My ‘Expulsion from CDP’ Hearing on 11/14: Documents




Greg Diamond Democrat - from a "Rebellious Truths" video

“Greg Diamond, Democrat” – from a “Rebellious Truths” video, in my thinner days.

Chumley, Deborah Skurnik, Ray Cordova, and some other horror shows have filed a complaint (largely drafted by Lenore, based on its content, though she didn’t sign it) to have me kicked out of California  Democratic Party leadership.  Yes, about three months before early voting starts in the California primary, the game is on.

This post is simply to provide the three documents that are presumably to be discussed at Thursday’s hearing in Long Beach: (1) the notice of my hearing, stating that my removal would be based on a complaint filed against me; (2) the “complaint” (if one can call it that) itself; and (3) my far more informal reply.  I’ll discuss the case and more recent developments in a separate post; this one is just for the documents themselves.

(1) The Notice of Hearing

So I got this letter from the California Democratic Party (“CDP”) last July 10, inviting me to a hearing on my proposed expulsion from the Democratic State Central Committee:

My notice that there would be a hearing on my expulsion this Thursday, 11/14, in Long Beach.

I’m not publishing the address — but if anyone truly feels a great hankering to go (there are two other people facing expulsion, one innocent reformer and one guilty thug), you can let me know.  These are, I’ve heard, the first expulsions from party leadership ever contemplated — but I really sort of doubt that.

(2) The Complaint-ish

(This is a 118-page PDF and there’s no way it fits on our site.  Much of it is taken from Orange Juice postings themselves.)  I’ve copied over the 7 pages of actual complaint and have left out the exhibits.  I’ve tried to be faithful to copying over the six text pages, but have added a few [sic]s because they earned them.)


ADEM 2019

1. In or about November 2018, Greg Diamond was terminated by the Democratic Party of Orange County (“DPOC”) for supporting or avowing support of Republican Todd Spitzer in the 2018
general election. Greg Diamond challenged this decision and brought it before the CDP which affirmed the termination. He then appealed the decision to Credentials.

2. In December 2018, Greg Diamond registered to run in ADEM and, without substantial challenge, was voted in as an ADEM to the California Democratic Party in January 2019.

3. He was gaveled in as a Delegate to the DSCC on or about May 31, 2019 at the Convention in San Francisco.

4. On that same evening, on or about May 31, 2019, Greg Diamond had his appeal heard requesting his reinstatement to the Central Committee of the Democratic Party of Orange County.

5. At the hearing before Credentials, Greg Diamond became verbally harassing and assaultive to other members in attendance from Orange County.

6. The Credentials standing committee affirmed the Orange County Central Committee’s vote to terminate Greg Diamond.

7. Yet, due to a loophole in the Rules, Greg Diamond is still a member of the DSCC.

8. As such, the undersigned is petitioning this body to terminate Greg Diamond as a Delegate member of the DSCC.

vvv page 2 vvv

9. Greg Diamond obtained membership by paying the fee to be a Central Committee member for his Assembly District because not enough people ran for Central Committee membership and it did
not appear on the ballot.

10. Greg Diamond was then elected to be on the Executive Board of the DPOC. He was an executive board member of the DPOC at the time of infraction.

11. On November 26, 2018 the body of the DPOC terminated Greg Diamond’s membership because he violated DPOC Bylaws.

12. Prior to his termination, Greg Diamond received an email on November 16, 2018 explaining the reason for his termination:

Notice of Action and Resolution to Remove Central Committee Member Greg Diamond

The Executive Committee of the Democratic Party of Orange County (“DPOC”) hereby gives notice of its intent to seek the removal of DPOC Central Committee member Greg Diamond by resolution at the regularly scheduled Central Committee meeting on November 26, 2018.

It is hereby resolved that Greg Diamond be removed as a member of the Democratic Party of Orange Central Committee for violation of Bylaws, Article II Membership, Section 6 Removal, A. The office of any member, alternate or associate, may be declared vacant by resolution of the County committee if any member, alternate or associate, affiliates with or registers as a member of another party, publicly advocates that voters not vote for an endorsed nominee of the Democratic Party, gives support or avows a preference for a candidate of another party or a candidate who is opposed to a
candidate nominated and endorsed by this party.

On November 2, 2018, Mr. Diamond posted this statement, “I do encourage voters to support the endorsed candidates of the Democratic Party, as well as the unendorsed reformist candidate for OC District Attorney, Todd Spitzer.”

Mr. Spitzer is a registered Republican.

Mr. Diamond explained in a Facebook post that he resigned from the DPOC Executive Committee “specifically to make it clear that nothing I do between now and the end of election

vvv page 3 vvv

is being done as a member of the governing policy board of the DPOC, so that no can say that I am purporting to “speak for the DPOC” in any fashion”. Mr. Diamond remains a member of the Central Committee and is subject to bylaws as stated above. He shared the following post on his Facebook page on November 3, 2018.

(See attachment)

This item will be on the agenda for November 26, 2018. You will have the opportunity to address the committee at that time.

13. The actual online slate/flyer avowing support for Todd Spitzer was attached to the email.  Attached hereto and fully incorporated herein as Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy of the email and

14. The substantive provision of DPOC Bylaws are in §6 pg 8-9 of 45. That section provides:

Section 6. Removal
A. The office of any member, alternate or associate, may be declared vacant by resolution of the County Committee if any member, alternate or associate, affiliates with or registers as a member of another party, publicly advocates that voters not vote for an endorsed nominee of the Democratic Party, gives support or avows a preference for a candidate of another party or a candidate who is opposed to a candidate nominated and endorsed by this party. DPOC Bylaws Art. II Membership, §6 Termination, pg 8-9 of 45 [emphasis added]

15. Central Committees are allowed to terminate membership in the manner and for the reasons stated in Art II §6 of DPOC Bylaws pursuant to California Election Code §7215 which provides:

A committee may remove any member, other than an ex officio member, who during his or her term of membership affiliates with, or registers as a member of another party, who
publicly advocates that the voters should not vote for the nominee of this party for any office, or who gives support or avows a preference for a candidate of another party or candidate who is opposed to a candidate nominated by this party.  (Enacted by Stats. 1994, Ch. 920, Sec. 2.)
Cal. Elect. Code §7215

vvv page 4 vvv

16. As such, on November 26, 2018 the DPOC voted Greg Diamond off of the Central Committee and the DPOC’s reasons for termination as listed in its Bylaws are in conformity with state law. Diamond Supported Republican Todd Spitzer And The Blog Accepted Paid Advertising for Todd Spitzer’s Campaign

17. As to the merits, Greg Diamond “g[ave] support or avow[ed] a preference for a candidate of another party” during the 2018 election cycle when he endorsed Republican Todd Spitzer. He also
stated he knew what he was doing was against the Bylaws of the party when he did it. (Exhibit 3).

18. His support of Todd Spitzer, included but was not limited to, the endorsement slate he posted on the Orange Juice Blog and shared to his Facebook page. (Exhibit 3).

19. He also placed Todd Spitzer on the same slate with Democratic endorsed Duke Nguyen who was running for OC Sheriff on the Orange Juice Blog; and accepted money from Todd Spitzer in
exchange for allowing him to place political ads on the Orange Juice Blog using CADEM color scheme. (Exhibit 3).

20. In fact, Greg Diamond readily admitted to the Central Committee body that he did in fact endorse and support Todd Spitzer for District Attorney during the 2018 election cycle.

21. After the election, the D.A.’s office filed charges against Democrat incumbents, candidates or their family members, including but not limited to, a Democrat who fell out of favor with Greg Diamond, Democratic Mayor, Doug Chaffee’s wife for allegedly stealing campaign signs which carries with it a possible one year jail term. A true and correct copy of the story is attached as Exhibit 4.


22. This is not the first time Greg Diamond while a member of the DPOC Central Committee supports or avows a preference for a candidate other than a democrat.

23. On November 14, 2017 the California Democrat Party issued a decision to ADMONISH Greg Diamond for supporting or publicly avowing a preference for NPP Brian Chuchua over the Endorsed
Democrat Sean Pannhia [sic] in the 2016 Presidential primary for the AD 69 seat. A true and correct copy of the CDP Notice to Greg Diamond is attached hereto as Exhibit 5.

vvv page 5 vvv


24. Also, during the November 2018 general election Greg Diamond avowed a preference for Republican James Vanderbilt over Jordan Brandman, the endorsed Democrat for Anaheim City
Council. A true and correct copy of Greg Diamond support Vanderbilt is attached hereto as Exhibit 6.

25. Greg Diamond admitted he knew what he was doing was in violation of the Bylaws, but did it anyway.


26. During the 2018 election cycle, Greg Diamond publicly advocated that the voters should not
vote for the endorsed Democrat, State Assemblyperson Tom Daly.

27. Unlike the other races, Greg Diamond did not post this on the blog. Instead he omitted his name from the race and used more subversive means to make his preference publicly known.


28. During the 2018 election cycle, Greg Diamond publicly advocated that the voters should not vote for the endorsed Democrat, State Senator, Lou Correa.

29. Unlike the other races, Greg Diamond did not post this on the blog. Instead he omitted his name from the race and used more subversive means to make his preference publicly known.


30. During the 2018 election cycle, Greg Diamond publicly advocated that the voters should not vote for the endorsed Democrat, Hans Kiersted [sic] for the US Congressional 48 race.

31. Unlike the other races, Greg Diamond did not post this on the blog. He used more subversive means to make his preference publicly known.

32. He still makes his preference known to this day by repeatedly using a photo of Lenore Albert with Hans Kiersted [sic] after he obtained the Party endorsement.

33. Although Democrats won the seat, the Delegates who vetted Democrats, a life long Democrat of Hans Kiersted [sic] were undercut by Greg Diamond who was not even a delegate in the District. He just

vvv page 6 vvv

did it to destroy Kiersted’s attempt because he took a photo with Lenore Albert, a delegate he has stalked and harassed for the past 5 years now. That does not assist the party.

34. Such actions are very risky in a Red District trying to turn Blue and adverse to the party goals or the position of being a delegate to the party.

35. CDP BYLAWS provide:

This Committee may remove any member if, during his/her term of membership, such member affiliates with or registers as other than Party Preference Democratic; publicly avows preference for another party; publicly advocates that the voters should not vote for the endorsed candidate of This Committee for any office; or who publicly gives support to or avows a preference for a candidate registered as other than Party Preference Democratic in the voter-nominated top two open primary. Art II, §9 CDP Bylaws

36. Greg Diamond was well aware of this bylaw as evidenced by the 2017 admonishment of Greg Diamond by the CDP. He insists he is still a member and represents himself as still a member.


37. Greg Diamond’s violations by supporting or avowing a preference for candidates that are not Democrats have long lasting effects. For example, now the Republican held District Attorney’s office prosecuted Democrat Doug Chaffee’s wife for alleged sign stealing during a local campaign. Doug Chaffee sat as mayor of Fullerton and is now on the Board of Supervisors.


38. Greg Diamond holds himself out at the Managing Editor of the Orange Juice Blog which he has represented received more than 18,000 views during the 2018 election cycle. He is either in a joint
venture, partnership or alter ego of Vern Nelson who is the owner on paper. Greg Diamond often cites the fact that he is an attorney, as opposed to a piano player with multiple DUIS like Vern, for authority in his articles. He also has been physically threatening, such as the time at the DPOC meeting over an endorsement vote he left his chair and proceeded to the other side of the room where he butted his stomach up to his brother-in-law Jeff LeTourneau. After the election he posted on the Blog that he would “cut you” before proceeding to an Eboard meeting in Anaheim.

39. His pattern and practice of harassment surrounds anything to do with member Lenore Albert. In 2015, he was verbally assaulting to staff and members during Lenore Albert’s endorsement vote at the CDP meeting and removed from the tent to only go over into the other tent and start shouting

vvv page 7 vvv

            Signature page signed by Chumley; other pages have signatures                   of Ray Cordova, Deborah Skurnik, Tonia Uranga, and Tony Hale.


July 29, 2019



I will begin with some notes that do not seem to me to belong in the body of this communication.

  1. FORM. I am foregoing the use of “pleading paper” in this communication. Petitioners are using the veneer of proper legalistic form to make a snotty hatchet job – one captioning the “pleading” as “In the Matter of Terminated Member Greg Diamond” (which I’m currently not) in a fashion that would get them booted out of court and sanctioned if attempted in a real proceeding – appear more respectable. But let’s be frank: this is not an actual “legal proceeding” and I think that it does everyone a disservice to dress it up as one. I will give due respect to the CDP Executive Officers (henceforth :Officers”) who will consider this petition, on the presumption that they are taking this seriously, but as I will demonstrate the petition itself belies a deep unseriousness. Unlike in a real legal proceeding, I cannot petition for them to be sanctioned for abuse of process.

Were this an actual legal proceeding, a clear and available applicable set of procedural rules (not rules generated ad hoc) and a corpus of case precedent would be available to review before they were to be applied. Nothing of the sort exists, so we should not deceive ourselves by artificially boosting the formality of this process: it warrants a plainly written business letter, nothing more.

  1. RECUSAL. I have not been able to find any guidance on whether and how and on what basis one can seek recusal of any Executive Officer from hearing this matter. If I am able to do so, as would be the case in an actual legal proceeding, I would seek recusal solely of First Vice Chair Alex Gallardo-Rooker, (While I have had my differences with at least two of the other officers, they do not rise to the level where I would challenge their just right to sit in judgment of my actions.) As I do not even know whether procedures allow me to seek recusal, I will not provide my bases for this request until the procedure and permissible basis for my doing so are set out for my review.
  2. REQUEST FOR FINDINGS OF FACT. I will be forthright with the Executive Officers. I both request and strongly advise that the officers set forth the specific findings of fact upon which any adverse decision to me might be made. This is because the complaint against me is contains defamatory factual allegations – and it is not protected from a lawsuit as would be the case in an actual legal proceeding. A decision to expel me would, in the absence of findings of fact, invite the inference that it was based on all contents of the complaint offered. While I consider the complaint to be polluted by various of its contents that clearly seek to prejudice the Officers against me on irrelevant or improper grounds – see the next section – that sort of improper and unethical activity does not likely justify an actual action for defamation (which at this point I am only considering, but which is a likely outcome as this is the first time some allegations have been presented in a forum where they are legally actionable.) I have no particular desire to name any of the Officers in such an action and findings of fact, narrowing down the asserted factual basis for any decision that may be adverse to me, may both protect my reputation and insulate Officers from liability. (You are of course free to choose to endorse even what I identify as defamatory in your findings.)
  3. MOTION TO STRIKE. Were this an actual proceeding, I would seek a Motion to Strike the portions of the complaint that were defamatory, irrelevantly inflammatory or otherwise deficient. I know of no procedure for me to do so here. I suggest that this would be very worthwhile in this instance. It would add time to the process, however, which would likely require it being heard at the November convention rather than the upcoming Executive Board meeting. The purpose of “pretrial motions” in actual litigation is to clarify the facts and points of law (or of “rules”) at hand; that seems to be quite advisable here and I hereby ask for that delay to allow such pre-hearing “motion practice.” This is especially important due to the aforementioned concerns about defamation. Please consider this a formal motion to delay until November.

The next page begins my defense against the accusations, some of which are, again, clearly intended to inflame and prejudice you. In the interests of fairness, if you have not yet read the complaint itself, I request that you confer and decide how to handle these requests before you continue reading this document.

/s/ Greg Diamond

To:       Executive Officers of the California Democratic Party

From:   Greg Diamond

Re:       Petition for My Expulsion from DSCC

Date:   July 29, 2019

A group of Democratic State Central Committee (“DSCC”) members (Dan Chmielewski, Lenore Albert, Ray Cordova, Deborah Cunningham-Skurnik, Molly Muro, Ronald O’Donnell, Judy Solis, Tonia Reyes Uranga, and Tony Hale have petitioned for my removal from the DSCC. The petition is meritless, frivolous, deliberately inflammatory, and in some areas actually defamatory.

Section 1: Context of this petition.

By and large, this petition is a continuation of a longstanding trail of litigation by Ms. Albert against me and one of my clients, a strong Democratic activist. Her case against me has been judged frivolous in one federal district court; her case against the activist led to an award of costs to my client by a state appellate court. Respectively, as applied to me, they were based in essence on my reporting about Ms. Albert’s suspension from the practice of law in California (supposedly as part of a national RICO conspiracy) and my bringing suit on a client’s behalf to exclude her from the ballot against an endorsed Democratic candidate for Orange County District Attorney.

It is also a continuation of conflicts between me (and the Orange County political blog that I largely manage) and the rival blog that Mr. Chmielewski owns, writes, and publishes.  Broadly speaking, his writings reflect support for more centrist and “establishment” factions of the party and mine reflect support for more leftist and “reform” factions.  (To take a timely example, I have supported Bernie Sanders for President, though I like several candidates, while he wrote favorably about a Democratic primary challenge to Sanders before the 2018 Vermont U.S. Senate election.)

Section 2: Burden to reply and review.

The complaint itself sports an odd caption: “In the Matter of Terminated Member Greg Diamond,” which is at best premature and is in any event extremely sloppy and misleading).  It is 118 pages long, of which 103 pages are exhibits, largely from the blog that I manage (but do not own or control, and about the content of which I routinely get overruled by the owner and publisher, Vern Nelson.) Most of the exhibits are intended to inflame and prejudice you against me for reasons irrelevant to the actual charges within the Bylaws.  (My political attitudes are likely to the left of most of Officers, and my “issues” accountability of electeds and fairness of internal processes may rankle you, but I presume that Officers will agree that neither fact offers grounds for expulsion.)

Its great length makes it a tremendous pain to write about (and I’m sure will be a tremendous pain for each of you to read), but I’m left with little choice but to rebut each aspect of it in full.

Section 3: Permissible bases for removal

The notice sent to me by Chris Masami Myers spells out the four bases for removal of a member from the DSCC under CDP Bylaws, Article II (“Membership”) Section 9(b).  They are: “if a member, during his/her term of membership,”

  1. “… affiliates with or registers as other than Party Preference Democratic
  2. “… publicly avows preference for another party
  3. “… publicly advocates that the voters should not vote for the endorsed candidate of This Committee for any office;
  4. “… publicly gives support to or avows a preference for a candidate registered as other than Party Preference Democratic in the voter-nominated top two open primary.”

Upon close examination, the allegations don’t even accuse me of any of the above.  They’re a laundry list of grievances, mostly about other things.   Where they get closest to invoking these rules, which is infrequently, they are wholly unconvincing.

Section 4: Rule of Lenity

The Officers will need to decide whether they will abide by a standard rule in actual legal proceedings against persons accused of wrongdoing: the Rule of Lenity. This requires that, in instances where a rule or law is actually ambiguous, its meaning is to be construed to the benefit of the accused, who has thus not been “put on notice” that certain actions are prohibited.  Even if I were not the accused in question, I would strongly urge the Officers to abide by this rule.

What “term of membership” in DSCC is at issue?

This is an example of where clear rules and “case law” would be very useful. A key term in this section is “term of membership,” during which any offense must have occurred.  Under the CDP Bylaws, Article II (“Membership”) Section 1(b):

Membership shall terminate, subject to renewal, every two years and shall extend from the convening of the first regular meeting of this Committee in the odd numbered year to the convening of the first regular meeting held in the next odd-numbered year, with vacancies occurring during this period filled in accordance with the provisions of Section 10 of this Article.

My current “term of membership,” during which this complaint was filed, began on May 31, 2019.  The complaint was signed by the complainants on June 6, 2019 – during my present term of membership as an ADEM.  But I have not been accused of any violations of the above four sections during this term of membership.  (Not have I committed any.)

Allegations regarding actions taken during my prior term of membership – beginning at the 2017 convention, during which time I was a delegate by virtue of my membership in the Democratic Party of Orange County, should have been brought during that term of membership.  That term of membership ended on the morning of May 31, 2019.  This is critical because it is obvious under Section 9(c) of the above article that a member accused of some offenses is to be given a choice of immediate resignation (limiting the punishment for the accused actions to that term) or else to challenge them, risking punishment for the next term of office as well (or even the one after that.)  This is clearly intended to induce delegates who think that they are likely to be judged culpable to “cop a plea” rather than challenging the petition against them. This can only occur during the term in which the offense occurs.

That should be the end of this matter.  Complainants certainly had the capacity to bring any action against me during the time that I was a member of the DSCC by virtue of my DPOC membership – and thus give me the option to resign rather than face the possibility of sanctions for future terms under CDP Bylaws, Article II (“Membership”) Section 9(c).  But my membership at the time that all of the alleged violations took place had already terminated by the time this complaint was filed.  In fact, because of my expulsion from the DPOC in November 2018 (on dubious grounds that will be discussed below), one cannot even say that I am still in a continuous “term of membership” stretching back to 2013, when I first served as an ex officio member of the party due to my being the top Democratic vote-getter in Senate District 29.

I recognize that, despite the plain reading of the Bylaws, the Officers may decide that I can be tried now for expulsion (and a bar against me, in some cases, from service in future terms) for acts that occurred in a prior, now expired, and even discontinuous term. I will therefore continue to answer the allegations – “under protest” and out of an excess of caution – as if the term “term of membership” in DSCC can extend back to 2017, 2015, 2013, or (for some people) even beyond.

Section 5: Affiliation with a party other than Democratic

I have not during this (or my prior) term of membership affiliated with or registered as other than Party Preference Democratic. No allegation in the petition even suggests otherwise.

Section 6: Publicly avowing a preference for another party

I have not during this (or my prior) term of membership publicly avowed a preference for another party.  What “avow a preference for another party” means is somewhat ambiguous, and the aforementioned “rule of lenity” would apply here.

While I have at times been critical of Democratic Party officials, policies, actions, and sometimes candidates – and have on more occasions worked extremely hard, as adviser and political commenter, to support them – I have never said that I would prefer to be part of another party, or prefer another party to govern.  (Those seem to be the most likely interpretations of that phrase.) Nor is there any clean allegation in the complaint that I have done so.

Section 7:  Supporting voting against a candidate endorsed by the CDP:

I have not during this (or my prior) term of membership publicly advocated that the voters should not vote for the endorsed candidate of This Committee for any office.

The term “candidate of This Committee” requires definition: my understanding is that it refers to candidates for federal office (Presidential ticket, U.S. Senate, House of Representatives) and state office (State executive offices, State Senate, State Assembly.) If that is not the case, then again the lack of clear rules and case law is important, and again the Rule of Lenity should apply.

In at least one part of the complaint, I’m accused of supporting a City Council candidate over a county-party endorsed Democrat, which so far as I can tell is not a “candidate of This Committee,” though if true it could have been (but was not!) sanctioned by the County Central Committee. This answer is more complex than the first two, and I will address it in greater detail in response to specific allegations.

Section 8: Supporting voting for a non-Democratic candidate in the “Top Two” open primary

 I have not during this (or my prior) term of membership publicly given support to or avowed a preference for a candidate registered as other than Party Preference Democratic in the voter-nominated top two open primary. I will address specific allegations as I review the complaint.

Section 9: Basis for my expulsion from DPOC

The complaint states that:

In or about November 2018, Greg Diamond was terminated by the Democratic Party ofOrange County (“DPOC”) for supporting or avowing support of Republican Todd Spitzer in the 2018 general election. Greg Diamond challenged this decision and brought it before the CDP which affirmed the termination. He then appealed the decision to Credentials.

First, note that this does not accuse me of wrongdoing under the CDP Bylaws above.  It does not accuse me of affiliating with another party, expressing a preference for another party, supporting voting against a candidate running against a CDP endorsee, or supporting voting for a non-Democrat in a “Top Two” primary.  There was no CDP endorsee in the OC District Attorney race. This endorsement did not come in the primary, but in the general election, where on Republican challenged a corrupt Republican incumbent. In the primary, I supported, and worked hard for, the endorsed Democratic candidate, Brett Murdock.  Ms. Albert, with the support of Mr. Chmielewski, ran against him, with the clear intention of splitting the Democratic vote. It was in support of Mr. Murdock’s campaign that I filed an action against Ms. Albert for running for a position in which she was ineligible to serve at the time of filing (due to her suspension from the practice of law) and claiming to be an attorney in her ballot designation while so suspended.

Second, because it is irrelevant to any permissible basis for removal, it is part of this petition simply to inflame and prejudice the Officers against me.  That, in a real legal proceeding, would be a compelling basis to toss out the entire complain (as you are both judges and jury here.)

Third, if it matters, it is misleading as to why I was removed.

I was nominally removed from the DPOC for supporting Republican Todd Spitzer against corrupt Republican incumbent Tony Rackauckas in the 2018 election for OC District Attorney.  I had supported Democrat Brett Murdock in the primary, when his campaign was sabotaged by the decision of this very complainant Lenore Albert to run against him despite her suspension from the practice of law (as well as her then-recent filing of personal bankruptcy. Albert continued her campaign against him even after he received the DPOC’s endorsement for that office.  So. given the lack of charges against Albert for the far more serious sin, I doubt that this was more than a pretext for my removal.

To paraphrase a writing from an OC member of the CDP Executive Board, “everybody knew that [I] was removed for being a pain in the ass.” This involves things like raising legitimate points of order and privilege in meetings, to the audible dismay of other DPOC members who simply wanted to go home early. The specific reason I believe I was removed was in 2017 I had loudly protested the cheating used to secure the DPOC endorsement of then-Chair candidate Eric Bauman in that CDP Chair election. This endorsement was obtained by a fraction of a vote after a Vice Chair of the Party (as it happens, my brother-in-law) physically chopped the “No Endorsement” option off of the ballots that members used to vote, despite then-Chair Fran Sdao’s email promise to me that, in accord with the previous decision of our Executive Committee, that option would be retained.

I believe that the current Chair (whom I had supported), Ada Briceño, at the urging of that same Vice Chair, had not wanted me around to get in the way of an endorsement of her preferred candidate, the now-elected Chair. (The DPOC did not ultimately vote on any endorsement, possibly because an informal canvas of members showed of many supporters for other candidates.)

Section 10: Past DPOC flouting of Article II Section 9(b) Rules: the Kamala Harris Senate Race

My skepticism that DPOC cared that much about fealty to the CDP Bylaws stems in large part from my experience as the Orange County Coordinator for Kamala Harris’s 2016 U.S. Senate campaign (against the county’s “favorite daughter” candidate Loretta Sanchez), in which almost the entire DPOC openly supported Sanchez – despite Harris having won the CDP nomination in a rout. (I was discouraged by the Harris campaign from filing a petition for the removal of every member of DPOC who supported Sanchez post-endorsement, on the grounds that it would be divisive.)

Section 11: The role of my criticism of DPOC leadership rule-breaking in my removal.

Because my removal is (even though improperly) placed at issue in the petition, I suppose that I have to go on, though I consider what I am responding to to be irrelevant to any sanction.

I had been a critic of rules violations by DPOC Chairs going back for a decade, having first witnessed egregious rule breaking in its Executive Committee when I was the County Coordinator for Gov. Brown’s campaign. (OC was the only county in the state that refused to sign on to the party’s plan for that election, choosing instead to focus on defending Loretta Sanchez’s Congressional seat, which meant focusing all of the county’s turnout efforts into the district with by far the lowest turnout. I believed that this abandoning the most beneficial 85% of the county in terms of general election votes had nothing to do with Gov. Brown and much to do with antipathy for Sen. Harris, whose prospective success local party leaders seemed to want to preempt, and who seemed much more positive to the Republican candidate, Steve Cooley.)  Being willing to criticize those in power is not a path to local popularity, but on the other hand is a good thing if one believes in hewing to the rules. It was, based on my observations, almost non-existent in DPOC.

Section 12: The specific concerns at issue in the DPOC vote on my removal

Not at all ironically, my expulsion was obtained by the then-Chair’s ruling that an obscure and overlooked provision in the DPOC Bylaws – one that most likely was intended to define the term “majority” as “majority of members present and voting” – instead served to state that all votes on anything were to be by majority vote (except in the very few cases where the Bylaws said otherwise) and had this eliminated all of the supermajority requirements in Roberts Rules of Order, Newly Revised (“RONR”) not contained explicitly within the DPOC Bylaws. This included gutting the most critical protection of minority interests in RONR – “expulsion of a member.” This was despite that DPOC had always honored such supermajority requirements for at least the previous decade.

Like Bush v. Gore, this was a one-time-only ticket. Mr, Chmielewski had been cleared on a charge of assaulting other members because of the 2/3 requirement for expulsion, and the 2/3 requirment was literally put back into effect by Bylaws amendment at the very next meeting after the one where I was expelled with less than a 2/3 vote. (The then-Chair, Fran Sdao, and as I recall Ms. Cunningham Skurnik, misled the committee in testimony stating that they had gotten a 2/3 vote. To the best of my knowledge, current DPOC Officers agree that they had not.)

The Rules Committee decided that the DPOC could suspend all RONR supermajority requirements if they wished – even if the Bylaws provision supposedly doing so had been completely ignored in that respect for more than a decade.  It encouraged DPOC to enact any supermajority provisions it wanted to re-establish as part of its own Bylaws.  (I’m informed that this hasn’t happened, or even been proposed — and that supermajority provisions have continued to be used per Roberts as if that provision had never been dredged up for the sole purpose of justifying my expulsion prior to being dicarded.  This shows how stark an act of bad faith this was

The Credentials Committee decided essentially that a county committee could do whatever it wanted to when it came to expelling its members using whatever criterion it wished.  (The weakening of protection of minority positions implicit in such a ruling did not seem to faze them.)  (I say “essentially” because I’ve never been presented with a written ruling from it.)

Section 13: My election to ADEM

I “admit to” paragraphs 2 and 3, noting that I did beat out three other males for a seat and that, according to the person who put together our “Unity Slate,” persons associated with one or more of the Petitioners actually traveled to the ADEM and quietly went around telling people to vote for every member of my slate except for me. So that’s a “substantial challenge” of a sort.

Section 14: My hearing before Credentials

Paragraphs 4-5 are an example of material that is irrelevant on its face to every possible basis that the Officers are granted for removing me. It is present here simply to inflame and prejudice you against me. But, again, because it is in the complaint, I have no choice but to address it.

Credential did hear my hearing on that date – the only action regarding this complaint that did occur within my present term of office. Paragraph 5, however, is false and defamatory.

  1. At the hearing before Credentials, Greg Diamond became verbally harassing and assaultive to other members in attendance from Orange County.

I was subjected to outrageous behavior by Regional Director and DPOC Treasurer Florice Hoffman during the meeting – behavior that, had it occurred in a real court proceeding, would likely have led to sanction against her and probably a bar complaint. Early Saturday morning, I filed a complaint against Hoffman under the CDP’s Convention Code of Conduct policies for harassment – but while the Code of Conduct was not limited to sexual harassment it turned out that the hotline was limited to complaints of that sort. I was informed by CDP Staff that the complaint was not forwarded to you at that time, or as of that conversation (within the past few weeks) afterwards, because no policy had been set for enforcement of the Convention Code of Conduct.  You have (or can obtain) the detailed complaint; I’ll simply summarize the highlights here.

Hoffman intentionally took advantage of a significant structural flaw in the Credentials Committee hearing process, which the Credentials Committee refused to address in real time.  The issue before the Committee was entirely procedural: whether a 2/3 vote was required for my removal from DPOC. (As noted, it decided that there was no permissible appeal from DPOC’s construction of its own rules.) In presenting the case, Jeff LeTourneau (my brother-in-law) presented the case as to his interpretation of that rule. I presented my rebuttal – primarily that the DPOC had over a decade ago wiped RONR’s supermajority requirements off of its books and then forgot about it, recalling it only when it was time to remove me from office, was absurd on its face and flew in the face of the Due Process requirements stated in the section on member discipline in RONR. All well so far.

Then, at that point, Hoffman came up and did her best to prejudice the members of the Committee by – rather than rebutting my comments, as would be expected – bringing up new arguments for my removal that she knew I would not be given time to rebut, charges that were both inflammatory and irrelevant to the “statutory construction” issue at hand. She screamed at the Committee that I “HAD SUPPORTED A REPUBLICAN!” (not mentioning that I did not support that District Attorney candidate against a Democrat, or in a Top Two primary, but against a Republican incumbent whose corruption and contempt for due process had literally been making national news.  The Credentials Committee gave me no opportunity to object to her outrageous violations of the rules in real time, nor did it do what it should have done in the event of such a “surprise” ambush.  I was seething at this sort of underhandedness (which over the years I have come to expect from Hoffman, though with lower stakes) and after the meeting went up to her and said in my agitation words to the effect of “You can’t do that!  You KNOW that you can’t DO that!” Hoffman appeared ashamed and would not look me in the eye, and I went away.

This may not seem outrageous to non-attorneys.  To attorneys, it is – and the court allowing an advocate to get away with it makes it even worse. The Credentials Committee procedures were completely inadequate to the task and their refusal to budge from their rules in the face of such abuse was atrocious.

As a final note, this statememt from the complaint, which I recognize in style and perplexity as being from Ms. Albert, is bizarre:

  1. Yet, due to a loophole in the Rules, Greg Diamond is still a member of the DSCC.

The “loophole” that leaves me “still a member of the DSCC” is that I was duly elected at the AD-55 ADEM.  This is the sort of bizarre reasoning that gets Lenore’s complaints dismissed as frivolous.

Section 15: Petitioners’ bizarre and irrelevant discussion of my history on DPOC

Paragraphs 9-12 of the petition raise extraneous and clumsily disparaging material about me (e.g. that I became a DPOC rep for AD-55 “because not enough people ran” for the office. For the record, an alternative explanation is that Democrats would recognize my name and from both my blogging and my being on the ballot – and appreciated that I had had the guts to run for State Senate in what was then considered to be a hopeless district in 2012 against Senate Minority Leader Bob Huff, doing the third best of any losing candidate in a State Senate race that year and encouraging people like former and future State Senator Josh Newman to run for the seat in 2012, and had run for District Attorney against the aforementioned corrupt OCDA Tony Rackauckas, after no attorney in Orange County had had the guts to challenge him for more than a decade.

If by “at the time of infraction” Petitioners are referring to my endorsement of Todd Spitzer, they should realize that I had resigned from the Executive Committee of DPOC specifically to make it less likely that anyone could take my private endorsement of Spitzer as in any way “speaking for DPOC”; I was thus not “a member of DPOC at the time of [any supposed] infraction,” as alleged in paragraph 10 of the complaint.  As Ms. Albert and Mr. Chmielewski (although perhaps not the delegates that they enticed to sign this petition) know, I have stated that the email from DPOC sent on that date went to spam and I did not notice it for a while because I do not check spam daily.  (Ironically, my complaint against Hoffman also went to spam of the CDP Staff member to whom it was directed, so CDP should understand that this sort of thing does happen.)

Section 16: Regardless of the above, my endorsement of Spitzer didn’t violate CDP rules.

Petitioners go over my personal endorsement of Spitzer over his fellow Republican in exquisite detail.  What they fail to address is how – even if it violated DPOC rules (which I dispute, but they voted that it did) – it is also a violation of CDP rules.  They quote CDP Bylaws, Article II Section 9(b), but neglect to say which part of it I supposedly violated.  Again, for your convenience:

Did I “… affiliate with or register as other than Party Preference Democratic?”

No – I remained and remain a Democrat, and endorsed Spitzer only after he agree to support a reform agenda upon which the leading Democrat in the primary had run, the obtaining of which was a significant achievement by Mr. Murdock.

Did I “… publicly avow preference for another party?”

No – unlike Ms. Albert, who ran against Mr. Murdock (a former long-term City Councilmember and Mayor and, as significantly, not a suspended attorney who had recently declared bankruptcy) and continued campaigning against him even after he was endorsed by DPOC, and Mr. Chmielewski, who was supportive of her and critical of Murdock, I strongly supported Mr. Murdock’s candidacy, brought the motion for his endorsement by DPOC, and brought suit against Ms. Albert at the urging of a Democratic activist.  Ms. Albert’s continued presence on the ballot was not benign; it completely undermined Mr. Murdock’s ability to raise money once donors realized that he would be splitting the Democratic vote in the Top Two primary.

Did I “… publicly advocate that the voters should not vote for the endorsed candidate of This Committee for any office

No. Again, with Trumpian-level projection, Petitioners accuse me of what they did and I didn’t.  If one believs that Mr. Murdock’s DPOC endorsement made him “the endorsed candidate of This Committee,” then I’m the one who supported him and they opposed him in the primary.

Did I “… publicly gives support to or avows a preference for a candidate registered as other than Party Preference Democratic in the voter-nominated top two open primary.”

No, The action I took did not occur in the Top Two open primary, in which I supported the endorsed Democrat, but in the general election, in which no Democrat was running.  (Mr. Rackauckas, by the way, ran on a de facto slate with the Republican candidate for Sheriff, who beat a Democrat.)

It is unclear why my personal endorsement of Mr. Spitzer even allegedly violated any CDP rule. In case anyone is interested, Spitzer won, (Duke Nguyen, the Democrat with which he was friendly during his campaign lost his bid for Sheriff. Of Democratic electeds in OC, Rep. Lou Correa and Asmb. Tom Daly endorsed both Mr. Rackauckas for DA and the Republican candidate in the Sheriff’s race, while I wrote and campaigned extensively in favor of Mr. Nguyen. One reason for my endorsement was to counter these electeds’ perverse choices, which would be expected to hold sway given the party’s silence.  Correa and Daly were both censured by DPOC.

In a manner I recognize both from Ms. Albert’s legal filings and from Mr. Chmielewski’s reasoning on his blog, Paragraphs 17-21 of the petition completely miss the point.  This is a CDP proceeding, not a DPOC proceeding.  DPOC has already case its vote and punished me.  But I am not a DSCC member through DPOC, but through ADEMs. My action did not violate CDP rules at issue here.

These paragraphs make an argument for why I supposedly violated the DPOC Bylaws (which turns on the question of question of whether “a candidate OF another party” refers to “a candidate registered in another party” (which Spitzer was) or “a candidate endorsed by another party” (which Spitzer was not, as Rackauckas has the lion’s share of Republican Party endorsements, as well as those of some Democrats like Correa and Daly), At the time this was written, Top Two was not yet in existence, so there was no difference between “registered in” and “endorsed by”; now there is.  I do have a rebuttal, but there’s no reason for me to offer it here unless I learn of the Officers’ interest in something so extraneous.

I do want to address the milder of the defamatory portions of this petition, in paragraph 19.

  1. He also placed Todd Spitzer on the same slate with Democratic endorsed Duke Nguyen who was running for OC Sheriff on the Orange Juice Blog; and accepted money from Todd Spitzer in exchange for allowing him to place political ads on the Orange Juice Blog using CADEM color scheme. (Exhibit 3).

I do not own Orange Juice Blog.  I am not compensated by the blog.  I manage editorial content – upon which I am sometimes overruled, as you will see below – and help out with back-end maintenance.  I do not deal with advertising.  I did not design that ad.  I did not place that ad in its position.  (Indeed, I don’t even know how to do so.)  So I did not “accept money from Todd Spitzer in exchange for allowing him to place political ads on the … blog.”  I deeply resent this reckless and false charge – about which none of the petitioners ever asked me about before publishing it here.

If anyone would have profited from the blog, it would have been the owner and publisher of the blog, Vern Nelson.  However, I am reasonably confident that Vern did not receive any money from Spitzer or his campaign or his supporters “in exchange for” placing this ad.  Vern commonly, in the lead up to elections, produces “comp ads” of his own design and at his own instigation – usually for Democrats, occasionally for a better Republican against a worse one, sometimes for a non-corrupt non-Democrat running against what he considers to be a corrupt Democrat – and places them on the blog because this furthers his own support for his political preferences. I strongly expect that this is what happened with the Spitzer ad.

Section 17: Allegations Regarding Chaffee

I note that Exhibit 3 – in a completely sloppy fashion – contains lots of other material, generally out of context, that has nothing to do with any allegation and should therefore be stricken. (The bottom of page 41 onto page 42 does contain a useful interchange between me and Hoffman, though.) If the Officers want a detailed response to all of the – choosing the polite version of this phrase – spaghetti thrown at the wall to see what sticks I will be glad to provide it to them.

The allegation expressed in paragraph 21 states:

  1. After the election, the D.A.’s office filed charges against Democrat incumbents, candidates or their family members, including but not limited to, a Democrat who fell out of favor with Greg Diamond, Democratic Mayor, Doug Chaffee’s wife for allegedly stealing campaign signs which carries with it a possible one year jail term. A true and correct copy of the story is attached as Exhibit 4.

The notion that I had anything to do with the District Attorney’s decisions to charge Paulette Chaffee or Buena Park Councilwomen Sunny Kim for stealing campaign signs critical of them is false, defamatory, and repugnant.  For one thing, other than my sending him a brief word of congratulations, I have neither had nor caused anyone else to have any contact with Spitzer since the election, and never talked to him about this matter at all.

Orange Juice Blog has writers who are from both parties (though mostly from Vern and me), and third and no parties, who represent various perspectives; this is a good way to capture public attention in Orange County.  (Mr. Chmielewski’s blog, by contrast, is written by a centrist, business-oriented Democrat and appeals to most who are of that ilk.) Ryan Cantor is a moderate Republican who is usually not very partisan.  This post of his, calling for DPOC to investigate Chaffee’s actions (which, to be fair, were videoed), incensed me and – for the first time I can remember in his case – I took it down.  Ryan put it back up.  I took it down again.  Ryan appealed to Vern, who – in keeping with his belief in free speech – decided that it should stay up.  My comments on the piece, which are readily available in Exhibit 4, show you how I felt about it and how I defended DPOC’s action.

Why this is even arguably a basis for expelling me from DSCC, regarding a race outside of CDP’s purview, is entirely unclear.  I will say that there could be nothing more ironic than that.

Section 18 – Chuchua Campaign

As is evident from Exhibit 4 itself, CDP Officers already heard this case and took action on it. Unless you believe that that’s not the end of the matter, its presence here is simply intended to prejudice and inflame you and it would be sanctioned in real courts of law.  Note, though, that the finding of the CDP on page 90 of the report was that I did not advocate against the nominated Democrat, Sean Panahi, once he got into the race.  Again, if Mr. Chmieleweski tried to pull this stunt in a real court, he would be fined for it.

For the record, this involves my attempt to ensure that Democrats would have a 54th Assembly seat at a time when we could not pass a budget due to the supermajority requirement.  Brian Chuchua was a Republican who left the party to become an NPP.  He is a fiscal conservative, but also a “good government” type who believed that Democrats should be able to pass a budget and then take the electoral heat for it. (Unfortunately, like many around age 80, he tends to be more socially conservative and was later vulnerable to Trump.) This was a district where no Democrat was seen as having a chance; in an open seat and with the support of Anaheim’s popular Mayor, Chuchua had a chance to take the election. As no Democrat looked at all likely to run for the sear, I told him that I would manage his campaign (against two truly rotten Republicans) if he would agree to provide a deciding vote, if necessary, on Democratic budget items. He agreed. At the last minute, Sean Panahi – whom I have come to like – got into the race, apparently because DPOC leaders wanted him as another vote in their favor.  This ruined my hope that Chuchua could win the race – and help get past the gridlock affecting our party in the legislature – with Democratic, independent, and moderate Republican support from his and Anaheim’s popular then-Mayor’s home base of Anaheim Hills.  Once Panahi got into the race, I don’t recall doing work for Brian, because he understood that Panahi was going to take the Democratic vote even without campaigning – all of which is what happened.

Section 19: Vanderbilt

This election was not within the purview of the CDP, but was in the domain of the DPOC.  It’s notable that the DPOC didn’t even file charges against me on this one, perhaps because they understood Anaheim politics better than Petitioners hope you will.

Jordan Brandman is a nominal Democrat who has routinely endorsed and worked hand in glove with Republicans on the Anaheim City Council, while backstabbing the excellent reformist Democrat on that council, Dr. Jose Moreno.  His opponent, James Vanderbilt, is a very moderate Republican who has been very willing to work with Democrats on the City Council against corruption.  The story in question was one in which I asked what would happen if Democratic Mayoral candidate Ashleigh Aitken were to win over corrupt (and I can back that adjective up upon request) Republican Harry Sidhu. I said that based on his track record, Brandman would align with the Republicans to take power for himself in a 4- or 5-person majority – as he has done in the past. (He has been censured for such behavior, too.)  Vanderbilt, by contrast, was likely to work with Aitken on most city matters, where corruption is a major issue.

Aitken lost because a second Democrat – in the race to torpedo her – took just enough votes away from her, largely from the district where Brandman was running.  Brandman won and, as expected, has become part of Sidhu’s governing majority.  I know that “Republicans who work well with Democrats running against Democrats who work with Republicans to betray Democrats” is not an issue that many counties have to deal with, but we do.  Regardless, this is not a race to which the CDP Bylaws restrictions apply.  As for the DPOC’s Bylaws, I felt that Brandman’s lying to get the endorsement (mentioned in the piece) might have affected their applicability here.

Section 20: Daly and Correa

In paragraphs 26 and 27, Petitioners say that I publicly advocated that voters should not vote for Tom Daly. In 28 and 29, they say the same regarding Correa. There is no Exhibit providing evidence for this and I don’t recall saying that others should not vote for either. There is the admission re each that I did not publish this supposed stance. So: I don’t know what they’re talking about. They may be talking about my getting very very upset by them both supporting the candidate who was in charge of the OC jails at the time when the major violations of civil rights and constitutional rights occurred, which I considered to be heinous.  But as I was campaigning for Democrat Nguyen against the Republican miscreant who had committed those misdeeds, I think it was permissible.

Section 21: Keirstead

Again, there is no evidence for my publicly opposing Keirstead.  There is just the assertion that the absence of evidence should be treated as evidence.  Let’s not do that.

It’s hilarious that the allegation is that I tried to harm Keirstead by showing his photo with Ms. Albert, who had proudly announced her role in instructing her delegates from getting his endorsement.  I really don’t think that that counts in the worst of circumstances, but I will explain what I recall doing.

As I recall, I preferred Keirsted to Rouda at the time, and I wanted to convince Keirstead that he should disavow Lenore, on the grounds that she was what entertainment people call “box office poison.” He didn’t return my calls. I had friends supporting Keirstead who agreed with me on this harming him, and who tried to pass on my message that he should call me. He still didn’t.  My use of the photos was essentially to drive home to him, if he read them, that this association was going to hurt him in the primary. As it turned out, the intervention of the DCCC, regarding the scandals reportedly filed against him with UCI, made this irrelevant.  The notion that my printing a photo of him with a woman who claimed credit for his endorsement and whom he would not disavow was “dangerous in a red district” is … strange.  I don’t think that this violates any Bylaws.

The assertion that I have “stalked and harassed [Ms. Albert] for five years” is defamatory.  I’ve reported on her because she was a candidate and newsworthy.  I sued her and won over her ballot designation.  She lost that appeal.  She sued me (and three dozen others) and had the case thrown out as frivolous. She filed this oetition against me.  Who’s stalking whom?

Section 22: More Chaffee

Paulette Chaffee did steal some vicious signs that were critical of her. Contrary to the petition, I argued publicly that this was not nearly as big a deal as it was portrayed as being. Since then, I’ve been in contact with other attorneys who have assured me that it was a big deal. If the argument that I’m at fault because Spitzer enforced a law that Rackauckas would have overlooked to curry favor with a member of the Board of Supervisors, all I can say is that holding me responsible for everything that Spitzer does because I considered his opponent a worse evil seems tenuous, and the notion that it’s good that law enforcement officials would turn a blind eye to crimes to curry favor is noxious.  But, again, this has nothing to do with the CDP’s purview.

Section 23: Harassment

Regarding paragraphs 38 and 39: actually, my representation that just one particular story of mine got over 18,000 views (it’s actually 18,496, but who’s counting?  It was an argument to vote for retention of judges, even if one disagreed with some of their decisions, unless there was a compelling reason (usually moral turpitude) to reject them. You can read it, if you wish, at this link:

There was a partisan basis for it, if you want to see one: I knew from my research that Republicans were embarking on a stealth campaign against various judges, including California Supeme Court Justice Leonie Krueger (seemingly based on her being a woman of color with expressive hair.)  There was also a campaign to expel Judge Thomas Goethels because he has taken on OCDA Rackauckas and the Sheriff’s Department about the snitch scandal.  I did my best to counter those efforts – proudly.

I think that paragraph 38 gives you a sense of what it’s like to tangle with Lenore.  First of all, none of this violates any CDP rule; it is not within your purview. That said: I am not in a “joint venture” or “partnership” (in the legal “business forms” sense) with Vern Nelson, who is the owner in fact as well as on paper, and of whom I am not an “alter ego.”  (If attorneys are laughing at that – you assumed the risk of reading this.)  I mention that I’m an attorney when it’s relevant to a conversation. Vern is an excellent pianist, though I’m not sure “the greatest in OC.” He is an alcoholic and does have multiple DUIs, but is also heroically fighting it these days (during which time he has been mostly absent from the blog), and I think that it’s unfortunate that Lenore sees fit to mention it in a petition aimed at me.

I have never come close to a physical altercation with my brother-in-law, Jeff LeTourneau; though I do like to get close enough to him to look him straight in the eye when he has been lying or cheating about something important in politics, because he does have a conscience and I know that that piques it.  (If other people think that it’s leading to some sort of physical fight, they’re misinformed. We were friends long before I introduced him to his husband and we’ve never had that sort of fight.) Unlike Mr. Chmielewski, I have never butted my stomach up against someone to move them away or intimidate them, and if the Officers want to get into the middle of this (for reasons that I can’t imagine) I will seek out affidavits from people who have seen it or experienced it. The “cut you” reference was a joke that anyone in sound mind with good sense would recognize as such.

As for paragraph 39, if the Officers feel that they can remove me from office for trying to warn delegates, in 2015, before they voted to endorse Lenore over a plausible opponent, that she was being investigated by the bar for credible reports that she had stolen from clients and committed other acts warranting sanction and potentially disbarment – one of which charges was incidentally just upheld by the California Supreme Court when they suspended Lenore earlier this very month – then all I can say is that I don’t see where this is at all covered by the section providing bases for expulsion from the DSCC, but I am happy to answer your questions and provide you with more facts as you see fit.

Section 24: The Meinhardt Report

The Meinhardt Report (Exhibit 7) has been offered as evidence by Lenore in many of her lawsuits; it certainly hasn’t been taken seriously in any litigation against me, and I don’t know that it has been in litigation involving anyone else.  I have no reason to think that it has any basis to it at all, especially not the ones about me.

I will say one thing that I mentioned early on: this report is defamatory towards me and towards others (but I’m the one potentially harmed in this situation.) I hope that you will find in my favor, but even if you don’t, I don’t have any grudge against any of you strong enough to make me want to see you included in a defamation suit.  I have not been able to bring a defamation suit against Lenore or anyone else regarding this material, through the present day, because it has always been presented as part of a court filing – and you can’t sue someone for defamation over a court filing (although you may have other recourse against them.)

I say now for the last time (here): this is not a real court.  It thus follows that this is not a court filing.  For the first time in my experience, this is being presented – in a clear attempt to cause me fresh damage – in a forum where it has no legal protection against a defamation suit.

All I ask of the five of you is this: is you provide any negative consequences against me, even a slap on the wrist, please specify the factual basis for such an action, or at the very minimum state that Exhibit 7 had nothing to do with your decision. (Ideally, you’ll be able to say that you didn’t even read it.) That way, Lenore will be in no position to say that this report played any role in your adverse finding. I may have my conflicts with some or all of you in the future over political strategy and values, from inside or from outside of CDP, but I really don’t want this to be one of them.

I have provided my answers here based to the best of my ability, which for me includes a compromised (but of late also improving) memory.  I do not offer this under a penalty of perjury, but I attest that it is my best-faith effort to be truthful about the matters herein,

Submitted July 29, 2019, from Brea, CA

Greg Diamond

/s/ Greg Diamond

About Greg Diamond

Somewhat verbose attorney, semi-disabled and semi-retired, residing in northwest Brea. Occasionally ran for office against jerks who otherwise would have gonr 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. Corrupt party hacks hate him. He's OK with that too. He does advise some local campaigns informally and (so far) without compensation. (If that last bit changes, he will declare the interest.) His daughter is a professional campaign treasurer. He doesn't usually know whom she and her firm represent. Whether they do so never influences his endorsements or coverage. (He does have his own strong opinions.) But when he does check campaign finance forms, he is often happily surprised to learn that good candidates he respects often DO hire her firm. (Maybe bad ones are scared off by his relationship with her, but they needn't be.)