Curiosity is a pillar of journalism. While much of the White House press corps thinks eating at the trough is a pillar of journalism, the rest of us know it's really curiosity. Curiosity has been my best friend for many years. It’s kept me enthused and employed for years.

Which brings me to my recent case of curiosity that lead to our current investigative story. It’s about a cult that sprung up in the days of the hippies—the age of aquarius and peace and love. But like a lot of things from that restless era, it grew uglier as we all grew older. The FAMILY began as the Children of God, thousands of believers signed on to the teachings of founder David Berg, the ultimate Southern California weirdo. They called it flirty fishing, using sex to show God’s love. It was a mix of biblical babblings and free sex. Except it wasn’t really free. Children of the cult paid the price. They were forced into sex acts, molested by FAMILY members in the name of God and Love. .

So that’s why I was curious when I came across a custody battle going on in San Diego Superior Court. Case number D489049. I rarely report on these family court matters because of the morass they often become. Everyone seems to lose. But this one involved the FAMILY. I will admit, my curiosity bells were ringing. The bells got louder when attorney Marilyn Bierer tried to seal the records in the “interest” of the child in that custody case, “unknowingly caught in the switches of a custody dispute involving members and former members of a sex cult.” Her contention was the media would not act in the best interests of the child. Whoa. No journalist with any intrerity or credibility would ever show the child’s picture nor would they have an interest in doing so. The poor kid is 4-½ years old. This request to seal off the court was about keeping the FAMILY’s dirty laundry far from public view. So case number D489049 had my attention.

Working with investigative reporter Steve Atkinson, producer Felicia Kit and another reporter with connections into the FAMILY, we decided to tell our viewers the story of this cult -- and the court case which is scheduled for early May. In the course of developing the story, we found there are two houses controlled by the FAMILY in San Diego region. I have no idea what goes on in those houses but a representative of the FAMILY sent us a rather lengthy response to our story, you can find it on the Investigative page of 10News.com They basically say the bad old days are LONG gone. We shall see.

Give me a head's up if you know anything about the FAMILY's activity in San Diego
jwblog@10news.com

Carol Lam was our U.S.Attorney in San Diego. . Her team successfully prosecuted Congressman Duke Cunningham who now spends time in an Arizona prison. Many thought she was “cleaning up” Washington and doing a good job of it. So when she was fired, the suspicion was she was getting “to close” to others in power.

Some say the firings were dirty politics. Some say it’s just business. But what do the people say who work in the U.S.Attorneys office here in San Diego?

I spoke to a number of them who make their living in that big brick building on Front Street. All are veterans of the Department of Justice. All are bright, dedicated…and off the record for this blog.

There is one thing everyone agreed on. Lam’s loss had no effect on the day to day running of the office. The business of justice goes on, managers are still in place, and it’s not effecting how things are done. They have plenty on their plates to chase and these folks are professionals.

But after this, there is disagreement.

Some felt her firing was overdue. The department needed a “course correction” the complaint was that not enough prosecutions were working through the system. Agencies the DOJ serves locally—the Secret Service, the Post Office and the Department of Commerce, all felt they were being shorted by her administration. “We went back in a time machine to 1986 when she joined the office” said one veteran.

Other insiders disagree. “She was always on her game” The crimes her prosecutors went after had been largely ignored for years. She was squeaky clean, driven
and honest with her staff. “Lam had to weigh the resources…..” and made the right decisions in who and what to prosecute.

Others don’t blame Lam as much as how the whole affair was handled by Washington.
Taking an ugly thing and making it worse. It reflects poorly on the department overall—
“We have lost stature with the public”

One attorney told me the concern was what happens next, where the support will come to run the San Diego office in the future.
“How the DOJ deals with us in terms of resources has a lot do with the cloud over
Gonzales”


Have some insights on this? Let me know.

jwblog@10news.com

THE IMAGES FROM THE CELL PHONE VIDEO CLIPS KEPT PLAYING OVER AND OVER. THE SOUND OF GUNFIRE, VIDEO OF COPS SPRINTING, FRIGHTENED FACES--ALL BROUGHT BACK MEMORIES OF ANOTHER TERRIBLE DAY.

COVERED BODIES ON THE GROUND, WEEPING FAMILY MEMBERS, INTENSE MEDIA COVERAGE –SAN DIEGO EXPERIENCED THE SAME SHOCK, THE SAME PAINFUL SELF EXAMINATION THAT COMES WITH THESE TRAGEDIES.

James Oliver Huberty, an unemployed security guard, slaughtered 21 innocents in the McDonalds in San Ysidro. It was in the summer of 1984.

In my mind, the McDonalds Massacre was the first of the gun toting executioners bent on making their ugly marks in American history books.

When those imagines from Virginia played through the day, I was drawn back in time to San Ysidro and the murders of the innocents, very young and old. And a memory.

It was early in the morning, several days after the massacre. The story still made headlines across America. One of the residents who lived near the restaurant called to tell me there was something going on. I should check it out

I arrived just a few minutes before dawn, curious.

There was a crane and two flatbeds. The workers grimly going about their business, removing the playground equipment. Slowly a piece would be lifted and then gently placed on one of the flatbeds. No one spoke. Not a word. The only sound was the whining of the crane. It’s a vivid memory-the one thing I remember most about the massacre and it always fills me with unease.

It's James Humberty’s lethal legacy, a foreshadower of an ugly truth-there is always another psycho gunman waiting for his moment on the stage.

A recurring national nightmare that leaves you wondering…..

WHY?


Your thoughts?

jwblog@10news.com

You know $3.00 PLUS for a gallon of gas is about making some rich folks richer and the rest of us poorer. We haven’t even begun to see the real price we are going to pay for the latest shenanigans from the oil companies. I don’t care what these robber barons claim: someone sneezes in a refinery and production is shut down,
they have to switch the winter gas for the summer gas or some Saudi prince wants a new race horse, I don’t believe them. We are being ripped off every day at the tank.

And why don’t I believe them? Here is why:
10New’s Investigative team did a story two years ago were we exposed how Shell Oil lied about their refinery in Bakersfield. They wanted to shut it down, saying it was a money loser; there was little oil left to pump out of the ground. You know what that means-- with fewer refineries; there is less gas in the pipelines, which means we pay more at the pump. And they make more money for their crude. Our I-team didn’t believe the company because we had internal Shell documents that spoke of the profitability of the oil field, the refinery management had bragged about (in writing) how great things were going at the refinery in an invitation to a Christmas Party! We also heard from refinery workers who talked to us at great risk and a state geologist who told us there was plenty of oil in them thar fields. Eventually U.S.Senator Feinstein got involved and the field stayed open under new ownership. The point being, we caught them in a flat out fib. And trust me; they haven’t stopped doing the dance.

That’s why you should know about www.oilwatch.org It’s a project of Jamie Court—he helped us on the Shell/Bakersfield case. Now he is helping anyone who is interested in the REAL story about this three dollar a gallon rip off. The oil companies don’t like him.
But you should get to know him, through the website www.oilwatch.org

Knowledge is Power.


jwblog@10news.com

I am snoopy. I want to know what supervisors, the mayor or city council
are up to. That's why I think the Brown Act is terrific. Created in
1953 by California lawmakers to stop all those smoky back room deals,
it's a pillar of good government. It brings "sunshine" into the
decision-making process. We (you, me, everybody)have to told when
the decsion-makers' meetings will take place, where they take place and
what the agenda for the meeting will be. If our elected officials decide to blow it off, they're breaking the law.

So imagine my surprise when I learned that during a San Diego City
Council "2007 Mid-Year budget adjustments" hearing that more the money
was being shoved around. The date was March 26, 2007. It was Item 205
on the docket. Councilman Ben Hueso was upset because the City Attorney wasn't moving fast enough on a memorandum of understanding for a park in his district. (page 2) Then the notes from the meeting reflect Hueso's stream of consciousness rap that evolves into complaints about the city"losing money on litigations thatis not
necessary"(page 3 )and the city council needs to do something about it.

Councilmen Madaffer, who first mentioned the city attorney's budget in
this meeting, is in agreement.(page 1 & page 11). So is Council
President Scott Peters, who by the way, dislikes the city attorney
intensly and I suspect Michael Aguirre feels the same way about Peters.
Within a very short time, Peters has drawn up an amendment to the budget (page 13) that would restrict the city attorney's power to bring a civil lawsuit. (Can you
spell Sunroad?) The cost savings to the public, they figure, would be
enormous. There is no mention in the notes of how much money this would
save but Peters does go on a bit of a rant about the money he believes
the city attorney is costing taxpayers. (page 12)

So the city attorney, who is elected by the people to be the "chief
legal adviser of and attorney for the City," would be stripped of his
ability to bring civil lawsuits without "the authorization by an affirmative vote of the City Council."

It's perfectly legal says Mr. Peters. He told our 10News Investigative Reporter Marti Emerald that this was not a violation of the Brown Act. He says Mr. Maddafer, Mr. Young, Ms. Atkins and Mr. Hueso and he were fully within their rights to make the decision during budget hearings.

p.s.
The city attorney was granted his powers to bring suit by a vote of the
citizens of San Diego back in 1931.


Transcript of the budget hearing in PDF format:
Budget Transcript

The story:
Did City Council Violate Brown Act?

What do you think?
jwblog@10news.com

It’s springtime and love is in the air. Who would have ever thought this was possible in San Diego city government after the pitched battle between City Attorney Michael Aguirre and Chief of Police William . You might recall, the Chief wouldn’t serve the City Attorney’s warrant on Sunroad whose building near Montgomery Field has been called a “menace” to navigation by the FAA. The Chief said the warrant was a stretch and Aguirre said it was legitimate. Then it got really ugly. But a springtime miracle occurred late last week when they kissed and made up. That’s according to the City Attorney. But just in case this relationship goes on the rocks again—here is the timeline for events since the warrant was signed.

This is based on published reports on the Internet, in newspapers, 10News research,
e-mail correspondence to the City Attorney’s office, the mayor’s office and the chief of police’s public information office. I began assembling this timeline the week of April 2 and by weeks end, neither the chief’s office or the mayor’s office would comment on the accuracy of this timeline or anything else to do with the story.

Wednesday, March 21
Superior Court Judge George “Woody” Clark signs the search warrant. It is now a court order. The Chief is told about it by the City Attorney’s office.
Mayor Jerry Sanders calls Aguirre that evening and says he knows about the search warrant.*

*The City Attorney says the Chief broke the law by going to the mayor with the information. He says you can’t go outside law enforcement circles and do this. It is a misdemeanor under California Penal Code section 168 for a police officer to willfully disclose the fact of the warrant prior to execution for the purpose of preventing the search.

Thursday, March 22
11 a.m. —Union-Tribune reporter David Hasemyer calls Aguirre’s office, seeking comment about warrant for Sunroad Enterprises. Aguirre is out of the office in court. Hasemyer tells Aguirre’s office he’s already placed a call to Tom Story, the former city employee in the middle of this, and Attorney Steven Strauss both from Sunroad.. This is BEFORE Hasemyer talked to Aguirre. When Aguirre connects with Hassemyer, he tells the reporter he cannot go with the story because the search warrant has not been served. But the cat is now out of the bag.

1:30 p.m. -- Aguirre and Asst. Chief William Maheu meet and agree to serve the warrant at 9 a.m. Friday. FBI will join them as well as SDPD.

7 p.m. That night Maheu calls Chris Morris, the assistant city attorney in the criminal division in the City Attorney’s office and says the Chief is having second thoughts about the warrant and wants to postpone to Monday the service of the warrant.

*City Attorney’s office says at no time did the police rep or Chief say they wanted to go to court to discuss the search warrant or ask more questions. But the Chief says he or his people did look for ways to discuss the warrant with Aguirre, including the option of returning to court.

Lansdowne sticks to his guns, he is using the DA’s knowledge of warrants to stand by his decision not to serve the warrant Friday.*

*Aguirre argues the judge, not law enforcement officials determine whether a search warrant should be issued. As the Supreme Court ruled in U.S. v. Leon, "it is the magistrate's responsibility to determine whether the officer's allegations establish probable cause and, if so, to issue a warrant."

*The police department says the police have the last best chance to review warrants for their validity…and the Chief did just that. It’s an ongoing policy, they say. Days later, the Police Officers Association says this is fully within the Chief’s rights and duties

Aguirre figures by Monday, Sunroad will have had an opportunity to destroy all evidence of any suspected improper relationship between Story and current employees. He thinks by stalling the Chief is going to hurt the effort to gather the evidence he needs to prove if there was anything inappropriate taking place between Story and current city employees. Aguirre cuts a deal with Sunroad to voluntarily supply documents at 8 p.m.
.

Friday, March 23
The U-T article appears by Hasemyer revealing the search warrant

City Attorney goes in with FBI., with voluntary compliance by Sunroad and Aguirre says they find 10,000 documents that reference in some way Story and the City of San Diego. They can’t remove the documents, but Aguirre says Sunroad promises to provide the documents the next week

Monday-March 26
Aguirre says the chief’s irresponsible comments and leaking to the mayor and press sabotaged the search warrant -- because on Monday, Sunroad backed away from the voluntary compliance deal and has only provided percent of the records agreed to.

Tuesday-March 27
UT asks in editorial for Judge George “Woody” Clarke to release warrant information. saying it’s s “groundless” search.

Thursday-March 29
Court unseals warrant at the request of UT and Sunroad (you can see the entire warrant with this blog). There’s a press conference by Aguirre questioning the Chief’s action, saying he obstructed justice.
Chief is out of town and not available for comment

Friday-Marcy 30
Chief blasts Aguirre in UT editorial for “misusing his power for personal political gain.”
There’s a U-T editorial blasting Aguirre he concocted the information to obtain the search warrant

J.W., our blogger, interviews the Mayor. The Mayor says he doesn’t know anything about the leak to the UT. He did get a call from the Chief about the warrant but he didn’t have specific information about the warrants contents. He says he did try to get Aguirre and Lansdowne together to mediate this thing but Aguirre refused.
The time frame and mayor’s statement fits with what Aguirre said.

J.W. interviews legal counsel for PD instead of Lansdowne. (The Chief and his assistant are out of town and unavailable to talk). He says the Chief had every right to refuse to serve the warrant. He says, call a contact he names who works in the Attorney General’s office in Sacramento, who will back up the Chief’s claims about the warrant. We attempt to talk to AG contact he suggested in Sacramento but he doesn’t return our call.

Monday, April 2
Aguirre does an op-ed piece in UT: “Protecting the Public Interest.”

Events since this:
City Councilwoman Donna Frye has press conference urging Sunroad to behave.
Police Officers Association has a press conference saying they back the Chief and Aguirre is out of line. But they also mention the pension fund issue and Aguirre’s role in it. Defense attorney Michael Crowley appears on 10News, reviews the warrant and says it’s solid—no holes in it as others claim.

Then on April 6 we have dueling press conferences with attorney Naughton representing Sunroad, announcing a lawsuit to disqualify Aguirre’s office from pursuing the case against Sunroad. And the City Attorney announces that Tom Story is being accused of violating the law by making continued contacts with city staff before he was allowed to under the city’s lobbying guidelines for former employees.

And at the same press conference Aguirre announces that the Chief Lansdowne vs. Aguirre dispute has been put to bed.*


*Don’t bet on this

Want to know what was in the warrant? Decide who was right or wrong.
Click Here