My CADEM Expulsion Hearing Today is — Surprise! — CLOSED


 Powered by Max Banner Ads 

.

.

.

At 3:47 p.m. yesterday — less than an day before the Expulsion Hearings for me,  for past Women’s Vice Chair candidate Norma Alcala, and for the guy who actually deserves it, begin, I received an email from the CDP Deputy Executive Director attaching an agenda informing me that the meeting would be a closed one — except for the Introduction, presentation of procedures, and (for any observer who wants to stick around outside for who knows how long) the verdicts.

(That fine print says: “Please note that certain portions of this hearing, due to their private nature, will be closed to anyone who does not have a direct role in the Membership Removal Hearing process.  Statewide officers, Executive Board Members who files for the removal, Accused DSCC member and their council [sic], and CDP Staff.  Portions of this hearing where closure is necessary are notated above.”  [These are: Staff Report, Member Removal Testimony and Member Removal Discussion]

(By the way: is anyone who knows shorthand free tomorrow afternoon in Long Beach, to serve as my “counsel”?)

The text of the email to which this was attached was as follows:

To Interested Parties:

Attached is the agenda for tomorrow’s membership removal  hearing. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you.

The text of the email was a surprise, because I’m not an employee of CDP and no personnel rules apply to me.  Plus, if I have a privacy interest at a time when lots of people around the state are interested in the results of the hearings — especially in Norma’s — I would waive it.  (The “privacy” involved seems to be for the benefit of judges, the accusers, and their witnesses.)  As I was invited to contact the author if I had any questions, when I saw it four hours later I quickly composed and sent a reply.  I got two “out of office” responses that said they were off to Long Beach, but would be checking their email.  As of the end of the day, no reply.

Here was what I wrote to them:

Kasey and Chris,

(1) I’m planning on audio recording the proceedings related to my hearing.  The reason is that, as noted in my reply, I’m planning on ringing a defamation suit related to any action taken with respect to Exhibit 7 of the complaint.  Defendants would include them party, those who signed the complaint, as well as any officer who votes to remove me WITHOUT stating that it is not in any way related to Exhibit 7.  Your preventing me from doing so would be an invitation to adverse inferences as to what was said.
Your turning this into a star chamber, less than a day before the hearing, is a horrible mistake — but it can at least be ameliorated by the existence of some sort of record.  If you want to bring in a court reporter and provide me with a copy of the staff report that is being used to prosecute the case, we can discuss it.
(2) I see on the agenda that procedures will be presented at the beginning of the hearing.  What POSSIBLE justification can you have for not making those rules available to me, and to others involved, RIGHT NOW!  Please consider this a demand for their release.
(3) I wasn’t going to do this, but this move of yours has changed my mind.  Given the expectation of possible litigation, I demand that CDP officers and staff retain all records of communications with respect to my matter — and I suspect that others involved will wish you to do the same with respect to the other two cases.
I will be sharing this reply, as well as your notice and — unless we work out another arrangement — your eventual reply, publicly.  I look forward to your prompt reply so that I may prepare for the tomorrow’s hearing.
Sincerely,
Greg Diamond
Nov. 13, 2019, 7:42 pm
While the notion of being told this late that the meeting would be closed to interested delegates — and, if it were an actual closed session I would not being allowed to make an audio-recording — is what initially captured my attention, the more I reflect the notion that the procedures, which have presumably already been written, strikes me as even more outrageous.  This will be the third time I’ve been removed from party office, and each time the procedures and/or specific charges were kept secret until the proceedings began.  In some sense, I consider this a compliment — suggesting fear that if I knew the procedures I might be able to use them to my advantage — but regardless of that it’s a travesty.
I’m not bringing any witnesses in large part because the charges, published yesterday, don’t actually make a whole lot of sense to me, about which I’ll post later today.  The rule is that I support a Republican or oppose an endorsed Democrat in a Top Two primary … and I didn’t.  I supported Democrat Brett Murdock in the OC District Attorney primary.  Lenore, a Democrat and DSCC (CDP’s governing board) member, ran against him.  Chumley did what he could to help her, including trashing Murdock.  So … I’m the one to be removed for breaking a DPOC — but not CDP! — rule?
If this were a real court, I would have filed a demurrer, to get rid of the ridiculous charges.  But this is not a real court.  (Boy, is it not a real court!)  So I’m left to try to figure out what charges the CDP considers to be valid charges.  Managing Brian Chuchua’s campaign years ago?  They already punished me for that!  But maybe double jeopardy doesn’t apply in this particular jurisdiction.  (CDP, like DPOC, is remarkably bad at keeping track of precedent, seemingly relying on the “what the most powerful political figure who was there remembers happened” procedure, which has its obvious flaws.)
I suspect that the desire to remove me is because I’m a pugnacious leftist who lands a lot of punches — what Lee Fink in a candid FB comment called “a pain in the ass” in explaining the actual reason for my expulsion from DPOC — but that’s not listed among the grounds for removal, so I’m excited to find out what if anything they had in mind.  My first removal, from DPOC Vice Chair under Henry Vandermeir, turned out to be over “not helping Henry” (rather than anything in the job description), because I was unhappy with his continually yielding to the party’s centrists and used parliamentary procedure to advance this view.  My second removal, about a year ago, was over supporting Todd Spitzer over Tony Rackauckas for DA, when the apparent plan was to let the endorsements of Lou Correa and Tom Daly (both also endorsing the Republican candidate for Sheriff) be the only Democratic voices heard.  In a functioning party, I’d have gotten a medal.

They’re trying to take the “Democrat” out of the picture!

So, anyway, I’m on pins and needles hoping to figure out what this is all about.  I’ll get you the audio recording when I can — if I can!


About Greg Diamond

Somewhat verbose attorney, semi-retired due to disability, residing in northwest Brea. Occasionally runs for office against bad people who would otherwise go unopposed. Got 45% of the vote against Bob Huff for State Senate in 2012; Josh Newman then won the seat in 2016. In 2014 became the first attorney to challenge OCDA Tony Rackauckas since 2002; Todd Spitzer then won that seat in 2018. Every time he's run against some rotten incumbent, the *next* person to challenge them wins! He's OK with that. Deposed as Northern Vice Chair of DPOC in April 2014 (in violation of Roberts Rules) when his anti-corruption and pro-consumer work in Anaheim infuriated the Building Trades and Teamsters in spring 2014, who then worked with the lawless and power-mad DPOC Chair to eliminate his internal oversight. Expelled from DPOC in October 2018 (in violation of Roberts Rules) for having endorsed Spitzer over Rackauckas -- which needed to be done. None of his pre-putsch writings ever spoke for the Democratic Party at the local, county, state, national, or galactic level, nor do they now. One of his daughters co-owns a business offering campaign treasurer services to Democratic candidates and the odd independent. He is very proud of her. He doesn't directly profit from her work and it doesn't affect his coverage. (He does not always favor her clients, though she might hesitate to take one that he truly hated.) He does advise some local campaigns informally and (so far) without compensation. (If that last bit changes, he will declare the interest.)