Judge Ann Jones, Steve Cooley and Jackie Lacey: Bizzare Rulings and Corruption, Anyone Surprised?

January 7, 2013
Anne Jones has a pattern of ruling against the ADDA and in the County's favor.

Ann Jones has a pattern of ruling against the ADDA and in the County’s favor.

Ann Jones, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge, has done the dirty work for Steve Cooley and Jackie Lacey with her bizzare rulings.  Jones ruled the new performance evaluation plan, or better known as “PERSA,” was already implemented before the ADDA was certified on March 24, 2008.  This ruling is not only bizarre, but completely false.  Deputy DAs used to be rated “outstanding” year after year, for their hard work, from their supervisors.  Thanks to Steve Cooley and Jackie Lacey “outstanding” is only for selected prosecutors (like Cooley’s daughter who was promoted faster then… well  anyone we know).   When Cooley left office, he made certain of two things: 1) his daughter was promoted ahead of anyone in her class or grade and 2) it would be easy to fire the next target.

For years Deputy DAs were rated  “outstanding,” but under Cooley’s leadership he was determined to get rid of the performance evaluation system.  Thanks to Ann Jones and Cooley’s “PERSA” system, now Jackie Lacey can fire or demote anyone who opposes her, and Alan Jackson may be next.  Will Jackson receive “competent” or “needs improvement” on his next performance evaluation?  The Association of Deputy District Attorneys opposed the “PERSA” (performance evaluation) change as part of their litigation, but Anne Jones has made a bizzare and unusual ruling, clearly to gain favior with Cooley and LA County.  The matter is up on appeal with labor attorney Dick Shinee spearheading the appeal.  If the appeal fails, any Deputy DA who sees corruption within the office, might as well turn a blind eye or be fired.

If Jackie Lacey can commit perjury and get elected, then anything is possible.  Dick Shinee has 1000 Deputy DAs counting on him.  A complete failure on his part, coupled with judiciary corruption in LA Superior Court (no surprise) will result in the disposal of any Deputy DA at the snap of Lacey’s fingers.  Watch yourself Alan Jackson, your transfer to a desk job for running a campaign commercial exposing Jackie Lacey’s dishonesty, is only the first step in Lacey’s plan to get rid of you.  If Jackson is rated “needs improvement” he will be the next DA to be placed on a “performance improvement program” then fired.  It really doesn’t matter if you win 100% of your trials, like Steve Ipsen, or take down criminals like Phil Spector.  What matters is that Cooley and Lacey remain in power, continue their corruption, and take out their foes.


Alan Jackson runs add about Jackie Lacey committing perjury to protect Steve Cooley and his union busting against ADDA

October 18, 2012

Alan Jackson runs add reporting Jackie Lacey’s perjury to protect her boss Steve Cooley

With nearly three weeks until the LA County District Attorney election Alan Jackson releases a much over due advertisement about Jackie Lacey committing perjury under oath to protect her boss Steve Cooley.  Anti-union animus runs rampant in the DAs office.  Cooley and Lacey will face their foes in federal court in early December.  The most recent anti-union animus occurred last week by Julie-Dixson Silva (county counsel to Steve Cooley) and Deputy DA Director Janet Moore who violated Judge Wright’s federal injunction ordering the elected DA Steve Cooley, his directors and manager to stop their anti-union behavior.  If they aren’t in contempt of court with their egregious comments who is?  An unfair labor complaint was filed by the ADDA’s AFSCME attorney Tris Carpenter. (read full complaint here)


Union Busting continues: Steve Cooley violates injunction, Jackie Lacey unable to control employees

October 15, 2012

Janet Moore and Julie-Dixon Silva lose control and engage in anti-union animus rants against the prosecutors union representative.

In the wake of the Los Angeles District Attorney’s race and union busting federal trial, anti-union animus continues. Jackie Lacey’s and Steve Cooley’s violation of a federal injunction is flagrant in the form of their manager Janet Moore and county counsel Julie-Dixon Silva.  

Steve Cooley and Jackie Lacey along with their directors and managers were ordered by federal judge Otis Wright, in the form of a federal injunction to stop harassing and intimidating members of the Association of Deputy District Attorneys, a certified prosecutors union.

ADDA/AFSCME attorney Tris Carpenter, represents DAs in matters such as grievance hearings and union issues, and Mr. Carpenter accompanied a young district attorney in a grievance hearing where the DA “reported sexual harassment, domestic violence, trespassing, and potential grand theft”.  Read Unfair Labor Practices complaint here. Director Janet Moore along with wannabe judge, but thankfully not appointed by Governor Brown, Julie-Dixon Silva, both flew into a rage and began their rant of anti-union remarks and explicative vocabulary unbecoming of ladies, district attorneys and managers. Janet Moore was previously named in the anti-union federal law suit set for trial in early December.  Moore was unfortunately dropped from the law suit for unknown reasons.

With language fit for a sailor, Moore reportedly screamed at the union representative Tris Carpenter calling him a “paid Lackey whose only existence was to draw a salary from the dues paid by the members of the union”.  She told Mr. Carpenter to “get the f*** out of my office”, but that the district attorney filing their grievance could stay.  Moore violated the federal injunction, ERO 5.04.070 and ERO 5.04.240 by restraining and coercing employees from exercising their rights avail themselves of union representation and file grievances when they are mistreated.

Moore and Silva committed unfair employee relations practices and could be held in contempt of federal court.  Inside sources say this is only one of many flagrant violations that have existed over the past year since the injunction was filed. Meanwhile, Jackie Lacey has been seen around town at debates and fundraisers bragging about her abilities as a manager.  It seems her ability to manage Julie-Dixon Silva and Janet Moore are only part of Jackie Lacey’s problems as she enters into the District Attorney’s election and federal court where she will face perjury allegations.


Top Deputy District Attorneys Caught Union Busting in Emails Revealing Disparaging Comments and Racial Overtones

July 24, 2012

Attached to disparaging emails is a picture of an ape to represent the acronym A-PES.

Pam Booth, John Spillane and wannabe judge Julie-Dixon Silva were caught sending anti-union emails referring to Deputy District Attorneys as “A-PES” (Read emails here) Attached to the email string is a photo of an ape.  Anti union emails with disparaging racial overtones about Persians were found as part of discovery litigation.  Pam Booth is a District Attorney and Director for Bureau of Branch and Area Operations, Region II stationed downtown Los Angeles in the main courthouse.  John Spillane is a head deputy and previously named in the union busting federal law suit where the former Presidents of the Association of Deputy District Attorneys will hold Steve Cooley accountable for multiple acts in violating the United States Constitution.  Julie-Dixon Silva is County Counsel and legal advisor to Steve Cooley who recently submitted papers to be appointed judge by Governor Jerry Brown.  She was not appointed judge and for good reason. 

Booth, Spillane and Silva were included in emails sent back and forth discussing the renaming of performance evaluations for Deputy District Attorneys who had been previously rated outstanding.  These performance evaluations were called PERSA and were determined illegal by the Employee Relations Commission because the new system was unilaterally implemented by Steve Cooley after the union was formed.  The work place changes were neither bargained for nor agreed upon.  

John Spillane suggested, “My vote (with concurrence from Julie) is for A-PES. I like the fact that in the name and acronym, it is clear that this is an attorney PE system.”  He later stated, “Apes… as in planet of?  Okay we’ll go with it.”   Pam Booth stated, “Referring to our attorney staff as simians may be accurate but is not called for at all.” In another email Booth states, “At one point I wanted to go with Workplan Evaluating Employee’s Performance (WEEP) but didn’t think you all would go for that … Tom liked Peformance- Employee Workplan Evaluation (P-EWE) … Alicia liked Performance Evaluation Workplan (PEW), while this could cause some folks to think of church, it was far more likely that they would think of bodily functions.”  Booth goes on to use racial overtones saying, “I was thinking that I did not like the hyphen so very much and Tom agreed so we were going with PERSA (which is very close to Persia which is now Iran, a country that many people hate so we thought it appropriate).”

 The performance evaluation system was determined to be illegal by the Employee Relations Commission and an appeal hearing will be heard on July 27th in front of Judge Ann Jones.


Evidence of purgery: LA Times reports Jacquelyn Lacey “Jackie”: Chief Deputy D.A. gave conflicting testimony

May 21, 2012

Credit LA Times as they report on Jackie Lacey Purgery

By Jack Leonard, Times Staff Writer
May 20, 2012, 9:16 p.m.

Los Angeles County Chief Deputy Dist. Atty. Jackie Lacey gave conflicting testimony under oath during two union grievance hearings, attributing the contradiction to being confused and having problems with her blood sugar level, according to transcripts reviewed by The Times. (Read Employee Relations Commission transcript here Jackie Lacey Union Busting Transcript 1Jackie Lacey Union Busting Transcript 2) Lacey, who is running for district attorney and has won major endorsements from newspapers, including The Times, testified under oath in 2009 and 2010 as part of a county employment dispute in which the union representing prosecutors accused the district attorney’s office of retaliating against its officers.

Lacey testified at a July 2009 hearing that she told a prosecutor (Read Rob Dver testimoney and transcript here) who was considering joining the union’s bargaining team that “it was a bad idea” because Dist. Atty. Steve Cooley strongly disliked the union’s president at the time. She agreed that she also told the same prosecutor, a close friend of hers, that Cooley thought the union would be a disaster and that he didn’t like the union, according to a transcript from the hearing.

Six months later, Lacey testified at another hearing for the same dispute but said she never told the prosecutor that Cooley didn’t like the union or thought it would be a disaster. (Read Jackie Lacey purgery testimony here)

Lacey, then an assistant district attorney, said she had misunderstood some of the questions posed during the July 2009 hearing and realized her mistake after reading a transcript of her testimony.

“That afternoon I was really tired and I just, obviously, was confused,” she said during the January 2010 hearing. “I have blood-sugar issues in the afternoon where I lose concentration quite a bit.”

Until now, Lacey’s testimony at the county’s employee relations commission hearings has played no role in the race to succeed Cooley, who is retiring after three terms and has endorsed Lacey to replace him. In an email to The Times last month, however, a campaign strategist for rival district attorney candidate City Atty. Carmen Trutanich referred to Lacey’s “memory lapse (or flat out lying) under oath testifying in the union-busting suit against her and Cooley.”

Asked recently about her testimony, Lacey told The Times she did not lie but had not been listening closely enough to some of the questions during the first hearing. She said the county hearing officer who was deciding the dispute never found that she had been untruthful.

“I made a mistake,” she said. “I really should have been a lot more alert and careful.”

At the time, Lacey said, she had poor eating habits that resulted in her experiencing low energy in the afternoons — a problem she said she now manages better. Still, she said she regretted that the issue of her blood-sugar level had been raised during the hearing and blamed the attorney who was representing the district attorney’s office for asking her about it.

“He tried to make that an excuse, which was a mistake,” she said. “That was terrible. I never authorized him to say that was it.”

Hyatt Seligman, the current president of the Assn. of Deputy District Attorneys, described Lacey as “professional and fair” in her dealings with him but criticized her testimony at the hearing, particularly her explanation that she was confused and had a low blood-sugar level.

“On its face it’s difficult to swallow,” he said. “She, in my opinion, fell on her sword to protect Mr. Cooley, and it stood out, glaringly.”

The union has endorsed another candidate, Deputy Dist. Atty. Danette Meyers, for district attorney.

At the end of the case, the commission’s hearing officer found that the district attorney’s office transferred veteran prosecutors to less desirable assignments as part of a “deliberate and thinly disguised campaign” aimed at destroying the union.

Lacey described the county employee relations commission hearings as a “kangaroo court” and the hearing officer’s conclusions as “fraught with mistakes.” The district attorney’s office has asked a judge to overturn the commission’s findings, arguing that the proceeding was unfair and the hearing officer biased.

The office recently produced emails showing that the hearing officer, Thomas S. Kerrigan, told the commission’s executive director in private while the case was ongoing that he was “amazed at how stupid” one of Cooley’s lawyers was; called Cooley “mediocre”; and penned a poem to memorialize Cooley’s failed bid for attorney general that included the lines, “Hang down your head and sob; hang down your head, Steve Cooley; stuck in the same old job.” Kerrigan could not be reached for comment.

jack.leonard@latimes.com

NOTE:  LA County Board of Supervisors finally paid Marc Debbaut what was owed to him.  Steve Ipsen, former President of the Association of Deputy District Attorneys, and Hyatt Seligman, current President of the ADDA will start their federal trial against Steve Cooley and his union busting actions in June.  Jones Day will be defending Cooley and is expected to bill the county millions of dollars in billable hours.  This trial is expected to come at a hefty price to the tax payers and prove Jackie Lacey and Steve Cooley violated federal law and the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.


Will the board of Supervisors ever pay up for Steve Cooley’s and Friends Union Busting?

January 26, 2012

Back in October Marc Debbaudt and the Association of Deputy District Attorneys were awarded $450,000 and $157,000 respectively in damages to pay for attorneys fees and compensation for harming the ADDA and Debbaudt’s  career when Steve Cooley settled those two portions of the federal law suit for union busting.  Cooley is represented by Jones Day and has racked up millions in dollars in attorneys fees at the expense of the tax payers.  Cooley  has refused to settle the portion of the law suit with regards to the former ADDA President Steve Ipsen and current ADDA President Hyatt Seligman.  Clearly the cases brought about by Debbeaut and the ADDA were so egregious that even Jones Day couldn’t defend Cooley’s shenanigans.  

The Board of Supervisors is said to have approved payment to the ADDA and union member Marc Debbeaut for damages. But, no one is exactly sure what happened in this closed session (aka. secret) meeting.

Inside sources reveal that the Board of Supervisors approved payment for the damages, but the ADDA and Marc Debbaudt have yet to receive payment.  The trial for Steve Ipsen and Hyatt Seligman was supposed to begin this month, but postponed until June.  If the Board of Supervisors were planning on delaying payment to see if Ipsen and Seligman won their trials, they could refuse to pay in the event Ipsen and Seligman lost.  That would send Debbaudt back to court.  Will the Board of Supervisors delay payment to the ADDA and Marc Debbaudt for six more months?  That has yet to be determined.


L.A. County settles part of suit alleging anti-union conduct

October 6, 2011
Steve Cooley’s Anti-Union Conduct
By Jack Leonard, Los Angeles Times
October 5, 2011
 
Los Angeles County will pay $575,000 to settle part of a federal law suit claiming that Dist. Atty. Steve Cooley and his managers waged an anti-union campaign, according to a settlement agreement filed in court. The settlement, which must be approved by the Board of Supervisors, would pay $125,000 to the prosecutors’ union and $450,000 to Deputy Dist. Atty. Marc Debbaudt, who a county employment commission found was transferred in retaliation for his union activity. In addition, a preliminary federal injunction ordering Cooley and other county officials not to discipline or discriminate against prosecutors for belonging to the union would remain in effect for the rest of Cooley’s tenure as D.A. Cooley has announced he will retire next year at the end of his third term.Matthew Monforton, an attorney representing the Assn. of Deputy District Attorneys, hailed the settlement as a victory for the union and described Cooley’s conduct as “outrageous and illegal.”Earlier this year, the county’s Employee Relations Commission upheld the findings of a hearing officer who concluded that veteran prosecutors were transferred to less desirable assignments as a result of their union work. Debbaudt, who joined the office in 1986, was sent from handling adult felony cases in Pasadena to working on juvenile matters in Pomona and then Sylmar, assignments usually given to less experienced attorneys. The hearing officer found that Cooley gave explanations that “were false and clearly pretexts” for conducting a “deliberate and thinly disguised campaign” aimed at destroying the union.Debbaudt and Cooley declined to comment on the settlement.Attorney Brian Hershman, a partner at the law firm Jones Day who represents the county, disputed the commission’s findings and said no prosecutors were retaliated against.He said the county settled the case to end what had become a distraction to the mission of the district attorney’s office. “We wanted to put that dispute behind us,” he said.Claims by two other prosecutors who are part of the lawsuit are scheduled for trial next month, Hershman said.

jack.leonard@latimes.com