Transcript on Dutton - Baca Interview - Compton Shooting and Police Policy

The sheriff's department was recently criticized for what appeared to be a confusing and out-of-control shooting in Compton. The department was accused of racial insensitivity, that such event could not have occurred in Beverly Hills or Bel-Air. What is your response to such allegations? And what was your approach in dealing with this crisis? And has it affected your policy?

BACA: Thirty days ago, the deputies were involved in a pursuit of an individual who was believed to have been involved in a drive-by shooting, which that proved to be erroneous. The deputies pursued the individual for about 12 minutes and then, upon stopping that person, approached their vehicle – the person’s vehicle. The person put the vehicle in reverse. The tires screeched and was backing into three deputies who were behind the vehicle. That started a series of events of firing weapons that ten deputies ultimately did do. They fired 120 shots, and it was broadcast nationally and it was, quite frankly, excessive. So quickly, the question is: How much damage did we do? How much impact did it have in the neighborhood? And what were we going to do about it?

First thing that I needed to do is to listen to what the problem truly is, find out where the shots went, who shot them, start investigation. So we did. We immediately began internal affairs investigation. We have a system in Los Angeles County where the Office of Independent Review is a separate body of civil rights attorneys that look at the investigation from start to finish and engage in recommendations regarding corrective action, whether it’s discipline or training, either one. We did town hall meetings with the local officials, the mayor and the city council. Mayor Perridin ?? was very strong in his leadership. We went to churches, the park nearby where the shooting occurred. We listened to the neighbors talk about their frustrations and their anger and their fear. We went to every door in the neighborhood itself and knocked on those doors, gave claim forms to every citizen that had bullet holes either in the walls or in their fences, windows and the like, and there was a total of 17 rounds that hit structures of various places. And we brought psychologists into the community to help the community that was traumatized in any way. And then said clearly this: We can do better. We can change our policy regarding shootings at vehicles. We did. Today, 30 days later, I announced what the policy is. We changed our policy regarding approaching vehicles where the suspect, after stopping, refuses to get out of the car. We’re going to have our special weapons teams come in and not have patrol deputies with pistols try and take on a car. You can’t do it. We changed our shooting policy so that you don’t shoot at moving vehicles thinking you can stop them. It’s dangerous. It’s not practical. So this has been a long 30-day journey, but finished the internal affairs investigation, changed the policies for pursuits, for shooting at vehicles, put forth the tactical requirement that things be done tactically and don’t rush into danger, and beefed up our training. And finally, disciplined 13 people involved, from written reprimands to 15 days suspensions. All in 30 days. That’s what we’re noted for. Admit you committed a problem, admit you made a problem – which I did and the deputies did as well – correct the problem through training and corrective action discipline, and then go out there and do your best never to do it again. And finally, institute a stronger community-based policing program in the neighborhoods that you traumatized. So this Saturday we’re going door to door and asking the neighbors what would they like us to do to make their neighborhood safer.

DUTTON: The term “contagious fire,” by the sound of it alone sounds as if it’s a reaction. Was it fear, do you think, on the part of the deputies, that there was some anticipation of fear?

BACA: Well, fear as a rationale for shooting your gun is always one of the primary reasons why you will. Fear for the life of another or fear for your own. I think what happened in the particular case where 120 shots were fired at a car with a suspect who we later discovered was unarmed is a reaction that happens so quickly that it’s both a combination of reaction to someone else’s fear, your own fear – even though you may not be possibly hit by this car, you think someone else will be. So there’s a whole convergence in an intense 15 seconds that causes what we eventually witnessed.

DUTTON: What do you think is going to be the liability for this incident? Do you have any assessment or any idea?

BACA: Well, yes. The incident itself, interestingly enough, the suspect was shot four times – not fatally and not seriously, and thus, his particular medical needs have been met and he’s out of the hospital. A deputy was shot in the vest. God bless the fact that that is only what happened because had that round gone a little higher, we may not have a live deputy. We, unfortunately, exposed the public to a lot of gunfire, which thank goodness no one was hurt from the public end. The suspect himself was leading the deputies in this chase and having fun in doing so. He would – where the shooting occurred, come to a stop and others were seeing him in the front yard and cheering him, and then he’d take off again. And so he was kind of leading a parade. He certainly has a responsibility in some of this – I’m not saying all of it – but a lot of it was because of him and his erratic behavior and using his vehicle in a very careless way that could harm others. So in the end, there is no lawsuit right at the moment that anyone has filed, but a lot of that is because I went back to the neighborhood and spoke to the community, listened to their concerns, went to four community meetings, and did not get defensive, and basically believe that they are entitled to be outraged, entitled to be angry, entitled to be fearful of what went on, because they get exposed to too many drive-by shootings by criminals, and the last thing they want to have is a big shooting by their own deputies who they respect and admire.

DUTTON: The individual who caused this whole event, would he have any liability?

BACA: Well, the individual suspects never have liability in the sense of civil lawsuits. I mean, basically they don’t have anything to take if you sue them, and governments don’t tend to sue people who commit crimes, and generally victims don’t even sue the criminals when they commit crimes against them. This is the sad part of the system, that the minute anything is done wrong, the police and the government can have a deep pocket, but the individuals who kill other individuals, the individuals who hurt and rape people and cause such misery to others, they rarely are held accountable beyond just the criminal sentences that they serve.

Transcripts excerpts DTSC Hearing on 1-19-05 with Guest Debbie Otis, Senior Toxicologist, regarding dangers of methane and hydrogen sulfide chemicals

DR. OTIS: I’m Debbie Otis. I am a Senior Toxicologist from Sacramento, where my group is. We have about six or seven toxicologists that work for me. A number of them have worked on this project in the past. So I want to talk a little bit about what the chemicals are that we’ve found there that we’re really concerned with.

As Jennifer mentioned, during the remedial investigation we looked for hundreds and hundreds of different possible chemicals that could be on the site. From that, we identified 40 chemicals that we found sporadically and at relatively low concentrations. We had two chemicals, however, that we found at higher concentrations and that are of concern in terms of future students and faculty being at the buildings and at the site, and those, again, are methane and hydrogen sulfide. And those were identified as the chemicals that need some kind of mitigation, some additional work to be done in order to provide a protective environment.

As Jennifer mentioned, the problem with methane is that it can either ignite or explode at certain concentrations. Methane in and of itself doesn’t make people sick, so it doesn’t cause cancer, it doesn’t cause birth defects, it doesn’t in any way act like we normally see a toxic chemical to act. But it can explode, so obviously there’s a real health concern here, yes, and something we have to look at. And protect from. The lower explosive limit, which Jennifer mentioned, is 53,000 ppm. Again, the highest concentration we saw was 900,000 up in the baseball field, and that, again, was at 40 feet deep. As we took samples closer and closer to the surface, those concentrations dropped dramatically so that by the time we got to the surface, we were nowhere near this lower explosive limit. Yet this is the standard that we use when we’re looking at whether methane can explode. The regulatory way we approach that, then, is looking at protecting in percentage increments. So for the lower explosive limit, we want to regulate it a fraction of that, and we look at 5%, 10%. Those are generally what regulatory agencies are looking at. Later on, we’ll talk a little bit, because we go much lower than that. Okay? But 5% would be 2500, 10% would be around 5300 parts per million.

Now, hydrogen sulfide was also detected, primarily out in the baseball field. In the area of the buildings itself, we found a couple of trace amounts not actually under where the buildings are, but we did find a few right around there. And methane, too, we only found much smaller concentrations where we were going to actually have the buildings placed. So hydrogen sulfide was elevated out in the baseball field.

Now, hydrogen sulfide’s a different story from methane. Hydrogen sulfide can cause health effects. It is a toxic chemical. At low concentrations – and this is really what we’re looking at, students and faculty potentially being exposed to at the school – it can irritate the lungs, the nose, the eyes; it can cause headaches, nausea; you can smell it, even at these concentrations. And hydrogen sulfide has a very distinctive smell, and you’ve probably smelled it before. It’s a sulfur smell, kind of rotten egg kind of smell, so it’s very distinctive and people do notice it. At high concentrations – and these are concentrations that are usually seen in occupational settings, sewer workers who go down into enclosed spaces can be exposed to very high concentrations. And this can be very serious and the effects can occur in a very short period of time, but it can depress the central nervous system, and then it can interfere with breathing, it can cause convulsions, and ultimately it can actually cause death. And the higher the concentration, the shorter amount of time you can be exposed to it before any of these symptoms or deaths can occur.

So this is to kind of give you some framework for how some of the regulatory agencies have looked at hydrogen sulfide. The OSHA, which is the Occupational Safety and Health Administration – they’re the ones that regulate the workplace, they’ve set a permissible exposure level, that’s the PEL, at 10 ppm. So that’s what they say workers can be exposed to for eight hours a day. Now, California EPA has set values called RELs, and those are Reference Exposure Levels, and that’s the levels they think that the general population would be safe breathing. Generally, OSHA allows higher concentrations, workers to be exposed to higher concentrations that CAL EPA would, than we would a DTSC. So short-term exposure, the REL for short-term exposure is .03 ppm. And for long-term exposure, it’s .008 ppm. So you can see that’s about a thousand fold lower than what the occupational standard is. And we’re using, obviously, not occupational standards here for the proposed high school, but we’re looking at concentrations that CAL EPA has said that are protective for the general population.

So the action levels – and these are for inside the building – and the reason we say it this way is because that’s the space where we’re likely, if there’s a problem, to see the highest concentration. That’s inside of buildings that can accumulate, gasses can accumulate different contaminants like that, and so we’re setting our standards in the place that we’re likely to see the highest concentrations, and that’s within the buildings. And the action level for inside the building is .01 ppm, and that’s slightly rounded up from the long-term REL of .008. And then for methane, it’s 500 ppm, and that’s about 1%. Remember a few minutes ago I talked about the other agencies that look at 5 or 10% of the LEL? Well, what we’re looking at for inside the building here is 500, and that’s 1% of the lower explosive limit.

So with that, I’m going to turn this over to Mike Sorenson, who’s going to talk about the different strategies that are proposed for reaching these goals.

Transcripts from DTCS Hearing 1-19-05 with guest Anthony Patchett, Special Assistant District Attorney and Head of Belmont Task Force

ANTHONY PATCHETT: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. I’ve been sitting here listening to what has gone on today, and I spent about six hours today preparing, just reviewing documents. My name is Anthony Patchett. I’m a retired Deputy District Attorney. I spent 11 years in the Environmental Crimes Division. I was brought back into the office in 2000 as Special Assistant District Attorney and Head of the Belmont Task Force. I spent $1.5 million of your taxpayer money to look at that site, and when you look at this site, I’m really disappointed in DTSC because when you look on the internet, DTSC tells you that they are there to protect California and Californians. Never in the history has a high school been built over an abandoned oil field. LAUSD knew from the get-go what the circumstances were at that site. They paid $30 million for that site “as is.” They knew they were purchasing a hazardous waste facility, because LAUSD has a history of buying contaminated sites for school. Look at Jefferson. Look at Southgate. The students down there might glow someday. You know, when you look at hydrogen sulfide and you look at it, how are you going to mitigate the particular damages that are at that site? You have to realize, DTSC was out of the loop since 1991 on this site. There was no communication between DTSC and LAUSD, and I beg to differ with Mr. Hamid Saebfar because he said LAUSD contacted them. That’s not true. Scott Wildman contacted DTSC and said, “Get your butt down there and do something for the people.” And that’s what you haven’t done before. You know, in the 11 years I spent in the Environmental Crimes Division, you brought me one good criminal case. Your business that I see on the internet is the closest thing to extortion, ‘cause what you do is, you take administrative fines from businesses, and that’s all you do. You know, it’s amazing how much money you have in your system. But I want to read one letter that was written by the attorney representing LAUSD (Mr. David Cartwright, Sr. Partner O'Melveny & Myers) This is dated May 9, 1990:

"They presented a bleak picture of the Temple/Beaudry site. The old Los Angeles oil field runs through this site. There are 13 known abandoned wells and one currently producing well. DOG suspects that there may be dozens more unmarked
abandoned wells dating back over 100 years. The shallowness of the oil field means there is substantial likelihood of one or more of the following conditions arising: A large pressurized build-up of natural gas and/or oil could occur if the site is covered by structures and concrete. Seepage of oil is likely. The threat of a natural gas-induced explosion is as likely here as in the Fairfax area. If the one producing well is shut down and abandoned, the likely result will be repressurization of the oil field, with consequences as in above. Many bootleg wells are uncharted, exist on this site and may never be discovered, even during grading. Thus, a dangerous condition will remain. There are natural gas problems which will require venting and perhaps even flaring. DOG suspects that petroleum operations involving hazardous materials may have been conducted on this site many decades ago. The likelihood of serious contamination is high. The proximity of hydrocarbons made this area a heavy industrial site 50 years ago. Mr. Baker of the DOG made the following observations, in which Manly Oil concurs: This is the most troublesome and problematic oil field in the entire county. The Temple/Beaudry site is not fit for any construction. DOG cannot imagine a worse site for a school. The City has to refuse to even address the issue in the Central City West Specific Plan. DOG insists that no structure shall be built over a well. The maintenance of the existing producing well requires full access by tanker truck."

The apparent conclusion of all parties, including the District technical people was that the school could not and should not be built at the Temple/Beaudry site. The foregoing is a paraphrased summary of our meeting. I have no doubt that I left out some details. However, the message probably comes through loud and clear. I think this matter needs to go to the Board in closed session right away, given the possible catastrophic effect on the Temple/Beaudry agreement.

So I’m asking you, DTSC, not to permit – you have three other schools that LAUSD is building in close proximity to this area, within one mile. Not one of those schools is being built over an abandoned oil field. This school should not go forward. You should make it a park. Thank you very much.

Transcript excerpts regarding Belmont Learning Center with guest Tom Watson

TOM WATSON: My name is Tom Watson, Los Angeles Unified School District, Office of Environmental Health and Safety. The question you’re asking, it is, as Hamid mentioned, it’s contained in the CEQUA document. That document is available on the website, as far as I know, and in the CEQUA document, it looks at impacts from the surrounding neighborhood onto the site, and one of those impacts would obviously be the emissions from the nearby highways. Within the CEQUA document, there’s an analysis done. It’s called a Hazard Risk Analysis, and it looks specifically at emissions from automobiles and engines and nearby businesses – even Burger King counts as an emission source, which is – Jack-in-the-Box nearby, those kinds of things. That’s all evaluated. It’s put into a model that was developed by the EPA, and then based on that model, certain mitigation measures have to be implemented. One of them at the school is the type of air conditioning filters we have. The other thing, if you look at the site, you’ll notice that all the buildings are set back from the side that’s closest to the freeway. That’s another mitigation measure. So there was several things that were done within the context of the CEQUA evaluation that mitigate the concerns that you raised. And more detail is provided in that document. If you wanted to look at it, give me a call. My phone number and stuff is in the packet.

Transcript from Dutton Interview 2/09/05 with Dr. Kaye H. Kilburn, M.D., Ralph Edington Chair, Keck School of Medicine, USC

DUTTON: Dr. Kilburn, you’re one of the foremost authorities on hydrogen sulfide. I wonder if you could just react for us to the District Attorney Steve Cooley was saying about the levels of toxicity were not there. How do we reconcile the fact that LAUSD demolished the buildings and that they’re now thinking about remediating, when there’s no toxicity? What’s that inconsistency?

DR. KILBURN: I think they’re not trusting their nose, is what it comes down to. The site smells. It smells of hydrogen sulfide. The human nose can detect 30 parts per billion. It’s now been recommended from the U.S. Government that one part per billion is the toxic level to avoid. Levels of 375 parts per million – that, I think, is 375,000 parts per billion – have been found at the Belmont site after rains, where there are puddles where gas can be collected by simply inverting a jar and letting the gas bubble in.

DUTTON: What is the danger of hydrogen sulfide? How does it manifest itself to humans?

DR. KILBURN: Well, besides being an awfully fowl odor, it insidiously robs the brain of capacity to think, to remember, to do the ordinary cognitive functions – concentrate, co-process – but even things like balance, reaction time, that we think of as very kind of primitive things that, you know, primates have had, and birds, for millions of years, are diminished or wiped out.

DUTTON: Does it take much exposure for this to happen?

DR. KILBURN: One or two, uh, breaths in the minimal exposure, if the concentration is right, the gas goes through the lung directly to the brain. It has no chance to be detoxified.

DUTTON: Now, you treat people that come from all over the world that have symptoms from this. Are people aware when it happens? Does it take long to find out?

DR. KILBURN: Often, it’s insidious because the levels are not the high level instantaneously for a breath or two, but they’re levels of five parts per million or ten, which under the old ?NIOSH? 1970 standards – which they’re referring to – are all right for, uh, employment. But those standards, as I say, are – they were first guesstimates. They’ve been substantially removed from consideration with new data, and the recommendation now out for review from the Federal Government is one part per billion which, you know, is not even in the same ballpark as we’re talking about, and the attorney is saying this is safe.

DUTTON: Welcome back to Full Disclosure. We’re talking with our two experts here on the demolition of Belmont.

Dr. Kilburn, you have written a letter to the Department of Toxic Substance Control saying that you’ve been watching the situation at Belmont for years, and it’s your recommendation that they not build there. Tell us: You don’t think it can be remediated?

DR. KILBURN: No, I don’t. Short of putting the whole institution up on stilts, maybe 20 feet tall, there’s no way, because we’re Los Angeles. We’re an oil field. We’re an oil field well before Los Angeles was ever thought of. Go to the tar pits at Brea and see. So there’s no way of getting rid of what we sit on. The earth is really the way it is, it’s full of hydrogen sulfide, it’s bubbling to the surface, the old boreholes through cracks in the earth from our numerous earthquake patterns and other breaks that have been made. There was a normal bubbling to the surface even before all this, I’m sure.

DUTTON: When you’ve treated patients that have been exposed to hydrogen sulfide, how do they, themselves, become aware that they have a problem? And is it likely that children will be able to recognize that they have been exposed and have a problem?

DR. KILBURN: We have already lived through that. Some of you will remember the 1992 earthquake at Long Beach and Wilmington. That turned out not to be an earthquake at all, but it was an explosion of the desulphurization plant at Texaco down north of Pacific Coast Highway. 20,000 people, at least, were exposed to hydrogen sulfide. What does it do to children Well, from two schools, special education teachers came to me for their own problems, and then said, “I have students who were passing and can’t pass anymore. I have had more referrals for special education since that explosion than I ever remember having, and I have seen many children drop out of school because they’re uneducable.” If this is what we want as a Belmont High School, we already have seen, at Wilmington School, how this plays out. I don’t really think it can be justified to do the experiment again. It was conclusive the first time,

DUTTON: Dr. Kilburn, I’d like to ask you: You’ve seen a lot of patients and a lot of people who were in the oil industry that have been exposed to this hydrogen sulfide occupationally. Is this a permanent damage that is incurred, or is it something that people can get over?

DR. KILBURN: There’s no way to reverse it that’s known. I wish it were possible, and we’re actually doing some experiments that may make it possible to ameliorate to some degree the severe loss of function. But no, there’s no cure.

DUTTON: Now, I’d like for you to just give us your perspective, from one of the very most foremost international authorities on this subject. Why is ?there? that people want to minimize the problem and don’t want to really acknowledge it?

DR. KILBURN: Globally, let’s say that all oil and gas in the Western Hemisphere is contaminated with hydrogen sulfide. Our big push to natural gas, we’re using – using for heating – natural gas, coming out of the ground, 85% hydrogen sulfide. Every bit of petroleum we’re burning has a percentage of hydrogen sulfide. So it’s here. It’s on earth. And we need to really think, for the future, of eliminating dependence on fuel that has to be desulfurized before it can be used. When it leaks out of the ground, whether it’s at Yellowstone Park or ?Rotorua? Park or Hilo Park in Hawaii – Rotorua is in New Zealand – Sonoma County, it leaks out as hydrogen sulfide. People are overcome, collapse, and they show neurologic impairment. It’s like early aging. They age 30, 40 years ahead of time. That’s all right if you’re 90. Not so good if you’re 30.

DUTTON: So in other words, this is maybe a lot more common that people realize?



DR. KILBURN: Yes, it is. We have three counties in the eastern part of New Mexico. It looks like Lee County and the counties surrounding Lee County, the whole 40,000 people in those three counties. Think of, you know, we’ve got 40,000 people in a square mile in Los Angeles.

DUTTON: Thank you. And
Dr. Kilborn, demolishing the buildings and reconstructing them right there on the same site: Is that going to help?

DR. KILBURN: No. I asked the school board, when I met with them, why didn’t they move the school board offices to the site, if they were guaranteed that they were fine, and put the school in the present downtown site of the school board offices. There were no takers for that simple plan, which would have given the children a safe place to go to school.

Transcript excerpts from the DTSC Hearing with guest Hamid Saebfar, DTSC Division Chief (School Property Evaluation/Clean Up)

Partial Transcript DTSC Hearing 1-19-05

MR. HAMID SAEBFAR: Thank you Eloy. Good evening. I just want to give you a brief history about this site. In 1998, LAUSD brought this project to us because during their construction activity of the school, they found contamination on the property, and LAUSD wanted to make sure the contamination had been properly addressed before they continued the construction of the school. Again, I want to emphasize that LAUSD actually took the steps to come to DTSC at that time to get our input on the environmental investigation and to find out if there was any necessary mitigation for this site. We started working with them and their consultant. An investigation was initiated. We found some contamination. However, that investigation was not completed and the project was put on hold for a number of years, and finally, till recently, LAUSD and their consultants completed the investigation and identified various mitigation systems to deal with the contamination at the site. And so as Eloy mentioned tonight, we want to summarize the investigation and discuss with you the proposed remedy that we believe that’s going to mitigate the problems at the L.A. Central High School No. 11. Thank you.

MR. HAMID SAEBFAR: A couple of things. First of all, LAUSD has conducted an environmental impact report on the concerns that you raised about the traffic and the automobiles, but I also should tell you that this site, as it existed, as we mentioned earlier, the levels of gasses that we’re finding are in the subsurface. We really don’t anticipate the construction of the school is going to add any additional gasses that are naturally venting into the surface, so it’s not enhancing any gas migration to the surface. As far as the traffic and automobile exhaust, those are issues that we don’t consider when we evaluate the school itself. It’s done as part of the California Environmental Quality Act, they look at all the issues and evaluate that.

MS. MESKIN: Has that been done?

MR. SAEBFAR: That has been done. (Inaudible question.) That information I’m sure is available from the repository.

MS. MESKIN: Why isn’t it available to us?

MR. SAEBFAR: It is available. That’s how we make it available to the public.

GENE KRISCHER: Is it correct or incorrect that whatever sampling was done for air quality, not on the site as she’s talking about, but the traffic, was not done at the site but actually somewhere else downtown? Not actually at the site.

Transcript excerpts from Fernando Guerra, Ph.D. Loyola Marymount University & Senator Dick Mountjoy

Topic:

CARDINAL ROGER MAHONEY & LATINO POLITICAL POWER (Partial transcripts)

LESLIE DUTTON: Welcome back to Full Disclosure. We’re talking about Latino political power, the Catholic Church and Cardinal Roger Mahony.

Fernando Guerra. You are the expert about Latino politics and ethnic politics. I’d like you to share with us today: What are the components that are coming together to make this power base happen? There are certain elements that are coming together, a convergence, if you will. Would you please tell us what those elements are.

GUERRA: Well, first and foremost, and the most powerful is just a demographic shift. The number of Latinos. Second is that it’s not just population, but actual voters that count. And so there’s obviously a disparity there. But the tremendous increase in the number of Latino registered voters and the number of registered voters that are actually turning out. That’s the greatest impact. Number two is a convergence of forces that include the emergence of Spanish-language television that we just talked about, the fact that labor unions are increasing in Los Angeles, and they’re highly dependent on Latino workers. The Catholic church has really changed its tone from 20 years ago, where it sees itself as having a preferential option for the poor, the immigrant, the other, and has become advocate – strongly advocating under Cardinal Mahoney, a Latino agenda, almost.

DUTTON: Now, that’s – I want to stop you right there because that’s fascinating, ‘cause I know you had referred to it as “The Latino Catholic Church.” Is it just the population that’s doing this, or is this just a phenomenon in the church?

GUERRA: It’s an incredible phenomena in Los Angeles. Any good institution, business or what have you, has to respond to its customer base, its community, et cetera. The church – those who are Catholic in Los Angeles have changed dramatically. And the role of the Catholic church has changed dramatically. Number one, Los Angeles has always been a protestant town, believe it or not, up until about the 1960s. Riordan is the first Catholic mayor of this century. And so the Catholic church has emerged as a number of Catholics have taken on prominent roles, and Latinos. What should the church do in terms of its social, political responsibility? And so it has to change. And every institution has to say, there’s a tremendous demographic shift. What – how do we respond to that?

DUTTON: You have made the observation that Cardinal Mahoney and the church played a significant role in Proposition 187 in terms of money that they spent. Is that something we can expect in the future, for the churches to play a role in the political expenditure of influence?

GUERRA: I just want to make something very perfectly clear. The Catholic church and the Archdiocese never directly spent money in the campaign for or against 187. However, they do utilize their resources to try to mobilize Catholics in general, the community in general, and Latinos specifically, to get out and do their civic participation, which is to vote. The Cardinal feels a responsibility, as do most of the church hierarchy, that they have to educate their parishioners on what they believe are important issues, whether it has to do with abortion, divorce, or the treatment of immigrants. They feel it strongly that they need to articulate that.

FULL TRANSCRIPT AVAILABLE for above PROGRAM #306 videotaped on July 20, 2001

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

LESLIE DUTTON: Now, Dr.Guerra really sees the emerging Latino power under the auspices of the Catholic church here with Cardinal Mahoney. Yet so often we hear that church and state should be separated. Do you see this as a potential opposition for what you’re doing?

SENATOR DICK MOUNTJOY: Well, it may be opposition. But I hate to pop his bubble. He creates the illusion that just because you’re of Hispanic descent that you all of a sudden become mindless robots that follow this leadership. They’re as independent voters as any. We found in 187, those that were American citizens didn’t want somebody cheating to get into the country. They work very hard. My grandparents worked very hard to come here. Their grandparents worked very hard to come here. And they don’t like illegal entry, no matter what, from where, or who. And so for him to take the assumption that just because they are Hispanic that somehow they’re going to follow lock step with his liberal ideology isn’t true. I hate to pop his bubble and tell him that. Now, the Catholic church, he believes that he’s grown in power in the Catholic church. Well, you know, I think the Catholic church is smart enough to know that their duty is to create more power for God Almighty. Their mission in life is to create a worship for the God that we all bow to. And so I think he may get a few here and there that are out to lunch, you know, but I don’t believe that he can persuade the Catholic population to follow blindly his liberal bent. That isn’t going to happen.

DUTTON: And with Cardinal Mahoney and the Latino agenda, you think that’s just wishful thinking on his part?

MOUNTJOY: He can have all the agendas he chooses to have, but there again, people are individual thinkers. They don’t blindly follow today. There is more education out there about these issues today. He talked about Hispanic television and Hispanic-speaking radio programs and the Hispanic newspapers, but there is the internet. There is talk radio. There is mainstream media. So he’s believing that everyone that is of Hispanic descent is just going to blindly follow their liberal dictates, and I can tell you, I have met some rank and file Hispanic people that make me look like a left winger. They are so conservative. They are patriotic Americans, and they’re not going to follow this kind of nut case.

DUTTON: Well, it’s interesting that he, because he’s the leader of this Center for the Study of Los Angeles, predicting that this is such an emerging power, so I guess maybe this will be an interesting test. As you get going with your campaign, we’ll see whether they participate or not. Right?

SENATOR DICK MOUNTJOY: We’ll see how well he does. He is an elitist. And, you know, when you’re an elitist, you can’t believe that anybody disagrees with you. I mean, “My goodness, I’ve got a Ph.D. and I’ve got all this stuff, and how could you disagree with me? You must follow me.”

FULL TRANSCRIPT AVAILABLE for above PROGRAM #412 videotaped Nov. 3, 2004

Transcript excerpts from Interview of Xavier Reyes

Xavier Reyes Program #376, October 23, 2003

Check our website for full details and access to our Streaming Video, FREE for thirty days.

DUTTON:

What benefits will there be, giving licenses to illegal aliens?

REYES:

There’s a lot of benefits. One of them is, obviously, the public safety issue. I mean, that, in itself, is a huge issue. You know, like it was said earlier, 10 percent of the folks that are driving out on the roads don’t have insurance. They don’t have driver’s licenses. So that’s one of the main issues. Public safety. The other issue is insurance, itself. I’m not an economist, but I can tell you. Economy is scaled. More people are out on the road; more insurance. Premiums going down. So there’s huge economic benefits. More people on the road, obviously there’s a lot of folks are working, people that could be driving out on the road, I mean, there’s a geometric expansion of benefits from that, alone.

Transcript excerpts from Interview of Nativo Lopez

Nativo Lopez, Program #375, October 23, 2003

Check our website for full details and access to our Streaming Video, FREE for thirty days.

DUTTON:

Aren’t we talking about illegal aliens?

LOPEZ:

No, we’re not. We’re really talking about highway safety, and that was the issue. It’s always been the issue. Nevertheless, these individuals have made it an immigration issue, and it’s not an immigration issue. We have close to 2.2 million unlicensed, uninsured drivers in California. There’s over 22 million licensed drivers in California. What is the alternative? That we’re going to wait until there’s five, six, eight million unlicensed, uninsured drivers in California? Who’s going to be burdened by that? Mrs. Jones, Mr. Smith, who’s licensed, who’s insured, and is going to bear the brunt of increased premiums, hit-and-runs, et cetera.

Transcript excerpts from Interview of Larry Flynt

Larry Flynt Program #373, September 19, 2003

Check our website for full details and access to our Streaming Video, FREE for thirty days.

LARRY FLYNT:

Well, look. What Gray Davis did in terms of authorizing those driver’s licenses was really embarrassing to anybody who lives in California. Illegal immigration has been a huge drain on this State forever. And each administration gives it lip service, but nobody does anything about it. You know, I’ talking about not just regular benefits, but Medicare and other services, you know, that are provided to the illegals. So I’m not opposed to immigration because we’re a nation of immigrants. But we have to have orderly immigration. And we have not made any effort to close the border. It’s wide open. Cars drive through in the thousands, you know. So the Federal government has to get in and close that border.

DUTTON:

Tell me, what do you think about the California State Legislature that passes a bill, and it’s signed into law by the governor, saying that they’re going to give illegal aliens free tuition at the California colleges?

LARRY FLYNT:

We have many children in this State that live in poverty, that are underprivileged, but are also citizens of this country. Now, those people, I think, deserve preferential treatment over illegal aliens. Now, I don’t want to make this sound like that I’m against immigration, I’m against aliens coming into the country. I’m not. You know. But –

DUTTON:

But what they’re doing is actually sending a signal for more people to come here, isn’t it?

LARRY FLYNT:

Yeah. Because they’re offering more. They want to give them a driver’s license, they want to pay their tuition, they want to give them benefits that take care of their medical expenses. You know, there’s every reason why they come.

DUTTON:

Okay. Give us your wisdom here. Why do you think the legislature and the governor are doing this? If it’s hurting the State, how are they benefiting?

LARRY FLYNT:

I’ll tell you exactly why. They’re all paranoid about the Latino vote because it’s 60 percent of the electorate in California. And not only do they want to pander to this vote, but they want to do some of these things that we just discussed which, you know, are unethical and improper, to try and entice the vote.

Transcript Excerpts From : Phony Sample Ballots & Paid Endorsements Confuse the Voters

HOLMAN:

I’d like to bring up another example of what I consider a new wave of deceptive advertising with slate mailers, and that is the slate mailer that Maxine Waters just came out with in the last election. I believe you will see an example of it on the screen. What it is, Maxine Waters actually duplicated the official sample ballot – duplicated the picture, duplicated the printing, made it look exactly like a government publication that we all get called the Official Sample Ballot. And it called itself the Official Sample Ballot. If viewers are looking at this example on the screen, I’d like you to identify which one is slate mail and which one is actually a government publication. And this is a whole new twist of slate mailer operators trying to really deceive the voters, and we need some sort of disclosure requirements that flag what’s going on here. We’ve got to know that this is not the real official sample ballot.

LOWENSTEIN:

Individual voters already have that right to go to court if there’s a violation. The fact is: There usually aren’t violations. If you think that imitating the Official Sample Ballot is a problem, then maybe there should be a law that prevents that.

HOLMAN:

That’s right. What we’re talking about here are the for-profit slate mailers. I just want to rehash this a little bit. We’re not talking about the party slate mailers in which the party is trying to let voters know who they endorse. Candidates do not pay for access to those. We’re talking about the for-profit slate mailers in which it’s run by a private company, and that private company charges access to candidates to buy a slot on the mailer. Currently, there is a very weak disclosure law, and that is, when a candidate buys access onto one of these for-profit mailers, there is a little asterisk put next to the candidate’s name. There is rarely any identification of real party I.D., for instance, of the candidate. Just as asterisk. And then the asterisk goes down into a footnote that’s buried away in a little tiny box that says this candidate paid for access to the slate mailer. Many voters, including myself, have been deceived by that, not realizing that that’s what the little footnote meant. So on Proposition 208, we had one significant clarification to that, and that is, instead of using a little footnote and an asterisk, we put three dollar signs next to each candidate who paid for access onto that slate mailer. That did help notify voters that money was involved and that they should read the slate mailer a little closer than what they’ve normally done. So what we’re talking about here and trying to reform slate mailers, primarily is disclosure. Let slate operators, let private companies endorse whoever they want, but let the voters know that money exchanged hands for that endorsement.

DUTTON:

Okay. Now, do you go along with that?

MOUNTJOY:

Yes. I think that it’s fine to sell advertising space, but the voters deserve to know that that is paid advertising space. There’s a placard that came out – this is not in color, but it was in color at the time. This is a senior card. Seniors take this card to the poll. My name is on there, and yet they endorse two people that I don’t endorse. They happen to be Democrats; I’m a Republican, and they endorsed over here, using my popularity in the district to hopefully get the voters to vote for their two Democrat candidates against some people that I did endorse. The point here is: I can’t even refuse to allow them to print my name on this disclosure. Even if I said to them, “Don’t put me on your slate mailer,” they can use my name on there

DUTTON:

Senator Mountjoy, what can the voters do to verify the accuracy of the information on a slate card when they have to make up their minds?

MOUNTJOY:

Well, it would help if they got a magnifying glass, and then went down and looked at the asterisks and then read the disclaimer. That might give them a hint. The other thing they can do, Leslie, if they want to see a change in this disclaimer, and I think that’s where you have to go. We need to make it very clear that these slate cards are paid political ads, and no more and no less, unless they’re coming from a State party or they’re coming from a legitimate organization that’s sending it out free of charge, without charging candidates. But when you charge a candidate, the people have a right to know, very clearly, that this is a paid political ad. That’s all we’re saying. And if that’s done, the people then have an opportunity to judge the merits of the card. That’s all we’re saying. What is wrong with full disclosure? Nothing. That’s the name of your program.

Transcript Excerpts from "Illegals Kill Cops Who Wait for Feds To Enforce"

ANTONOVICH:

We had a Sheriff deputy murdered about two months ago, Deputy March. The murderer, Mr. Garcia, had been deported three times. Three times. The last time being in 2001. And after he had been deported for the third time, serving no time, SERVING NO TIME, having been deported, he committed attempted murder in Baldwin Park, and he had another assault in La Puente. And the system is broken.

GATES:

I had a detective in Hollywood, headed up our Homicide Unit in Hollywood, and he was killed by an illegal immigrant from one of the Balkan states. I don’t remember which one. Yet he was here illegally, the Federal government kept him here because he was an informant for them. I found out about that, and I blasted the Federal government and I blasted him for being here and called him a no good whatever he was, whatever his nationality was, and I’ve forgotten what it was. I got an apology from his government. I got an apology from his government for this individual killing one of my detectives. I had another situation where an El Salvadoran national shot one of my women police officers, shot her in her face. She was a mother, wife, two little kids, on the police department a very short period of time, happened in Hollywood. A wonderful woman. A mother. Just a wonderful, wonderful woman. He was an El Salvadoran. Fortunately, he was shot by
the police officer’s partner.

DUTTON:

But he was an illegal alien?

GATES:

He was an illegal alien, El Salvadoran, who had been arrested for drunk driving where there was an injury. He was arrested for a felony. Should have been deported. Hadn’t been deported. And he killed a wonderful woman.

© Copyright Full Disclosure 2004. All rights reserved

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FULL TRANSCRIPT FROM OUR ONLINE MEDIA OUTLET