After 2 days, Clear Channel pulls down billboards that reveal that Judge Lisa Schall was convicted of a crime; also, Judge Schall's website is down (perhaps for changes in her endorsements?)

San Diego 10 News reports that billboards have been taken down by Clear Channel two days after they were put up.

Federal prosecutor Carla Keehn is challenging Judge Lisa Schall in the June 3, 2014 election for San Diego Superior Court judge. The advertisements correctly stated that Judge Schall has been convicted of a crime.

See newscast video on You Tube.

Judge Schall has been admonished three times by the Commission on Judicial Competence. The offenses were political support for the governor who appointed her, abusing her contempt power, and drunk driving.

See all posts on Carla Keehn and Judge Schall.

Judicial candidate Carla Keehn wants to know who took her billboards down

Billboards critical of incumbent Judge Lisa Schall

Joe Little

KGTV

May 12, 2014

SAN DIEGO - A local judicial candidate wants answers after her factually accurate billboard was taken down without any explanation.

Federal prosecutor Carla Keehn recently paid Clear Channel Outdoors $14,000 for four billboards that attack her opponent for Superior Court Judge Seat 20.

Incumbent Judge Lisa Schall has held that seat for almost three decades.

The billboard reads: "Vote Carla Keehn: The only candidate for this office not convicted of a crime. Because no one is above the law, not even judges."

The billboards went up last week and were almost immediately taken down.

"Well, it was a complete surprise," said Keehn. "They would not tell me who or what group told them to bring it down."

Schall has been disciplined three times by a state commission, including once after a DUI in 2008.

Keehn paid Clear Channel for 30 days to share that fact on her billboards. A Clear Channel representative told Keehn the order came from above her to take them down.

"I asked her specifically, 'Can you tell me the name?' She said, 'No.' I asked her, 'Can you tell me the location?' She said, 'No. We've been getting a lot of pressure,'" Keehn recounted.

The same representative declined to speak with 10News. 10News also tried tracking down Schall, whose website was also down Monday.

Keehn said Clear Channel is refusing to give her a full refund.

"They were going to charge us for the whole week and for the cost of tearing all four billboards down," said Keehn.

She's now weighing her legal options.

"We're still reviewing that. It just happened and we're still reviewing and we're still in negotiations with Clear Channel," she said.

A Clear Channel spokesperson issued this statement on the matter:

"Unfortunately our protocol for political ads was not followed and we took the ad down. We have offered the client a variety of resolutions, including the fullest refund allowable under the laws governing political contributions."

Besides the DUI, Schall was also admonished for "abuse of power" in 1999 and for holding an inappropriate hearing in 1995 while working in juvenile court.

Officials are working hard keeping secrets in San Diego's public schools

UPDATE: March 27, 2014 ruling from the Court of Appeal in a San Jose public records case.

Paper’s ‘sunshine week’ project seeking private-account emails on public business is mostly cloudy
By Terry Carter
ABA Journal
Mar 24, 2014

The San Diego Union-Tribune got very practical with its celebration of the recent national Sunshine Week—itself the brainchild of the American Society of News Editors for educating the public on the need for more openness and less secrecy in government.

The U-T published a lengthy feature based on its request for certain email records from more than 100 government administrators across the region. The newspaper asked to see samples of personal emails discussing the public’s business—emails sent from workers' Gmail, Yahoo or other personal accounts.

The effort did not stuff the newspaper's inbox. Samples came back from just two of the more than 100 administrators queried: Grossmont Healthcare District and the city of Lemon Grove.

[Maura Larkins' comment: In my experience, Lemon Grove is one of the most ethical public entities in San Diego county.}

Some responded that they had no such records, some said the emails are not for public viewing and others simply did not respond.

The San Diego law firm Stutz Artiano Shinoff and Holtz represents 40 of San Diego County 42 school districts, and told the newspaper that emails in private accounts don’t fall under the California Public Records Act “because the district does not have actual or constructive possession over any such private account.”

The firm pointed to a California appeals court decision in 2012 concerning the City of Selma in Fresno County, which said that an agency has constructive possession of records “if it has the right to control the records, either directly or through another person.”

But the U-T also asked for emails sent to and from the top executive of each local government agency. In March 2013, a Santa Clara County Superior Court judge ruled in a case involving San Jose officials that government business done through private email accounts “reasonably falls within the definition of a record ‘retained' by the city.”

San Jose is appealing.

“My sense is that many local governments haven’t updated their policies to cover what happens with personal email,” Jodi Cleesattle, a San Diego lawyer and member of the Society of Professional Journalists’ Freedom of Information Committee.

Darren Chaker Sentenced to Federal Prison for Bankruptcy Fraud

See two posts about Darren Chaker HERE on my San Diego Education Report blog. I assume that San Diego attorney David Loy is sad about what's happened to his pal Darren Chaker, who supported Loy's position that all mentions of Dan Shinoff and his law firm Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz should be removed from my websites and I should never mention their names again in my life. My position is that schools and other public entities should not conceal events and information that the public needs to make decisions at the voting booth. The public is entitled to the facts about the performance of public officials and public employees.

Man Sentenced to Federal Prison for Bankruptcy Fraud
U.S. Attorney’s Office
December 17, 2013
Southern District of Texas

HOUSTON—Darren David Chaker, 41, of Beverly Hills, California, and Las Vegas, Nevada, has been ordered to federal prison following his conviction of bankruptcy fraud, announced United States Attorney Kenneth Magidson. Chaker was found guilty April 4, 2013, following a five-day bench trial before U.S. District Judge Nancy Atlas.

Today, Judge Atlas sentenced Chaker to a term of 15 months in prison, to be immediately followed by a three-year-term of supervised release. He was further ordered to pay a $2,000 fine. As part of the sentencing, Judge Atlas included special conditions that he not stalk or harass anyone and obtain mental health counseling and anger management. In handing down the sentence, Judge Atlas noted that the bankruptcy system depends on the reliability of those who petition for bankruptcy relief and added that the case involved a defendant who could not tell the truth to the court. She rejected Chaker’s request for a sentence of probation, calling this a significant crime and finding that a sentence of custody is critical.

The evidence at trial showed that Chaker filed bankruptcy under Chapter 13, in which a debtor is required to propose a plan of reorganization to pay the debtor’s creditors over time. The debtor is required to pay at least as much as the creditors would receive if the debtor’s assets were liquidated on the date of the filing of the bankruptcy petition. The process is designed to achieve an orderly transfer of a debtor’s assets to creditors from available assets truthfully and accurately disclosed and to provide a “fresh start” to honest debtors by allowing them to obtain a discharge or release of debt incurred prior to filing bankruptcy.

According to the evidence, Chaker filed for bankruptcy under Chapter 13 on March 6, 2007. Specifically, on or about March 26, 2007, during a bankruptcy hearing before the Honorable Jeffrey Bohm, while under oath, Chaker falsely and fraudulently represented to the court that the property was never leased out prior to January 2007, when he had in fact previously contracted with a realtor who secured at least two rental contracts with Chaker personally. Chaker failed to disclose income and the existence of past and present residential leases of a residential property facing foreclosure in Houston to his creditor, Saxon Mortgage in the hearing and to the court.

In order for the bankruptcy system to work for all parties, it is imperative for the debtor to be truthful and forthright in all aspects of the bankruptcy process. The bankruptcy system is based on an honor system—the debtor agrees to provide all the necessary information requested by the trustee and to assist the trustee in collecting all assets of debtors and comply with the court’s orders to obtain the relief desired under the chapter the case was filed.

Chaker will remain in custody pending transfer to a U.S. Bureau of Prisons facility to be determined in the near future.

This case was investigated by the FBI, with assistance from the United States Trustee’s Office and is being prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorneys Carolyn Ferko and Sharad Khandelwal.

New Supreme Court case expands access rights, unlocks government data--including California Bar Association records

New Supreme Court case expands access rights, unlocks government data
Peter Scheer, Executive Director
First Amendment Coaltion

Dec. 2013 The First Amendment Coalition won a major victory last week in a test case about government transparency and public access to government data. I'm writing to share the good news and to use the occasion to ask you to make a year-end donation to FAC.

The California Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, established that no agency of government can exempt itself from the public's right to know. The State Bar—an arm of the judiciary that regulates lawyers—had argued that, since it is not covered by California's FOIA law, it has no obligation to make its records available for public review. The Court's answer: Sorry, but you do!

The Court said the Bar's records--specifically, Bar admissions data needed for academic research on affirmative action---are subject to a “common law” right of access. This right is not limited to records of official actions or records in court cases, but extends to any government records whose “disclosure would contribute significantly to public understanding of government activities,” the Court held.

This revived common law right of access could have a far-reaching impact, potentially providing an alternate remedy whenever state FOIA laws, for a variety of reasons, are of no avail.

But there's more . . .

The Court also held that government data can’t be withheld on privacy grounds as long as the data are “de-identified” by stripping out identifiers, controlling data cell sizes, and other steps that have become standard in professional research. The Court’s reasoning: There is no conflict between privacy rights and public access rights when the disclosed data can’t be linked to identifiable individuals.

This aspect of the Court's decision settles a central issue in debates over public access to, and use of, government data that pertain to private individuals---an issue that comes up in many contexts. The Court's holding is a powerful tool for unlocking government databases.

Our victory comes after a long battle with the State Bar—a battle that may drag on, unfortunately, if the Bar chooses to contest the procedures proposed by FAC and our co-plaintiff, UCLA Professor Richard Sander, for de-identifying the Bar's admissions data.