It must feel pretty heady for Chula Vista mayor Cheryl Cox to get away
with suborning perjury (click here to see one such case involving Cheryl
Cox) and at the same time her political allies* are able to get District
Attorney Bonnie Dumanis to prosecute a Chula Vista city employee for
this rarely-prosecuted crime because he tried to take a picture of Cheryl
at a yacht party fundraiser. Cheryl has played rough for a long time,
but she turns out to be more vindictive than I had imagined.
Cheryl approved the actions of her favored law firm, Stutz, Artiano,
Shinoff & Holtz on behalf of CVESD. (This is Leslie Devaney's firm, to
which the City of Chula Vista, of which Cox is mayor recently awarded a
cozy settlement in the Madigan case.) Cheryl's decisions as school
board member put extreme pressure on two law officers to commit
perjury. When she received an official complaint about the crimes of
Rick Werlin, San Diego District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis decided it was
okay for Richard Werlin to commit obstruction of justice on behalf of
Chula Vista Elementary School District.
But it's a different story when the shoe is on the other foot. Bonnie
kowtowed to Cox and brought felony charges against a young man who
tried to photograph Cox with Cox's disgraced family friend David
Malcolm. This young man's actions pale in comparison to those of Cheryl
Cox and CVESD. Bonnie claims the young man committed perjury when
he said he had taken leave from his job to go to the Cox political
fundraiser, where Cox and Malcolm were socializing. Bonnie says the
young man was actually being paid by the City of Chula Vista at the time
he was at the Cox luncheon.
For Cheryl Cox, having political power means she is above the law.
It is clear that Bonnie's prosecution of Jason Moore is politically
motivated. Perjury is, sadly, an extremely common crime in our legal
system. Cox's former lawyers, Stutz, Artiano, Shinoff & Holtz, use it as a
knee-jerk perjury response to true allegations. Naturally, Bonnie
Dumanis refused to investigate the felonies of Cheryl Cox and Rick
Werlin.
Am I the only one who believes that Cox uses public money to achieve
her own personal and political goals? Apparently not.
On November 2, 2006, the San Diego Union Tribune published these
comments by Sharon Floyd:
"Candidate Cheryl Cox refuses to acknowledge the ties she has to David
Malcolm, former Chula Vista council member and port commissioner
who was jailed for corruption. Records show that she has taken tens of
thousands of dollars from Malcolm.
"Cox has been a paid lobbyist, not only for developers who have
business with the city, but also casinos, trucking companies and liquor
stores.
"Cox likes high-rises. Her family had a deposit on a condominium in the
now infamous Españada project."
Cox also approves of stretching the truth when she's not under oath.
After wasting hundreds of thousands of tax dollars in Chula Vista to
achieve her personal and political goals, including doing business with
builders who channelled money to her campaign, she had the nerve to
run for mayor of Chula Vista on a platform of fiscal responsibility and
character issues. Clearly, Cox cares more about her own power than
she does about the education of children, fiscal responsibility, or the law.
Cheryl Cox also put the Sheriff of Santa Barbara in a difficult position
when she covered up crimes at CVESD. Cheryl weaved a tangled web of
deceit after deciding to cover up Robin Doig/Colls/Donlan's crimes at
Castle Park Elementary. Robin's brother and his boss, Commander Sam
Gross, were pressured to commit perjury by Cox's decision to cover up
crimes.
Deputy District Attorney Patrick O'Toole, San Diego Union Tribune
reporter Tanya Mannes and the grand jury involved in the Cox case will,
if they have any interest in equal application of the law or journalistic
ethics, take note of proof of perjury by the Sheriff of Santa Barbara to
help Cheryl Cox cover up crimes.
They will also look at supporting pleadings in this perjury case, which
was thrown out because plaintiff did not correctly plead the alteration
or destruction of documents.
There is one--and only one--crime that anyone can commit and not be
liable for civil damages. It is perjury. You have to have power to get
someone prosecuted for perjury. The reason for this is, of course, that
perjury is committed all the time at the behest of many lawyers and by
witnesses who want to cover up wrongdoing. The only time such
perjury is litigatible is when documents are destroyed or altered. Such
destruction of documents occurred at Chula Vista Elementary School
District when Cheryl Cox voted to violate the law and cover up crimes.
with suborning perjury (click here to see one such case involving Cheryl
Cox) and at the same time her political allies* are able to get District
Attorney Bonnie Dumanis to prosecute a Chula Vista city employee for
this rarely-prosecuted crime because he tried to take a picture of Cheryl
at a yacht party fundraiser. Cheryl has played rough for a long time,
but she turns out to be more vindictive than I had imagined.
Cheryl approved the actions of her favored law firm, Stutz, Artiano,
Shinoff & Holtz on behalf of CVESD. (This is Leslie Devaney's firm, to
which the City of Chula Vista, of which Cox is mayor recently awarded a
cozy settlement in the Madigan case.) Cheryl's decisions as school
board member put extreme pressure on two law officers to commit
perjury. When she received an official complaint about the crimes of
Rick Werlin, San Diego District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis decided it was
okay for Richard Werlin to commit obstruction of justice on behalf of
Chula Vista Elementary School District.
But it's a different story when the shoe is on the other foot. Bonnie
kowtowed to Cox and brought felony charges against a young man who
tried to photograph Cox with Cox's disgraced family friend David
Malcolm. This young man's actions pale in comparison to those of Cheryl
Cox and CVESD. Bonnie claims the young man committed perjury when
he said he had taken leave from his job to go to the Cox political
fundraiser, where Cox and Malcolm were socializing. Bonnie says the
young man was actually being paid by the City of Chula Vista at the time
he was at the Cox luncheon.
For Cheryl Cox, having political power means she is above the law.
It is clear that Bonnie's prosecution of Jason Moore is politically
motivated. Perjury is, sadly, an extremely common crime in our legal
system. Cox's former lawyers, Stutz, Artiano, Shinoff & Holtz, use it as a
knee-jerk perjury response to true allegations. Naturally, Bonnie
Dumanis refused to investigate the felonies of Cheryl Cox and Rick
Werlin.
Am I the only one who believes that Cox uses public money to achieve
her own personal and political goals? Apparently not.
On November 2, 2006, the San Diego Union Tribune published these
comments by Sharon Floyd:
"Candidate Cheryl Cox refuses to acknowledge the ties she has to David
Malcolm, former Chula Vista council member and port commissioner
who was jailed for corruption. Records show that she has taken tens of
thousands of dollars from Malcolm.
"Cox has been a paid lobbyist, not only for developers who have
business with the city, but also casinos, trucking companies and liquor
stores.
"Cox likes high-rises. Her family had a deposit on a condominium in the
now infamous Españada project."
Cox also approves of stretching the truth when she's not under oath.
After wasting hundreds of thousands of tax dollars in Chula Vista to
achieve her personal and political goals, including doing business with
builders who channelled money to her campaign, she had the nerve to
run for mayor of Chula Vista on a platform of fiscal responsibility and
character issues. Clearly, Cox cares more about her own power than
she does about the education of children, fiscal responsibility, or the law.
Cheryl Cox also put the Sheriff of Santa Barbara in a difficult position
when she covered up crimes at CVESD. Cheryl weaved a tangled web of
deceit after deciding to cover up Robin Doig/Colls/Donlan's crimes at
Castle Park Elementary. Robin's brother and his boss, Commander Sam
Gross, were pressured to commit perjury by Cox's decision to cover up
crimes.
Deputy District Attorney Patrick O'Toole, San Diego Union Tribune
reporter Tanya Mannes and the grand jury involved in the Cox case will,
if they have any interest in equal application of the law or journalistic
ethics, take note of proof of perjury by the Sheriff of Santa Barbara to
help Cheryl Cox cover up crimes.
They will also look at supporting pleadings in this perjury case, which
was thrown out because plaintiff did not correctly plead the alteration
or destruction of documents.
There is one--and only one--crime that anyone can commit and not be
liable for civil damages. It is perjury. You have to have power to get
someone prosecuted for perjury. The reason for this is, of course, that
perjury is committed all the time at the behest of many lawyers and by
witnesses who want to cover up wrongdoing. The only time such
perjury is litigatible is when documents are destroyed or altered. Such
destruction of documents occurred at Chula Vista Elementary School
District when Cheryl Cox voted to violate the law and cover up crimes.
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Through her lawyers, Stutz, Artiano, Shinoff & Holtz, Cheryl
Cox suborned the perjury of Robin Donlan on November 4,
2004.
Attorney Kelly Angell Minnehan, knowing that she was suborning perjury,
intentionally caused Robin Colls Donlan to change her testimony from a
true statement to a false statement during her deposition for San Diego
Superior Court case number GIC781970. Kelly Angell Minnehan was
working under the supervision of Daniel Shinoff, who had, with Jeffery
Morris, set out a strategy of destruction of documents, dishonesty, and
subornation of perjury for this case, and had, on December 17, 2003 and
continually after that time, made clear to Angell Minnehan that he approved
and would help cover-up any illegal actions she might take to win the case.
ROBIN DONLAN DEPOSITION
November 4, 2004 (Exhibit 1)
Page 99
Q. Do you know that I was dismissed by the school district?
MS. ANGELL: You mean other than conversations that are
attorney-client privileged, attorney work product and
information related to Ms. Donlan in the course of this
litigation?
MS. LARKINS: Yes.
THE WITNESS: We were told during a meeting, so--
At this point, the deponent had answered a clear question, AFTER her
lawyer's clarification that the question specifically ruled out information that
was "attorney-client privileged, attorney work product and information
related to Ms. Donlan in the course of this litigation." Ms. Donlan made it
clear that there had been a meeting which was NOT "attorney-client
privileged, attorney work product and information related to Ms. Donlan in
the course of this litigation," in which she had learned that LARKINS had
been dismissed from employment.
As DONLAN answered this question affirmatively, the video camera
recorded her tone of voice, eye movements, and body language, all of
which support the court reporter's record of an affirmative response. This
additional evidence indicates DONLAN'S clear understanding of the
question, and her clear understanding of the clarification by her lawyer.
DONLAN nodded her head affirmatively as she answered, "We were told
during a meeting, so--." She looked at Kelly Angell as she spoke the
words, and spoke in a confidential tone of voice, as if she had never before
given this information to her lawyer, but was giving it to her now.
ANGELL interrupted her client's testimony to give a clear order, a clear
directive, a clear instruction, to Ms. Donlan:
"Well, you don't discuss anything that was told to you by your
counsel, things that you discussed with counsel. So the
question is did you know, other than through your counsel or
through this litigation, that she had been dismissed?
The witness --and a reasonable person informed of ANGELL'S words and
actions--could not help but understand that ANGELL was ordering her
client to change her testimony. And Ms. Donlan did change her testimony:
THE WITNESS: No.
Why did ANGELL want this apparently innocuous information
contradicted? The information is a matter of public record. Because
ANGELL was desperate to avoid any testimony about discussions about
the matter by teachers and Michael Carlson and Rick Werlin at that time,
since those discussions involved covering up crimes by planning new
crimes.
This isn’t a private lawyer protecting a client. This is a public entity lawyer
preventing a witness from telling the truth about harm done by the public
entity. This is a representative of a public institution (Chula Vista
Elementary School District) forcing a client to lie to cover up a committed by
that institution. This is public, not private. This is subornation of perjury BY
government, supported by tax dollars, and the public has a right to know
about it. The lawyers provided to CVESD by the San Diego County Office
of Education Joint Powers Authority must stop milking the public and
committing misdemeanors and felonies that harm public education.
Plaintiff's conduct as alleged in this cause of action constitutes an unlawful
act in violation of Penal Code section 127, which states, “Every person who
willfully procures another person to commit perjury is guilty of subornation
of perjury, and is punishable in the same manner as he would be if
personally guilty of the perjury so procured.”
The following quotes from Robin Donlan’s deposition show exactly how she
contradicted the sworn testimony of her principal. SASH knew very well that
these people had violated Labor Code Section 432.7 (a misdemeanor)
against Larkins (Exhibit 8), but instead of an apology to Larkins they
continued to bill the district for their efforts to subvert the justice system.
ROBIN COLLS DONLAN DEPOSITION
November 4, 2004
P123
18 MS. LARKINS: Okay. I would like to ask that
19 this document be labeled -- okay -- as Exhibit 5.
20 I want to make sure that you get one,
21 Ms. Garvin, because this relates so specifically to your
22 client.
P 124
3 (Exhibit 5 marked for identification.)
17 A. "Deposition of Gretchen Donndelinger."
P 125
22 A. "Did Robert -- Robin Colls ever share with you
23 any kind of information concerning a police report
24 allegedly, somehow, involving Maura Larkins?"
P 126
9 Q. Was there ever something about a police report
10 that you didn't want Gretchen Donndelinger to know?
11 A. Not to my recollection, no.
12 Q. Okay. So according to your recollection,
13 Gretchen Donndelinger's testimony about you here is
14 false?
15 A. As far as I recall.
9 Q. Was there ever something about a police report
10 that you didn't want Gretchen Donndelinger to know?
11 A. Not to my recollection, no.
12 Q. Okay. So according to your recollection,
13 Gretchen Donndelinger's testimony about you here is
14 false?
15 A. As far as I recall.
16 Q. Okay. Did your brother ever talk to you during
17 the year 2000 about my having been arrested?
18 MR. GARVIN: Vague and ambiguous.
19 THE WITNESS: No.
21-22 Q. Okay. Would you please read the question on Line 2 of
Page 81.
P 127 line 9-16
Q. Okay. Now that you have read almost half a page of Gretchen
Donndelinger's testimony about a conversation she claims to have had with
you, are you getting any memories at all of this conversation?
A. No, none whatsoever.
Q. Okay. Do you have any explanation for why Gretchen Donndelinger
would have said that you talked about a police report?
Page 128 line 8 through page 129 line 5
Q. So could you read the question that was asked of Gretchen
Donndelinger that is recorded here on Line 10 on Page 81.
A. "Was this in a face-to-face conversation with Robin Colls?"
Q. And what was Gretchen's answer?
A. "Yes."
Q. Okay. You don't remember any face-to-face conversation with
Gretchen Donndelinger about a police report that allegedly somehow
involved me?
A. No, I don't.
Q. Okay. Do you have any experience of Gretchen Donndelinger having
hallucinations?
A. No. Personally, no.
Q. Okay. But you heard -- her testimony here is false; is that your
testimony?
A. I don't have any recollection of that event.
Q. Could this conversation have had happened and you might have
forgotten it?
A. I doubt that.
Q. So you're quite sure this conversation never took place?
A. I don't recall it.
P70
11 Q. When I was working at Castle Park and Gretchen
12 Donndelinger was working at Castle Park, did you ever
13 talk to her about a police report involving me or anyone
14 connected with me?
15 A. No.
16 Q. Did you ever tell her that you knew something
17 about me, but you -- she wouldn't want to know it?
18 A. No.
19 Q. Did you ever tell her that there was some sort
20 of non-school relationship between my family and your
21 family?
22 A. Not to my recollection, no.
p71
7 Q. Did you ever talk to Gretchen Donndelinger
8 without an attorney present about me at any other time
9 other than the times you were discussing the white board
10 incident and the notebook incident?
11 A. I don't recall any, no.
12 Q. Okay. If you had knowledge about a police
13 report about a teacher at your school, is that something
14 you'd be likely to remember?
15 A. Probably.
Another individual who committed perjury under pressure from Cheryl Cox
and the rest of the CVESD board was Linda Watson (Exhibit 7),
contradicting herself again and again, and changing her testimony when
Larkins asked if Watson would mind if her phone records were subpoenaed.
Cox suborned the perjury of Robin Donlan on November 4,
2004.
Attorney Kelly Angell Minnehan, knowing that she was suborning perjury,
intentionally caused Robin Colls Donlan to change her testimony from a
true statement to a false statement during her deposition for San Diego
Superior Court case number GIC781970. Kelly Angell Minnehan was
working under the supervision of Daniel Shinoff, who had, with Jeffery
Morris, set out a strategy of destruction of documents, dishonesty, and
subornation of perjury for this case, and had, on December 17, 2003 and
continually after that time, made clear to Angell Minnehan that he approved
and would help cover-up any illegal actions she might take to win the case.
ROBIN DONLAN DEPOSITION
November 4, 2004 (Exhibit 1)
Page 99
Q. Do you know that I was dismissed by the school district?
MS. ANGELL: You mean other than conversations that are
attorney-client privileged, attorney work product and
information related to Ms. Donlan in the course of this
litigation?
MS. LARKINS: Yes.
THE WITNESS: We were told during a meeting, so--
At this point, the deponent had answered a clear question, AFTER her
lawyer's clarification that the question specifically ruled out information that
was "attorney-client privileged, attorney work product and information
related to Ms. Donlan in the course of this litigation." Ms. Donlan made it
clear that there had been a meeting which was NOT "attorney-client
privileged, attorney work product and information related to Ms. Donlan in
the course of this litigation," in which she had learned that LARKINS had
been dismissed from employment.
As DONLAN answered this question affirmatively, the video camera
recorded her tone of voice, eye movements, and body language, all of
which support the court reporter's record of an affirmative response. This
additional evidence indicates DONLAN'S clear understanding of the
question, and her clear understanding of the clarification by her lawyer.
DONLAN nodded her head affirmatively as she answered, "We were told
during a meeting, so--." She looked at Kelly Angell as she spoke the
words, and spoke in a confidential tone of voice, as if she had never before
given this information to her lawyer, but was giving it to her now.
ANGELL interrupted her client's testimony to give a clear order, a clear
directive, a clear instruction, to Ms. Donlan:
"Well, you don't discuss anything that was told to you by your
counsel, things that you discussed with counsel. So the
question is did you know, other than through your counsel or
through this litigation, that she had been dismissed?
The witness --and a reasonable person informed of ANGELL'S words and
actions--could not help but understand that ANGELL was ordering her
client to change her testimony. And Ms. Donlan did change her testimony:
THE WITNESS: No.
Why did ANGELL want this apparently innocuous information
contradicted? The information is a matter of public record. Because
ANGELL was desperate to avoid any testimony about discussions about
the matter by teachers and Michael Carlson and Rick Werlin at that time,
since those discussions involved covering up crimes by planning new
crimes.
This isn’t a private lawyer protecting a client. This is a public entity lawyer
preventing a witness from telling the truth about harm done by the public
entity. This is a representative of a public institution (Chula Vista
Elementary School District) forcing a client to lie to cover up a committed by
that institution. This is public, not private. This is subornation of perjury BY
government, supported by tax dollars, and the public has a right to know
about it. The lawyers provided to CVESD by the San Diego County Office
of Education Joint Powers Authority must stop milking the public and
committing misdemeanors and felonies that harm public education.
Plaintiff's conduct as alleged in this cause of action constitutes an unlawful
act in violation of Penal Code section 127, which states, “Every person who
willfully procures another person to commit perjury is guilty of subornation
of perjury, and is punishable in the same manner as he would be if
personally guilty of the perjury so procured.”
The following quotes from Robin Donlan’s deposition show exactly how she
contradicted the sworn testimony of her principal. SASH knew very well that
these people had violated Labor Code Section 432.7 (a misdemeanor)
against Larkins (Exhibit 8), but instead of an apology to Larkins they
continued to bill the district for their efforts to subvert the justice system.
ROBIN COLLS DONLAN DEPOSITION
November 4, 2004
P123
18 MS. LARKINS: Okay. I would like to ask that
19 this document be labeled -- okay -- as Exhibit 5.
20 I want to make sure that you get one,
21 Ms. Garvin, because this relates so specifically to your
22 client.
P 124
3 (Exhibit 5 marked for identification.)
17 A. "Deposition of Gretchen Donndelinger."
P 125
22 A. "Did Robert -- Robin Colls ever share with you
23 any kind of information concerning a police report
24 allegedly, somehow, involving Maura Larkins?"
P 126
9 Q. Was there ever something about a police report
10 that you didn't want Gretchen Donndelinger to know?
11 A. Not to my recollection, no.
12 Q. Okay. So according to your recollection,
13 Gretchen Donndelinger's testimony about you here is
14 false?
15 A. As far as I recall.
9 Q. Was there ever something about a police report
10 that you didn't want Gretchen Donndelinger to know?
11 A. Not to my recollection, no.
12 Q. Okay. So according to your recollection,
13 Gretchen Donndelinger's testimony about you here is
14 false?
15 A. As far as I recall.
16 Q. Okay. Did your brother ever talk to you during
17 the year 2000 about my having been arrested?
18 MR. GARVIN: Vague and ambiguous.
19 THE WITNESS: No.
21-22 Q. Okay. Would you please read the question on Line 2 of
Page 81.
P 127 line 9-16
Q. Okay. Now that you have read almost half a page of Gretchen
Donndelinger's testimony about a conversation she claims to have had with
you, are you getting any memories at all of this conversation?
A. No, none whatsoever.
Q. Okay. Do you have any explanation for why Gretchen Donndelinger
would have said that you talked about a police report?
Page 128 line 8 through page 129 line 5
Q. So could you read the question that was asked of Gretchen
Donndelinger that is recorded here on Line 10 on Page 81.
A. "Was this in a face-to-face conversation with Robin Colls?"
Q. And what was Gretchen's answer?
A. "Yes."
Q. Okay. You don't remember any face-to-face conversation with
Gretchen Donndelinger about a police report that allegedly somehow
involved me?
A. No, I don't.
Q. Okay. Do you have any experience of Gretchen Donndelinger having
hallucinations?
A. No. Personally, no.
Q. Okay. But you heard -- her testimony here is false; is that your
testimony?
A. I don't have any recollection of that event.
Q. Could this conversation have had happened and you might have
forgotten it?
A. I doubt that.
Q. So you're quite sure this conversation never took place?
A. I don't recall it.
P70
11 Q. When I was working at Castle Park and Gretchen
12 Donndelinger was working at Castle Park, did you ever
13 talk to her about a police report involving me or anyone
14 connected with me?
15 A. No.
16 Q. Did you ever tell her that you knew something
17 about me, but you -- she wouldn't want to know it?
18 A. No.
19 Q. Did you ever tell her that there was some sort
20 of non-school relationship between my family and your
21 family?
22 A. Not to my recollection, no.
p71
7 Q. Did you ever talk to Gretchen Donndelinger
8 without an attorney present about me at any other time
9 other than the times you were discussing the white board
10 incident and the notebook incident?
11 A. I don't recall any, no.
12 Q. Okay. If you had knowledge about a police
13 report about a teacher at your school, is that something
14 you'd be likely to remember?
15 A. Probably.
Another individual who committed perjury under pressure from Cheryl Cox
and the rest of the CVESD board was Linda Watson (Exhibit 7),
contradicting herself again and again, and changing her testimony when
Larkins asked if Watson would mind if her phone records were subpoenaed.
Cheryl Cox gets away with suborning perjury, but her associates get
young man indicted for taking time off work to spy on her yacht party
(April 2007)
Bonnie Dumanis accused by Steve Castaneda of politically-motivated
prosecution on behalf of Cheryl Cox
young man indicted for taking time off work to spy on her yacht party
(April 2007)
Bonnie Dumanis accused by Steve Castaneda of politically-motivated
prosecution on behalf of Cheryl Cox
Cheryl Cox
Former CVESD school board member;
mayor of Chula Vista
Former CVESD school board member;
mayor of Chula Vista
| *One of Cox's political allies is her husband, Greg Cox, who happens to be District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis' boss. |
| "Billary" Clinton and "Gregeryl" Cox One of Cox's political allies is her husband, Greg Cox, who happens to be District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis' boss. Greg and Cheryl are a powerful pair. "Grecheryl" Cox seems to be the Republican equivalent of "Billary" Clinton. Greg and Cheryl bring to mind the combination of Bill and Hillary. |
| Home Why This Website SDCOE CVESD Castle Park Elem Law Enforcement CTA CVE Stutz Artiano Shinoff Silence is Golden Schools and Violence Office Admin Hearings Larkins OAH Hearing |
Felony counts or a
golden parachute
San Diego Union Tribune
Regarding “Ex-mayoral aide
pleads not guilty to perjury in
'political dirty trick' ” (Our Region,
April 3):
Am I the only one confused by
the article about an unemployed
former Chula Vista mayoral aide
who has been charged with five
felony counts of perjury that
could land him in prison? Jason
Moore's attorney said this
investigation is over whether his
client turned in a leave slip
before or after the photography
incident occurred back in August.
He also said that at no point did
the incident being investigated
cost taxpayers a penny. I think
there clearly is a waste of
taxpayers' dollars –
specifically, the cost of a six-
month investigation about
when a time card was turned
in. And if there is a conviction,
what will be the cost to
incarcerate Moore? Isn't a time-
card question an issue for Chula
Vista's Human Resources
Department? Or is it too busy
giving golden handshake checks
to former city management?
One just has to read the articles
about the recent sweetheart deal
Chula Vista gave to one of its
former employees being
investigated over conflict of
interest. Let's see, one ex-
employee gets a $155,000
payout and annual benefits of
nearly $30,000. The other? Well,
he gets five felony counts.
I guess the lesson to be learned
is that if you are being
investigated you should get three
high-powered attorneys, and
you'll land safely, thanks to a
generous golden parachute. Sad.
ELVA GIBSON
San Diego
golden parachute
San Diego Union Tribune
Regarding “Ex-mayoral aide
pleads not guilty to perjury in
'political dirty trick' ” (Our Region,
April 3):
Am I the only one confused by
the article about an unemployed
former Chula Vista mayoral aide
who has been charged with five
felony counts of perjury that
could land him in prison? Jason
Moore's attorney said this
investigation is over whether his
client turned in a leave slip
before or after the photography
incident occurred back in August.
He also said that at no point did
the incident being investigated
cost taxpayers a penny. I think
there clearly is a waste of
taxpayers' dollars –
specifically, the cost of a six-
month investigation about
when a time card was turned
in. And if there is a conviction,
what will be the cost to
incarcerate Moore? Isn't a time-
card question an issue for Chula
Vista's Human Resources
Department? Or is it too busy
giving golden handshake checks
to former city management?
One just has to read the articles
about the recent sweetheart deal
Chula Vista gave to one of its
former employees being
investigated over conflict of
interest. Let's see, one ex-
employee gets a $155,000
payout and annual benefits of
nearly $30,000. The other? Well,
he gets five felony counts.
I guess the lesson to be learned
is that if you are being
investigated you should get three
high-powered attorneys, and
you'll land safely, thanks to a
generous golden parachute. Sad.
ELVA GIBSON
San Diego
| San Diego Education Report |
Former aide to
mayor makes plea
agreement
Prosecutor drops perjury charges
By Tanya Mannes
San Diego Union Tribune
June 20, 2007
CHULA VISTA – A former Chula
Vista mayoral aide who was
charged in March with felony
perjury pleaded guilty yesterday
to a misdemeanor under a deal
reached with the District
Attorney's Public Integrity Unit.
Patrick O'Toole, a Public Integrity
Unit prosecutor, spent months
investigating Jason Moore, who
had been an aide to former
Mayor Steve Padilla.
O'Toole focused on an August
2006 incident involving the Chula
Vista mayoral race. In that
incident, Moore left his City Hall
job two hours early and went to
spy on a fundraiser for Padilla's
political opponent, Cheryl Cox,
who went on to beat the
incumbent in November.
O'Toole was investigating
whether Moore was carrying out
“a political dirty trick” while he
was on the clock working for the
city.
He concluded that Moore
ultimately took the two hours off.
But he believed Moore lied about
the timing of when he turned in a
request for personal leave.
“People can't come into the
grand jury, swear to tell the truth,
and then lie,” O'Toole said.
On March 27, a criminal grand
jury considered O'Toole's
evidence and indicted Moore on
five perjury counts.
Yesterday, Moore, 36, pleaded
guilty to one count of contempt of
court, a misdemeanor. As part of
the deal, he admitted that he lied.
O'Toole said that in the plea
deal, he considered mitigating
factors such as “the lack of a
monetary cost to the city” and the
fact that Moore had already been
disciplined by Padilla with a two-
week suspension.
Moore's attorney, Knut Johnson,
said he was pleased the felony
charges were dismissed.
San Diego Superior Court Judge
David J. Danielsen sentenced
Moore to three years of
probation, during which he
cannot run for political office or
work for a public or political
official; seven days of public work
service; and a suspended
sentence of 45 days.
mayor makes plea
agreement
Prosecutor drops perjury charges
By Tanya Mannes
San Diego Union Tribune
June 20, 2007
CHULA VISTA – A former Chula
Vista mayoral aide who was
charged in March with felony
perjury pleaded guilty yesterday
to a misdemeanor under a deal
reached with the District
Attorney's Public Integrity Unit.
Patrick O'Toole, a Public Integrity
Unit prosecutor, spent months
investigating Jason Moore, who
had been an aide to former
Mayor Steve Padilla.
O'Toole focused on an August
2006 incident involving the Chula
Vista mayoral race. In that
incident, Moore left his City Hall
job two hours early and went to
spy on a fundraiser for Padilla's
political opponent, Cheryl Cox,
who went on to beat the
incumbent in November.
O'Toole was investigating
whether Moore was carrying out
“a political dirty trick” while he
was on the clock working for the
city.
He concluded that Moore
ultimately took the two hours off.
But he believed Moore lied about
the timing of when he turned in a
request for personal leave.
“People can't come into the
grand jury, swear to tell the truth,
and then lie,” O'Toole said.
On March 27, a criminal grand
jury considered O'Toole's
evidence and indicted Moore on
five perjury counts.
Yesterday, Moore, 36, pleaded
guilty to one count of contempt of
court, a misdemeanor. As part of
the deal, he admitted that he lied.
O'Toole said that in the plea
deal, he considered mitigating
factors such as “the lack of a
monetary cost to the city” and the
fact that Moore had already been
disciplined by Padilla with a two-
week suspension.
Moore's attorney, Knut Johnson,
said he was pleased the felony
charges were dismissed.
San Diego Superior Court Judge
David J. Danielsen sentenced
Moore to three years of
probation, during which he
cannot run for political office or
work for a public or political
official; seven days of public work
service; and a suspended
sentence of 45 days.