Whenever you stick your neck out and express your opinions, particularly in the world of politics, you run the risk that someone will be so offended that he will sue you. Quite frankly, I am surprised this has not come up sooner here at the Orange Juice, given that we have drawn a line in the sand against a whole slew of crooked, corrupt politicians, particularly in Santa Ana.
The problem with standing up against the political tyrants in Santa Ana is that have been known to strike back. Ask former Santa Ana Councilman Ted Moreno if standing up against Pulido was worth it – after Pulido set up a sting that landed Moreno in jail.
I mention all this because I received a tip tonight that Rancho Santiago Community College District Trustee Al Amezcua is likely going to sue me for writing about him last week. What I wrote was actually fairly innocuous. However, the public weighed in and lets just say the posts were less than flattering.
I suppose he has the right to sue, but I don’t think he has much of a leg to stand on. He is a public figure. Not only is he holding an elective office, he also serves on numerous boards and commissions. And I cannot be sued for what public commenters have said. Since they are anonymous, he cannot go after them either.
The other problem for Al is that the truth is a built-in defense against libel allegations. And even worse, if he did sue me, then I would have the right to discovery – and witnesses would be called to testify. I don’t think he wants his entire life to come out of the closet. From what I hear, the comments about him thus far have been the tip of the proverbial iceberg.
I am however a magnanimous blogger. So I am going to offer Al a chance to rebut what folks have been saying about him. Al, if you are reading this, please feel free to send me a rebuttal and I will post it on your behalf. I asked our readers to tell us “Who is Al Amezcua?” And they did. Now you can do so in your own words Al. Let’s decide this in the court of public opinion, where it belongs.
Otherwise, we’ll find out the value of my memberships in the ACLU and the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
Ouch! Looks like Art struck a nerve with old Al! Like they say, the truth hurts! I think Art is a real stand up guy to allow the Sr. Amezcua to defend himself. Let’s hope he will do it or we can assume that all that was said is true. I’d also like to see you offer Ms. Finkle a chance to debate Al point for point on her charges. Perhaps we can get Ms. Joan Haike of the League of Women’s voters to moderate the event in the police annex and have COMLINK serve as hosts and provide light refreshments. We need these kinds of town hall meetings to find out the truth about those who want to be our leaders. As much as you have gone after Pulido at least he never sued you or tried to. I think Sr. Amezcua needs to thicken up his skin. Don’t back down Art. You have the freedom of speech on your side. I’ll bet there is some lawyer out there who will defend your write to Blog without threats.
I mean your right to write!
What a shame….. Is he mad because the TRUTH about the real Al is coming out.
Art, sometimes when we speak the truth people do not want the public to know what they are really like. Al treats his children and his family terrible…does this speak of character…do we want someone like that as a leader in our community? I can guarantee there will be people willing to speak up and speak the truth. Sue you, are you kidding me, Al likes to make threats but he does not follow thru. He has lot’s to lose if the “truth ” comes out. Freedom of Speech.
Art it was only a matter of time. With some of the stuff you say here…I can;t believe you have not already been sued.
Anon #1 – Great post! I can see this event going primetime!…Ding!…Ding!…Ding! Let’s get it on!!
the problem is Art is that a lot of the stuff you post is full of innuendos. I am not surprised that Amezcua might fire back with a lawsuit, I mean he is a lawyer.
you basically said, that he hired unlicensed investigators and a lot of young people are in jail because of what you call his lackluster talents. That is not innocuous in my opinion. You downright attacked the man with a torpedo.
and then you ask him to disprove that? basically he is guilty until he proves otherwise?
hopefully no lawsuit would come of this but you basically accused him of some serious things.
Word out there is he actually tried to contact you but you did not bother to answer your phone and have not called him back.
He gave you the opportunity to settle this diplomatically. Obviously you are choosing war over diplomacy. Therefore, at this point, you deserve what you get.
Poster 8,
I was busy teaching all weekend (with the exception of attending the Fiestas Patrias parade) and working today. Perhaps I will have time to call him tomorrow – to invite him to post his rebuttal.
Carlos,
I truly doubt that Amezcua wants his record as an attorney examined. My source was a retired cop – who was also the first Latino elected to the Anaheim City Council. Who are you going to believe?
Whomever is protecting Al, really does not know the who Al is. Thus far everything that has been said about Al is correct. It’s going to be real difficult for Al to prove actual malice.
Public Figures
Under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, as set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1964 Case, New York Times v Sullivan, where a public figure attempts to bring an action for defamation, the public figure must prove an additional element: That the statement was made with “actual malice”. In translation, that means that the person making the statement knew the statement to be false, or issued the statement with reckless disregard as to its truth. For example, Ariel Sharon sued Time Magazine over allegations of his conduct relating to the massacres at the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps. Although the jury concluded that the Time story included false allegations, they found that Time had not acted with “actual malice” and did not award any damages.
The concept of the “public figure” is broader than celebrities and politicians. A person can become an “involuntary public figure” as the result of publicity, even though that person did not want or invite the public attention. For example, people accused of high profile crimes may be unable to pursue actions for defamation even after their innocence is established, on the basis that the notoriety associated with the case and the accusations against them turned them into involuntary public figures.
A person can also become a “limited public figure” by engaging in actions which generate publicity within a narrow area of interest. For example, a woman named Terry Rakolta was offended by the Fox Television show, Married With Children, and wrote letters to the show’s advertisers to try to get them to stop their support for the show. As a result of her actions, Ms. Rakolta became the target of jokes in a wide variety of settings. As these jokes remained within the confines of her public conduct, typically making fun of her as being prudish or censorious, they were protected by Ms. Rakolta’s status as a “limited public figure”.
I hear you Art, but these days that is the only way to do it by examining his record and stating the facts. Taking the word of a retired cop over the record is very risky in this era of litigation
Not so fast Anonymous #11
I suggest that you read on Superior Court Judge Ernest Murphy’s win of $2 million-plus verdict against Herald.
I should add that all cobloggers are equally liable. Not only Art.
Poster 13,
You can read up on a lot more blogger right’s cases at this link.
I can see that you have done some homework re “actual malice”, an element of the defamation, which means that you are concern.
The bottom line is Art that if Al is a smart lawyer he will put you in the poor house simply by a wear off.
The litigation is not only about a judgment Art, it is an execution of very hostile strategies at an exuberant cost effecting your health, family and employment.
-#13
Post 12,
Al does not have one leg to stand on. He is very well aware of that. What he should do instead of paying for an attorney to go after the juice is pay his daughter back for the infested home he sold her.
What kind of father would sell their daughter a home like that? This speaks volumes about his character.
In translation, that means that the person making the statement knew the statement to be false, or issued the statement with reckless disregard as to its truth.
Shouldn’t be hard to prove…that’s the definition of an Art Pedroza post!
Amezcua’s saber rattling reminds me of Fox’s decision to censor the Flying Nun’s comments. When one attempts to censure, they only create more buzz about what you’re attempting to censor.
Amezcua has to answer one hard question: is he ready for the public’s pinata bashing of his personal, public and professional
life should he file a lawsuit?
Oh they are shaking in their boots Al! Nice try. The old, tell someone to tell someone that if they don’t shut up about your past you are going to sue them! Did they teach you that during your 5th year at the world’s famous “Western State Law School”!!! Olvidalo!
Ted Moreno is a convicted felon for good reason. He’s a crook and liar.
Had you attended his trial you might be aware of the facts.
#21,
Seeing as you are such an expert on the Ted Moreno case then you should remember that the FBI was actually in Santa Ana investigating Miguel Pulido.
Somebody who was well connected convinced them that it would be better to leave Pulido alone and “set up” Ted.
That was testified to. But seeing as you are an expert on the case you already knew that.
Dear Orange Juice Readers,
I just had a nice chat with Mr. Amezcua. He is not going to pursue any litigation.
I agreed to call him the next time I take issue with something he is involved in.
I also apologized for dragging his professional work into the story.
Lastly, he agreed to check with the RSCCD administration to find out why they do not list any contact information for their trustees on their website.
I will of course continue to hammer the RSCCD for the lies and waste of money associated with their bond expenditures. And I will oppose any new bond measures proposed by RSCCD.
Henceforth I intend to look at the RSCCD agendas and keep my readers informed about what they and their bond oversight committee are up to.
I thank Mr. Amezcua for defending free speech and for taking his licks like the seasoned politician that he is.
Art,
I’m really surprised Al and yourself didn’t have a pow-wow soooner. I’m sure your guys’ “mutual admiree” would have set up and mediated the meeting between you two.
I am aslo surprised Al would consider a lawsuit. I have heard many rumors in the past few years that he might possibly run for mayor or City council. Judging from past races, a lot more “dirt” would have surfaced in either of those races. As someone had suggested in an earlier post, Al should develop a much thicker skin should he decide to run in any Santa Ana City race.
CQT96,
We are both very busy people. I teach safety classes on weekends, and tend to my kids, and during the week I work full time and tend to this blog in my spare time.
Al serves on God knows how many boards, and he has a busy law practice.
It will be interesting to see if he does run for Mayor. His window of opportunity is coming to a close.
I expect Pulido to lose next year. We are sitting on information about Pulido’s corruption that will break soon, and when it does I expect he will be completely finished in Santa Ana. If Amezcua does not run next year, someone else will, and they will win.
If you think the hits on Amezcua were bad, wait till you see what we have on Pulido…
Not sure when we will break it, but it is coming. And the people of Santa Ana will not be happy about their Mayor. Not one bit.
Al should focus on his law practice and personal life before he ever decides to run for Mayor or Council.
You have got to be kidding me, Al Amezcua for Mayor or even City Council…..what a joke. His personal life is a disaster, his involvement in the bank should be investigated by the FBI and he makes money by robbing from those who trust him.
Wow, great leader for Santa Ana…. Hopefully, Michele Martinez will run for Mayor and we all know Al Amezcua will not be ANY competition for her.
This is the end for Alfredo Amezcua …
I think we all agree that it is the end for good ole’ Al Amezcua. The truth is a powerful tool.
His personal life is an example of how he would run this city, and as we can see it would be a disaster.