CLcom run of site - run of site


SLAPP Update

As recent case law demonstrates, California’s anti-SLAPP statute is a potent and ever evolving weapon.

By Jeremy B. Rosen and Matthew C. Samet  |  April 7, 2017

Continue to Test

California’s anti-SLAPP statute provides for the early dismissal of strategic lawsuits against public participation (called “SLAPPs”).  See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.16(b)(1).  Anti-SLAPP issues can arise in any number of practice areas, and every attorney in the Golden State should be familiar with the basics of this oft-cited statute. Since its passage in 1992, anti-SLAPP motions have generated nearly 600 published appellate opinions.  A random visit to a busy Law and Motion department on any given day will likely yield one or more anti-SLAPP motions being argued with vigor.

Two-Prong Test

An anti-SLAPP motion may be filed within sixty days of service of a complaint.  § 425.16(f).  Courts engage in a two-pronged analysis when reviewing the motion.  First, a judge will determine if the activity targeted by the complaint is protected speech or petitioning activity, as defined by the statute.  If that is the case, the judge will proceed to examine whether the plaintiff has shown a probability of success on the merits.

The statute applies to causes of action that arise from acts “in furtherance of [a] person’s right of petition or free speech . . . in connection with a public issue.”  § 425.16(b)(1).  Those rights include making written or oral statements before legislative, executive, or judicial proceedings, or before any other “official proceeding” authorized by law.  § 425.16(e).  They also cover written or oral statements made in connection with issues under consideration in those proceedings, as well as any statement made in a place open to the public or a public forum in connection with an “issue of public interest.”  Id.  Finally, the anti-SLAPP statute protects any other conduct in furtherance of the exercise of the constitutional right of petition or free speech in connection with a public issue or an issue of public interest.  § 425.16 (b), (e).

Official Proceedings

Section 425.16 applies to a host of official proceedings, including judicial cases (and most conduct associated with litigation); private hospital peer review; and various executive and legislative proceedings, such as those associated with putting local initiative measures on the ballot.  See Rusheen v. Cohen, 37 Cal. 4th 1048 (2006) (noncommunicative acts enforcing default judgment); County of Riverside v. Pub. Emp’t Relations Bd., 246 Cal. App. 4th 20 (2016) (statutory hearing procedures); Armin v. Riverside Cmty. Hosp., 5 Cal. App. 5th 810 (2016) (hospital peer review); Dwight R. v. Christy B., 212 Cal. App. 4th 697 (2013) (child protective services investigation); Vargas v. City of Salinas, 46 Cal. 4th 1 (2009) (local ballot initiative).  However, unofficial proceedings, such as homeowners association meetings, do not qualify as official proceedings (although there can be other grounds for inclusion of homeowners association disputes under the statute, such as a communication on a matter of “public interest”).  See Talega Maint. Corp. v. Standard Pac. Corp., 225 Cal. App. 4th 722 (2014) (HOA meeting not an “official proceeding”); Country Side Villas HOA v. Ivie, 193 Cal. App. 4th 1110 (2011) (matter before HOA may constitute an “issue of public interest” under anti-SLAPP statute).

Litigation Activities

When assessing whether litigation activity triggers anti-SLAPP protection, be aware that the statute may not apply to every contested matter.  Although it extends to certain litigation conduct, including negotiation and settlement activities, Seltzer v. Barnes, 182 Cal. App. 4th 953 (2010), there is a current debate over whether the anti-SLAPP statute applies to private arbitration.  See Century 21 Chamberlain & Assocs. v. Haberman, 173 Cal. App. 4th 1 (2009) (private arbitration not protected); Freeman v. Schack, 154 Cal. App. 4th 719, 730 (2007) [“[P]ursuit of arbitration proceedings is a protected activity.”).

Legal Malpractice Claims

There is an ongoing split among the California courts of appeal as to whether the anti-SLAPP statute applies to suits claiming legal malpractice and professional misconduct, although recent cases have leaned towards the statute not being applicable.  Compare Loanvest I, LLC v. Utrecht, 235 Cal. App. 4th 496 (2015) (not covered), Sprengel v. Zbylut, 241 Cal. App. 4th 410 (2015) (not covered), Castleman v. Sagaser, 216 Cal. App. 4th 481 (2013) (not covered), and Coretronic Corp. v. Cozen O’Connor, 192 Cal. App. 4th 1381 (2011) (not covered), with Fremont Reorganizing Corp. v. Faigin, 198 Cal. App. 4th 1153 (2011) (covered).

According to judges who argue that legal malpractice suits are protected activity, such as Presiding Justice Perluss of the Second District, Division Seven, as long as “claims are based on the lawyer’s actions in litigation,” under the plain language of the statute “they arise from acts in furtherance of the right of petition.”  Sprengel, 241 Cal. App. 4th at 162 (Perluss, P.J., dissenting).

Discrimination Claims

There is another split between the California courts of appeal on whether certain discrimination claims are based on protected conduct under the anti-SLAPP statute.  In employment discrimination cases, some courts have ruled that speech or petitioning activities are the targeted conduct and discrimination is merely a motive, and therefore the claims are subject to anti-SLAPP motions to strike.  Daniel v. Wayans, 8 Cal. App. 5th 367 (2017); Hunter v. CBS Broad., Inc., 221 Cal. App. 4th 1510, 1522 (2013); Tuszynska v. Cunningham, 199 Cal. App. 4th 257, 268-269 (2011).  However, other courts have decided that discrimination is the conduct at issue while the First Amendment is merely a defense to be decided later in litigation, and thus motives are relevant and the statute does not apply.  Wilson v. Cable News Network, Inc., 6 Cal. App. 5th 822, 824-25 (2016), review granted 2017 WL 889054 (Cal. Mar. 1, 2017) (No. S239686); Un Hui Nam v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 1 Cal. App. 5th 1176, 1188-89 (2016); Martin v. Inland Empire Utils. Agency, 198 Cal. App. 4th 611, 625 (2011).

The California Supreme Court is likely to address this issue and potentially resolve the split in Park v. Board of Trustees of California State University, 239 Cal. App. 4th 1258 (2015), review granted, 362 P.3d 430 (Cal. Dec. 15, 2015) (No. S229728), which will tackle whether Nam supports the proposition that a defendant’s motive is relevant to both prongs of the anti-SLAPP analysis.

What’s Important?

Courts have interpreted the phrase “issue of public interest” with varying breadth.  On the narrow end of the spectrum, some have held that activities implicate the public interest if the subject of the statement or activity is a “‘person or entity in the public eye,’” involves conduct that “‘could affect large numbers of people beyond the direct participants,’” or involves a “‘topic of widespread, public interest.’”  Cross v. Cooper, 197 Cal. App. 4th 357, 373 (2011) (citation omitted).  Some have further held that an actual, demonstrated interest in an issue must exist.  Price v. Operating Eng’rs Local Union No. 3, 195 Cal. App. 4th 962, 974 (2011).

On the other hand, other courts have broadly held that fame or celebrity alone is sufficient, No Doubt v. Activision Publ’g, Inc., 192 Cal. App. 4th 1018, 1027 (2011), or even “any issue in which the public is interested,” Nygard, Inc. v. Uusi-Kerttula, 159 Cal. App. 4th 1027, 1042 (2008).Under the broad standard, issues of public interest include, for instance, the location of a registered sex offender’s residence, Cross, 197 Cal. App. 4th 357, criticism of a private homeowners association board, Country Side Villas Homeowners Ass’n v. Ivie, 193 Cal. App. 4th 1110 (2011), statements about a nationally known political consultant’s abuse of his former spouses, Sipple v. Found. for Nat’l Progress, 71 Cal. App. 4th 226, 230-31, 236-40 (1999), a businessman’s derogatory remarks on websites against his ex-girlfriend and her mother, Chaker v. Mateo, 209 Cal. App. 4th 1138, 1145-47 (2012), and confusing and misleading pamphlets concerning a drug, Rivera v. First DataBank, Inc., 187 Cal. App. 4th 709, 716 (2010).

But conversely, under the narrow standard, courts have held there is no issue of public interest in a case involving city land use guidelines, USA Waste of Cal., Inc. v. City of Irwindale, 184 Cal. App. 4th 53 (2010), a union’s statements about supervision of custodians involving an allegedly unlawful workplace activity, Rivero v. Am. Fed’n of State, Cty., & Municipal Emps., AFL-CIO, 105 Cal. App. 4th 913, 924-25 (2003), a television personality’s comments accusing a celebrity stylist of stealing, Albanese v. Menounos, 218 Cal. App. 4th 923, 934-37 (2013), a trustee’s statement that a former employee was terminated for financial mismanagement, where the statement had no connection to any debate or controversy encouraging public participation, Du Charme v. Int’l Broth. of Elec. Workers, Local 45, 110 Cal. App. 4th 107, 119 (2003), and statements by a publisher that a token collector had stolen a valuable collector’s item from the publisher, Weinberg v. Feisel, 110 Cal. App. 4th 1122 (2003).

In Rand Resources LLC v. City of Carson, 247 Cal. App. 4th 1080 (2016), review granted, 381 P.3d 229 (Cal. Sept. 21, 2016) (No. S235735), the California Supreme Court is finally poised to offer guidance that may begin to resolve these conflicts.

What’s a Public Forum?

In addition to street-corner orations, the anti-SLAPP statute covers speech on the Internet.  Wong v. Tai Jing, 189 Cal. App. 4th 1354, 1366 (2010).  However, the appellate courts split on whether newspapers and magazines should be considered public fora.  Compare Nygard, 159 Cal. App. 4th at 1042 (public fora), and Albanese, 218 Cal. App. 4th 923 (public fora), with Lafayette Morehouse, Inc. v. Chronicle Publ’g Co., 37 Cal. App. 4th 855 (1995) (not public fora).

Mixed Claims

When a cause of action is “mixed”—based on both protected activity and unprotected activity—it is subject to an anti-SLAPP motion to dismiss unless the protected conduct is “merely incidental” to the unprotected conduct.  Haight Ashbury Free Clinics, Inc. v. Happening House Ventures, 184 Cal. App. 4th 1539, 1551 (2010).  In assessing whether protected conduct is incidental, courts “consider whether the allegations constitute a substantial or significant part of the factual allegations underlying the claim.”  Decambre v. Rady Children’s Hosp.-San Diego, 235 Cal. App. 4th 1, 21-22 (2015) (ruling that protected conduct central to the factual allegations underlying the claim was not incidental).

Plaintiff’s Burden

Once a defendant has shown that his or her conduct is statutorily protected activity, the court must then determine whether the plaintiff has shown a probability of success on the merits.  In making its ruling the court must consider the pleadings, as well as supporting and opposing affidavits stating the facts underlying the liability or defense that is at issue.  § 425.16(b)(1)-(2).  The anti-SLAPP motion operates like a “motion for summary judgment in ‘reverse.’”  Coll. Hosp., Inc. v. Superior Court, 8 Cal. 4th 704, 718-19 (1994).

When a cause of action arises from mixed activities, a plaintiff must show the likelihood of success on only the part of the claim premised on protected activity.  Baral v. Schnitt, 1 Cal. 5th 376, 396 (2016).  And when the ruling on an anti-SLAPP motion in a “mixed” case, the court excises the allegations of protected conduct and does not necessarily dismiss the entire claim, assuming it can stand up based on the remaining allegations.  Baral, 1 Cal. 5th at 396.


There are a number of areas in which a party explicitly may not bring an anti-SLAPP special motion to strike.

■  Enforcement actions: The statute does not apply to enforcement actions “brought in the name of the people of the State of California by the Attorney General, district attorney, or city attorney, acting as a public prosecutor.”  § 425.16(d).

■  Criminal activity: The California Supreme Court has also imposed an “illegality exception”: A defendant is precluded from filing an anti-SLAPP motion to strike if the underlying speech or petitioning activity is illegal as a matter of law.  Flatley v. Mauro, 39 Cal. 4th 299, 320 (2006); Bergstein v. Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP, 236 Cal. App. 4th 793, 806 (2015) (holding that illegal conduct means violation of a criminal statute only).  An activity is illegal as a matter of law when “the defendant concedes the illegality of his conduct or the evidence conclusively establishes the conduct complained of was illegal as a matter of law.”  Reed v. Gallagher, 248 Cal. App. 4th 841, 855 (2016).  If there is any actual factual dispute regarding the unlawfulness of defendant’s conduct, it must be raised at the second step of the anti-SLAPP analysis.  Zucchet v. Galardi, 229 Cal. App. 4th 1466, 1478 (2014).

■  Public interest suits: The anti-SLAPP statute “does not apply to any action brought solely in the public interest or on behalf of the general public” if the plaintiff seeks relief tantamount to that available to the general public, if the action would enforce an important right affecting the public interest, if it would confer an important public benefit, and if private enforcement is necessary.  § 425.17(b).  Private enforcement is necessary if no public entity has attempted to enforce the rights named by plaintiffs, even if there is a possibility that a public entity might bring an action in the future.  Inland Oversight Comm. v. County of San Bernardino, 239 Cal. App. 4th 671, 676 (2015).  Note, however, that the public interest exception applies only when the entire action is brought in the public interest.  Club Members for an Honest Election v. Sierra Club, 45 Cal. 4th 309, 312 (2008).

In assessing whether the public interest exception applies, courts look to the allegations of the complaint and the scope of relief sought.  Cruz v. City of Culver City, 2 Cal. App. 5th 239, 249 (2016).  The plaintiff does not need to provide affirmative evidence.  San Diegans for Open Gov’t v. Har Constr., Inc., 240 Cal. App. 4th 611, 628-29 (2015).

■  Commercial speech: The anti-SLAPP statute does not apply to any cause of action brought against a person primarily engaged in the business of selling or leasing goods or services and arising from any statement or conduct by that person.  § 425.17(c).  For this exception to apply, the statement or conduct must consist of factual representations about the commercial activity made for the purpose of engaging in commercial transactions, and the intended audience must be an actual or potential customer or regulatory agency.  § 425.17(c)(1) & (2); Karnazes v. Ares, 244 Cal. App. 4th 344, 357 (2016) (ruling that a lawyer’s statements made in context of representation were not statements for purpose of promoting commercial services).  Conduct may be an affirmative representation as well as an omission or half-truth.  JAMS, Inc. v. Superior Court, 1 Cal. App. 5th 984, 995 (2016).  The plaintiff bears the burden of establishing the applicability of the commercial speech exemption.  Simpson Strong-Tie Co. v. Gore, 49 Cal. 4th 12 (2010).

Notwithstanding the general bar on anti-SLAPP cases involving commercial speech, motions in such cases may still be filed by publishers, editors, journalists, reporters, writers, and academics for actions in furtherance of their work; by those engaged in creating or advertising dramatic, literary, musical, political, or artistic works; and also by certain government-subsidized nonprofits.  § 425.17(d).


Special procedural rules apply to so-called SLAPPbacks, defined as “cause[s] of action for malicious prosecution or abuse of process arising from the filing or maintenance of a prior cause of action that has been dismissed pursuant to a special motion to strike.”  § 425.18(b)(1).  Different time limits apply for filing a SLAPPback motion; there is no discovery stay; a prevailing nonmoving party is not entitled to attorney fees; and the court’s order is not immediately appealable.  § 425.18(b)(1), (c)-(d).  If a special motion to strike a SLAPPback claim is denied in full or in part, the aggrieved party must petition for a peremptory writ in the appropriate reviewing court within twenty days after service of the entry of the order denying relief.  West v. Arent Fox LLP, 237 Cal. App. 4th 1065, 1071 (2015).  Furthermore, the illegality exception in the SLAPPback statute does not cover only criminal violations.  Bergstein, 236 Cal. App. 4th at 807-08.

Procedural Pitfalls

■  Time limits: Statutory anti-SLAPP deadlines for filing and scheduling a hearing are not jurisdictional in nature.  An anti-SLAPP special motion to strike “may” be filed within sixty days of the service of the complaint without court permission, but the court has discretion to allow filing “at any later time upon terms it deems proper.”  § 425.16(f); Chitsazzadeh v. Kramer & Kaslow, 199 Cal. App. 4th 676, 682-85 (2011). This rule applies to both original and amended complaints, Lam v. Ngo, 91 Cal. App. 4th 832, 842-43 (2001), as well as to cross-complaints and petitions, § 425.16(h). Generally, the clerk must schedule a hearing within thirty days, § 425.16(f), but failure to do so does not require denial of the motion.  Hall v. Time Warner, Inc., 153 Cal. App. 4th 1337, 1348-49 (2007).

However, there is a current split among courts of appeal on whether amended complaints reset the sixty day time limit to file a motion to strike.  Compare Yu v. Signet Bank/Va., 103 Cal. App. 4th 298, 315 (2002) (ruling that anti-SLAPP motion to third amended complaint was timely although amended complaint did not add any new SLAPP allegations to the first complaint), with  Newport Harbor Ventures, LLC v. Morris Cerullo World Evangelism, 6 Cal. App. 5th 1207, 1219 (2016) (holding that an amended complaint reopens the time period to file an anti-SLAPP motion only when the amended complaint pleads new causes of action not in a prior complaint or new allegations that make previously pleaded causes of action now subject to an anti-SLAPP motion).

■ Judicial Council: Any party who files an anti-SLAPP motion or opposition must promptly transmit to the Judicial Council a copy of the endorsed, filed caption page; a copy of any related notice of appeal or writ petition; and a conformed copy of any order relating to the motion.  § 425.16(j)(1).

■  Discovery stay: Once a party files a notice of an anti-SLAPP motion, all discovery proceedings are stayed until notice of entry of the order ruling on the motion. The court, “on noticed motion and for good cause shown,” may order that specified discovery be conducted notwithstanding this provision.  § 425.16 (g).

■  Ability to amend:  A plaintiff cannot file an amended complaint once an anti-SLAPP motion is filed.  E.g., Salma v. Capon, 161 Cal.App.4th 1275, 1279-1280, 1293-1294 (2008); Simmons v. Allstate Ins. Co., 92 Cal. App. 4th 1068, 1074 (2001).  But one outlier case has said that a party may amend the pleadings to conform to the proof submitted with an anti-SLAPP opposition.  Nguyen-Lam v. Cao, 171 Cal. App. 4th 858, 863 (2009).

■  Immediate appeal: A trial court’s ruling on an anti-SLAPP motion is directly appealable.  § 425.16(i).  An appeal from the denial of an anti-SLAPP motion automatically stays all further trial court proceedings on the causes of action affected by the motion.  Varian Med. Sys., Inc. v. Delfino, 35 Cal. 4th 180, 186 (2005).  Review on appeal is de novo.  Oasis W. Realty, LLC v. Goldman, 51 Cal. 4th 811, 820 (2011). However, if the court concludes that the anti-SLAPP statute does not apply under section 425.17, there is no immediate right of appeal.  § 425.17(e).

Attorney Fees

A prevailing defendant—normally the moving party under section 425.16—is entitled to attorney fees and costs as a matter of right.  However, a prevailing plaintiff—normally the responding party—is entitled to recover fees only if the motion is “frivolous or is solely intended to cause unnecessary delay.”  § 425.16(c)(1).  Courts have applied this asymmetrical scheme and upheld it against various constitutional challenges.  Vargas v. City of Salinas, 200 Cal. App. 4th 1331, 1340-50 (2011).

Fees for a Partial Victory?

If the defendant successfully moves to dismiss some but not all claims, the court must assess the degree to which the defendant has prevailed and award fees in light of the purpose of the statute.  Mann v. Quality Old Time Serv., Inc., 139 Cal. App. 4th 328 (2006) (ruling that a party successful in anti-SLAPP motion as to one of four causes of action was entitled to attorney fees]; Moran v. Endres, 135 Cal. App. 4th 952, 954-56 (2006) (deciding that defendants were not entitled to fees in “illusory victory” resulting in dismissal of only one of eleven counts).  Additionally, the court should determine the amount of time spent on the successful claims, and “if the work on the successful and unsuccessful causes of action was overlapping, the court should then consider the defendant’s relative success on the motion in achieving his or her objective, and reduce the amount if appropriate.”  Malin v. Singer, 217 Cal. App. 4th 1283, 1305 (2013).

By following these guidelines, the anti-SLAPP statute can, and should, be used effectively to fulfill its mission of preventing retaliatory litigation and protecting free speech and petition rights in California.  But keep your eyes peeled.  A number of the cases cited above are currently pending before the California Supreme Court.  Rulings to come may have a profound impact on the evolution of the state’s anti-SLAPP jurisprudence.

Jeremy B. Rosen is a partner at Horvitz & Levy in Burbank, where Matthew C. Samet is an appellate fellow.

Continue to Test

Reader Comments

  1. Henry J. Josefsberg says:

    The mixed case analysis is superseded by Baral v. Schnitt, 1 Cal. 5th 376 (August 1, 2016). Please update your MCLE.

  2. olivia says:

    for the two prong test, if at first, its not a public interest, should the second prong still be tested? The defamation plaintiff’s hands are tied to gather evidence during an Anti Slapp Motion, if the defendant says Plaintiff cant show that she can prevail on her claim, even if its not a public interest, is that a valid argument.

  3. George Buzzetti says:

    For All Concerned with the “Rule of Law”,

    My name is George Buzzetti.

    I am the former Director of Policy for CORE-CA and Chairman of AAEE.

    I have 45 years of civil and human rights behind me and never compensated as myself and CORE-CA understand that then they own you. Together as CORE-CA, and independently, we always financed our own efforts for total independence and lack of corruption, being most important.

    We are now watching our government destroy itself through total corruption as demonstrated since, and before this election. This must be stopped.

    For 4 years I have had to exist fighting alone, since the sudden death of Celes King IV, the largest fraud I have ever seen in 70 years. It is both financial and legal. This is demonstrated in my case due to the investigations I have done for 45 years in many fields especially education, transportation, criminal justice, and good government.

    I did the original organization to stop Measure J. Measure J was for on the face $90 billion and with interest around $300 billion. There was only one paragraph to control all that money.

    I first organized the African-American and Hispanic communities. Then one day at a MTA Meeting the Crenshaw Subway Coalition, I was a member at the time, and Beverly Hills were there fighting MTA on the “Subway to the Sea.” I had already found a $10 billion overrun in the EIR but not budgeted. When we saw what they did to Beverly Hills Damien Goodman and I immediately went to Lisa Korbatov, board member of the Beverly Hills School District, and we formed that alliance no one ever thought politically possible. Politics is the “Art of the Possible”, not impossible.

    More high level corruption is exhibited by the former head of the DOJ Office of Civil Rights, Vanita Gupta not responding to my email in Feb., 2015 concerning no one following the 2003 DOJ Agreement, Cooperative Agreement Number 2003-HS-WX-K040.

    This DOJ Agreement is the result of the lack of the LAPD enforcing the “Internal Affairs” section of the original 2001 DOJ Agreement as a result of the “Ramparts Scandal.”

    The 2003 DOJ Agreement was signed by most of the large police departments in the U.S. yet you see on TV with the killings of unarmed adults and youth.

    As a result of the “Protection Racket” Chief Beck of the LAPD and the entire LAPD Police Commission criminally erased the audio of the 5-5-15 Police Commission Meeting. This is a State, California Penal Code (P.C.) 132, and Federal Crimes, such as “Color of Authority.”

    No one cares if police or their friends break the law. They only care if the poor, ignorant of the law, and suppressed citizens in this lawless state possibly break the law.

    This is demonstrated by the statements of the Federal 9th Circuit in the L.A. Times article “U.S. judges see ‘epidemic’ of false prosecutions in state.” This is about Kamala Harris, she is directly in my case breaking the law, allowing the District Attorneys of California to prosecute people they know did not commit the crimes.

    Also in L.A. County and I am certain in many other California Charter Cities the District Attorney’s are illegally prosecuting misdemeanors committed in the City of Los Angeles. This is illegal in L.A. since 1915 as only the L.A. City Attorney is allowed to prosecute misdemeanors committed in the City of L.A.

    This is reverified in the 2009 vote on the new L.A. City Charter, Section 271. In 2010 the L.A. City Council passed a resolution again reaffirming this position after considering the 18 page Jan Perry Letter with comment on this law by Erwin Chemerinsky.

    The Presiding Judge of L.A. County and the judges themselves are commonly allowing this illegal action by the LADA. I have two cases currently in this situation with no Exculpatory Evidence as demanded by AB 1909 and if not produced the prosecutor is supposed to be charged with a Felony with 16 month to 3 years upon conviction. However, they do not care about this law either vital to my acquittal and release from all these illegal cases based on perjured testimony.

    I say that as I have seen our criminal justice system become anything but a Justice System. It is a fraud system here and apparently nationally with what I see and have full documentation to say so from the top down.

    First, in 1994 Congress passed a law for all police agencies and correctional facilities to report deaths. The for 13 years no one collected the statistics demanded by a 2000 Congressional Law again passed to collect this information for all police agencies to report deaths in police custody and unarmed on the street.  

    From 2000 under Bush and Obama no one until 2014 did this collection of data on deaths by police.  The data from the DOJ Bureau of Statistics shows not the 1,100/year as the Guardian study showed but 1,900/year.  13 years X 1,900 = 24,700 deaths and many against the 2003 DOJ Agreement such as the recent one in Seattle with the death of the pregnant women in front of her other children.  

    Seattle not only signed this agreement but helped to write it.  That person is now working for Bill Gates.  What a joke on all of us this is.

    Then there are the multiple Felonies by LAPD Chief Beck and the entire LAPD Police Commission. At the 5-5-15, Cinco De Mayo, LAPD Police Commission Meeting they illegally erased the audio of the entire meeting. This is a violation of California Penal Code (P.C.) 132, erasing and/or changing a government document which is also a Felony with no “Statute of Limitations.”

    After watching the vote and protests yesterday in the U.S. Senate and in the hall outside maybe there is hope. Those brave people risked a possible 75 years in a Federal Prison. They are charging those who protested trump and his inauguration with charges up to this potential time in a Federal Prison.

    Yet the DOD can lose $2 trillion in a $600 billion/year budget. This is over double the national expenditure for the military lost and no one cares. So naturally let us take from the poor and their health care to give to those who committed real crimes, those directing these frauds and corruption.

    I was also the last person to testify at the L.A. Federal Reserve Board on the potential, at the time, merger of One West and CIT. This was the only time the Federal Reserve Board allowed for public comment. They tried to prevent me from speaking. I was sitting with the other bankers in their thrift store suits. They thought I was one of them until I spoke. I brought up the previously testified to potential bribery by Mnuchin and his friend at CIT to those there supporting the merger. In fact, they said at 4 P.M. that day they would get another payoff. I put this potential bribery on the record also that they should raise interest rates as there is no where to go when zero. They have done just this. I was the only person to testify to this. I have the transcript. They have hidden the video.

    What signal are we sending to our youth. That message is that you too can be rich and famous if you steal and rob with impunity. All you need is the money and/or power to buy off the politicians, law enforcement, and courts. Just like here in California as shown in Law 360 which I read daily.

    I have a lot of legal experience. I was trained 45 years ago by 4 lawyers who all won homicide cases including a cop killer. I was the only one they trusted to be shown how to do this.

    I am responsible for being the only person to ever have LAUSD audited by the California State Auditor for “Falsely Charging Teachers with Child Abuse for Whistle Blowing and Principals Stealing Student Impress Funds.”  This audit is Oct. 1997, 96121, and can be sent later if necessary.

    This is a part of why I call LAUSD “The Criminal School Board” as also now 150,000 students do not come to school everyday.  This costs the General Fund over $2.4 billion in lost revenue as you are only paid for those who come to school.  Also, from 15-20,000 employees lost their high paying jobs with good health care and retirement packages.  In 2002, under Ruben Zacarias, before Roy Romer and destruction, with 750,000, not 650,000 enrollment only 14,500, or 2%, not 150,000, or 23%, did not come to school everyday.  This is accepted with students being sick and normal small amounts of truancy.

    Also the LAUSD is illegally buying electronic devices to replace textbooks against the 2004 California Attorney General’s Opinion on “Allowable Purchases with School Construction Bond Funds.”  This can be sent in the future and it is on the web.  I am the relator for this qui tam suit of about $6-8 billion in California.

    There is so much video on this at the LAUSD Board of Education.  I have over 400 videos at George Buzzetti-You Tube. You can watch me bring this up at the LAUSD Board of Education repeatedly. They are simple law breakers with a Protection Racket politically. When you are prosecuted for your politics it is called SLAPP. SLAPP crimes along with Elder Abuse, I am 70, are serious crimes especially when combined.

    CORE-CA is the result of 117 years of continuous civil and human rights by the 4 Celes Kings.  This legacy started in 1898 in Mississippi when Celes I was going to be lynched for organizing.  A friend broke the post they were going to be lynched on and they escaped to Chicago and became Pullman Porters and saved all the tips in jars and after the 1929 crash bought a city block with change.  They moved to L.A. and bought the Dunbar Hotel and liquor stores and buildings.

    Celes King III is one of the most famous Tuskeegee Airmen, an Army Air Force General, advisor to three presidents, founder of the bail bond associations for California and the U.S. In 1947 he became the first bail bondsman in the U.S. to write bail bonds nationally for civil rights leaders,and was responsible for the naming of Martin King Blvd. His wife was from one of the first founding families of L.A., and she was for 8 years the U.S.U.N. representative for women worldwide.

    Celes King IV, who was on the Pettis Bridge that day with John Lewis, wrote the bail bonds for a week on that incident in history.  

    We have a deep history of civil and human rights and were unable to be bought and sold.  We have never in 117 years taken outside money, as then they own you.

    My work is why I am currently under illegal prosecution with “Double Jeopardy”, no “Exculpatory Evidence” against AB 1909, an “Illegal Prosecutor”, read Section 271, no “Speedy Trial” laws and rules followed, and after two illegal arrests purposefully denied any phone calls for 3-5 days not the State and Federally Supreme Court Decisions of 3 completed phone calls within 3 hours of arrest.

    This is “Federal and State “Color of Authority” violation.

    Nationally, two times, L.A. School Report published that I called Chief Beck of the LAPD a BIGOT.

    Everyone knows this is a call for the police to “Hit Me” one way or another. This has now been ongoing for over 2 years. There has been no response or withdrawal concerning this libelous comment even when they were presented with the proof that the document they are referencing does not state that I called Chief Beck a BIGOT. In fact read who it was sent to and that includes Chief Beck of the LAPD, LADA Jackey Lacey, OIG’s, and former California A.G. and current U.S. Senator, Kamala Harris. This is intent to perform crimes under “Mens Rea.“

    Jamie Lynton published L.A. School Report at the time, and the emails were sent to her personal email address. Jamie Lynton’s husband is Michael Lynton. Michael Lynton until recently ran the international corporate giant SONY.

    I believe Tamar Galatzan, et al, used Sony’s SpeechPro or equivalent speech recognition software, to find the voice double. Think of those implications criminally and civilly, not considering exposure internationally for corruption.

     After about a year of trying to file a legal proper complaint with a complaint number with the LAPD as the law demands I gave up and went to the LAPD Police Commission Meeting on 5-5-15. I thought that if I went in public, and on TV, the LAPD and LAPD Police Commission would have to do something.  

    This seemed to be rational.  I went to the meeting and spoke to the issue.  At the end of the meeting Chief Beck told his main person to take my complaint.  They did not do this.  They took me into a room that looked like they physically interrogated people. I felt they were using this room for their psychological warfare to try to put fear into me.  

    They did not have any idea of who I am.  They told me they were too busy.  I left.  

    The next day I went to their website and downloaded the video of the 5-5-15 meeting. I immediately loaded it up to George Buzzetti-You Tube. It is lafa7c. About three months later they seemed to realize I had the video and uploaded it. Next, they erased the original lafa7c video and uploaded the real video with actual audio. This video is la9106db. Now I have two of the same meeting and this is impossible and therefore the crime P.C.132, a Felony.

    To easily find the videos look for Batman wrapped in the American Flag. I was also at the L.A. City Council 4 days later thinking they would care about their police dept. committing Felonies. I was so very wrong. That video is also there. They could care less that day and when I sent return receipt accepteds to both the LAPD and L.A. County OIG they signed and again broke the law and the 2003 DOJ Agreement when I to this day have never received a complaint number.

    In a few days I am sending them another complaint on not answering that complaint and more. I am at risk and will not stop.

    To my complete surprise at 23:10 watch my lips move and listen to the L.A. City Council at some function.  At 22:17 listen to “Mr. Koretz, now, Mr. Cedillo.”  They are L.A. City Councilmen and not at this meeting that day.  This is how I know this is an L.A. City Council function.  I hardly believed they erased me and did not realize until my friend I sent it to watched and told me “The erasure is complete through the entire video including the police commercial at the end.”  I went and sure enough the erasure was complete.

    To see these two videos and much more go to George Buzzetti-You Tube. Then to video lafa7c, minute 23:10. Watch my lips move and listen to an L.A. City Council function. At minute 22:17 listen to “Mr. Koretz, now, Mr. Cedillo.” They are L.A. City Councilmen and not at that meeting. This is how I know the audio is the L.A. City Council.

    At video la9106db, minute 23:10 you can watch and listen to the real audio. Then you will understand why they did this.

    This is one of the most serious crimes of a police chief and the police commission ever recorded by the police themselves.

    I have been told by high up LAPD and L.A. Sheriff’s that if this video goes viral before they are arrested there is potential of national riots. We have seen this happen with just the arrest of a normal cop for a killing and/or shooting lots of times. This is the highest in the offices being criminals and requiring arrest long ago.

    I worked tirelessly with former Sheriff Baca, the California Legislature, governor, A.G., and all law enforcement agencies to fix the major flaws in AB 109, also known as “Criminal Justice Realignment.”  For 6 years before the sudden death of Celes King IV on the operating table we worked 12 hours a day, 7 days a week on criminal justice, education, transportation nationally and especially at the California Legislature.  Many bills were known privately as “Celes’s Bills.”  As soon as he died all legislation to fix Criminal Justice, AB 109, died with him.

    I have been since Celes King IV suddenly died in a constant legal, financial, and health dangers. They have sent me to Division 95 on a 5150 psyche evaluation for Long Term Rehabilitation for “Incompetence.” In spite of the instant decision by the judge that I am competent my public defender, Esther Chamorro, at the time tried to send me not only the first time, but a second time, to Division 95 for Long Term Rehabilitation, using my own Marsden Hearing to get rid of her as the excuse for the attempt to put me away into the State Mental Hospital without the legally required “Substantial Evidence.” In all their attempts at this methodology never has the “Substantial Evidence” been shown to me. I have seen the stack of documents as with much of my case, yet, it is not in the case file. I have documents given to me and not in the case file. I have proof of 9 pages missing from the trial case file the judge gave me a personal copy of his file in court by his clerk.

    The temporary judge, Henry Barela, later turned out to be my trial judge. He did not sanction anyone in this violation of my civil rights.

    Judge Barela is the one who put me into jail for contempt for not fulfilling my community service when in appeal and my attorney, Esther Chamorro, never filed to delay the sentence until the case is finished and it is not yet as it is in appeal still with no representation for over 7 months. My appeals attorney, Eric Victor Munoz, filed a “No Merit Letter” which People v. Wende demands one of two options and no other. Either eliminate this case of immediately give me another appeals attorney.

    The presiding judge is not supposed to give an appeal to a judge with no expertise in that area. He assigned this case to Appeals Judge Patti McKay. Judge McKay, without notification to the defendant, assigned this case to a three judge panel as she had no expertise in this law. How did she get the case in the first place and why did she allow Mr. Munoz to file for 4 extensions when he lied to the judge for the reasons. I have documented proof of such. I am still waiting on my appeal I have had to plead personally without help to Judge McKay.

    Judge Barela, the trial judge, put me into the L.A. Twin Towers for contempt for not fulfilling my community service when the case was in appeal and in spite of my requests my attorney, Esther Chamorro, would not file the motion to stop the sentence until the case was over to set up the jail time so that at the end of my time they could file new charges they waited again over 7 months to charge me with.

    They did this knowing I was just two days out of two hospital’s ICU units. They spent $38,000 in those two days to try to put me into a mental hospital forever not what they told me and that was tests for my serious health conditions. I have lost 50% of the use of my kidneys from a lack of health care for over 3 years now. Only because I went onto a radical diet which is magic and very few could ever do I am now healthy except for my feet and eyes which have had no care for over 3 years also.

    Please look at this case and help me stop the killing and bring this out of control joke of criminal justice to accountability and the law. If they want to say law enforcement, let us have law enforcement and start with them.


    George Buzzetti

    Former Director of Policy for CORE-CA, and Chairman of AAEE

Leave a Reply to Henry J. Josefsberg Cancel reply

Your name and email address are required (your email address will not be published)

Back to Top   ↑
© 2018 Daily Journal Corporation