Just noticed on my darling stat counter that this was getting a lot of reads.... realized I might as well post it here.
Our Salon
Still spooked, but not spooked enough: Some wacky correspondence with the Los Angles City attorney
by fernsy
Dec 2, 2012
I thought some here would find this interesting. I wanted to post these nearly a year ago but thought that antagonizing them in such away would be just too reckless.
I did remove one blog about John Gregozek. I figured I'd assuage her as she looked like Ruth Buzzi crossed with Jay Leno crossed with Medussa. Plus, she would bring cop bodyguards to court for no "good faith," reason . Since, I've given up on being spooked and scared by them. The spirit must not die kind of thing.
18 officers came last time as many of you know. Exactly why and how must still be laid out better this has to do for now.http://open.salon.com/blog/fernsy/2011/12/10/when_the_1_percent_occupied_innocent_people_in_la/comment
Let them come again. The discussion about the city attorney I "met" on a legal message board is true and very odd. Ultimately, she did not want to get too involved . I never told Mitchell who it was. I learned from this former city attorney about a terrible case involving a Lynn Magnandonovan, and herself -- a case where the system turned on their own.
That is because I copied it back then and send it to friends and lawyers. Her clients are named John Gregozek and John Hoffman, but the whole unit should have been sued as well as any police seen in that tape , as well as many others. Unfortunately, I just didn't have the juice.
Written to my email address in January of 2012 by Elizabeth Mitchell, a city attorney who defends the LAPD when they are sued.
Ms. Spitzberg,
During the pendency of this litigation, I am going to ask you to please refrain from posting information regarding the case and in particular my clients. I do not wish to take this to the judge, but will if necessary. If we did not have this ongoing lawsuit, we would be in a different situation. However, given the fact that we do have this lawsuit, which you initiated, I think it is appropriate to refrain from publishing information thereon.
Thank you,
Elizabeth
-- Elizabeth Mitchell Deputy City Attorney Police Litigation Unit Los Angeles City Attorney's Office Phone: (213) 978-6958 Fax: (213) 978-8785
*****************Confidentiality Notice ************************* This electronic message transmission contains information from the Office of the Los Angeles City Attorney, which may be confidential or protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or the work product doctrine. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the content of this information is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail and delete the original message and any attachments without reading or saving in any manner. ********************************************************************
I responded to her:
Ms. Mitchell,
In the past, I was falsely accused and even severely punished(false charges, defamation,31 days of coercive confinement, competeny ploys etc.) for things that were allegedly found online from the year 2005, and onwards. By all indications you clients made no good faith effort to discern who was writing such alleged"postings." Therefore, I would need to be given a less vague account of your concerns before I could even begin to try to address them. If you can cite particular examples of such "postings" than perhaps we can discuss the viability of your request .
Thanks, Alisa
She got back to me with this :
Sure, no problem. I am actually referring to ANY and ALL postings having ANYTHING to do with this lawsuit. Specifically, it was brought to my attention that there was a post dated January 7, 2012, 4 days ago, on your blog http://henypire.blogspot.com/ regarding my client John Gregozek. Whether this was written by you or someone in your family makes no difference to me; your mother and sister are both co-plaintiffs and I expect them to abide by the same levels of decorum. Moreover it was brought to my attention that various still photographs from the search warrant video were posted online. Again, giving pending litigation, I would ask that you remove any such blogs or postings pending resolution of the case. Thank you, Elizabeth
Note: She was referring to this:http://open.salon.com/blog/fernsy/2011/12/03/nazis_redux
I wrote this back to her after some nice ex city attorney, a Christine Mc&&&(name omitted because they are all pansies at the city attorney's office) got involved in a very chance way after I met her on a legal help board called "Avvo."
Ms. Mitchell,
This letter was drafted for me, by a lawyer, who saw your e-mails, as well as my response. I have sought a lot of advice on this from lawyers . The consensus is that your demand has no legal basis and is innapropriate.
"I I have read your January 10 letter carefully but with some degree of bafflement. Would you be so kind as to send me a signed and dated or certified copy of any written Order issued by the court that prohibits public statements, photographs, or writings by me or any other person about the pending lawsuit? I have not been served or otherwise received notice of any such Order, so I am wholly mystified by your case and desist demand. I would also be appreciative if you would provide me a copy -- or at least the citation -- of any State or Local court rule that proscribes my public comments and enables you to "take this to the judge." Several experienced civil rights attorneys, including some with lengthy prior service as Assistant City Attorneys and Sr. Assistant City Attorneys for the City of Los Angeles, have advised me that there is no such general prohibition and that your demand is without legal any basis absent a court order. I look forward to your response and to your identification of the legal authority on which your Jan 10 demand is based. I would, in turn, forward you a copy of the legal authority on which I rely, but I am quite certain that there are already any number of sources at your office for your review of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Very truly yours
Ms. Spitzberg,
If you have been seeking advice from various attorneys, I'm not sure why you aren't represented in this case and would suggest that having a lawyer is much easier than dealing with this on your own. However, I am surprised that any lawyer would write such a letter. Obviously I have no court order at this point, hence the polite request. In the interest in attempting to deal with these things outside of the courtroom, I brought this to your attention in the hope that you and I could reach some type of understanding. That is the purpose of a meet and confer, to discuss these things in a civil manner.
If you are in fact receiving advice from "Assistant City Attorneys" and "Sr. Assistant City Attorneys" who are in any way familiar with civil rights law and you are actually taking their advice, I would be happy to talk to them. Please ask them to call me. Otherwise I will be forced to seek a court order. I am in no way attempting to abrogate your first amendment rights - remember, you are the one who is pursuing the lawsuit here. I simply think it is an appropriate request that you not publicly discuss this case or disparage my clients until litigation has ceased.
Jan 15 (5 days ago) to Elizabeth
I wrote this back:
Ms. Mitchell,
You seem to think I am some sort of mastermind who would draft such a letter and try to pass it off as one written by a Sr. City Attorney(who was appalled that you were writing such letters.) I never even knew there was such a thing as a Sr. City attorney. Many people know about this case, and it is in our interests ,and that of the public, that as many as possible be informed. There is no incentive, on our parts, for that to not be the case. If you or your clients believe any posting contains defamatory material than you can sue us for defamation. . You made it clear that you did not want to engage in mediation, and I overheard you telling Piazza's lawyer to make the mediation 30 days before trial. I imagine the best time to discuss free speech concerns or your client's concerns about certain postings would be at that mediation. But, if you want to seek orders that is fine too. As a courtesy, I will delete the Gregozek 2012 post. It is all true but it was written in anger . I don't like it much. I actually want to take down that whole blog because the uninformed observer would not know about Lauren D et.c etc.etc, and just not get get it. I get that. I plan to start up a much better blog. But, I can't close the old one due to a stat counter issue, unfortunately. Thanks, Alisa
then she came back with this:
Elizabeth MitchellJan 18 (2 days ago) Ms. Spitzberg,
I'm a little confused by your response, as it is unclear to me whether you have agreed to refrain from posting information regarding the ongoing litigation and/or my client. I appreciate your agreement to take the most recent post down. Please continue to refrain from posting these matters online or anywhere else.
Regarding your contentions regarding the mediation, I'm not sure where you are even getting this from. I look forward to mediation in this case because I think it will help you and your family narrow the issues if nothing else. What you heard was a discussion regarding scheduling, and I suggested that we make the mediation cut-off the same as the final status conference prior to trial. I encourage you to hire a lawyer because these are things he or she could explain to you instead of you jumping to wild conclusions. Again, if you are actually consulting with any attorney - former City Attorney or not - I would encourage them to contact me and would be happy to talk to with him.
Thanks,
Elizabeth
Then, I wrote this back:
Ms. Mitchell, If I am not "actually" conferring with this former Sr. City Atttorney you will really be able to use that to attack my credibility at some point. If my past and future blog postings are not accurate you can use that too. It is actually a woman not a "him" who drafted that letter, by the way. I just don't see any possible logic as to why she should call you or why you think it appropriate that I request she call you. I don't intend to impose on someone who has been kind enough to assist me pro bono with this particular free speech concern. As you know, that is all irrelevant anyhow, and if you want to have proof of such communications you can " take it to the judge," It is my impression that though this judge has expressed that he doesn't think a city attorney would be abusive etc, he is a fair man and when faced with the law and the facts he will do attempt to do the right thing. If you want us to have representation your clients can start a fund . We will happily hire an attorney with the money they raise on our behalf. I appears that you know have altered your initial demand and request that I or we or whomever, "refrain from posting these matters online or anywhere else." It's not relevant, but I'd love to know what you mean by "anywhere else." As for my contention about the mediation: I got that contention because you said, " I don't see mediation as being productive in this case" on the record at the case management conference.
Happy Martin Luther Kings Day, Alisa
Then she scurried off but returned much later with more inane and inappropriate e-mails.
JMac1949 Memories
James Mark Emmerling
fernsy