Law Firm Tracking Tactics Alleged

 

ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER

Thursday, Nov 14, 2013    

Law firm tracking tactics alleged

Evidence hints that a GPS device was placed on a Costa Mesa councilman's car.

Local and federal authorities have uncovered evidence that a renegade law firm representing police unions illegally used an electronic tracking device to follow a Costa Mesa councilman who supported pension reform, according to interviews and court records.

A law enforcement investigation into tactics used by the now defunct Lackie, Dammeier, McGill & Ethir law firm - accused of strong-arming cities throughout California - has taken a troubling turn into whether municipal lawmakers were tracked with GPS devices on behalf of police unions.

Computerized data obtained by the Orange County District Attorney's Office and the 'BI show that a police-grade GPS device was placed on an SUV driven by Mayor Pro Tern Steve Mensinger for more than a month while he sought re-election in 2012, according to interviews and records.

A lawsuit by Mensinger and Mayor Jim Righeimer against the Upland law firm, the Costa Mesa Police Association and private investigator Chris Lanzillo was amended Wednesday to include the allegation that a tracking device was installed on the undercarriage of Mensinger's vehicle while it was parked in his Costa Mesa driveway.

The device was installed and removed repeatedly to recharge it and download the data, which tracked places Mensinger had visited, according to the lawsuit.

"I'm in shock," Mensinger said Wednesday. "This is like a (John) Grisham novel."

Mensinger and Righeimer are strong supporters of reforming public pensions and privatizing some city services.

Mensinger's lawyer, Vince Finaldi, compared the case to Watergate, saying the implications went far beyond the misdemeanor code prohibiting people from placing tracking devices on vehicles they do not own.

Finaldi said if done on a wider basis by Lackie Dammeier on other government officials, the surveillance could trigger federal racketeering laws.

"You're looking at major stuff," he said.

Besides Mensinger, Lanzillo is also suspected of following former El Monte City Manager Rene Bobadilla to his home in June 2011, according to a police report obtained by the Orange County Register. The report describes a white Kia SUV similar to one driven by Lanzillo tailing Bobadilla to and from his home and to a local restaurant.

Reached by telephone, Lanzillo declined to comment Wednesday, saying, "What? I'm not saying nothing, whether it happened or not. I know better than to say anything."

Dieter Dammeier, former managing partner for Lackie Dammeier, could not be reached for comment.

Investigators from the District Attorney's Office and FBI recently raided the law firm as well as Dammeier's home in Rancho Cucamonga, confiscating cellphones and computers, according to a search warrant return obtained by the Register. Also taken from the home was a manual for a Sony video camera with GPS.

The firm is dissolving after being accused of fraud by a statewide defense fund for police officers, allegations that led to a massive exodus of lawyers and employees. The Peace Officers Research Association of California's legal defense fund alleged that Lackie Dammeier triple-billed and charged for nonexistent trips.

Lanzillo, a former Riverside police officer, triggered the Costa Mesa lawsuit after he made a bogus DUI complaint in August 2012 against Righeimer while following him home from a tavern owned by Councilman Gary Monahan. Mensinger also was at the bar.

Transcripts of the 911 call show that Lanzillo accused Righeimer of speeding, swerving and running stop signs on neighborhood streets during the 4 miles to his home. A Costa Mesa officer arrived on Righeimer's doorstep and conducted a sobriety test, which the councilman passed. Righeimer produced a receipt showing he and Mensinger had imbibed nothing stronger than Diet Cokes.

Lanzillo later admitted he was at the bar in an attempt to trap Monahan by sending in a pretty woman to flirt with him.

Lanzillo worked for Lackie Dammeier, which represented the Costa Mesa police union - until it was fired after the DUI incident.

Lackie Dammeier had earned a statewide reputation for bullying city council members into compliance during contract talks. The firm, made up of former police officers, reveled in its aggressive tactics, publishing an online playbook that advised unions to "keep the pressure up until that person assures you his loyalty and then move on to the next victim."

The playbook also advised work slowdowns and sick-outs.

Mensinger said he had no idea a tracking device was put on his vehicle - especially by anyone representing local police officers.

"It's hard for me to believe anyone in our police department could be involved, but the facts will be revealed," he said.

The investigation by the Orange County district attorney and the FBI is continuing.

CONTACT THE WRITER: tsaavedra®ocregi Ste r.corn

 

Law firm put GPS device on councilman's car, suit says

Law firm put GPS device on councilman's car, suit says

By Adolfo Flores and Paloma Esquivel
LA Times
November 13, 2013, 6:48 p.m.

An Upland law firm accused of bullying civic leaders faced new accusations Wednesday of planting a GPS device on the car of a Costa Mesa city official as a way to intimidate him.

 In an amendment to an existing lawsuit, Costa Mesa Councilman Steve Mensinger said the device was affixed to his car during the entire 2012 election season and only came to his attention when he was alerted by the Orange County district attorney’s office.

In the amendment, which was first reported by the O.C. Weekly, Mensinger's attorney said the device was designed to “intimidate, harass, humiliate and threaten" his client.

“Watergate, that’s when I last heard about something like this happening,” said Vince Finaldi, the Irvine attorney who filed the suit and amendment. 

The firm has represented dozens of police unions in Southern California and has a reputation for its bare-knuckled tactics and attacks on city hall. At the time of the accusations, the firm was employed by the Costa Mesa Police Officers' Assn.

Investigators with the Orange County district attorney’s office raided the offices of the Upland law firm a month after it announced that it would be dissolving following a series of scandals and the lawsuit.

Since last year, prosecutors have examined accusations that a private investigator (Chris Lanzillo) who had worked with Lackie, Dammeier, McGill & Ethir tailed Costa Mesa Mayor Jim Righeimer from a local bar and called 911 to say the then-councilman was possibly driving drunk.

After the call, a police officer came to his door and asked Righeimer to take a sobriety test, which he passed. Righeimer later produced a receipt from the bar showing he had only bought a soda at the tavern.

Attorneys for Righeimer and Mensinger believe the GPS device allowed the firm to follow the pair to Skosh Monahan’s on the night of the 911 call.

The amendment also accuses Lackie, Dammeier, McGill & Ethir of intruding onto Mensinger’s property because the GPS device needed to be charged and downloaded.

  

3 simple ways to delete your data for good

3 simple ways to delete your data for good

By Kim Komando
Published June 30, 2013
The Kim Komando Show

It's always exciting buying a new computer. You can't wait to set it up and put its power to use. Of course, it often creates a problem: What do you do with your old computer?

You could turn it into a second Internet computer, DVR or a streaming media server. But you're more likely to sell it or give it away to a friend or family member.

That's fine, but you don't want to sell or give away your personal data along with it. Who knows where it might end up!

Unfortunately, you can't just place your sensitive files in the Recycle Bin and then empty it. This doesn't completely delete the files. It just hides them from the operating system until they're overwritten. Anyone with the right tools can recover them.

Now, your friends and family members probably don't have the knowledge or desire to steal this information. However, a hacker or a virus they let on to the system could find it.

So, how do you get rid of your sensitive information for good? I have three ways that will make sure no one is ever able to recover your private data.

I do need to point out that these instructions are for conventional magnetic hard drives. They won't work well for the newer solid-state drives. Those usually have their own built-in programs and systems for wiping information. Check with the drive manufacturer to see what they recommend.

1. Wipe the drive completely
The quickest method of destroying your personal information is destroying all of the drive's data. Formatting the drive can do this.

You can do this manually or just re-install Windows. Windows 8 users can go to PC Settings>>General>>Remove Everything and reinstall Windows. Users of Windows 7 and prior should consult their computer manual for the best way to do it.

Formatting makes a data thief's job tougher, but not impossible. On larger hard drives, there are still big empty spaces where your old data is just sitting around.

To really get rid of it, you want to use a program like Darik's Boot And Nuke. This formats your drive, fills it up with junk information, and formats the drive again. The process repeats several times. That's how the CIA and military wipe their information.

Of course, that leaves you with an empty drive. You'll need to re-install the operating system and programs. You might not have the installation disks anymore, or maybe you don't want the hassle.

2. Delete only your sensitive files
Most of what makes a computer worth having is the software. The previous method wipes it out.

However, there is a way to fully erase personal data while leaving Windows and programs alone. You can do this even if you aren't getting rid of your computer.

Grab a program like Eraser for Windows or Permanent Eraser for Mac. Like Darik's Boot and Nuke, these write over your deleted information multiple times to make sure it's really gone. However, they stick to files you select.

I recommend this method only if you're giving away your computer to someone you know. That way, if you miss something it won't be a catastrophe.

Plus, you'll be saving them the work of re-installing the computer's important programs. You can even load it up with a few essential programs you know they'll need.

3. Destroy the hard drive
Everyone has that moment where you want to smash your computer. Well, this is your chance!

If you don't need your hard drive anymore, physically destroying it is the best way to keep your data from falling into the wrong hands. I would still run the Boot And Nuke program first, however.

Then pull it out of the computer case and go to town. The method doesn't really matter.

Some people use a power drill, belt sander or hammer. I've seen someone use a 20-ton hydraulic press! Just make sure the drive's platters are sufficiently damaged so they never spin again.

Waving a powerful magnet over the platters a few times is a good idea as well. That will really scramble the information. Just keep the magnet away from your current machine!

When you dispose of your hard drive afterwards, make sure you do it in a safe way using this site.



Copyright 2013, WestStar Multimedia Entertainment. All rights reserved.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2013/06/30/3-simple-ways-to-delete-your-data-for-good/?intcmp=features#ixzz2Xiz4LNcz

Budget could limit public's access to government documents

Budget could limit public's access to government documents

By Anthony York, Los Angeles Times
June 18, 2013, 8:07 p.m.

Gov. Brown is ready to sign a budget that would allow local officials to opt out of some provisions of the Public Records Act as a way to save money, drawing protests from California newspapers.

SACRAMENTO — Gov. Jerry Brown is poised to sign legislation that could reduce the public's access to basic government records that have long been used to scrutinize the actions of elected officials.

The proposal, a late insert into the state budget that lawmakers passed last week, would allow local officials to opt out of parts of the California law that gives citizens access to government documents.

Under that law, officials now must respond to a request for records from a member of the public within 10 days and are required to make the documents available electronically. The change, which Brown requested as a cost-cutting measure, would allow the officials to skip both requirements with a voice vote.

The same vote would permit them to reject requests without explanation and would no longer require them to help citizens identify existing information.

Brown and other defenders of the legislation predict that it would have little effect — that most local governments would choose to abide by the old rules. But the California Newspaper Publishers Assn. called the measure a stealth attack on government transparency and a blow to the public's right to information.

"If the local agencies were predisposed to share information with the public," association lobbyist Jim Ewert said," there wouldn't be a need for a public records act to begin with."

Ewert, who wrote to Brown this week urging him to veto the bill, said the governor's record on open government is spotty. He cited Brown's 2012 decision to temporarily suspend open-meeting laws for local governments and three closed-door or private phone meetings that the governor had with Los Angeles County supervisors to sell his prison overhaul in 2011.

"I wouldn't give him very high marks," Ewert said. "His actions don't demonstrate a strong commitment to government transparency.''

News organizations rely on California's open-records law to help expose information about state and local government that may otherwise remained hidden.

The Times has used the law to find the results of child abuse investigations and the amount of pension money paid to public retirees. Times reporters have also used the law to aid in uncovering questionable spending in public institutions such as the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum and in revealing corruption in the city of Bell, where officials paid themselves outsized salaries and imposed illegal taxes on residents.

Bell resident Donna Gannon, 59, worries that changing the law could disable what little civic engagement exists in cities across the state. "Too much is going to be hidden from us," she said. Government officials, she noted, "work for us."

Brown's Department of Finance spokesman, H.D. Palmer, said the proposal maintains the public's right to know what officials are doing. "This does not alter the core provisions of the Public Records Act," he said.

The nonpartisan Legislative Analyst's Office estimates that the measure would save tens of millions of dollars a year because Sacramento would no longer have to reimburse local governments for the cost of providing some records. Cities and counties would assume those costs.

Sen. Mark Leno (D-San Francisco), chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, voted to change the law. He said that if any local agency decided not to comply with its provisions, voters could direct their anger at those officials.

"Their own constituents will be aware that it is they who have decided it is not worth their expenditure of their funds,'' Leno said.

The California Public Records Act, which established access to government information as a "fundamental and necessary right of every person in this state," was signed into law by Gov. Ronald Reagan in 1968. In 2000 and 2001, Gov. Gray Davis expanded it.

Los Angeles County in 2002 filed a legal challenge to those new requirements with the Commission on State Mandates, successfully arguing that the new provisions put a financial burden on local governments that should be reimbursed by the state.

Brown's proposal, by making compliance with those provisions optional, would gut key pieces of the law, opponents said. But the measure sailed though both houses of the Legislature during Friday's budget debate with just one Democrat, Leland Yee of San Francisco, voting against it.

Yee, who is running for secretary of state next year, said the measure was "just the latest indication this nation is moving backward in terms of being open and transparent." He said many of his fellow Democrats share the blame for that trend.

"This came from the governor, but it was blessed by the leadership," he said. "I thought that there would be sufficient checks and balances that something like this would not occur."

The measure was tucked into a larger bill on government administration, one of 21 pieces of budget legislation. The 107-page measure directs billions in state spending, creates a new grant program for trauma centers, makes changes to the workers' compensation system and limits tax credits for owners of the Honda Center in Anaheim, among other things.

Brown would have to reject the entire bill if he were to block the open-records proposal, and his administration has indicated that he intends to sign it.

Supreme Court rules police can take DNA swabs from those arrested

Supreme Court rules police can take DNA swabs from those arrested
Published June 03, 2013
Associated Press


A sharply divided Supreme Court on Monday said police can continue to take DNA from people they arrest without getting a warrant. The court's five-justice majority said DNA testing was a legitimate police arrest procedure, like fingerprinting.

"Taking and analyzing a cheek swab of the arrestee DNA is, like fingerprinting and photographing, a legitimate police booking procedure that is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the court's five-justice majority.

But the four dissenting justices said that the court was allowing a major change in police powers.

"Make no mistake about it: because of today's decision, your DNA can be taken and entered into a national database if you are ever arrested, rightly or wrongly, and for whatever reason," conservative Justice Antonin Scalia said in a sharp dissent which he read aloud in the courtroom.

At least 28 states and the federal government now take DNA swabs after arrests. But a Maryland court was one of the first to say that it was illegal for that state to take Alonzo King's DNA without approval from a judge, saying King had "a sufficiently weighty and reasonable expectation of privacy against warrantless, suspicionless searches."

But the high court's decision reverses that ruling, which will likely allow states to resume and expand the programs. Kennedy wrote the decision, and was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Stephen Breyer. Scalia was joined in his dissent by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

Tort Law: Can remote texter be liable if driver is distracted by message? Appeals court mulls novel theory

Tort Law:  Can remote texter be liable if driver is distracted by message? Appeals court mulls novel theory

It's common knowledge that texting and driving is a bad idea and, in a number of jurisdictions, illegal. New Jersey is one of them.

But what about sending a text to someone you know is behind the wheel? In addition to moral responsibility, could there be any civil liability for doing so?

That is the question currently being considered by a New Jersey appeals court, after a trial judge in Morristown dismissed a claim brought by two injured motorcyclists against a teenager who texted a male friend she had been dating as he was driving in 2009. Reportedly distracted by a message from Shannon Colonna, then 17, the driver, Kyle Best, crashed his pickup into David and Linda Kubert, who were on their motorcycle in Mine Hill, the Morristown Daily Record reports.

Each of the Kuberts lost a leg in the crash, and they sued both Best and Colonna seeking damages. A state superior court judge nixed their aiding and abetting claim against Colonna last year, and an appeal followed. Best, meanwhile, settled the civil case against him by tendering the $500,000 limit of his auto insurance.

In oral arguments on Monday, attorney Stephen “Skippy” Weinstein, who represents the Kuberts, said the court should impose a duty of care on those who know the recipient is both behind the wheel and likely to be reading texts while driving. Best and Colonna exchanged 62 texts during a several-hour period before the crash, the newspaper says.

However, Joseph McGlone, who represents Colonna, said she is not responsible for his misconduct, according to the Daily Record and the Star-Ledger:  “My client doesn’t know he’s driving, she doesn’t know his schedule. She cannot control when Kyle Best reads the message,” McGlone told the three-judge Appellate Division panel.

“Other than not to send it to begin with if she knows he’s driving,” Judge Michael A. Guadagno responded to McGlone.

Another member of the panel also appeared open to the novel theory: “The question for us is, how do we write up that duty so it is applied the right way?” said Judge Victor Ashrafi.

In response to an argument by McGlone that Best had been distracted by the text message he just sent to Colonna, not by her message to him, Ashrafi said: "But for her sending the text to him, he wouldn’t be looking down.”

Exactly what happened when isn't known, pointed out the third member of the panel, Judge Marianne Espinosa, because the texts weren't preserved.

Child Endangerment Investigation, LSIS Investigations

California is a “No Fault” state when it comes to divorce, however, costly legal issues still arise that can impact you the rest of your life.

Prevailing in a divorce or child custody case is largely about discovering and obtaining relevant facts in a form that is compelling to the court and ADMISSIBLE in court.  It is not enough to state innuendo, or "everyone knows this" or otherwise use conjecture to establish a fact.  Facts are established by witnesses, documents and various forms of evidence.

First you need to retain a very good, specialized licensed investigator.   When making this choice, take into consideration California does not have pre-license educational requirements for private investigator applicants, nor does the state require continuing education once licensed.  A very small fraction of the state licensed P.I.s have formal education in litigation, leaving the majority of P.I.s clueless when it comes to knowledge of the elements of a legal issue. 

What does this mean to you?  At the very least, possibly wasted time and money on a worthless, aimless investigation. On the other hand, it could mean an adverse legal decision that could impact you the rest of your life and worse, the possibility of exposure to civil liability for the tortious acts of an untrained investigator.

Any private investigator can be used to determine if adultery exists ... that's a no brainer.   However, in litigation, you need a trained licensed investigator specializing in Family Law matters.  A specialized Family Law investigator can be invaluable in complex matters such as child custody and visitation cases, contempt cases, on the issue of finding hidden property, and in support cases when it becomes necessary to track someone who is lying about their employment and income.

The LEGAL SUPPORT INVESTIGATIVE SERVICE utilizes decades of investigative experience and trained Paralegal expertise to provide you with a focused and cost effective investigation with reduced liability.

The trained licensed investigators at LSIS understand the legal issues and their elements, the rules of evidence and how to present this evidence in the form of credible reports supported by evidence and courtroom testimony.  They also know the codified laws and case laws that govern our actions, with a firm understanding of liability, protecting our client's from exposure to liability.

LSIS has been successfully employed as part of a legal strategy to win innumerable cases that otherwise may have been up in the air as to their results or would have been extremely challenging to prove.

We rely on specialized Paralegal and Investigative training in:

California Family Law
Civil Procedures
Legal Research
Legal Writing
Domestic Violence
Child Abuse & Neglect
Privacy Laws

Additionally, we receive legal updates and ongoing continuing education through membership with paralegal and investigative associations.

Law firms repeatedly use LSIS based on trust. A trust derived from results, investigative & legal knowledge, professionalism, reliability and integrity.

For more information about our services, please visit our Family Law brochure and call or email for a free consultation and case evaluation. 

562-315-5052

We look forward to working with you.

Randall Alexander
Owner

LSIS Investigations California Family Law website page
LSIS California Family Law

P.I. SIANEZ CONVICTED AND SENTENCED FOR DEFRAUDING CLIENTS BY STEALING PAYMENT FOR UNPERFORMED, UNLICENSED PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR WORK

P.I.  SIANEZ CONVICTED AND SENTENCED FOR DEFRAUDING CLIENTS BY STEALING PAYMENT FOR UNPERFORMED, UNLICENSED PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR WORK

May 2, 2013

Case # 10CF1569

FORMER POLICE OFFICER CONVICTED AND SENTENCED FOR DEFRAUDING CLIENTS BY STEALING PAYMENT FOR UNPERFORMED, UNLICENSED PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR WORK

SANTA ANA - A former police officer working as an unlicensed private investigator was convicted and sentenced today for defrauding his clients. Kevin Michael Sianez, 56, Fountain Valley, pleaded guilty to a court offer to 17 felony counts of grand theft by false pretense, 11 felony counts of fraudulently using an access card, two felony counts of identity theft, four felony counts of possession of a firearm by a felon stemming from a 1998 conviction for stalking, six felony counts of obtaining services through false representation, and one felony count each of perjury by declaration, computer access and fraud, and possession of ammunition by a prohibited person. Sianez also pleaded guilty to one misdemeanor count each of unlawful representation as a private investigator, engaging in the business of private investigation, and doing business without a valid license with sentencing enhancements for aggravated white collar crime over $100,000 and property damage over $65,000. Sianez was sentenced to four years in state prison stayed and ordered to serve one year in jail and make monthly restitution payments of $5,000 until he fulfills the total losses of over $187,000.

Sianez worked as a police officer between 1979 and 1986 for the Santa Ana and Stanton Police Departments. The Stanton Police Department no longer exists.

Between November 2005 and June 2010, Sianez owned and illegally operated private investigation services without a license under the names KMS Investigations, Fore-Front Investigations, and 4Front Investigations. Business and Professions Code 7523 requires proper licensing through the California Department of Consumer Affairs Bureau of Security and Investigative Services to operate as a private investigator. Sianez falsely identified himself as a licensed private investigator.

Sianez posted false reviews of his various businesses on Internet investigator and referral websites to optimize his search engine presence. He used these fabricated reviews to mislead potential clients into believing his businesses had nationwide offices and investigators, when in fact he operated out of a small suite in Fountain Valley with less than five employees, who were primarily family members. Sianez defrauded clients by performing little or no work on their cases after receiving payment. He defrauded properly licensed private investigation firms by subcontracting investigative work to them and failing to pay for their services. 

The Orange County District Attorney (OCDA) Bureau of Investigation began investigating this case after receiving a complaint in March 2010 from the California Department of Consumer Affairs. OCDA Investigators arrested Sianez June 24, 2010.

Senior Deputy District Attorney John Christl of the Special Prosecutions Unit prosecuted this case.

Heavy drinking, 'incompatible' drinking tied to divorce, study says

Heavy drinking, 'incompatible' drinking tied to divorce, study says

Los Angeles Times
By Eryn Brown
February 6, 2013, 5:30 a.m.

Here’s something to ponder if and when you and your spouse make your Valentine’s Day toasts this year: when it comes to drinking — as in so many other facets of marriage — compatibility may be key to keeping couples together.

Researchers reviewing data collected from 19,977 married couples in one county in Norway reported that spouses who consume about the same amount of alcohol were less likely to divorce than pairs where one partner is a heavy drinker and the other is not — especially when the wife is the one doing the drinking.

By reviewing such a large data set, the team, which reported its findings (abstract here, subscription required for full text)Tuesday in the online edition of the journal Alcoholism: Clinical & Experimental Research, were able to tease out some of the alcohol-related dynamics within couples that lead to marriage dissolution.

They found that divorce was generally more common in couples with high rates of alcohol consumption, but that the highest divorce rates were found in couples where only the woman was a heavy drinker. Among couples where the wife reported being a heavy drinker (a measure that including admission of an indication of "hazardous drinking") and the husband a light drinker, the divorce rate was 26.8%; when the positions were switched and the husband was the heavy drinker, the divorce rate was 13.1%.

In couples where both members were heavy drinkers, the divorce rate was 17.2%.

Norwegian Institute of Public Health researcher Fartein Ask Torvik, the lead author of the study, speculated that drinking in women upended marriages for a couple of reasons.  One reason, he noted in a statement, is that women seem to be affected more strongly by alcohol than men are — so their drinking could impair them, and add risk in a marriage, more than a man’s heavy drinking might.  The team also wrote that drinking “may be judged as incompatible with female roles,” and thus a particular threat to marital stability. 

It was “of major interest” that a woman’s drinking more than her husband does seemed to strongly predict divorce, said his colleague Norwegian Institute of Public Health director Ellinor F. Major, who was not listed as a study co-author.

“Couples who intend to marry should be aware of the drinking pattern of their partner, since it may become a problem in the future,” she said in the statement.

The best approach might be for husbands and wives to strive for matching amounts of light or moderate drinking, she said.

Couples in the study who both reported being light drinkers divorced just 5.8% of the time.

MUST SEE: Amazing Interview With Hatchet-Wielding Homeless Hitchhiker Who Took Down Man Claiming To Be Jesus

Local news is an often-wonderful, even-more-often-bizarre place. And never was the latter more evident than in a recent story that aired on KMPH FOX 26 in Fresno, Calif. About a man claiming to be Jesus and the homeless hitchhiker who saved the day with a hatchet.

For starters, here’s what happened: A man claiming to be Jesus apparently plowed his car into a PG&E (Pacific Gas and Electric) worker — pinning him between the car and his truck — because he was black. Two women who were nearby ran over to help, but witnessed a crazy scene.

“The guy just went crazy and was trying to pull the guy from underneath the car and the truck, and then he gets in his car and tries to move the car… and we weren’t going to let him do it,” one of the women, Tanya Baker, told KMPH’s Jessob Reisbeck. “He just kept saying he’s Jesus Christ and he’s going to save all of us… but we have to get — he used the n-word, meaning the black people… and we need to get them off the earth.”

The worker was treated for non-life threatening injuries (two broken legs) at the hospital. But the story still wasn’t over. The driver evidently also went after one of the women (a “bear hug” turned into “beating the crap out of me”).

Enter homeless hitchhiker Kai (who was in the car with the crazy driver). “Like a guy that big can snap a woman’s neck like a pencil stick,” he told Reisbeck. “So I fucking ran up behind him with a hatchet — smash, smash, suh-mash!”

Tanya said that saved her life. The driver, described as over six feet tall and around 300 pounds, had a cut on the head after the incident.

But the story that aired on KMPH wasn’t the whole story. Reisbeck later posted the raw, unedited video of his interview with Kai. And it is nothing short of amazing.

Speaking to Reisbeck, Kai prefaced the interview by offering a message: “No matter what you’ve done, you deserve respect. Even if you make mistakes, you lovable. And it doesn’t matter your looks, skills, or age, your size or anything — you’re worthwhile. No one can ever take that away from you.”

He went on to offer a profanity-laced narrative of what happened, including some choice anecdotes from his interaction with the driver in the car (“He’s like, ‘I raped this 14-year-old,’ and starts crying and gives me a big hug.’”)

“Dude, that guy was fuckin’ kooked out, man,” he told Reisbeck. As for himself, he said his name was Kai and doesn’t have a last name (“no, bro, I don’t have anything”).

The rest of the interview is worth a watch, but I’ll leave you with this: “I’m like, ‘Bro, if you’re fuckin’ Jesus Christ, I’ll be the anti-Christ, man, like fuck that shit.”

Jan 5, 1643: First divorce in the colonies

Jan 5, 1643:
First divorce in the colonies

In the first record of a legal divorce in the American colonies, Anne Clarke of the Massachusetts Bay Colony is granted a divorce from her absent and adulterous husband, Denis Clarke, by the Quarter Court of Boston, Massachusetts. In a signed and sealed affidavit presented to John Winthrop Jr., the son of the colony's founder, Denis Clarke admitted to abandoning his wife, with whom he had two children, for another woman, with whom he had another two children. He also stated his refusal to return to his original wife, thus giving the Puritan court no option but to punish Clarke and grant a divorce to his wife, Anne. The Quarter Court's final decision read: "Anne Clarke, beeing deserted by Denis Clarke hir husband, and hee refusing to accompany with hir, she is graunted to bee divorced."