Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
118564776
label
CRLA - Study and Evaluation of CRLA by California OEO, 1971 (3 of 6)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
118564776
contentType
document
title
CRLA - Study and Evaluation of CRLA by California OEO, 1971 (3 of 6)
citationUrl
identifierLocal
840
collections
Ronald Reagan's Governor's Papers of the Press Unit
California Rural Legal Assistance (CRLA) Files
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
118564776
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1975-12-31
year
1975
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1967-01-01
year
1967
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
5a5f7c4cb37ad56a
ocrText
Ronald Reagan Presidential Library
Digital Library Collections
This is a PDF of a folder from our textual collections.
Collection: Reagan, Ronald: Gubernatorial Papers,
1966-74: Press Unit
Folder Title: CRLA - Study and Evaluation of CRLA
by California OEO, 1971 (3 of 6)
Box: P29
To see more digitized collections visit:
https://reaganlibrary.gov/archives/digital-library
To see all Ronald Reagan Presidential Library inventories visit:
https://reaganlibrary.gov/document-collection
Contact a reference archivist at: [email protected]
Citation Guidelines: https://reaganlibrary.gov/citing
National Archives Catalogue: https://catalog.archives.gov/
spent the entire day, day after day, at the
City School's office, with the demonstrators
where in fact they should have been at their
offices doing their official duties talking to
clients. Thirdly, they did represent some of
the demonstrators who were arrested, and the
two, Lowenstein and Neumark, spent weeks in
court defending the demonstrators. Some of
the demonstrators I suspect, did not even
qualify for the representation under the law.
The courts were held in the daytime and not
at night. The two lawyers claimed they were
doing so on their own time. While I was at
the City School's office demonstration scene
I had a conversation with Mr. Neumark rela-
tive to his counseling of the demonstrators who
should have been in school. The issue was
what these young children were going to eat.
Mr. Neumark remarked, 'Monroe, feed the
children something to eat and charge it to
CRLA. After the school demonstrations I
talked to David Talamante, Manager of the
then Stanislaus County Cooperative Association,
409 Mays Road, Modesto, who had furnished the
demonstrators lunches, and he told me that he
had billed CRLA $400 for the food, and that they
had paid for it. I think that this was a
misdirection of funds
Apparently they had
also printed up bumper stickers advocating
free lunches for the children during the
Modesto City School Bond elections. I feel
that the funds were not properly used as
there was a heavy caseload of poor clients
who needed representation while the two law-
yers were off involved with demonstrations
and defending them in court
I am totally
blind, and this statement has been read to
me by Marge Werner."
(Exhibit 09-0143-18;
emphasis added.)
(2) The Case of Kathe Fish and the Board of
Trustees of Gavilan College.
CRLA Attorneys Don B. Kates, Jr., Brian Paddock,
Diane V. Delevett and Peter D. Coppelman, all of the CRLA
Gilroy office, filed suit in U. S. District Court for the
(101)
Northern District of California on behalf of a student at
Gavilan College (Gilroy) named Kathe Fish (Fish V. Ralph
Shroeder, et al., No. 50634, January 29, 1969) in what
can only be termed a harassing action. The litigation
embarked upon sought to prevent authorities from inter-
fering with Miss Fish's distribution of revolutionary and
pornographic literature on the Gavilan Campus (Exhibit 08-
0068-13) .
On January 14, 1969, the Board of Trustees of Gavilan
College, Gilroy, California, considered a proposed policy
for establishing an uncensored bulletin board and table.
Gavilan student, Fish, represented by CRLA attorney Don
Kates, Jr., opposed the college rules governing the dis-
tribution of materials at the meeting. The president of
Gavilan College states in an affidavit:
"Miss Fish and about 30 or 40 students who
followed her lead were actively campaigning
to have four-letter words' authorized for
printing in the college newspaper.
(Exhibit 08-0068-04;
emphasis added.)
On or about January 22, 1969, the president of the
college was served with temporary restraining orders filed
by CRLA on behalf of Miss Fish. The complaint alleged:
Defendants, the President and members of
the Board of Trustees of the college, now
seek to expel, suspend or otherwise exclude
plaintiff because of her aforesaid activities.
(102)
Gavilan College President, Ralph Shroeder, continues
in his affidavit:
"I do not condone the activities of Miss Fish,
but I never harassed her in any way, and I did
not attempt to have her expelled from the
College. The CRLA suit states that I tried
to have Miss Fish excluded from campus, that
I tried to intimidate Miss Fish and keep her
from exercising her right todotain counsel
of her choice, and that I tried to deter her
from receiving benefits conferred by the
Economic Opportunity Act. None of the above
charges are true. It is my opinion that the
CRLA grossly exaggerated the situation involv-
ing Miss Fish in order to make an issue where
no real issue really existed.
(Exhibit 08-0068-04;
emphasis added.)
No negotiation or communication preceded the filing
of the action, but the action did create tension and turmoil
on the campus and made discipline and normal stability all
the more difficult to maintain. Kathe Fish left the college
not long after this time and the suit was dropped. She be-
came involved in "drug prevention work. On November 13,
1970, a newspaper article revealed:
"Picked up in Sun Valley on a warrant from
the Santa Clara County Sheriff's office was
Kathe Fish, 20, who is accused of selling
marijuana to an undercover agent in Morgan
Hill."
(Exhibit 08-0069-57.)
(3) The Case of Hernandez V. the Principal of
Hollister High School.
The case of Hernandez, et al., V. Nichols, filed in
the U. S. District Court for Northern California, is typical
(103)
of CRLA's school agitation methodology. Mr. Nichols, super-
intendent of North County unified schools in San Benito County
was charged with allegedly beating a Mexican-American youth.
The case is still pending against Mr. Nichols. There was
also a request for $34,950 damages on the part of Hernandez.
Prior to filing of the case, CRLA had appeared at a County
School Board meeting and confronted Mr. Nichols with their
charges and had attempted to make quite an issue of the case
(Exhibit 08-0067-01)
"I am the District Superintendent for the
North County Joint Union School District
of San Benito County, with offices at the
Pacheco School, 6530 Lovers Lane, and at
71 Orchard Road, Hollister, California.
In the early spring of 1970, the children of
the Max Hernandez family, then residing at
4481 San Felipe Road, Hollister, registered
for school. Among those registering was a
seventh grader named Fernando Hernandez.
Fernando became a disruptive influence in
each class he was in and I received class
room teacher complaints for his misbehav-
ior. He would walk around the class room,
tell the teachers to shut up, that he did
not have to obey them and would do as he
pleased. I asked all teachers in school
to advise their pupils that anyone who
disrupted the teachers authority and
disrupted the classes would be sent out
of class for discipline. These students
are customarily sent to the lunch tables
in the school yard and wait there until I
have the time to administer the necessary
discipline. On or about April 3, 1970,
another child was sent out for discipline,
and I suspended him for one day, after I
took him home and advised his parents of
his misbehavior. He was suspended until
the following Monday, this was in the
morning. In the afternoon I saw Fernando
(104)
Hernandez, sitting at the tables and asked him
why he was there. He told me that ano ther boy
had tried to beat him up in class. I asked
his teacher and was told that Fernando had
refused to do any work, and was disturbing
the class, and was holding another boy against
the wall and hitting him. I took Fernando by
the back of his collar, and swatted him two or
three times on his rear end when he held back
enroute to the office. I sat him in the office
until the schoolbus was ready to go. I had
given him a note to take to his parents indi-
cating he was suspended for one day, until
the following Monday for the following reasons:
1-misbehavior, 2-fighting, 3-lack of respect,
and 4-disobeying school safety rules. The next
morning, when I arrived at school, Dale Brown,
Hollister Sheriff's Office was there to obtain
a deposition about the Hernandez boy. The par-
ents alleged I had beaten and bruised the boy.
A civil suit has been filed and is currently
pending. A news article in the April 17, 1970
issue of the San Jose News carried a story of
a restraining order issued by Judge Robert
Peckham restraining the San Benito County
school officials from physically punishing
Mexican-American pupils. Mr. Panelli, my
attorney, examined a California Rural Legal
Assistance attorney named Cates, and deter-
mined that the alleged facts contained in the
news story was what he had assumed to be true.
I have had no direct contacts with any attorney
from California Rural Legal Assistance at any
time, however a Mr. Del Buono of that office
visited with me about the Fernando Hernandez
incident.'
(Emphasis added.)
In line with CRLA's activity in this case, Mr.
Chester E. Ross, an attorney in Hollister and President
of the San Benito County Bar Association, stated, in part:
I recently had personal observations of a
situation at the Ausymas School, where I am
satisfied that the CRLA brought in a Mexican
family for the sole purpose of disrupting the
whole administration of this school. The
children deliberately would not behave and
(105)
when Mr. Nichols, the principal of the school,
attempted normal disciplinary proceedings, the
family went to CRLA and swore that the child
had been beaten, and CRLA promptly filed a suit
in Federal Court. II
I feel that as a result of their class actions,
in connection with agricultural workers, they have
disrupted the economy of our local community
and have polarized the community, so that we
have race problems which were never experienced
prior to the advent of CRLA on the scene. 11
(Exhibit 08-0149-01;
emphasis added.)
(4) A Mexican-American College Club Gets Very
Special Service.
In Modesto, CRLA paid staff attorneys, Kelley,
Livingston, Zavala, Neumark, Lowenstein and Madison,
brought a complaint in the "Inferior Court of the Associ-
ated Students of Modesto Junior College" on behalf of a
Mexican-American club protesting a college requirement
that its members (like all other students) pay student body
fees of $8 per semester SO that the club would be recognized
by the school administration. It should be noted that this
is not even a case in a normal court of law and six CRLA
paid staff attorneys are named as "attorneys of record" in
this non-suit. There is, of course, the implication that
Modesto Junior College is discriminating against Mexican-
Americans by requiring that they fulfill the same rules and
regulations that apply to all other students at Modesto
Junior College (Exhibit 08-0111-03).
(106)
(5) CRLA Counsels a Juvenile Girl in Agitation.
There was a second incident in San Benito County in
which CRLA personnel from the Salinas office became involved
in counseling a juvenile girl student and enticed her into
acts of agitation at San Benito Joint Union High School.
In an affidavit, Mr. Orville E. Nichols, District
Superintendent of the North County Joint Union School Dis-
trict, San Benito, concludes by saying:
(We have deleted names of the many people
involved to avoid any possibility of em-
barassment to them.)
"I am informed and believe that a
(minor female), 16 years, was trained by some-
one from California Rural Legal Assistance to
organize a walkout at the Hollister High School,
and a walkout did occur. Minor Female was
picked up at the High School and was out late
at night, and she has presented forged notes to
school authorities, which was not known to her
father. Full reports on the Hernandez and
Minor Female incidents are with the San Benito
County Sheriff's Office, Hollister."
(Exhibit 08-0189-12.)
Following is a report on this matter by a San
Benito County Sheriff's Office investigator. The narrative
of this case speaks for itself in affidavits and statements
to San Benito Sheriff's Office:
At approximately 0800 hours, the minor
girl's father came into the jail to dis-
cuss his run-away daughter who had been
gone all week-end. He advised that she
had returned home Monday afternoon after
attending school. She would not give any
(107)
other explanation, other than having spent
the time with a friend.
"The minor girl's father had her waiting out-
side and asked if I would talk to her. The
girl's father stated he had lost all control
of his daughter after she became active in
the Chicano movement. He also showed me a
note that had been left at his house by Mr.
Del Buono. The note asked that the girl 'call
the office as soon as possible - it is very
important that both Peters (sic) speak with
you. Call collect 842-8271.' (Gilroy office
of CRLA.)
"The girl's father asked that I get his daughter
away from this group.
Also attached to the original missing person's
report (the girl had been out of town with a
CRLA member) was found a note to school author-
ities giving the girl permission to wear pants
to school on 1/21/70 signed by the girl's father.
The girl's father denied writing the note and
said it had been forged. Also attached to the
report was a note left at his house by a young
girl (name unknown) which states that 'Peter
Schilla goes to the high school and
harassing students to try to get a district
attorney look up what CRLA is doing. (sic)
"The girl came into the office and I questioned
her about her whereabouts concerning the past
weekend. She stated she had been in town and
after a great deal of discussion admitted being
with (Woman A). This writer called that number
and verified her statement. I asked the girl
if she is involved with CRLA? She said yes. I
asked if her father approved. She became very
angry and stated no - he wouldn't even sign the
papers. I asked if she had gone to San Jose to
hear the court case on
? She replied yes
she had gone with a young man who works for CRLA.
I asked if he was an attorney. She stated no
but, he's going to be one pretty soon. I asked
if she had her father's permission to go? She
said no. I asked her if she knew this man could
get in trouble by taking her without her father's
permission or without the school knowing she had
(108)
left to go to San Jose? She asked what kind
of trouble? I advised her she was still a
juvenile and needed her parent's permission.
I also read her Section 601 of the Juvenile
Code and advised her that her running away
would only cause further trouble. At this
point she very angrily stomped out and her
father stated he would take her to school.
"Approximately 15 minutes later this writer
went to Hollister High School and talked to
student advisor in regards to the girl. We
then went to the principal's office and the
three of us along with another party discussed
the girl's participation in the Mexican-American
activities on campus. The principal stated she
is the president of the organization and she
has organized the students on the recent dress
code. When I returned to the office the minor's
father was waiting and told me his daughter had
already returned home from school and was going
to leave home. I asked him if he had any trouble
with his daughter before she became involved in
CRLA and he said no. I then took a formal state-
ment in reference to his daughter's activities
with this group. He advised that his daughter
has attended several meetings in which Mr.
Peter Schilla, Peter Coppelman and other
students were in attendance. He also stated
that two female high school teachers were
present and that they lived in
.
He also stated that he does not approve of
his daughter's connection with the CRLA and
that he has refused to sign papers they have
presented him. He even said that on one OC-
casion his daughter took some sleeping pills
and aspirin to force him into taking her to
one of the CRLA meetings.
"I asked the girl's father if his daughter
had gone to school on January 21, 1970. I
used Mr. Del Buono's note as a reference.
I asked the secretary if there was a young
man working for CRLA named Peter who wasn't
an attorney, but would become one very shortly.
She said yes, that would be Peter Schilla. I
asked if there was a Peter Coppelman, and she
said yes, but that he was with a client. I
also asked if there were any other men working
in the office, which she replied Paddock and
(109)
Kates, which ended the conversation.
Judging by the girl's description of the
man as well as the secretary it would appear
that Peter Schilla was the man who took the
girl to San Jose.
"I returned to the high school and talked
to the principal. He stated that the two
teachers, Miss A and Miss B, had been mem-
bers of a liaison group between the school
and Mexican-Americans; but it had been dis-
banded when the board gave him the ax (the
principal obviously had been fired and was
merely serving out his term) He stated that
the two women had not attended any meetings
after that. I asked him how well he knew
these two teachers? He stated very well
'they rent my house in
"
He was told they had been seen at DelBuono's
house recently and were taking part in the
recent dress code issue. I then went to the
counseling office and obtained photostatic
copies of the girl's school records. They
show that in 1968 she had 18 notes asking
for excused absences, but that in 1969 in
January of 1970 there have been 44 excused
absences. These were shown to the girl's
father. He was shocked at the number and
denied signing most of them. The school
records also show a note dated 1/21/70,
stating the girl has an appointment today
with the doctor at 9:30 signed the father's
name. The father denies signing this note
and said it was a forgery. Classroom at-
tendance records also show that the girl
was not there on 1/21/70. It should also
be noted that the girl's grades during 1967-
68, 1968-69 are what is generally considered
as being an average student. But during this
current 1969-70 she has received grades of
above average and superior. Out of seven
of these classes, three are taught by
teacher A and oneby teacher B. Teacher A
giving her two A's and a B-plus and teacher
B an A for the second quarter. Refer to the
statements of fellow students on political
(110)
activities taking place in teacher A's
classes. The facts in this case would
indicate that CRLA has been behind the re-
cent Mexican-American activities within the
high school and they are using the girl as
their agent as well as teacher A.
The demands they have made on the girl have
alienated her from her father and family.
This has all been done against the father's
wishes. It would also indicate that teacher
A has used her classroom as a political forum
in support of the principal (who was fired be-
cause of his active Left involvement) and that
the taking of the minor from this community
to attend a CRLA hearing in San Jose was a
flagrant and inexcusable violation on the
part of their organization.'
(Exhibit 08-0189-03;
emphasis added.)
"At approximately 0900 I arrived at the res-
idence of Mrs.
She was asked
.
about the girl's activities during the past
week-end. She advised they did not do much
of anything, but that she had taken her to
school to meet with the attorneys.
She also stated that on the night of January 27
the girl had been in contact with CRLA attor-
neys and that when she finished talking with
them she asked Mrs.
to call the cops
and tell them where she was so she could be
picked up. After the girl was picked up by
the deputies she called CRLA from Mrs.
house advising them that she was now being
arrested.
At approximately 10:30 hours this writer talked
to the brother of the girl. He stated that he
had been to one of the meetings at Del Buono's
house and that his sister became very angry
when her father refused to sign the papers,
but that she went with the lawyer anyway to
San Jose. The minor's brother advised that he
would have done the same thing. He also ad-
vised that one of the CRLA attorneys had at-
tended a school meeting of the Mexican-Americans
and that on one occasion the attorneys told him
(111)
that 'if they walk out of the school, they
couldn't do anything about it and that they
would back them all the way.
(Exhibits 08-0189-02 through
04; emphasis added.)
The following statement was made to San Benito County
Sheriff's Department by the father of the minor female:
"Q: Have you had any dealings with the
California Rural Legal Assistance?
A: Yes, because of my daughter.
Q: What has your daughter had to do with CRLA?
A: I have taken her to meetings, and on Thurs-
day or Friday night the 15th or 16th I took her
to a meeting at Del Buono's house on the corner
of
.
Q: Did you go inside the house with your
daughter?
A: Yes.
Q: Who was there at the time?
A: Del Buono, there was a student from Gavilan
college and a student here from the high school,
and another student from the high school and he
had a moustache and long side-burns, and an at-
torney with a beard. Del Buono said he was a
lawyer (a lie, he is a CRLA investigator). There
were two female teachers from the high school
there also.
Q: Did you want your daughter to attend any
of these meetings?
A: Well, I say no, not in this Chicano deal.
I didn't mind her attending meetings for school
activities.
Q: Did you stay at that meeting?
A: I stayed a while and they talked about the
proposal they wanted to put through the board.
(112)
Q: Have you returned to Del Buono's house
for a meeting with your daughter?
A: Yes, I think it was on January 17.
Q: What did they talk about that night?
A: They wanted my daughter to talk to kids
about the dress code. In other words, what
they talked about was legal advice on what
she should do.
Q: You stated at one of the meetings there
were two female teachers from the high school.
Would you identify these women for me?
A: Yes, I think they were both from
.
Q: Have you attended any other meetings?
A: Yes, Sunday, the 18th.
Q: Where was the meeting held?
A: At Del Buono's house.
Q: Who was there?
A: Del Buono, the boy with the side-burns,
and a lawyer, my daughter and myself.
Q: What went on at the meeting?
A: The purpose of the meeting was to have me
sign a complaint that they want to file suit
against the school, and I wouldn't sign it. In
other words, they wanted to take this matter
to court and they wanted my signature. I told
this young lawyer I didn't want my daughter
to get involved.
Q: Did your daughter attend school Tuesday,
January 20?
A: I don't know, she told me she went to San
Jose with a lawyer and they won the case on
the boy with the side-burns and moustache.
Q: Did she have your permission to leave school?
(113)
A: No.
Q: Have you written any notes to the school
in regards to your daughter?
A: No.
Q: Do you approve of the CRLA taking your
daughter from Hollister to another community?
A: No.
Q: Do you approve of your daughter acting as
an agent for this organization, handing out the
leaflets and doing work for them on the campus?
A: No.
Q: And is your statement that you have told
them you don't approve?
A: Yes.
Q: You have filed a missing person's report
with our office concerning the weekend of
January 24th and 25th on your daughter. Why
did she leave?
A: She left because I was going to send her
to Los Angeles because she was getting out of
hand and I couldn't control her.
Q: Why do you think she was getting out of hand?
A: Her activities with the Chicano deal.
Q: Did your daughter return home?
A: Monday, the 26th after school.
Q: Did you find out where she had been?
A: She told me she was at a friend's house.
Q: Since then have you learned where she was at?
A: Yes, Mrs.
's house.
Q: Did you take your daughter to school on the
morning of the 27th after talking to me?
(114)
A: Yes.
Q: Has she returned home since then?
A: Yes, she was home about five minutes
after only being in school for about an
hour.
Q: What did she tell you?
A: That she was going to leave home and
that lawyer shouldn't get in trouble be-
cause she signed the paper.
(Exhibit 08-0189-07;
emphasis added.)
The next statement in this case was given by a
twelfth grade male student at San Benito Joint Union High
School:
"Q: Are you a student at San Benito Joint
Union High School?
A: Yes.
Q: Have you ever attended a class given by
female teacher A or female teacher B ?
A: Yes, by female teacher A.
Q: Are you still in her class?
A: No, because I was kicked out for calling
it an agitating class.
Q: Do you recall when you were kicked out?
A: Around the week before Christmas.
Q: You called it an agitating class, can
you tell me why?
A: Because (the girl) was making signs for
the Chicanos and she was writing speeches
in female teacher l's class.
Q: Have you ever seen (the girl) bring in
material to make these signs?
(115)
A: Yes, poster paper, felt pens, and stuff
like that.
Q: Do you know if teacher 1 helped the girl?
A: Yes, she went in the other side of the
room with the girl and spent the rest of
the period there.
Q: Have you ever seen any of these signs
after class?
A: Yes, I have seen them stacked in the corner
during class and
and I saw them
through the window of the classroom that they
were in.
Q:
who?
A: (The name was given.)
Q: You refer to speeches being written by the
girl during class, were they ever used?
A: Yes, I think so, because teacher 1 compli-
mented her the next day after the meeting they had.
Q: Were you asked to attend the meeting?
A: Yes, because the girl passed around a pet-
ition to keep (the fired principal) and teacher
1 asked as much of the class to be there as
possible and bring your parents and everybody.
Q: Has teacher 1 ever asked you to support
(the fired principal) ?
A: Yes, she asked everybody to come to the
meeting tonight and support (the fired principal).
Q: Did the girl do exceptionally good class work?
A: Heck, no. When she wasn't making signs, she
was up front with teacher 1 and I don't think she
ever turned in a book report.
Q: Does teacher 1 grade hard?
A: Yes.
(116)
Q: Did you know that the girl is getting
straight A's in teacher l's class?
A: No, but I had a feeling that she was.
Q: Is there anything else that you would
like to add?
A: No. II
(Exhibit 08-0189-09.)
The next statement was given by another twelfth
grade student at the San Benito Joint Union High School:
"Q: Are you a student at San Benito Joint
Union High School?
A: Yes.
Q: Have you ever attended a class given by
teacher 1 or teacher 2?
A: Yes, teacher 1 for
and
.
Q: Are you still in both her classes?
A: Yes.
Q: Approximately a week before Christmas,
was there anything other than regular class
work going on?
A: Yes, they were making signs the same time
class was going on.
Q: Who was making signs?
A: The girl.
Q: What kind of signs?
A: We want (the fired principal).
Q: Did anyone help the girl?
A: Teacher 1 alone with her.
Q: Have you ever seen the girl bring any of
this sign material into class?
(117)
A: Yes, paper, flow pen and a ruler.
Q: Has she done anything else in class to
support (the fired principal) or Mexican-
Americans?
A: Writing the speech for (the fired prin-
cipal) - the speech they had in the cafeteria.
Q: Was anything said in class about the speech?
A: Yes, teacher 1 told the girl she did a real
good job with the speech.
Q: Is the writing of political speeches and
the making of political signs part of the normal
class work?
A: No.
Q: Did anyone in the class other than teacher
1 and the girl take part in these political
activities?
A: No.
Q: Were you asked to attend the meeting at
the High School Cafeteria?
A: Yes. She said to bring your parents or
anybody to support (the fired principal).
Q: Does the girl work real hard at her class
work?
A: She's bound to be getting behind because
everybody is reading books and she does not.
Q: Did you know that the girl is getting
straight A's in teacher l's class?
A: No. I'm surprised she's getting just
as good of grades or better than the other
kids in the class who were working.
Q: Is there anything else you would like to
add at this time?
A: That's all I can think of."
(Exhibit 08-0189-11.)
(118)
There is little to add to this case. Del Buono,
Peter Schilla and Peter Coppelman, all CRLA staff members
of the Gilroy office, used and exploited a minor female,
after carefully indoctrinating her (with the help of two
female teachers) to attempt to foment a Chicano confront-
ation at the San Benito Joint Union High School. All this
was done against her father's will.
(6) Delano High School - A Study in Turmoil.
On Tuesday, May 5, 1970, a group of Delano High School
students walked out of an assembly at the High School
Auditorium. Five hours later the students began picketing
the school and presented a list of ultimatums to the admin-
istration. The picketing continued throughout the week,
and in the opinion of many School, Police and City offi-
cials, pickets were attempting to provoke a physical con-
frontation with the Police and/or School officials (Ex-
hibit 09-0119-01).
During this time of school agitation, John Ortega,
who was then a paid staff attorney for CRLA's McFarland
office, was actively involved with the pickets. Ortega's
son, in fact, was among the picketers. Ortega told offi-
cials he was on the scene to "insure both pickets and
Police obeyed the law."
(119)
According to Assemblyman William Ketcham:
"At the time (Ortega) appeared to be direct-
ing the activities of the youngsters."
School officials and parents tried to solve the
problem and made arrangements with Ortega to place the
item on the School Board agenda on Monday, May 11, 1970.
The School Board meeting was held, and after preliminar-
ies Ortega was asked to speak. Ortega's name was called,
however, instead of Ortega appearing at the microphone,
he stated that the group he represented had decided on
its own order and would start with an individual named
Greg Aguirre, an individual (not a student) dressed in
the uniform of the Brown Berets.
Aguirre took the microphone and started to address
the audience. He was instructed by the President of the
Board to address his statements to the Board. Aguirre
said he was going to speak to the people and not to the
School Board. Ortega then stated:
"Go ahead, Greg."
(Exhibit 09-0119, film and
tape of the meeting.)
Aguirre then shouted to the crowd as the Board
Chairman declared him out of order. The Board then ad-
journed. Several individuals began to shout and a dis-
ruption took place. Ortega was directly involved in the
disruption (gave leadership to it) and was warned by the
(120)
Chief of Police of Delano that he was in danger of being
arrested for attempting to incite a riot.
The real intent of the demonstration at Delano
High School is reflected in a leaflet that was circulated,
calling young Chicanos to a rally at Heritage Park. The
leaflet reads:
"RALLY IN SYMPATHY. DELANO STUDENT WALKOUT.
HERITAGE PARK. SPEAKERS: Greg Aguirre -
Prime Minister, Brown Berets of Delano, Gary
Rangel - Student Leader Delano High School,
Inez Flores - Coordinator of Student Walkouts,
Jess Alcala - C.S.O., Maria Lopez - Friday,
15th of May, at 2:30 p.m. Attend to show
support - Oppression can happen to you.
Stop it now. Viva La Causa."
(Exhibit 09-0119-10.)
In this instance, the CRLA office, through paid
CRLA attorney Martin Glick, sent out press releases from
the CRLA office to rationalize actions within the Park
and demonstrations at the School. (Exhibit 09-0119-25.)
During the whole explosive period, CRLA Attorney
Ortega was observed conferring with students. During the
rally at Heritage Park in Bakersfield, the area was
decorated with pictures of Che Guevara. A pamphlet was
distributed before the meeting outlining the Brown Beret
ten-point program. (Exhibit 09-0119-09.)
On Tuesday, May 19, 1970, Ortega filed an action
for injunctive relief on behalf of 18 young people and 16
(121)
adults arrested as a result of their activities at Herit-
age Park. The School Board in Delano wishes to pursue it,
because they feel that they have a good case. Several per-
sons represented by Ortega in the suit have criminal records,
including arrests for possession of and sale of heroin.
Picketing of businesses owned by School Board members con-
tinued, at times becoming loud and unruly.
On June 12, 1970, during the Delano High School
graduation exercises, an attempt was made to create an in-
cident. Fifteen people, mostly students, were arrested.
It is understood that Ortega and paid CRLA Attorney Gerald
McManigal, of the McFarland office, were at the Delano
Police Station as soon as the arrested students were
brought in. At this time crowds blocked exits and entrances
of the Police Station and slashed Police vehicle tires.
Picketing continued in Delano, and the father of one of
the students, who helped Police at the graduation dis-
turbance, was allegedly called by several persons, includ-
ing Ortega, who threatened the individual with legal action.
Fourteen of Fifteen arrested were convicted. (Mexican-
American citizens were included on the jury.) (Exhibit
09-0119-30.)
A memorandum dated June 29, 1970, to Assemblymen
Leon D. Ralph and John Vasconcellos, from James Smith,
(122)
Attorney, CRLA, quotes John Ortega, a CRLA attorney, as
the identified spokesman for the striking students, in
that he acted as their advisor during the time the stu-
dents were on strike. (Exhibit 09-0119-05.)
This letter, along with many documents enclosed,
indicates the heavy involvement of John Ortega and other
CRLA attorneys in this incident at Delano. (Documents on
the Delano School case are Exhibits 09-0119-01 through
108.)
(7) CRLA Attorney and Four-Letter Words.
CRLA paid staff attorney Philip Neumark, of the
Modesto office, in a class panel discussion at the Grace
M. Davis High School in Modesto, used the words "shit"
and derivatives of that word and proceeded to write the
phrase "F*ck Viet Nam" on the blackboard before the class.
According to the investigation report of a Mr. P.
Doane, investigator for the Stanislaus County District
Attorney's office:
"Three 50-minute presentations were made.
Each was made to approximately 90 Junior
class members both male and female, 16 and
17 years of age. Mr. Ralph (the Director
of the History Department and moderator of
the panel) stated that during the first
session, while comparing the Viet Nam war
to an obscenity, Neumark said some form of
the word 'shit.' Ralph stated that he was
unsure of the exact word used. Ralph said
(123)
that he had discussed the event with other
members of the History Department who were
present at the time, a Mr. Nichols and Mr.
Gonsalves. They concurred only in that it
was some form of this word.
"Immediately following the first session
Nichols informed Neumark that 'he should not
use that word again.' Ralph stated that this
had been done in his presence.
"In the second presentation, while making the
same comparison as before, Neumark wrote the
following words on the blackboard: 'F*CK
VIET NAM. Ralph stated that he immediately
made a comment that Neumark's conduct was
uncalled for and had no place in the pre-
sentation.
"Ralph said that there were no problems dur-
ing the third session
(Exhibit 17-0136-04;
emphasis added.)
(8) Sonoma Schools - Drug Abuse Letter Con-
troversy.
In December, 1968, in Sonoma, California, Robert
Bell (who was at that time a paid CRLA attorney) became
involved in a local high school matter following the
mailing of the "drug use rumor" letter to some 150 parents
of Sonoma Valley High School students. The School prin-
cipal, Mr. Max Murray, had agreed to meet with representa-
tives of students protesting the letter. On the morning
prior to this meeting, Bell appeared at the high school
with a number of students requesting an audience with
Murray. Murray spoke briefly with Bell, emphasizing that
he would meet with the students alone, as agreed, the
following day, and not before.
(124)
The meeting held the following day between Principal
Murray and the student representatives was delayed for a
time when Bell joined them and attempted to inject himself
into the meeting as a "representative" of the students.
Two of the students claimed that Bell did not even rep-
resent them at all. Murray subsequently made it plain
that there would be no meeting at all if Bell insisted on
participating, and so Bell departed.
At a subsequent School Board meeting on the same
issue, Bell once again attempted to speak, saying that
some parents of students had asked him to attend. He was
technically ruled out of order because he is not a parent
of a child in the Sonoma Valley School System. (Exhibits
08-070-01.)
(9) El Centro "Free Chavez" Demonstration
On December 11, 1970 (during the time of our evalu-
ation study), UFWOC and CRLA fomented a demonstration in
front of the Imperial County administration building in
El Centro to free Cesar Chavez.
On that date, ninety-two pupils were transported
by private auto and truck from the Brawley Union High
School, Brawley, and the Barbara Worth Junior High School,
Brawley, with neither parental nor school consent to take
part in the demonstration.
(125)
Fifty-four students were taken from Barbara Worth
Junior High School and thirty-eight students from Braw-
ley Union High. (Exhibits 09-0201-01 and -02.)
Parents were immediately contacted by both schools
to inform the parents of their childrens' truancy. Only
one parent knew where her child was; she said, "He has
gone to El Centro, with Casa de Amistad, to riot," as
repeated in a letter from Mr. James C. Thompson, Super-
vising Principal of Barbara Worth School. (Exhibit
09-0201-01.)
Prior to the mass movement of students and the
demonstration, meetings to plan and coordinate the demon-
stration were held at the Casa de Amistad--a community
center of the Rural Development Corporation which is
funded by OEO.
On the day of the demonstration, Casa de Amistad
was the assembly point and the place of embarkation for
the young people on their trip to Imperial Valley Col-
lege (Imperial, California) where they arrived at 10:20
a.m.
The arrivals were conducted to the college amphi-
theater where CRLA Community Worker Hesiquio Banaga
(who also transported children to the post-demonstration
(126)
rally) led the young people in chants of "Huelga"
"Viva la raza"
"We want Chavez freed"
"Chicano
power"
etc.
In attendance at the post-demonstration
rally was CRLA staff attorney Robert Johnstone who also
works out of the El Centro office and who is usually on
hand at UFWOC disturbances in Imperial County area.
Johnstone is also the legal advisor for Casa de Amistad
and has stated publicly that he is a legal advisor to
UFWOC at strike locations.
Present as an observer during the post-demonstra-
tion rally was Mr. A. Septich, Dean of Student Personnel,
Imperial Valley College, who, in a letter to Sheriff
Raymond Rowe (Imperial County) dated January 4, 1971,
stated:
"I was four or five hundred feet away (from
the rally) and was not able to understand
the conversation; however, for almost the
entire meeting, the group was led by Zeke
(Hesiquio) Banaga. 11
Dean Septich also writes:
"Other off-campus people observed included
Mr. Robert Johnstone, CRLA attorney."
Dean Septich further writes:
"Following the approximate fifteen-minute
meeting, they (the children) marched, two
abreast, across campus to the parking lot
and in turn headed down Ira Aten Road to
the west. " (Exhibit 09-0201-03--Emphasis
added.)
(127)
This was approximately 11:00 a.m. and the demon-
stration at the Imperial County administration building
(approximately seven miles from the College) did not
begin until 3:00 p.m., thus the children must have been
marching about four hours.
Dean Septich took down license numbers of the cars
and trucks that transported the children from Brawley
to Valley College. One license number recorded was UTR-853,
registered to Hesiquio Banaga, the CRLA Community Worker
from the El Centro office. (Exhibits 09-0201-09 and -10.)
10) Summation
Within the limited time frame of our evaluation,
it has become crystal clear that the political and emo-
tional bent of far too many CRLA attorneys traverses the
far left extremity of the socio-political spectrum.
Professional actions of CRLA are, in too many in-
stances, governed by this zealous compulsion. Their
record in school agitation actions substantiates this
point with clarity.
What legal service to the poor is rendered when
a young extremist attorney writes the word "f*ck" on a
school blackboard before a class of young people?
(128)
How are the rural poor helped when a school dis-
trict's class schedule is brought to an abrupt stand-
still?
How can any right-thinking person allow public
subsidy of a program that seeks to cause racial con-
frontations and fan the flames of racial discontent?
Is this to be done in the name of legal assistance?
We think not. The image of law displayed by too many
CRLA attorneys is a vision of dissent - on the streets
if it is expedient- not a basic concern for justice.
It is our firm opinion that a great many CRLA
attorneys are "true believers", hitchhiking a ride at
the expense of the rural poor to achieve a dislocation
of our social, political and economic order.
(129)
C. CRLA AND THE FARM.
(1) Introduction.
CRLA operates in rural and, therefore, largely farm-
ing areas. The relationship of CRLA to farmers, farm
workers and the farm industry is intimate. The State
Government of California is equally deeply enmeshed in
agriculture (California is the number one agricultural
state in the union), functioning in areas of farm worker
housing, health and safety standards enforcement, farm
labor services and so on. The Farm Labor Services Division
of the Department of Human Resources Development, State
of California has 42 offices throughout the State which
act, among other things, as a rallying point or market-
place for farm workers so that they may be readily linked
up with available farm work.
(2) CRLA's Relationship With Farm Labor Services.
One might have expected development of a close work-
ing relationship between CRLA and the Farm Labor Services
of California, so that the interests of rural poor farm
workers could be advanced most effectively. Unfortunately,
we find the relationship with Farm Labor Services to be
extremely poor. The reason for this is that CRLA makes
it clear from its actions (and even its words) that it
is seeking to put Farm Labor Services of the State of
California out of business.
(130)
The record is replete with substantiation of this
thrust on the part of CRLA:
(1) On March 5, 1970, CRLA filed an action
commonly known as 250 Farm Workers V. Schultz,
in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, seeking,
among other things, to close down the Farm
Labor Service of the State of California;
(Exhibit 09-0116)
(2) As noted previously in another section
of this report, CRLA sought and obtained its
plaintiffs for the 250 Farm Workers suit by a
variety of subterfuge and misrepresentation.
One man, who was approached to sign a petition
while attending a remedial class in English,
for Spanish-speaking farm workers held at
night in a local high school, stated as
follows:
"A Mr. Del Buono of California Rural Legal Aid
spoke to the class. He asked the whole group
to sign a petition to get the State Farm Labor
offices closed. He said that these offices
were not of any benefit to the worker and that
the offices should be closed, because if they
were closed then the workers would get higher
wages. He recommended that if the offices
were closed then the farmers could come to a
union run by the workers or an agency run by
the workers. Mr. Del Buono tried to get all
of us to sign the petition. Everyone else
signed it but I did not." (Exhibit 09-0116)
(131)
(3) A former employee of one of CRLA's offices,
stated in her affidavit the following:
11
Many cases were established as a result
of manufactured situations. I mean by this
that clients or potential clients were in-
structed in certain actions and dialogue with
agencies and private firms that would lead
to litigation
Another case I can recall
involved a man at the Day Hall Center,
California Farm Labor Service. The persons
who were sent to the Day Hall Center were
instructed as to actions to take and what
to say. These instructions came from Dennis
Powell, who was the directing attorney. As
I recall, this case involved people handing
out leaflets and literature at the Day Hall
Center. I do not recall the exact instructions
given or to whom they were given. Mr. Powell
did coach the persons who went to the Day Hall
Center on exact actions to take and instruc-
tions as to what they were to say. I know he
wanted the Farm Labor Service to have to remove
people from the premises and thereby provide a
cause of action against the Farm Labor Service
to the end of abolishing it." (Exhibit 09-0174 -
emphasis added.)
In a vacuum, the termination of Farm Labor Services
would appear at best folly and at worst disastrous. Without
conveniently located centers through which they could find
avilable farm work, it would appear that farm workers would
be severely harmed and would have to return to their own de-
vices for work opportunities, possibly going from farm to
farm or other inefficient methods. But, of course, we are
not operating in a vacuum. As noted in the above statement,
Mr. Del Buono suggested that in the absence of Farm Labor
Service offices, "the farmers could come to a union run by
(132)
the workers or an agency run by the workers." It is just
possible that Mr. Del Buono had an already extant union in
mind.
(3) CRLA and the Farm Labor Contractor.
In many areas of California, individuals known as
farm labor contractors perform a vital function in the
agricultural economy. These men are independent contract-
ors who organize groups of farm workers in crews to service
the farmers' labor needs.
Ordinarily, the farm labor contractor operates as
an independent contractor, arranging with the farmer on a
fixed-fee contract or a percentage in excess of the actual
farm labor dollars involved. For this the farm labor con-
tractors often provide living facilities, transportation
and other services for the farm workers.
On behalf of certain farm workers, CRLA filed a class
action in Santa Maria in October, 1969, against a farm
labor contractor. (Gates and Avila, and all farm workers
similarly situated, V. Tony Cedillos, Santa Maria No. 7145)
The defendant, Cedillos, had made a practice of advancing
wages to the farm workers on his crews so that they would
have money to live on between paydays. He would then deduct
the advances on payday. Obviously, this was a service to
the farm worker and served to create the kind of relationship
with the workers that assured Cedillos of having proper work
crews readily available.
(133)
CRLA claims that the deduction from the workers'
wages of the wage advances was equivalent to a garnishment
and, therefore, Cedillos could withhold only 50% of the
amount advanced. Cedillos responded that this argument
made no legal sense, for garnishment occurs only in a
circumstance when a third party creditor seeks to reach
wages of an employee currently in the hands of an employer.
Although the suit is still pending, a demurrer has been
sustained in favor of the defendant regarding the class
action status of the suit, and it has been transferred
from Superior to Municipal Court, because the dollar amounts
are inconsequential.
In the case of Hernandez V. Paramount Growers, Inc.
(Kern County Municipal Court No. 54182), plaintiffs sought
to hold the grower liable for wages after the labor con-
tractor who employed them had been paid by the grower and
refused to pay the plaintiffs. The Division of Labor Law
Enforcement made an investigation of the matter and determined
that the labor contractor was the employer, not Paramount
Growers, Inc., and proceeded to collect the money from him.
Although the needs of the plaintiffs for their wages
have been satisfied, CRLA apparently intends to bring the
action to trial and to appeal the courts action sus-
taining defendants demurrer. Why? Probably because
(134)
this constitutes a direct thrust at the legal status of
farm labor contractors. UFWOC refuses to recognize farm
labor contractors as employers under its closed shop
contracts. If the court should decide that farm labor
contractors are merely agents of the growers, not employers
of farm labor in their own right, UFWOC could claim that
it is legally entitled to ignore the farm labor contractors
for union bargaining purposes and bind the workers through
any labor contract negotiated directly with individual
growers. They could then achieve dues checkoff directly
within the growers.
CRLA and UFWOC have combined to seek administrative
hearings against farm labor contractors, for a variety
of alleged causes. Many of the farm labor contractors
are very poor themselves. The poor or marginal farm
labor contractor, when confronted with a lawsuit or an
administrative hearing, may well find it financially
impossible to continue on in this business. Even the
larger operators, such as those who do provide housing,
transportation, etc., find a time-consuming and expensive
lawsuit too much to handle.
If the institution of farm labor contractors (they
are licensed and are subject to rules of operation and
conduct) were severely constricted by legal harassment,
(135)
and if the Farm Labor Services Division of the State of
California were terminated, what would be left for the
farm worker in the way of assistance in locating employment?
Who would he turn to?
(4) CRLA Relationship with UFWOC.
Both the Economic Opportunity Act (Section 603 and
attendant regulations) and the special conditions to CRLA's
1970 grant prohibit CRLA from representing a labor union
(see grant conditions set forth at the end of this section).
Nevertheless, CRLA's relationship with the United
Farm Workers' Organizing Committee (UFWOC) has been a
subject of controversy since CRLA began in 1966. In
September, 1967, Congressman Robert B. Mathias wrote to
the Comptroller General of the United States and requested
that the General Accounting Office (GAO) conduct an
investigation of CRLA's activities, with particular
attention to its relationship with UFWOC.
GAO conducted a two-month investigation at the end
of 1967 and published its findings in a report dated
May 29, 1968, entitled "Report on Investigation of Certain
Activities of the California Rural Legal Assistance, Inc.
Under Grants by Office of Economic Opportunity." (Exhibit
03-0150) In his cover letter to Congressman Mathias,
Acting Comptroller General Frank H. Weitzel concluded:
(136)
"We found no evidence that the grantee was
working directly for the union or that the
activities we reviewed violated special grant
conditions relating to union activities.
11
(Page 1, of the Report.)
In the face of the GAO's Report, no one has had the
temerity to reopen the issue. Judging from its refunding
proposal for 1971, CRLA itself regards the issue as closed:
"Given the credentials of the Government Ac-
counting Office as an investigating agency,
and given the thoroughness of their investi-
gation in this particular case, accusations
regarding CRLA's illicit connection with labor
unions have become less frequent." (Refunding
proposal, page 33.)
Our investigation of the relationship between CRLA
and UFWOC demands that the case be reopened. Far from
disposing of the issue, the GAO Report has served as a
launching pad for a relationship that has grown steadily
since 1968, when the Report was released. This growth
has taken place despite efforts to strengthen the special
conditions to CRLA's grant in each of the funding years
1968, 1969, and 1970. If the GAO had conducted its study
under the stricter conditions applied since 1968, we are
confident they would have reached different conclusions.
The GAO Report has served as a mystic shield that
until now has defied penetration. We are confident that
if the team investigating CRLA - UFWOC relationships at
the end of 1967 had known what we know now about the
(137)
relationship, they would have regarded the evidence in
an entirely different light. The issue has been closed
since mid-1968. The importance of effective legal services
for the rural poor demands that we reopen it.
The close association of CRLA with UFWOC is suggested
by the following examples:
--UFWOC's first major target area was the grape strike in
Delano. In 1968 CRLA's McFarland office, which services
Delano, was among the largest of its regional offices. In
1969 and 1970 the union shifted its attention toward Imperial
County and Salinas. During those two years, the CRLA
McFarland office shrunk to approximately one-half its
former size, as it built up its offices in El Centro and
Salinas.
--CRLA's original Board of Trustees included four members
who were either directly connected with UFWOC or closely
associated with its work. They were: Cesar Chavez,
President of UFWOC; Oscar Gonzales, President of the
United Farmworkers of San Jose; Larry Itliong, of the
Agricultural Workers Organizing Committee; and Miss Kathryn
Peake, Vice Chairman, Emergency Committee to Aid Farm-
workers.
(138)
--Jerry Cohen, now General Counsel of UFWOC, was formerly
employed in CRLA's McFarland office. Charles Farnsworth,
one of Cohen's partners and active in UFWOC matters, worked
in CRLA's El Centro office. Another partner, David Averbuck,
came from CRLA's Marysville office. Gilbert Flores (alias
Baby Huey) is both a community worker for CRLA's McFarland
office and a personal bodyguard for UFWOC's Cesar Chavez.
--In Longoria, et al., V. Martin Produce, Inc., et al.,
CRLA filed a suit on behalf of nine plaintiffs against a
former employer who allegedly fired them because of their
union affiliation. The GAO Report concluded:
"Although some aspects of this case are union
related, on the basis of information available
to us, we are unable to conclude that CRLA, in
representing the farm workers, was acting dir-
ectly for UFWOC." (At page 12)
In its report, the GAO did not consider the information
that became available subsequently, that the plaintiffs
were brought to CRLA by one Jose Luna, a member of UFWOC's
Organizing Committee. (Exhibit 16-0073-53)
Furthermore, in her statement, a former employee of
the CRLA Salinas office stated, "This same situation (wherein
the men were instructed as to how to go about organizing a
union and then when they were discharged an action was
filed against the employer) occurred in the Martin Produce
Inc. Case." (Exhibit 09-0174)
(139)
The Report disposed of the question of eligibility
by the finding, supported by the Regional Director of OEO's
Western Region, that CRLA had referred the case to a referral
panel of private attorneys, which rejected the case.
On eligibility, the Report concludes:
"The directing attorney also informed us that the
case had been accepted only after it had been re-
jected by the 11 members of the Salinas Lawyers
Reference Service panel, because they believed
that the case would be too time consuming and
that the plaintiffs would be unable to pay an
appropriate retainer."
The facts appear to be otherwise. Mr. John Martin,
President of the defendant company, wrote Congressman Mathias
on this point:
"Since the GAO investigators were in my office,
it has been admitted to me by attorney Jim Leach
that CRLA didn't check with anyone other than
himself. In my conversation with Mr. Leach he
stated "what was he to do" when Mr. Gnaizda
lied to him regarding the fact that no attor-
neys had been referred to in Monterey County."
(Draft of letter from Martin, President of
Martin Produce Company, to Mathias.) (Exhibit
16-0073-55)
In the negotiations, CRLA acted exactly like a labor
union. They negotiated for wages, hours, and working con-
ditions. (Exhibit 16-0073-53) The collective bargaining
atmosphere is supported by the fact that in settlement,
the plaintiffs actually got more than they asked for in
their complaint. The threat of suit was too much for the
(140)
defendant to bear, and so he yielded to superior economic
power, as he might have to a labor union.
In early June 1970, during UFWOC's melon strike in
Imperial County, at least one CRLA attorney and one CRLA
community organizer were filmed participating in the union
picketing. The film shows the community organizer with a
bullhorn, suggesting a supervisory role for the CRLA employees
in the union's activities on that day. (Exhibit 09-0119)
The full extent of CRLA's activities in melon strike
during May and June 1970 are described in a letter to our
office from James E. Hamilton, District Attorney of Imperial
County, and Oren Fox, a lieutenant in the Imperial County
Sheriff's Office. These two gentlemen describe the follow-
ing involvement, which they witnessed personally:
" (1) Hector Reyes (a community worker with CRLA's
El Centro Office) was observed on a daily basis
acting as one of the principle leaders of the
striker's group. He directed their activities
with a bull horn and was obviously in a position
of leadership during the entire strike.
" (2) Ezequiel Banaga (a community worker with
CRLA's El Centro Office) was observed frequently
on the picket lines and in a vehicle in the
vicinity of the picket lines in such a manner
that he appeared to be directing the movement
of the strike group from one field to another.
" (3) Robert Johnstone was observed on several
occasions in the company of the strike group
acting in an advisory capacity. He questioned
the undersigned Fox on two different occasions
(141)
concerning the legality of the actions of the
Sheriff's deputies present at the scene. On
about three or four occasions, the undersigned
Fox observed Johnstone and Banage conferring
in the vicinity of one of the picketed melon
fields."
(Exhibit 03-0151)
On June 4, 1970, and again on June 11, CRLA pur-
chased first 100 and then 15 sheets of 22 X 28 white
poster board. The first purchase was made by attorney
Robert Johnstone of CRLA's El Centro office, and the
second by Hesiquio Banaga, a community worker also in
the El Centro office (Exhibits 03-0152 and 03-0153 show
invoices.)
Following CRLA's conspicuous participation in UFWOC's
melon strike picketing in Imperial County, a local news-
paper columnist revealed what many people in the community
suspected: that CRLA had purchased the poster board for
UFWOC's picketing in its Imperial County melon strike. The
purchase was explained, however, as a "loan", which CRLA
could prove had been repaid. Query: Was CRLA repaid for
the time spent by its personnel in the purchases (or
was that "time off")? Was CRLA suggesting UFWOC is an
eligible client and therefore entitled to a loan? (Ex-
hibit 03-0198)
The August evaluation of CRLA stated about the
program's relationship with UFWOC in McFarland:
(142)
"As opposed to the other legal services offices
in CRLA in the State, McFarland, from its incep-
tion, has been subject to suspicion and attack
by all aspects of the community because of the
different social and political contact of the
growers and the emerging union. We spoke to a
lot of people in the community, both pro and con,
to the office. What emerged is, at this point in
time, a cautious optimism. This is how several
persons expressed it. The people have never really
been able to distinguish in McFarland and Delano,
the difference between the role of CRLA and the
role of the union. They cite several examples
such as the initial case that the McFarland
office brought against the growers by the workers
and immediately those initial cases linked
McFarland's office with the union activity.
They cite the interchange of attorneys between
the CRLA and now the union law firm. Now there
are three lawyers who are members of the other
CRLA office and they cite the similarity of
the legal action brought by the union attorneys
and by CRLA. They cite one of the community
organizers for the McFarland office is Cesar
Chavez' personal bodyguard. All these
instances make it difficult for the community
to deliberate (sic) the role of CRLA attorneys
from union attorneys." (Exhibit 11-0134)
In the August 1970, UFWOC called its lettuce strike
in Salinas and listed with the Monterey County Sheriff's
Office the local CRLA office as its local contact point
in Salinas. See the affidavit of Captain Scott, Exhibit
03-0186.
On September 23, 1970, a teamster organizer was
"riddled with bullets" beside a Guadalupe Highway, and
sheriff's deputies caught three men minutes later from
a description of the get-away car and jailed them on
suspicion of attempted murder. All three are members of
(143)
the UFWOC Organizing Committee. A local news story
indicated that CRLA Attorney Burton Fretz of the CRLA
Santa Maria office was one of two attorneys who inquired
about the accused at the Sheriff's Sub-station.
(Exhibit 03-0154) In addition, the Deputy District
Attorney of Santa Barbara County states in affidavit:
"
after the arrest of Raul Santiago, UFWOC
Union Labor Organizer, and two others for at-
tempted murder, Mr. Fretz was the first attor-
ney to appear for the UFWOC to interview and
advise Mr. Santiago and the other two arrestees
at the Sheriff's Station. In fact, he made at
least two contacts with the defendants on that
particular day." (Affidavit of Deputy District
Attorney Houlihan.) (Exhibit 03-0155)
In June 1969, UFWOC sued a number of defendants,
including one Angeline F. Mariano for damages for demon-
strating against UFWOC's organizing efforts. Mrs. Mariano
went to the McFarland office of CRLA for help in
defending the suit. Her husband's salary of $300 per
month (for only part of the year) and two additional
dependents placed her well within the eligibility limits
to qualify for service. She relates the incidence as
follows:
"
I had no money with which to hire a lawyer.
I went to the CRLA office in McFarland
I
went into the reception room and told the
receptionist I had a problem and had to see an
attorney. She told me to wait
she came
back in five or ten minutes and told me I
would have to wait quite a little while as
the attorney was busy. I waited about an
hour or hour and one half. While I waited
I didn't see anyone else go in to see any
attorney or coming out of the office area. 11
(144)
Finally she was permitted to go in:
"I told him I had a big problem and didn't have
money to hire an attorney. He asked me what my
problem was. I told him I was being sued and
handed him the papers. He looked at the first
sheet of this complaint at the top part and
handed the paper back to me. He then asked me,
"What does your husband earn?", and I told him.
He said he was sorry, but there was nothing he
could do to help me. Then he suggested that I get
together with the other people named in the suit
and hire an attorney, that it wouldn't cost much
money. I told him that even $100 looked like a
million dollars and I just couldn't raise it.
He said there was nothing he could do for me,
that CRLA could only help migrant farm workers
who earned less than $2500 per year. I told him
the only people you take care of is Cesar Chavez
and UFWOC. He didn't say anything, but, looked
at me with a smirk."
CRLA not only serves UFWOC directly, it refuses
service, even if they are poor to those who oppose the
union. (Exhibit 04-004F).
On September 4, 1970, during a UFWOC rally in
support of the union's lettuce strike in Salinas, a per-
son identified as Neil Levy, who is listed as an attorney
with the CRLA Salinas Office, is reported by a newsman to
have addressed the rally and offered the support of the
CRLA Salinas office, to defend against unlawful detainer
actions.
A T.V. film clip in the possession of our office
describes the scene as follows:
"California Rural Legal Assistance Attorney Neil
Levy asked that all workers return summonses from
(145)
growers notifying them to leave the camp, so they
can be answered in court, adding that in that way
he may be able to prolong the day of eviction."
The unlawful detainer actions grew out of the
growers' practice of frequently paying part of their com-
pensation in the form of housing for the workers and their
families. When the union called the strike, the employers
naturally sought to cut off all compensation, which
included free housing. The effect of CRLA's intervention
on behalf of the union was to bring additional economic
pressure to bear on the employers - an explicit union
responsibility - and to force perpetuation of part
compensation (the housing) by the employer.
In the case of Ardantz V. Pichardo, CRLA used this
tactic in a strike in Santa Maria. The affidavit
of the attorney who handled the case for the landlord-
employer states:
"During the Summer of 1970 there was a strike,
the farm workers no longer performed their work
and Ardantz asked the Picha rdo family to leave,
which they refused to do. Ardantz served the
Pichardo family with a 30-day notice to leave.
Again they did not leave. A complaint was filed
for unlawful detainer
By law, the individual
must answer the complaint within three days. CRLA
advised the Pichardo family that they did not have
to leave the premises and subsequently filed a
motion to quash service of the summons. CRLA was
attacking the legality of the three-day unlawful
detainer claiming that it was unconstitutional be-
cause it did not allow sufficient time for the
individual to put in an answer to the complaint.
The brief that was submitted supporting this
(146)
contention undoubtedly required much longer to
compile than an answer would have taken. A
hearing on the motion was set, it was denied.
The defendants were subsequently given time to
answer the complaint; however, no answer was
filed because the Pichardo family had moved."
(Exhibit 22-1035--Emphasis added.)
CRLA's open and formal commitment to UFWOC strikers
is dramatized by the attached affidavit of McFarland's
Chief of Police, G. Charles Mayes:
"In the CRLA offices, 332 West Perkins, McFarland,
I have personally seen a poster of the "Red Eagle"
with the word, in Spanish, "Huelga," which means
"strike" in English. Also, bumper stickers of
"Strikers" on the wall that show, in Spanish,
"La Raza", which means "The Causes" in English.
There were also pictures of "Strikers" on the
walls
" (Exhibit 03-015F)
On November 24, 1970 invoices show CRLA's El
Centro office purchased from Bailey Office Supply, 626
Main Street, El Centro, 10 "poster board, white, 22 X 28".
(Exhibit 03-0156). On December 11 the "Free Chavez March"
took place in El Centro, in which 22 X 28 posters were
used by the demonstrators.
On December 11, at 9:00 a.m., 34 high school
pupils were taken from their classes at the Barbara Worth
Junior High School in Brawley to participate in a march
to El Centro for a demonstration on the courthouse steps
to free Cesar Chavez, who was then in jail. (Exhibit
03-0159). At 9:20 the same morning an additional 16
students left school. Four others never showed up at all
but participated directly in the demonstration. The total
(147)
number of absences was 54. In addition, school officials
feel many parents kept their children at home to prevent
their participation, as absences were almost double for
the day.
In the previous week, at the "Casa de Armistad" in
Brawley, a community center, we are informed that the
students were enticed to join the march by two UFWOC
workers and Robert Johnstone, an attorney at the CRLA
El Centro office.
The students were taken by car and possibly bus
from "Casa de Armistad" to Imperial College without
parental consent. Many parents in the community were
furious with what happened, and at the time of this
writing, many parents are considering taking legal action
against CRLA and UFWOC. Petitions for signature are being
circulated at this time in protest.
Robert Johnstone was present and involved during
the entire march. (Exhibit 03-0158).
The parents whose children left school to join the
march were contacted by the school's principal, Jim
Thompson, and other school staff members. Only one parent
knew where the students were - she stated that her child
"went to El Centro to riot."
In September, 1970, during UFWOC's lettuce strike
in Salinas, a CRLA community organizer identified as one
(148)
Manuel Olivas addressed some high school students at a
formal outdoor meeting and urged them to participate in
UFWOC activities. (We have a photograph of this.)
During a strike in Santa Maria, Charles
Farnsworth, a UFWOC attorney formerly with CRLA, came to
Santa Maria. Deputy District Attorney for the County of
Santa Barbara, James Houlihan stated:
"During his stay in town I saw Mr. Farnsworth in
constant company with Mr. Fretz of CRLA. In fact,
on one occasion, Mr. Joseph Gallas, an attorney at
law, informed me that if I could not find Mr. Farns-
worth at the Union Hall, he would probably be at the
office of the CRLA as he was using their law library
and, by innuendo, possibly their staff to do legal
work." (Exhibit 03-0155).
On November 27, 1970, at approximately 6:30 P.M.,
Robert Johnstone, an attorney at CRLA's El Centro office,
and Gilbert Flores (alias "Baby Huey"), a community worker
for CRLA's McFarland office, and body guard for Cesar
Chavez, were described by a police report as leading a
march of militant demonstrators behind the Christmas Parade
in Delano. Police Captain Harry D. Gilbert of the Delano
Police Department describes the incident as follows:
"The Delano Police Department, while handling
traffic control for a parade in the downtown area
of Delano, was confronted by a group of 25 to 30
longhaired militants led by Robert B. Johnstone,
CRLA attorney, El Centro Office, and Gilbert Flores
AKA Baby Huey, CRLA employee, McFarland office.
"This group marched down Main Street with their arms
interlocked, blocking traffic in both directions,
(149)
shouting "Viva La Raza", Viva Cesar Chavez, etc.
Police officers stationed along the parade route
confronted the group and ordered them out of the
street since they were blocking traffic. John-
stone and Baby Huey then led the group, four
abreast, northbound on the west sidewalk of Main
Street, forcing pedestrians into the gutter.
"I approached the group in front of the Bank of
America building in the 1300 block of Main Street.
When they observed me, Johnstone shouted in a loud
voice "huddle". The group then surrounded him in
a tight congregation and he spoke to them in a
low voice. They immediately dispersed and went in
all directions. Johnstone and Baby Huey met with
John Ortega at the Filipino Hall at Glenwood and
Cecil Aveneu approximately ten minutes later where
they conducted a meeting attended by approximately
200 people, mostly of Mexican descent, many of
whom are known to man the picket lines for UFWOC's
demonstrations." (Exhibit 03-0160)
Four patrolmen, who witnessed the event, also pro-
vided statements. (Exhibit 03-0160)
Mr. John F. Adam, Jr., of Santa Maria, received a
letter from UFWOC that was sent in an envelope bearing the
return address of the CRLA Santa Maria Office. Mr. Adams
recalls the incident in affidavit:
"Another incident that disturbed me was the
receipt of a letter from United Farm Workers
Organizing Committee (UFWOC) notifying me, as
an owner of Adam Farms, that UFWOC was about to
file a law suit against Adam Farms for supposed
wrong-doing against farm workers. This letter
was inside an envelope which bore the return
address of CRLA Office in Santa Maria. I inquired
at the CRLA Office and was informed that evidently
these envelopes had gotten into the wrong hands.
(Affidavit of John F. Adam, Jr., Dec. 22, 1970.)
Exhibit 03-0161.
(150)