own purposes, possibly even in a deliberate effort to make him look bad in retaliation for “the name thing” that brought such bad blood between us. Gee, who would have a stake in making buckets of money cutting a back room deal that makes Moreno out to be the bad guy in the whole thing?

    I will let Greg address the factual misrepresentation of what has to be fourth-hand info at best, given the lack of actual reliable information posted here. Anaheim Insider is always good for a bad piece of intel, but in this case he/she fails to even properly identify the scope of the case or where we are at in the process. Hey, great sleuthing work there, really.

    • Leave it to Cynthia to argue a point no one is making! The only one talking about Diamond’s late in life career change (which I didn’t know about until now) is you. He may be giving this lawsuit the old college try, but that doesn’t mean he’s effective. And for what? The MOU has expired. Your case comes down to claiming the two infinitesimally different versions of the CSL report amount to a Brown Act violation. Plus you and Diamond keep ranting that Anaheim Insider won’t reveal his or her identity when you keep CATER wrapped in secrecy. If you’re going to be hypocrites, don’t be such shameless ones.

      • You clearly don’t understand the case at all, let along the remedies sought. If you want me to explain it to you, rather than your just reading the publicly available filings that do so, you’ll have to pay me for it.

        (I’d like to know your identity too, of course, and all those others who toss out anonymous abuse.)

        CATER is a 501(c)(4), which means that we get to keep certain things private. If someone’s involvement with CATER is predicated on that legally sanctioned privacy, we are of course going to honor it. So what’s your and Anaheim Insider’s excuse? (My guess is that it’s to obscure ties with parties in the case and those associated with them. Not quite as compelling of an excuse, is it?)

    • Cynthia: is Doug Pettibone providing legal advice and assistance, paid or unpaid, to you, Greg and CATER on this lawsuit?

      • The fact that not knowing seems to be killing you doesn’t make us more likely to clear anything up. He showed up at two hearings. I think that he was seen talking to us afterwards. That’s what’s public; that’s what you get to know. Why does it matter to you? (If it’s just because he’s a better trial attorney than I am, that’s a good point.)

        • I should think it matters because the past election showed that Pettibone does what Tait tells him to do. If Tait is once again working against the city, people have a right to know.

          • True. He got in when Tait asked him to, and he got out when Tait asked him to.

          • Neither Tait nor his family have been directly or indirectly involved with CATER. That answers your expressed concern.

            Your comments about Pettibone are the sort of thing that I’m sure make you glad that you are anonymous.

    • I call BS. The guy is a loser and you a fraud. The fact that you have no members and no money speaks volumes.

      • Being called a “loser” and a “fraud” by some anonymous crank on a compromised blog may be less traumatic than you apparently believe.

        • Well, I’ll lend my name and agree with Dr. John. You hurt our party regularly and you clearly seem overmatched for the case your handling; your own filing with the courts is a signed confession. I think you’re a loser when you run for office with no hope of winning and no active campaigning instead of taking care of your family’s needs first. As for a fraud, you complain about anonymous critics while having no trouble with them on the OJB (sure it’s Vern’s blog but you provide cover when convenient).

          What you fail to see with your Brown Act case is the outcome of a new vote wouldn’t really change (instead of 4-1, it’s 3-2).

          • Talking to you is a waste of time. Your opinion, expressed on your political ally’s conservative blog, is duly noted.

            • The truth hurts.

              • Then call 911 and go to the hospital.

                • I’m not the one hurting, then again I’m not a Central Committee member who tried to sabotage our party’s candidate for mayor, backed a Republican for First District supe or was stripped of a party leadership position for conduct detrimental to the party. That offer of a one way plane ticket to Ferguson still stands.

        • “by some anonymous crank on a compromised blog…”

          This is what my community college teacher would have called: PROJECTION way back when.

  10. Seem this post struck a nerve with Team Cater… if it weren’t on point I cant imagine typing that much nonsense trying to distract from it

    • At some point in this proceeding, there may come a time when — if and when a link between this blog and one or more of the involved parties is established (as would become likelier as things proceed — what is said here might become pertinent in some way. So yes, it hits a nerve — but that nerve is a neuron involved in planning case strategy. I don’t think you should continue — but if you do, it just helps CATER.

  11. This post certainly hit a nerve with Greg and Cynthia. Anaheim Insider did three things:

    1) Claimed CATER appears to be losing the Angels MOU case.
    2) Said Doug Pettibone appears to be helping CATER with this case
    3) Noted Greg Diamond’s lack of expertise as a litigator, quoting Diamond’s own words from a postponement request that sounds like a student asking the professor to delay the exam because he hasn’t had enough time to study.

    Regarding Claim 1: we’ll see when the judge hands down his ruling.

    Re Claim 2: neither Greg nor Cynthia deny it. If it were untrue, they’d loudly say so as to embarrass Anaheim Insider. I’m confident from their non-denials that Pettibone is helping them, which is troubling given his close relationship with the mayor of the city CATER is suing. Then again, Tait was openly rooting for the ACLU when it was suing the city.

    As for Claim 3: after reading the whole document, all I can say if Anaheim Insider was very restrained, Given the things Diamond wrote about himself and his situation, Insider could have been much rougher.

    Finally, Greg and Cynthia can give us all the excuses in the world, but it’s hypocritical of them to always demand disclosure and transparency from everyone else, whether it is their business or not, while operating in secrecy themselves.

  12. RJ, actually Dan Sharren brought it up, but leave it to a sock puppet to miss the thread of the conversation.

    One Who Knows…actually doesn’t.

    1) There is no Angels MOU case. Arte Moreno killed the MOUs, they are a moot point and not part of the suit. Sorry you missed that, it was covered right here back in September 2014, go check Matt’s archives so you can maintain the thread of the conversation. And nobody knows if CATER is winning or losing, we are far from that point in litigation, which you wold know if you had read the documents and done some research instead of letting others feed you their own opinions as fact.

    2) Why would we tell you one way or the other what Doug was doing? Maybe he is secretly on your side and came in to watch the train wreck. Maybe it was merely a holographic image of Pettibone designed to confuse you. Mostly Greg and I just have nothing better to do than sit around his “two rented rooms” and watch all of you spin out of control over something that you fail to understand and frankly is none of your business.

    3) The postponement request was far from the whining of an overworked Sophomore, it was the explanation that the City’s legal team had loaded a courtroom with litigation and a dog-pile of paperwork demands, while knowing we were also engaged in another courtroom, all while claiming they were being cooperative. At that point Greg had already put off needed surgery to handle the caseload, it was getting ridiculous and he needed to say something, as these delays for another trial or personal reasons take place daily throughout the court system, something else you fail to understand. You notice the Judge listened…so I guess the entire world is not run on the rulebook you want it to play by.

    And back to Dan Sharren, there is a big difference between claiming members and identifying them. Try to keep up.

    Gee, I am so sorry that you have been inconvenienced in some way by my insistence that the government obey the law. Come to think of it, how HAS any of this inconvenienced anyone here? If the cost bugs you, tell the City Council to quit screwing around with something they have had the ability and responsibility to fix all this time. Nope, rather than address that you make up horrid personal remarks with no relevance to the topic before us, hoping to distract anyone from the truth, that the City Council has failed to stand by their own mistakes and now they don’t want to back up what they did and stand by Arte Moreno in good faith. You do a lousy job of covering for them.

    • Forgive me for trying to clarify here but pretend for a second that all your lawsuits are completely baseless.

      Another viewpoint: How would you feel about someone trying to derail city plans for no apparent reason, just because?

      That is what everyone but Team Cater sees.

      • “That is what everyone but Team Cater [sic] sees.”

        I’d offer to put up money challenging that assertion, but your anonymity makes that impossible.

        If you don’t understand the basis of the suit, there are plenty of court filings and online posts that explain it.

        • Your bank account makes betting impossible Mr. “I made less than $20,000 a Year.”

          • Yep, I did. Of course, that doesn’t count use of previous savings.

            And yet I’m still here, still working extensively on the CATER case, and prepared to see it all the way through trial if necessary — despite anonymous people saying mean things on blogs. This just is not how “online media strategy” is supposed to work, is it? It must be frustrating.

          • The $5000 a Diamond has been paid vs the 500 hours spent on the case makes him A $10 an hour lawyer. Would you like fries with that?

            • You’re presuming that the CATER cases have been my only ones this past year. They haven’t.

              But what you seem to be accusing me of is … doing work for very little money to promote a good activist cause. (You don’t agree that it is one, but that is beside the point.

              Explain to me why you think that my foregoing most of the value of my professional services, unless we do receive a fee award should be considered embarrassing? You yap more about your own charitable giving than anyone else around, but what’s the value of the work that you claim that YOU give away? Clueless, sir, and hypocritical. Would you like crow with that?

              • My pro bono clients, if I were to bill them, would likely be between $2,000 to $8,000 a month, depending on the month and the activity required. I yap about charitable giving to encourage people to give. My pro bono work doesn’t interfere with work done for paying clients. My agency has been around for 11 years now. So I am able to take care of my family and still provide either money or services for causes I believe in. You place your activism ahead of your family. Why do I think you foregoing most of the value of your professional services is embarrassing? Because I think you’re going to lose and not get one red cent. Keep dipping into your retirement account

  13. and once again the

    The kitchen table cabal strikes back.

    What does Greg do all day?

    The suit is BASELESS. She will lose and Greg Diamond can go back to suing employers for fake workers comp claims.

    • Here’s another anonymous expert bravely and unaccountably expressing his uninformed legal opinions.

      Apparently, what I do all day is burrow under your skin (that’s a metaphor), whoever you are.

      I’ve never taken a work comp place. No have I ever taken a case with fake claims. That’s a big reason that I run my own practice, so I don’t get assigned things that I don’t believe in.

      Note to Cunningham: I’ll bet that this was from an IP address you’ve never seen before, right? “Robert Darley” is not so easily foiled.

  14. It is a beautiful day in Anaheim, and I am not going to spend it arguing with faceless sock puppets over a case they have refused to read, so I am checking out and trust Greg will likely do the same.

    I will leave you with this one thought, and it might offer you some comfort, should you be looking for an opportunity to “catch” Tom Tait at something you believe he did.

    There is no “Angels MOU lawsuit.” There are 3 Causes of Action, only one linked to the Angels, and none include the MOU’s (which are dead.)

    In the First Cause of Action for the Public Records Act complaint (which does not include the Angels) Judge DiCesare’s tentative ruling states that Mrs. Ward has standing as Plaintiff, and it looks like we will be moving forward on Discovery and Trial to determine the extent of records not disclosed in September 2013. That request included ALL billing records, invoices, progress reports, contracts, and form 700 for ALL consultants and contractors aiding the City in negotiations leading up to the September 3 agreements. Matt’s claim that the suit is over the sentence structure in one report drafted by the employers he is covering for is incorrect, and the City’s claim that offering me part of the records is the entirety of the response is also incorrect. So if relying on those claims to determine your opinion of a suit that does NOT “derail City plans” when the City could have chiseled that deal in stone long ago, one might look to another source for information.

    Not knowing when those negotiations began, I left the start date open, as the CPRA demands that the City aid the public in clarifying requests, knowing the local agency has information the public lacks. This is where it gets interesting.

    The Angels’ owner, as well as an authorized spokesperson, both made public statements that the team has been negotiating with Anaheim for FOUR AND A HALF YEARS as of Sep-Oct 2014 publication. That means in September 2013, the City should have provided three and a half years worth of invoices, billing records, contracts, progress reports, and Form 700, for whomever was negotiating between Anaheim and Angels. You can imagine that did not happen.

    You may note that State law offers no exceptions for disclosing records that blog comments find irrelevant, nor may the local agency withhold information because they don’t like the person requesting the records, or don’t approve of what will be done with the records. Nor may the local agency refuse to disclose information because the deal linked to those records is a great idea for the city and thus we don’t want any interference “derailing city plans” for “no apparent reason.” (Potential for fraud, and/or violation of Political Reform Act, being far from no apparent reason, and enforcement of our Constitutional rights to open government another very valid reason.)

    Now here is where you SHOULD be cheering on our efforts to score public records. The four and a half years of negotiations should reveal “proof” supporting the conspiracy claims made over here that Mayor Tait made some type of a deal with Arte Moreno and then reneged on it to somehow inflate the value of real estate he no longer owns. Never mind the mathematical improbability of it, as the disparity in value on the Stadium lot is rooted in the parking encumbrances and their impact on the ability to develop the land, which has no impact on the land Tait previously owned. Having that “proof” come out as the result of his own friends demanding public records would be the ultimate “up yours” to someone you clearly hate, and put me in the miserable position of having to hold a friend accountable, which should also make folks over here positively giddy. Feel free to jump in and cheer on our efforts at any time, since if you really believe your own propaganda this is the perfect chance to prove it.

    There is no doubt those within City Hall know what is in those records, yet instead of handing them over and showing what an evil human being our Mayor really is, those who know what is in the records are fighting HARD to not have to fork them over. Hmm…does something not quite line up here?

    As far as “not doing well,” when the City disclosed some (but not all) of the requested records following the initiation of litigation, the CPRA says I am presumed the “prevailing Plaintiff” and the only thing left to determine is how MUCH of the remaining undisclosed records request will be provided.

    So while nobody is winning or losing anything at this stage, the CPRA violation is as “done deal” as a mid-litigation argument gets. And once Anaheim is ordered to comply with State law, I think we all look forward to getting to the bottom of who has been dealing with Arte Moreno outside the process of public disclosure for Real Property Negotiations. Don’t we?

    The future of the 2nd and 3rd Causes of Action (only one includes the Angels, and again none include the now-dead MOU’s)) will be determined by Judge DiCesare next week, based not on the facts of the case but on the technicalities of the law. While his initial Tentative did not favor us on these two points, the objections were largely based on the complexities of legal points in the claim, (defining a “writing” as a “meeting” is difficult to present, harder still for those of us known for rifling the pockets of the English language looking for more words to use.) Yet it is a perfectly valid argument that is even made by the Attorney General’s office, when warning that actions similar to Anaheim’s are a violation of State Law.

    The Judge could easily have tossed the case and CATER from the courtroom, instead he has taken two weeks to carefully review the case and the points presented by Greg, and that is far from “not doing well.” Those claiming Mr. Diamond stretched the limits of the Judge’s patience misunderstand that Judge DiCesare runs a very fair but very tight ship, and will not tolerate repetitive or irrelevant chit-chat (or bloviating.) Yet the transcripts will show the Judge did NOT interrupt Diamond, this report is false to the core, and deliberately harmful to the professional reputation of someone called out by name. I wonder if that is the wisest of actions? Your choice, of course.

    Hey Greg, maybe we should post the transcript so folks can see the truth, given the lack of source material over here. But that would require readers to drop the preconceived notions spoon-fed them by those who have drummed up phony “enemies of the people.” And now I am done trying to speak truth to those not remotely interested in it, and I am running off to enjoy this beautiful day.

    You may return to the character assassination already in progress.

    • I’m going to skip the obvious irony of the “not going to spend it arguing” line and jump a few hundred words down. It seems a point you can’t help but bring up in your posts is that somehow your lawsuit is going to involve this blog? Seriously? Your case has elements that hinge on blog comments?

      Do you see now how people view your position as “completely baseless?”

      • No, Jack. That would be a different lawsuit.

        Cynthia, you’re right. I see little point in continuing here for now.

        And, seriously, these guys are just trawling for whatever information they can get, perhaps hoping that Michael Houston will not paddle them quite so severly when he gets back for their pulling this stunt.

        I look forward to a week from today when, we can hope, this rumor-mongering will die down.

      • “The suit is BASELESS.”

        “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”
        Indigo Montoya

        I don’t imagine that somewhere out there Judge DiCesare thinks to himself, “Gee, I was going to review the case based on State law and its application as expressed through precedent. But now I can skip that step and rely on anonymous comments following a factually vacant hit piece written by (or in concert with) an employee of an organization with skin in the game (and a potential violation of Political Reform Act to answer for.) While none of these comments indicates even a passing relationship to law school in any of its forms, AnaheimBlog’s readers call the case ‘baseless’, so I guess I will roll with that and throw the whole thing out. Thank God for AnaheimBlog helping me with the complex intellectual exercise of compliance with State law. I wonder if they could also help my brother the neurosurgeon perform his next operation while they are at it?”

        I’m sorry if that was the scenario you envisioned in response to your review of the Brown Act, Public Records Act, and of course Code of Civil Procedure, because I think your fantasy fell short of reality.

        Inconceivable as that may be….

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Skip to toolbar