Complaints That I Deleted James Mai-Related Comments

By
Greg Diamond
– April 28, 2023Posted in: "The OC", Fresh Juice

I went to the Trash today, my first day that I’ve been back at my usual computer. Usually I’m the primary trash monitor here, but it was harder to do on my smartphone. NOTE: NOW THERE IS CATEGORY 4 AT THE END., WHERE MRS. CAMERON AND HER SUPPORTERS COMPLAIN. Here we go, by category:

1. Purported Links to James Mai Record

I’ve known that one commenter with a pseudonym making fun of Vietnamese names has been complaining that I deleted their comment. I had some substantial charges within it, which I am not going to endorse for lack of personal knowledge, but I’m going to separate them into a list of numbered points, retaining the links and getting rid of the hashtags. Here you go.

  1. James Mai has a felony conviction in Nevada
  2. He violated probation here in OC in Westminster
  3. The case is almost 20 years old
  4. [As a result], he cannot have a gun.
  5. [Nevertheless], he has weapons [Implied]
  6. He has a court record [available for public review] at West Court, Westminster
  7. His nonprofit based in Tustin, AAPIUnited, is a scam
  8. His nonprofit collects donations at this link: https://aapiunited.com/donate/
  9. He does not not have the right to collect donations, because his nonprofit does not have a Board of Directors
  10. [But] he was and is fraudulently collecting donations
  11. Proof for this from Attorney Generals Office is [available at] the link below:
    https://rct.doj.ca.gov/Verification/Web/Details.aspx?result=05d2985f-acf8-4edc-8622-ef7d2e27132a
  12. His website does not ever mention he himself committed a hate crime

My comments: I don’t know how much of this is true. #1-6 are news to me. I’ve heard about #7-10 myself — and I may have reported them — but the supporting link at #11 appears to be dead. If I did report on this, it wasn’t dead at the time, but I’m not sure what it would have said. As for #12, I’m not surprised that it wouldn’t be present on his website. My current understanding of things is that there’s no evidence other than his public confession and arguable lack of adequate denials that he ever committed a hate crime; there’s stronger evidence that he bragged about committing one to make himself look tough and dangerous, which is still pretty bad and idiotic in my book. I understand that things have been happening on the County’s Housing and Community Services Commission — specifically, Commissioners quitting rather than continuing to serve with Mai — but I only know of one such action firsthand. I have not seen any evidence that Supervisors Chaffee, Do, and Wagner seem not to give this tiniest molecule of methane about this and I think that that is a disgusting abdication of duty.

2. Su Yu

[1] Comment for Greg Diamond. The fact that, in your opinion Doug Chaffee is more important (significant) than the woman doxed by James Mai is in itself significant as to your motives. You should have thought this through a little better, the part about suing the County.

Ironically, the County could be on the hook for an incident that is still on their website, it’s the doxing of that lady that happened at a OCHCD meeting. Did you tell her she only has six months to file a claim for that? If not, then why?

You seem pretty gung-ho about facing James Mai in court, from your comments on this blog piece. It’s strange that this dissipated when Mai accused you on paper of stalking him. Mai leaked the papers to some rightwing Asian Instagram site. That’s yet another incident of doxing because the papers mention the woman’s name, or one of her names. You aren’t screaming “defamation” on Mai’s part, and it’s a struggle to understand why. Did you stalk Mai or not ?

Be a man and live up to your comments. You stirred up a hornets nest, now you are running for cover. You promise not to until the sweet, sweet discovery? You bit off more than you can chew!

Mai is an asshole and an abusive one at that. He also bit off more than he could chew, when he bragged about that sick incident that wasn’t. If Dan is right about one thing is that this story has no winners, and one real victim.

[2] Greg, the definition of “perplexing” is Katrina Foley’s alliance with Diane Hearkey. Don’t see you moaning and groaning about it at all. You didn’t see that one coming, when you wrote this did you?
In case you missed it, there are screenshots of some comments you made on this blog on Instagram, on a rightwing page. Not the Asian Dawn, a private one. One of the comments shows you saying you promise not to demurr until you get to the sweet sweet Discovery! I Don’t you think you should start working on the Sweet Sweet Discovery, since you’re accused of stalking and it’s making the rounds on Instagram. Like James Mai, your arrogance is your undoing. Though I give you credit for being better than him by any standard. My point is your words will cost you. Stand by your words, if you are that confident.

As far as your comment that any defendant sued by Mai can do discovery, that takes money. Something neither you nor this lady has.

You don’t even know the name of the Commission he is on. Hint, it’s not “Housing and Human Services” it is Housing and Community Development Commission.

[3] Ok, here is the comment, just know it’s on Instagram, along with the part about Greg and his ex client stalking James Mai.

On the KAFOC thing, I call total bullshit. Assuming Tammy Kim is a member of KAFOC, she would not have shown up to protest Jay Chen in favor of the Steal! Individual members of KAFOC choosing to attend James Mai’s accent protest did so on their own, not representative of KAFOC. It is also a lie that Jay Chen made fun of any accent, it was a dig at the intelligence level of an opposing candidate. Leave it to Mai to politicize it. Greg Diamond and James Mai have that in common too. Politicize to weaponize. Now Mai gets to cry that this is a political hit job. That’s because this article reads like one, hello!

[4] [TO VERN:] Funny you should mention Cerritos. Chuong Vo withdrew his bid to be considered mayor. The election was Wednesday. In Cerritos, the council members select the mayor and Chuong Vo was all about another term until some Hindus got in his way. He then said he wasn’t looking for another term. He got trolled so bad last week, during the outgoing ceremony, they cut the Livestream off, then deleted it. This was his cost of joining with James Mai last year. That was the event where first Janice Hahn dropped out, then LA vs Hate, then Sheriff Villanueva and finally Chuong Vo. Then some Hindus, I guess resurfaced and the disturbing screenshots came out again and the articles about Vo and Mai got circulated. So Vo paid a heavy price. Don’t cry for him, though. He still gets a fat stipend for “health insurance” even though as a Sheriff’s employee he already fully covered.

[5] Greg writes as follows:

Disclosure: My Role in This Matter

I agreed to represent LC (despite our considerable political differences) in early preparation stages of a possible action against James Mai, and probably the County for its negligent supervision of him, over his harassment, discrimination, and retaliation towards her, which has included “doxxing.”

Question for this blog and Greg. There are screenshots from a rightwing Asian Instagram page that show this paragraph being different. The screenshot says you will be suing James Mai and the County. Not a possible and not early planning or preparation.

This is different from the “possible lawsuit against James Mai”. So, did Mai or one of his adorers deepfake a screenshot?

Or did Greg change the wording? Why would you do that? Did you not believe they were screenshotting stuff? Just trying to get to the bottom of this. If a lawsuit is filed, and it sounds like it will be don’t you think it looks bad that it was changed? How would you explain that?

How will changing the wording and adding disclaimers help? Do you have an original of what that paragraph was ? Can you reply to this question, openly and on the blog?

[6] So attorneys take cases or not depending on the political view of the plaintiff or defendant? in need of representation? Is that even legal? Never seen such a thing like a lawyer explaining to themselves why they took on a client with different political views. This is sounding like the whole Bake my Cake thing and religious beliefs of the bakers. Except they said it violated their religious beliefs to bake a gay wedding cake. They said they were fine with servicing gay couples and selling them the same cake as they do other customers. The cases were Christians, but Moslems would not take those requests either, and at least one Moslem restaurant owner was sued for not catering a gay wedding.

Legal representation is not the same. Your logic doesn’t make sense, and it’s suspicious if you are changing the blog after the fact. It’s maybe fine if you say it’s edited, but you don’t. Did you edit that part of the post, or are the screenshots seen elsewhere a fake?
Which is true and which is real?

[7] Those legal papers are on Instagram too, posted by James Mai or his allies. It specifically accuses you of stalking him. Why haven’t you addressed this? If someone filed something against someone else and put in there that I was doing creepy stuff like stalking, I would be mad and push back. You are totally ignoring the allegations against you, which is just wild. Did you stalk Mai or not?

[8] Hi, Greg Diamond had the nerve to delete my comments after I posted that he is being accused in court filing by James Mai of stalking. He also posted on his blog that he is suing the County then changes and edits his article. He is being unethical and lying to his readers then runs and hides for cover when things get to hot in the kitchen.

[My comments] Does anyone really need an explanation of why I did not want to engage with a pseudonymous vendor of weak charges and misinformation? It’s exhausting — and pointless, given that only one of us has accountability for what we right ! But I will address a few small parts of the accusations here.

So far as I know, James Mai has not accused me of harassing him. I understand from Mrs. Cameron that he did seek an injunction against her for cyber-harassment; she’s subpoenaing [me] as a witness in that hearing, for reasons unclear to me, but I’m not a party to it. If he does seek an injunction against me, I will face off against him. If he files suit against me or this blog, I will address those charges at that time. I don’t expect either to happen — but who knows with this guy? He has never served me any papers, that I know of, and I don’t read Instagram, let alone his comments on it.

If anyone with a verifiable name and identity wants to ask me about any of the above, they’re welcome to. I may not choose to answer, but you can go ahead and try your shot. One other thing I will say is that my mention of her and my very different political positions was not to say that I only accept clients with whom I agree; on the contrary, it was to point out that I DO accept clients with whom I disagree. We agreed, after quite a while, that our attorney-client relationship was not a good one and that she would be better off seeking counsel anywhere. But I still respect what she did to blow the whistle, I have taken steps even after we parted company to help her, and I hope that she prevails in all current controversies in all legal forums. But, in most ways, I’m not one well-suited to help her.

3. Death Wishes

You may note that someone anonymously wished me dead during the 10-11 days while I was sick with Covid. I think that Vern kindly took these down; I put them back up today. Impotent nattering of spineless cowards doesn’t usually bother me; and I think it’s useful to note that these sorts of things seem to come from only one side of the fence.

4. Mrs. Cameron and Her Allies Have Their Say

[THIS UPDATE WAS ADDED EARLY SUNDAY MORNING, APRIL 30]

Mrs. Cameron has expressed her ire about this post, as have several of her supporters. Those comments now appear below.

Mrs. Cameron wishes the following to be known:

  • You [meaning me] still have not said on the latest blog post that i deny the accusations and that the injunction was partly granted and partly DENIED
  • You have not said that the allegations by the vietnamese vandal are unproven and that no evidence was attached to the filing
  • You have not admitted that your name was mentioned in the affidavit he filed as being one of the alleged harassers

My responses:

  1. I did not address the prior injunction at all, let alone the injunction being partially granted and partially denied. I only mentioned the upcoming hearing. That was not the point of this post. But let the record show, for anyone who can’t figure out that there would be no upcoming hearing if the facts weren’t disputed, that she denies Mai’s accusations.
  2. I am sick and tired of Mrs. Cameron calling Mai “the Vietnamese Vandal.” I started calling him “the Hate Crime Braggart” long ago because his ethnicity is not an issued as regards the brag about the hate crime and it does not seem to me that he likely committed the crime he described — but rather that he’s a pathetic and tasteless blowhard. I haven’t characterized the finding at all other than to say that it alleged cyberharassment, so of course I didn’t get into whether the allegations are proven and whether evidence was — or should have been — attached to the filing.
  3. My name was mentioned in the affidavit, although it was not clear to me based upon a largely illegible PDF of crumpled paper that was sent to me. A clearer version of the document has now been sent to me, and it says this (I’m inserting some paragraph breaks and emphasis):

    “This individual [i.e., Mrs. Cameron] has shown up where I am public [sic] and intimidated me [i.e., James Mai] along with other individuals (Greg Diamond) who both approached me physically, in person.

    “This person has attended committee meetings both city and county where I volunteer and work as a board member, committee member, and commissioner with the intent to harass me. Harassment included name calling, finger pointing and general disruption of meetings.

    “This person has also harassed others whom [sic] are co-workers at the city and county by harassing them and publishing false information about them and myself including workplace emails (or emails of superiors and coworkers.)

    “This person publicaly [sic] stated that they [sic] if people “do not shame” me, they will suffer harassment by this person and her aliases.”

Every instance of “this individual” or “this person” applies solely to Mrs. Cameron. My role in this allegation is that I accompanied to a HCS Board meeting and approached him physically in person. Unless Mai is much stupider than I imagine, this is not an allegation of any harassment by me, because I was fully entitled to serve him a document preservation order on behalf of Mrs. Cameron, whom I represented in a limited capacity, which was necessary for me to have any chance of figuring out what was going on. My recollection is that I also spoke before the Commission that day about Mai’s actions (the bragging about the hate crime) and Mrs. Cameron’s concerns that he may have been misusing commission resources to retaliate against her and violate at least one state law.

So for those who say that I’ve failed to admit that Mai has included me among the people harassing him, I can only say that so far he has accused me of approaching him (to serve him a legal document, prior to the start of the meeting, which he cheerfully accepted) and perhaps of criticizing him in public comments at that meeting. As neither of those in any way can constitute “wrongdoing,” and I am not “this person” names in the document, I stand by my position that he has not accused me personally of wrongdoing or harassment. I don’t think that it’s a big issue, frankly, but Mrs. Cameron and her supporters apparently do — and I admit that it is that sort of error that someone with little knowledge of the law could understandably make.

Someone named Tim Lee has made some nasty comments towards me as well; I’ll address them in comments.

And yes, I am as bored by this as most readers are, but at least you are getting a sense of these issues.

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. 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.)