Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "118564776",
    "label": "CRLA - Study and Evaluation of CRLA by California OEO, 1971 (3 of 6)",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564776"
}

{
    "id": "118564776",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564776",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "CRLA - Study and Evaluation of CRLA by California OEO, 1971 (3 of 6)",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564776",
    "identifierLocal": "840",
    "collections": [
        "Ronald Reagan's Governor's Papers of the Press Unit",
        "California Rural Legal Assistance (CRLA) Files"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408627/40-840-7408627-P29-015-2017.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408627/40-840-7408627-P29-015-2017.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408627/40-840-7408627-P29-015-2017.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564776",
    "naId": 118564776,
    "coverageEndDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1975-12-31",
        "year": 1975
    },
    "coverageStartDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1967-01-01",
        "year": 1967
    },
    "levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
    "recordType": "description",
    "ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}

{
    "seq": 1,
    "pageIndex": 0,
    "type": "document",
    "url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408627/40-840-7408627-P29-015-2017.pdf",
    "mediaId": "5a5f7c4cb37ad56a",
    "ocrText": "Ronald Reagan Presidential Library\nDigital Library Collections\nThis is a PDF of a folder from our textual collections.\nCollection: Reagan, Ronald: Gubernatorial Papers,\n1966-74: Press Unit\nFolder Title: CRLA - Study and Evaluation of CRLA\nby California OEO, 1971 (3 of 6)\nBox: P29\nTo see more digitized collections visit:\nhttps://reaganlibrary.gov/archives/digital-library\nTo see all Ronald Reagan Presidential Library inventories visit:\nhttps://reaganlibrary.gov/document-collection\nContact a reference archivist at: [email protected]\nCitation Guidelines: https://reaganlibrary.gov/citing\nNational Archives Catalogue: https://catalog.archives.gov/\nspent the entire day, day after day, at the\nCity School's office, with the demonstrators\nwhere in fact they should have been at their\noffices doing their official duties talking to\nclients. Thirdly, they did represent some of\nthe demonstrators who were arrested, and the\ntwo, Lowenstein and Neumark, spent weeks in\ncourt defending the demonstrators. Some of\nthe demonstrators I suspect, did not even\nqualify for the representation under the law.\nThe courts were held in the daytime and not\nat night. The two lawyers claimed they were\ndoing so on their own time. While I was at\nthe City School's office demonstration scene\nI had a conversation with Mr. Neumark rela-\ntive to his counseling of the demonstrators who\nshould have been in school. The issue was\nwhat these young children were going to eat.\nMr. Neumark remarked, 'Monroe, feed the\nchildren something to eat and charge it to\nCRLA. After the school demonstrations I\ntalked to David Talamante, Manager of the\nthen Stanislaus County Cooperative Association,\n409 Mays Road, Modesto, who had furnished the\ndemonstrators lunches, and he told me that he\nhad billed CRLA $400 for the food, and that they\nhad paid for it. I think that this was a\nmisdirection of funds\nApparently they had\nalso printed up bumper stickers advocating\nfree lunches for the children during the\nModesto City School Bond elections. I feel\nthat the funds were not properly used as\nthere was a heavy caseload of poor clients\nwho needed representation while the two law-\nyers were off involved with demonstrations\nand defending them in court\nI am totally\nblind, and this statement has been read to\nme by Marge Werner.\"\n(Exhibit 09-0143-18;\nemphasis added.)\n(2) The Case of Kathe Fish and the Board of\nTrustees of Gavilan College.\nCRLA Attorneys Don B. Kates, Jr., Brian Paddock,\nDiane V. Delevett and Peter D. Coppelman, all of the CRLA\nGilroy office, filed suit in U. S. District Court for the\n(101)\nNorthern District of California on behalf of a student at\nGavilan College (Gilroy) named Kathe Fish (Fish V. Ralph\nShroeder, et al., No. 50634, January 29, 1969) in what\ncan only be termed a harassing action. The litigation\nembarked upon sought to prevent authorities from inter-\nfering with Miss Fish's distribution of revolutionary and\npornographic literature on the Gavilan Campus (Exhibit 08-\n0068-13) .\nOn January 14, 1969, the Board of Trustees of Gavilan\nCollege, Gilroy, California, considered a proposed policy\nfor establishing an uncensored bulletin board and table.\nGavilan student, Fish, represented by CRLA attorney Don\nKates, Jr., opposed the college rules governing the dis-\ntribution of materials at the meeting. The president of\nGavilan College states in an affidavit:\n\"Miss Fish and about 30 or 40 students who\nfollowed her lead were actively campaigning\nto have four-letter words' authorized for\nprinting in the college newspaper.\n(Exhibit 08-0068-04;\nemphasis added.)\nOn or about January 22, 1969, the president of the\ncollege was served with temporary restraining orders filed\nby CRLA on behalf of Miss Fish. The complaint alleged:\nDefendants, the President and members of\nthe Board of Trustees of the college, now\nseek to expel, suspend or otherwise exclude\nplaintiff because of her aforesaid activities.\n(102)\nGavilan College President, Ralph Shroeder, continues\nin his affidavit:\n\"I do not condone the activities of Miss Fish,\nbut I never harassed her in any way, and I did\nnot attempt to have her expelled from the\nCollege. The CRLA suit states that I tried\nto have Miss Fish excluded from campus, that\nI tried to intimidate Miss Fish and keep her\nfrom exercising her right todotain counsel\nof her choice, and that I tried to deter her\nfrom receiving benefits conferred by the\nEconomic Opportunity Act. None of the above\ncharges are true. It is my opinion that the\nCRLA grossly exaggerated the situation involv-\ning Miss Fish in order to make an issue where\nno real issue really existed.\n(Exhibit 08-0068-04;\nemphasis added.)\nNo negotiation or communication preceded the filing\nof the action, but the action did create tension and turmoil\non the campus and made discipline and normal stability all\nthe more difficult to maintain. Kathe Fish left the college\nnot long after this time and the suit was dropped. She be-\ncame involved in \"drug prevention work. On November 13,\n1970, a newspaper article revealed:\n\"Picked up in Sun Valley on a warrant from\nthe Santa Clara County Sheriff's office was\nKathe Fish, 20, who is accused of selling\nmarijuana to an undercover agent in Morgan\nHill.\"\n(Exhibit 08-0069-57.)\n(3) The Case of Hernandez V. the Principal of\nHollister High School.\nThe case of Hernandez, et al., V. Nichols, filed in\nthe U. S. District Court for Northern California, is typical\n(103)\nof CRLA's school agitation methodology. Mr. Nichols, super-\nintendent of North County unified schools in San Benito County\nwas charged with allegedly beating a Mexican-American youth.\nThe case is still pending against Mr. Nichols. There was\nalso a request for $34,950 damages on the part of Hernandez.\nPrior to filing of the case, CRLA had appeared at a County\nSchool Board meeting and confronted Mr. Nichols with their\ncharges and had attempted to make quite an issue of the case\n(Exhibit 08-0067-01)\n\"I am the District Superintendent for the\nNorth County Joint Union School District\nof San Benito County, with offices at the\nPacheco School, 6530 Lovers Lane, and at\n71 Orchard Road, Hollister, California.\nIn the early spring of 1970, the children of\nthe Max Hernandez family, then residing at\n4481 San Felipe Road, Hollister, registered\nfor school. Among those registering was a\nseventh grader named Fernando Hernandez.\nFernando became a disruptive influence in\neach class he was in and I received class\nroom teacher complaints for his misbehav-\nior. He would walk around the class room,\ntell the teachers to shut up, that he did\nnot have to obey them and would do as he\npleased. I asked all teachers in school\nto advise their pupils that anyone who\ndisrupted the teachers authority and\ndisrupted the classes would be sent out\nof class for discipline. These students\nare customarily sent to the lunch tables\nin the school yard and wait there until I\nhave the time to administer the necessary\ndiscipline. On or about April 3, 1970,\nanother child was sent out for discipline,\nand I suspended him for one day, after I\ntook him home and advised his parents of\nhis misbehavior. He was suspended until\nthe following Monday, this was in the\nmorning. In the afternoon I saw Fernando\n(104)\nHernandez, sitting at the tables and asked him\nwhy he was there. He told me that ano ther boy\nhad tried to beat him up in class. I asked\nhis teacher and was told that Fernando had\nrefused to do any work, and was disturbing\nthe class, and was holding another boy against\nthe wall and hitting him. I took Fernando by\nthe back of his collar, and swatted him two or\nthree times on his rear end when he held back\nenroute to the office. I sat him in the office\nuntil the schoolbus was ready to go. I had\ngiven him a note to take to his parents indi-\ncating he was suspended for one day, until\nthe following Monday for the following reasons:\n1-misbehavior, 2-fighting, 3-lack of respect,\nand 4-disobeying school safety rules. The next\nmorning, when I arrived at school, Dale Brown,\nHollister Sheriff's Office was there to obtain\na deposition about the Hernandez boy. The par-\nents alleged I had beaten and bruised the boy.\nA civil suit has been filed and is currently\npending. A news article in the April 17, 1970\nissue of the San Jose News carried a story of\na restraining order issued by Judge Robert\nPeckham restraining the San Benito County\nschool officials from physically punishing\nMexican-American pupils. Mr. Panelli, my\nattorney, examined a California Rural Legal\nAssistance attorney named Cates, and deter-\nmined that the alleged facts contained in the\nnews story was what he had assumed to be true.\nI have had no direct contacts with any attorney\nfrom California Rural Legal Assistance at any\ntime, however a Mr. Del Buono of that office\nvisited with me about the Fernando Hernandez\nincident.'\n(Emphasis added.)\nIn line with CRLA's activity in this case, Mr.\nChester E. Ross, an attorney in Hollister and President\nof the San Benito County Bar Association, stated, in part:\nI recently had personal observations of a\nsituation at the Ausymas School, where I am\nsatisfied that the CRLA brought in a Mexican\nfamily for the sole purpose of disrupting the\nwhole administration of this school. The\nchildren deliberately would not behave and\n(105)\nwhen Mr. Nichols, the principal of the school,\nattempted normal disciplinary proceedings, the\nfamily went to CRLA and swore that the child\nhad been beaten, and CRLA promptly filed a suit\nin Federal Court. II\nI feel that as a result of their class actions,\nin connection with agricultural workers, they have\ndisrupted the economy of our local community\nand have polarized the community, so that we\nhave race problems which were never experienced\nprior to the advent of CRLA on the scene. 11\n(Exhibit 08-0149-01;\nemphasis added.)\n(4) A Mexican-American College Club Gets Very\nSpecial Service.\nIn Modesto, CRLA paid staff attorneys, Kelley,\nLivingston, Zavala, Neumark, Lowenstein and Madison,\nbrought a complaint in the \"Inferior Court of the Associ-\nated Students of Modesto Junior College\" on behalf of a\nMexican-American club protesting a college requirement\nthat its members (like all other students) pay student body\nfees of $8 per semester SO that the club would be recognized\nby the school administration. It should be noted that this\nis not even a case in a normal court of law and six CRLA\npaid staff attorneys are named as \"attorneys of record\" in\nthis non-suit. There is, of course, the implication that\nModesto Junior College is discriminating against Mexican-\nAmericans by requiring that they fulfill the same rules and\nregulations that apply to all other students at Modesto\nJunior College (Exhibit 08-0111-03).\n(106)\n(5) CRLA Counsels a Juvenile Girl in Agitation.\nThere was a second incident in San Benito County in\nwhich CRLA personnel from the Salinas office became involved\nin counseling a juvenile girl student and enticed her into\nacts of agitation at San Benito Joint Union High School.\nIn an affidavit, Mr. Orville E. Nichols, District\nSuperintendent of the North County Joint Union School Dis-\ntrict, San Benito, concludes by saying:\n(We have deleted names of the many people\ninvolved to avoid any possibility of em-\nbarassment to them.)\n\"I am informed and believe that a\n(minor female), 16 years, was trained by some-\none from California Rural Legal Assistance to\norganize a walkout at the Hollister High School,\nand a walkout did occur. Minor Female was\npicked up at the High School and was out late\nat night, and she has presented forged notes to\nschool authorities, which was not known to her\nfather. Full reports on the Hernandez and\nMinor Female incidents are with the San Benito\nCounty Sheriff's Office, Hollister.\"\n(Exhibit 08-0189-12.)\nFollowing is a report on this matter by a San\nBenito County Sheriff's Office investigator. The narrative\nof this case speaks for itself in affidavits and statements\nto San Benito Sheriff's Office:\nAt approximately 0800 hours, the minor\ngirl's father came into the jail to dis-\ncuss his run-away daughter who had been\ngone all week-end. He advised that she\nhad returned home Monday afternoon after\nattending school. She would not give any\n(107)\nother explanation, other than having spent\nthe time with a friend.\n\"The minor girl's father had her waiting out-\nside and asked if I would talk to her. The\ngirl's father stated he had lost all control\nof his daughter after she became active in\nthe Chicano movement. He also showed me a\nnote that had been left at his house by Mr.\nDel Buono. The note asked that the girl 'call\nthe office as soon as possible - it is very\nimportant that both Peters (sic) speak with\nyou. Call collect 842-8271.' (Gilroy office\nof CRLA.)\n\"The girl's father asked that I get his daughter\naway from this group.\nAlso attached to the original missing person's\nreport (the girl had been out of town with a\nCRLA member) was found a note to school author-\nities giving the girl permission to wear pants\nto school on 1/21/70 signed by the girl's father.\nThe girl's father denied writing the note and\nsaid it had been forged. Also attached to the\nreport was a note left at his house by a young\ngirl (name unknown) which states that 'Peter\nSchilla goes to the high school and\nharassing students to try to get a district\nattorney look up what CRLA is doing. (sic)\n\"The girl came into the office and I questioned\nher about her whereabouts concerning the past\nweekend. She stated she had been in town and\nafter a great deal of discussion admitted being\nwith (Woman A). This writer called that number\nand verified her statement. I asked the girl\nif she is involved with CRLA? She said yes. I\nasked if her father approved. She became very\nangry and stated no - he wouldn't even sign the\npapers. I asked if she had gone to San Jose to\nhear the court case on\n? She replied yes\nshe had gone with a young man who works for CRLA.\nI asked if he was an attorney. She stated no\nbut, he's going to be one pretty soon. I asked\nif she had her father's permission to go? She\nsaid no. I asked her if she knew this man could\nget in trouble by taking her without her father's\npermission or without the school knowing she had\n(108)\nleft to go to San Jose? She asked what kind\nof trouble? I advised her she was still a\njuvenile and needed her parent's permission.\nI also read her Section 601 of the Juvenile\nCode and advised her that her running away\nwould only cause further trouble. At this\npoint she very angrily stomped out and her\nfather stated he would take her to school.\n\"Approximately 15 minutes later this writer\nwent to Hollister High School and talked to\nstudent advisor in regards to the girl. We\nthen went to the principal's office and the\nthree of us along with another party discussed\nthe girl's participation in the Mexican-American\nactivities on campus. The principal stated she\nis the president of the organization and she\nhas organized the students on the recent dress\ncode. When I returned to the office the minor's\nfather was waiting and told me his daughter had\nalready returned home from school and was going\nto leave home. I asked him if he had any trouble\nwith his daughter before she became involved in\nCRLA and he said no. I then took a formal state-\nment in reference to his daughter's activities\nwith this group. He advised that his daughter\nhas attended several meetings in which Mr.\nPeter Schilla, Peter Coppelman and other\nstudents were in attendance. He also stated\nthat two female high school teachers were\npresent and that they lived in\n.\nHe also stated that he does not approve of\nhis daughter's connection with the CRLA and\nthat he has refused to sign papers they have\npresented him. He even said that on one OC-\ncasion his daughter took some sleeping pills\nand aspirin to force him into taking her to\none of the CRLA meetings.\n\"I asked the girl's father if his daughter\nhad gone to school on January 21, 1970. I\nused Mr. Del Buono's note as a reference.\nI asked the secretary if there was a young\nman working for CRLA named Peter who wasn't\nan attorney, but would become one very shortly.\nShe said yes, that would be Peter Schilla. I\nasked if there was a Peter Coppelman, and she\nsaid yes, but that he was with a client. I\nalso asked if there were any other men working\nin the office, which she replied Paddock and\n(109)\nKates, which ended the conversation.\nJudging by the girl's description of the\nman as well as the secretary it would appear\nthat Peter Schilla was the man who took the\ngirl to San Jose.\n\"I returned to the high school and talked\nto the principal. He stated that the two\nteachers, Miss A and Miss B, had been mem-\nbers of a liaison group between the school\nand Mexican-Americans; but it had been dis-\nbanded when the board gave him the ax (the\nprincipal obviously had been fired and was\nmerely serving out his term) He stated that\nthe two women had not attended any meetings\nafter that. I asked him how well he knew\nthese two teachers? He stated very well\n'they rent my house in\n\"\nHe was told they had been seen at DelBuono's\nhouse recently and were taking part in the\nrecent dress code issue. I then went to the\ncounseling office and obtained photostatic\ncopies of the girl's school records. They\nshow that in 1968 she had 18 notes asking\nfor excused absences, but that in 1969 in\nJanuary of 1970 there have been 44 excused\nabsences. These were shown to the girl's\nfather. He was shocked at the number and\ndenied signing most of them. The school\nrecords also show a note dated 1/21/70,\nstating the girl has an appointment today\nwith the doctor at 9:30 signed the father's\nname. The father denies signing this note\nand said it was a forgery. Classroom at-\ntendance records also show that the girl\nwas not there on 1/21/70. It should also\nbe noted that the girl's grades during 1967-\n68, 1968-69 are what is generally considered\nas being an average student. But during this\ncurrent 1969-70 she has received grades of\nabove average and superior. Out of seven\nof these classes, three are taught by\nteacher A and oneby teacher B. Teacher A\ngiving her two A's and a B-plus and teacher\nB an A for the second quarter. Refer to the\nstatements of fellow students on political\n(110)\nactivities taking place in teacher A's\nclasses. The facts in this case would\nindicate that CRLA has been behind the re-\ncent Mexican-American activities within the\nhigh school and they are using the girl as\ntheir agent as well as teacher A.\nThe demands they have made on the girl have\nalienated her from her father and family.\nThis has all been done against the father's\nwishes. It would also indicate that teacher\nA has used her classroom as a political forum\nin support of the principal (who was fired be-\ncause of his active Left involvement) and that\nthe taking of the minor from this community\nto attend a CRLA hearing in San Jose was a\nflagrant and inexcusable violation on the\npart of their organization.'\n(Exhibit 08-0189-03;\nemphasis added.)\n\"At approximately 0900 I arrived at the res-\nidence of Mrs.\nShe was asked\n.\nabout the girl's activities during the past\nweek-end. She advised they did not do much\nof anything, but that she had taken her to\nschool to meet with the attorneys.\nShe also stated that on the night of January 27\nthe girl had been in contact with CRLA attor-\nneys and that when she finished talking with\nthem she asked Mrs.\nto call the cops\nand tell them where she was so she could be\npicked up. After the girl was picked up by\nthe deputies she called CRLA from Mrs.\nhouse advising them that she was now being\narrested.\nAt approximately 10:30 hours this writer talked\nto the brother of the girl. He stated that he\nhad been to one of the meetings at Del Buono's\nhouse and that his sister became very angry\nwhen her father refused to sign the papers,\nbut that she went with the lawyer anyway to\nSan Jose. The minor's brother advised that he\nwould have done the same thing. He also ad-\nvised that one of the CRLA attorneys had at-\ntended a school meeting of the Mexican-Americans\nand that on one occasion the attorneys told him\n(111)\nthat 'if they walk out of the school, they\ncouldn't do anything about it and that they\nwould back them all the way.\n(Exhibits 08-0189-02 through\n04; emphasis added.)\nThe following statement was made to San Benito County\nSheriff's Department by the father of the minor female:\n\"Q: Have you had any dealings with the\nCalifornia Rural Legal Assistance?\nA: Yes, because of my daughter.\nQ: What has your daughter had to do with CRLA?\nA: I have taken her to meetings, and on Thurs-\nday or Friday night the 15th or 16th I took her\nto a meeting at Del Buono's house on the corner\nof\n.\nQ: Did you go inside the house with your\ndaughter?\nA: Yes.\nQ: Who was there at the time?\nA: Del Buono, there was a student from Gavilan\ncollege and a student here from the high school,\nand another student from the high school and he\nhad a moustache and long side-burns, and an at-\ntorney with a beard. Del Buono said he was a\nlawyer (a lie, he is a CRLA investigator). There\nwere two female teachers from the high school\nthere also.\nQ: Did you want your daughter to attend any\nof these meetings?\nA: Well, I say no, not in this Chicano deal.\nI didn't mind her attending meetings for school\nactivities.\nQ: Did you stay at that meeting?\nA: I stayed a while and they talked about the\nproposal they wanted to put through the board.\n(112)\nQ: Have you returned to Del Buono's house\nfor a meeting with your daughter?\nA: Yes, I think it was on January 17.\nQ: What did they talk about that night?\nA: They wanted my daughter to talk to kids\nabout the dress code. In other words, what\nthey talked about was legal advice on what\nshe should do.\nQ: You stated at one of the meetings there\nwere two female teachers from the high school.\nWould you identify these women for me?\nA: Yes, I think they were both from\n.\nQ: Have you attended any other meetings?\nA: Yes, Sunday, the 18th.\nQ: Where was the meeting held?\nA: At Del Buono's house.\nQ: Who was there?\nA: Del Buono, the boy with the side-burns,\nand a lawyer, my daughter and myself.\nQ: What went on at the meeting?\nA: The purpose of the meeting was to have me\nsign a complaint that they want to file suit\nagainst the school, and I wouldn't sign it. In\nother words, they wanted to take this matter\nto court and they wanted my signature. I told\nthis young lawyer I didn't want my daughter\nto get involved.\nQ: Did your daughter attend school Tuesday,\nJanuary 20?\nA: I don't know, she told me she went to San\nJose with a lawyer and they won the case on\nthe boy with the side-burns and moustache.\nQ: Did she have your permission to leave school?\n(113)\nA: No.\nQ: Have you written any notes to the school\nin regards to your daughter?\nA: No.\nQ: Do you approve of the CRLA taking your\ndaughter from Hollister to another community?\nA: No.\nQ: Do you approve of your daughter acting as\nan agent for this organization, handing out the\nleaflets and doing work for them on the campus?\nA: No.\nQ: And is your statement that you have told\nthem you don't approve?\nA: Yes.\nQ: You have filed a missing person's report\nwith our office concerning the weekend of\nJanuary 24th and 25th on your daughter. Why\ndid she leave?\nA: She left because I was going to send her\nto Los Angeles because she was getting out of\nhand and I couldn't control her.\nQ: Why do you think she was getting out of hand?\nA: Her activities with the Chicano deal.\nQ: Did your daughter return home?\nA: Monday, the 26th after school.\nQ: Did you find out where she had been?\nA: She told me she was at a friend's house.\nQ: Since then have you learned where she was at?\nA: Yes, Mrs.\n's house.\nQ: Did you take your daughter to school on the\nmorning of the 27th after talking to me?\n(114)\nA: Yes.\nQ: Has she returned home since then?\nA: Yes, she was home about five minutes\nafter only being in school for about an\nhour.\nQ: What did she tell you?\nA: That she was going to leave home and\nthat lawyer shouldn't get in trouble be-\ncause she signed the paper.\n(Exhibit 08-0189-07;\nemphasis added.)\nThe next statement in this case was given by a\ntwelfth grade male student at San Benito Joint Union High\nSchool:\n\"Q: Are you a student at San Benito Joint\nUnion High School?\nA: Yes.\nQ: Have you ever attended a class given by\nfemale teacher A or female teacher B ?\nA: Yes, by female teacher A.\nQ: Are you still in her class?\nA: No, because I was kicked out for calling\nit an agitating class.\nQ: Do you recall when you were kicked out?\nA: Around the week before Christmas.\nQ: You called it an agitating class, can\nyou tell me why?\nA: Because (the girl) was making signs for\nthe Chicanos and she was writing speeches\nin female teacher l's class.\nQ: Have you ever seen (the girl) bring in\nmaterial to make these signs?\n(115)\nA: Yes, poster paper, felt pens, and stuff\nlike that.\nQ: Do you know if teacher 1 helped the girl?\nA: Yes, she went in the other side of the\nroom with the girl and spent the rest of\nthe period there.\nQ: Have you ever seen any of these signs\nafter class?\nA: Yes, I have seen them stacked in the corner\nduring class and\nand I saw them\nthrough the window of the classroom that they\nwere in.\nQ:\nwho?\nA: (The name was given.)\nQ: You refer to speeches being written by the\ngirl during class, were they ever used?\nA: Yes, I think so, because teacher 1 compli-\nmented her the next day after the meeting they had.\nQ: Were you asked to attend the meeting?\nA: Yes, because the girl passed around a pet-\nition to keep (the fired principal) and teacher\n1 asked as much of the class to be there as\npossible and bring your parents and everybody.\nQ: Has teacher 1 ever asked you to support\n(the fired principal) ?\nA: Yes, she asked everybody to come to the\nmeeting tonight and support (the fired principal).\nQ: Did the girl do exceptionally good class work?\nA: Heck, no. When she wasn't making signs, she\nwas up front with teacher 1 and I don't think she\never turned in a book report.\nQ: Does teacher 1 grade hard?\nA: Yes.\n(116)\nQ: Did you know that the girl is getting\nstraight A's in teacher l's class?\nA: No, but I had a feeling that she was.\nQ: Is there anything else that you would\nlike to add?\nA: No. II\n(Exhibit 08-0189-09.)\nThe next statement was given by another twelfth\ngrade student at the San Benito Joint Union High School:\n\"Q: Are you a student at San Benito Joint\nUnion High School?\nA: Yes.\nQ: Have you ever attended a class given by\nteacher 1 or teacher 2?\nA: Yes, teacher 1 for\nand\n.\nQ: Are you still in both her classes?\nA: Yes.\nQ: Approximately a week before Christmas,\nwas there anything other than regular class\nwork going on?\nA: Yes, they were making signs the same time\nclass was going on.\nQ: Who was making signs?\nA: The girl.\nQ: What kind of signs?\nA: We want (the fired principal).\nQ: Did anyone help the girl?\nA: Teacher 1 alone with her.\nQ: Have you ever seen the girl bring any of\nthis sign material into class?\n(117)\nA: Yes, paper, flow pen and a ruler.\nQ: Has she done anything else in class to\nsupport (the fired principal) or Mexican-\nAmericans?\nA: Writing the speech for (the fired prin-\ncipal) - the speech they had in the cafeteria.\nQ: Was anything said in class about the speech?\nA: Yes, teacher 1 told the girl she did a real\ngood job with the speech.\nQ: Is the writing of political speeches and\nthe making of political signs part of the normal\nclass work?\nA: No.\nQ: Did anyone in the class other than teacher\n1 and the girl take part in these political\nactivities?\nA: No.\nQ: Were you asked to attend the meeting at\nthe High School Cafeteria?\nA: Yes. She said to bring your parents or\nanybody to support (the fired principal).\nQ: Does the girl work real hard at her class\nwork?\nA: She's bound to be getting behind because\neverybody is reading books and she does not.\nQ: Did you know that the girl is getting\nstraight A's in teacher l's class?\nA: No. I'm surprised she's getting just\nas good of grades or better than the other\nkids in the class who were working.\nQ: Is there anything else you would like to\nadd at this time?\nA: That's all I can think of.\"\n(Exhibit 08-0189-11.)\n(118)\nThere is little to add to this case. Del Buono,\nPeter Schilla and Peter Coppelman, all CRLA staff members\nof the Gilroy office, used and exploited a minor female,\nafter carefully indoctrinating her (with the help of two\nfemale teachers) to attempt to foment a Chicano confront-\nation at the San Benito Joint Union High School. All this\nwas done against her father's will.\n(6) Delano High School - A Study in Turmoil.\nOn Tuesday, May 5, 1970, a group of Delano High School\nstudents walked out of an assembly at the High School\nAuditorium. Five hours later the students began picketing\nthe school and presented a list of ultimatums to the admin-\nistration. The picketing continued throughout the week,\nand in the opinion of many School, Police and City offi-\ncials, pickets were attempting to provoke a physical con-\nfrontation with the Police and/or School officials (Ex-\nhibit 09-0119-01).\nDuring this time of school agitation, John Ortega,\nwho was then a paid staff attorney for CRLA's McFarland\noffice, was actively involved with the pickets. Ortega's\nson, in fact, was among the picketers. Ortega told offi-\ncials he was on the scene to \"insure both pickets and\nPolice obeyed the law.\"\n(119)\nAccording to Assemblyman William Ketcham:\n\"At the time (Ortega) appeared to be direct-\ning the activities of the youngsters.\"\nSchool officials and parents tried to solve the\nproblem and made arrangements with Ortega to place the\nitem on the School Board agenda on Monday, May 11, 1970.\nThe School Board meeting was held, and after preliminar-\nies Ortega was asked to speak. Ortega's name was called,\nhowever, instead of Ortega appearing at the microphone,\nhe stated that the group he represented had decided on\nits own order and would start with an individual named\nGreg Aguirre, an individual (not a student) dressed in\nthe uniform of the Brown Berets.\nAguirre took the microphone and started to address\nthe audience. He was instructed by the President of the\nBoard to address his statements to the Board. Aguirre\nsaid he was going to speak to the people and not to the\nSchool Board. Ortega then stated:\n\"Go ahead, Greg.\"\n(Exhibit 09-0119, film and\ntape of the meeting.)\nAguirre then shouted to the crowd as the Board\nChairman declared him out of order. The Board then ad-\njourned. Several individuals began to shout and a dis-\nruption took place. Ortega was directly involved in the\ndisruption (gave leadership to it) and was warned by the\n(120)\nChief of Police of Delano that he was in danger of being\narrested for attempting to incite a riot.\nThe real intent of the demonstration at Delano\nHigh School is reflected in a leaflet that was circulated,\ncalling young Chicanos to a rally at Heritage Park. The\nleaflet reads:\n\"RALLY IN SYMPATHY. DELANO STUDENT WALKOUT.\nHERITAGE PARK. SPEAKERS: Greg Aguirre -\nPrime Minister, Brown Berets of Delano, Gary\nRangel - Student Leader Delano High School,\nInez Flores - Coordinator of Student Walkouts,\nJess Alcala - C.S.O., Maria Lopez - Friday,\n15th of May, at 2:30 p.m. Attend to show\nsupport - Oppression can happen to you.\nStop it now. Viva La Causa.\"\n(Exhibit 09-0119-10.)\nIn this instance, the CRLA office, through paid\nCRLA attorney Martin Glick, sent out press releases from\nthe CRLA office to rationalize actions within the Park\nand demonstrations at the School. (Exhibit 09-0119-25.)\nDuring the whole explosive period, CRLA Attorney\nOrtega was observed conferring with students. During the\nrally at Heritage Park in Bakersfield, the area was\ndecorated with pictures of Che Guevara. A pamphlet was\ndistributed before the meeting outlining the Brown Beret\nten-point program. (Exhibit 09-0119-09.)\nOn Tuesday, May 19, 1970, Ortega filed an action\nfor injunctive relief on behalf of 18 young people and 16\n(121)\nadults arrested as a result of their activities at Herit-\nage Park. The School Board in Delano wishes to pursue it,\nbecause they feel that they have a good case. Several per-\nsons represented by Ortega in the suit have criminal records,\nincluding arrests for possession of and sale of heroin.\nPicketing of businesses owned by School Board members con-\ntinued, at times becoming loud and unruly.\nOn June 12, 1970, during the Delano High School\ngraduation exercises, an attempt was made to create an in-\ncident. Fifteen people, mostly students, were arrested.\nIt is understood that Ortega and paid CRLA Attorney Gerald\nMcManigal, of the McFarland office, were at the Delano\nPolice Station as soon as the arrested students were\nbrought in. At this time crowds blocked exits and entrances\nof the Police Station and slashed Police vehicle tires.\nPicketing continued in Delano, and the father of one of\nthe students, who helped Police at the graduation dis-\nturbance, was allegedly called by several persons, includ-\ning Ortega, who threatened the individual with legal action.\nFourteen of Fifteen arrested were convicted. (Mexican-\nAmerican citizens were included on the jury.) (Exhibit\n09-0119-30.)\nA memorandum dated June 29, 1970, to Assemblymen\nLeon D. Ralph and John Vasconcellos, from James Smith,\n(122)\nAttorney, CRLA, quotes John Ortega, a CRLA attorney, as\nthe identified spokesman for the striking students, in\nthat he acted as their advisor during the time the stu-\ndents were on strike. (Exhibit 09-0119-05.)\nThis letter, along with many documents enclosed,\nindicates the heavy involvement of John Ortega and other\nCRLA attorneys in this incident at Delano. (Documents on\nthe Delano School case are Exhibits 09-0119-01 through\n108.)\n(7) CRLA Attorney and Four-Letter Words.\nCRLA paid staff attorney Philip Neumark, of the\nModesto office, in a class panel discussion at the Grace\nM. Davis High School in Modesto, used the words \"shit\"\nand derivatives of that word and proceeded to write the\nphrase \"F*ck Viet Nam\" on the blackboard before the class.\nAccording to the investigation report of a Mr. P.\nDoane, investigator for the Stanislaus County District\nAttorney's office:\n\"Three 50-minute presentations were made.\nEach was made to approximately 90 Junior\nclass members both male and female, 16 and\n17 years of age. Mr. Ralph (the Director\nof the History Department and moderator of\nthe panel) stated that during the first\nsession, while comparing the Viet Nam war\nto an obscenity, Neumark said some form of\nthe word 'shit.' Ralph stated that he was\nunsure of the exact word used. Ralph said\n(123)\nthat he had discussed the event with other\nmembers of the History Department who were\npresent at the time, a Mr. Nichols and Mr.\nGonsalves. They concurred only in that it\nwas some form of this word.\n\"Immediately following the first session\nNichols informed Neumark that 'he should not\nuse that word again.' Ralph stated that this\nhad been done in his presence.\n\"In the second presentation, while making the\nsame comparison as before, Neumark wrote the\nfollowing words on the blackboard: 'F*CK\nVIET NAM. Ralph stated that he immediately\nmade a comment that Neumark's conduct was\nuncalled for and had no place in the pre-\nsentation.\n\"Ralph said that there were no problems dur-\ning the third session\n(Exhibit 17-0136-04;\nemphasis added.)\n(8) Sonoma Schools - Drug Abuse Letter Con-\ntroversy.\nIn December, 1968, in Sonoma, California, Robert\nBell (who was at that time a paid CRLA attorney) became\ninvolved in a local high school matter following the\nmailing of the \"drug use rumor\" letter to some 150 parents\nof Sonoma Valley High School students. The School prin-\ncipal, Mr. Max Murray, had agreed to meet with representa-\ntives of students protesting the letter. On the morning\nprior to this meeting, Bell appeared at the high school\nwith a number of students requesting an audience with\nMurray. Murray spoke briefly with Bell, emphasizing that\nhe would meet with the students alone, as agreed, the\nfollowing day, and not before.\n(124)\nThe meeting held the following day between Principal\nMurray and the student representatives was delayed for a\ntime when Bell joined them and attempted to inject himself\ninto the meeting as a \"representative\" of the students.\nTwo of the students claimed that Bell did not even rep-\nresent them at all. Murray subsequently made it plain\nthat there would be no meeting at all if Bell insisted on\nparticipating, and so Bell departed.\nAt a subsequent School Board meeting on the same\nissue, Bell once again attempted to speak, saying that\nsome parents of students had asked him to attend. He was\ntechnically ruled out of order because he is not a parent\nof a child in the Sonoma Valley School System. (Exhibits\n08-070-01.)\n(9) El Centro \"Free Chavez\" Demonstration\nOn December 11, 1970 (during the time of our evalu-\nation study), UFWOC and CRLA fomented a demonstration in\nfront of the Imperial County administration building in\nEl Centro to free Cesar Chavez.\nOn that date, ninety-two pupils were transported\nby private auto and truck from the Brawley Union High\nSchool, Brawley, and the Barbara Worth Junior High School,\nBrawley, with neither parental nor school consent to take\npart in the demonstration.\n(125)\nFifty-four students were taken from Barbara Worth\nJunior High School and thirty-eight students from Braw-\nley Union High. (Exhibits 09-0201-01 and -02.)\nParents were immediately contacted by both schools\nto inform the parents of their childrens' truancy. Only\none parent knew where her child was; she said, \"He has\ngone to El Centro, with Casa de Amistad, to riot,\" as\nrepeated in a letter from Mr. James C. Thompson, Super-\nvising Principal of Barbara Worth School. (Exhibit\n09-0201-01.)\nPrior to the mass movement of students and the\ndemonstration, meetings to plan and coordinate the demon-\nstration were held at the Casa de Amistad--a community\ncenter of the Rural Development Corporation which is\nfunded by OEO.\nOn the day of the demonstration, Casa de Amistad\nwas the assembly point and the place of embarkation for\nthe young people on their trip to Imperial Valley Col-\nlege (Imperial, California) where they arrived at 10:20\na.m.\nThe arrivals were conducted to the college amphi-\ntheater where CRLA Community Worker Hesiquio Banaga\n(who also transported children to the post-demonstration\n(126)\nrally) led the young people in chants of \"Huelga\"\n\"Viva la raza\"\n\"We want Chavez freed\"\n\"Chicano\npower\"\netc.\nIn attendance at the post-demonstration\nrally was CRLA staff attorney Robert Johnstone who also\nworks out of the El Centro office and who is usually on\nhand at UFWOC disturbances in Imperial County area.\nJohnstone is also the legal advisor for Casa de Amistad\nand has stated publicly that he is a legal advisor to\nUFWOC at strike locations.\nPresent as an observer during the post-demonstra-\ntion rally was Mr. A. Septich, Dean of Student Personnel,\nImperial Valley College, who, in a letter to Sheriff\nRaymond Rowe (Imperial County) dated January 4, 1971,\nstated:\n\"I was four or five hundred feet away (from\nthe rally) and was not able to understand\nthe conversation; however, for almost the\nentire meeting, the group was led by Zeke\n(Hesiquio) Banaga. 11\nDean Septich also writes:\n\"Other off-campus people observed included\nMr. Robert Johnstone, CRLA attorney.\"\nDean Septich further writes:\n\"Following the approximate fifteen-minute\nmeeting, they (the children) marched, two\nabreast, across campus to the parking lot\nand in turn headed down Ira Aten Road to\nthe west. \" (Exhibit 09-0201-03--Emphasis\nadded.)\n(127)\nThis was approximately 11:00 a.m. and the demon-\nstration at the Imperial County administration building\n(approximately seven miles from the College) did not\nbegin until 3:00 p.m., thus the children must have been\nmarching about four hours.\nDean Septich took down license numbers of the cars\nand trucks that transported the children from Brawley\nto Valley College. One license number recorded was UTR-853,\nregistered to Hesiquio Banaga, the CRLA Community Worker\nfrom the El Centro office. (Exhibits 09-0201-09 and -10.)\n10) Summation\nWithin the limited time frame of our evaluation,\nit has become crystal clear that the political and emo-\ntional bent of far too many CRLA attorneys traverses the\nfar left extremity of the socio-political spectrum.\nProfessional actions of CRLA are, in too many in-\nstances, governed by this zealous compulsion. Their\nrecord in school agitation actions substantiates this\npoint with clarity.\nWhat legal service to the poor is rendered when\na young extremist attorney writes the word \"f*ck\" on a\nschool blackboard before a class of young people?\n(128)\nHow are the rural poor helped when a school dis-\ntrict's class schedule is brought to an abrupt stand-\nstill?\nHow can any right-thinking person allow public\nsubsidy of a program that seeks to cause racial con-\nfrontations and fan the flames of racial discontent?\nIs this to be done in the name of legal assistance?\nWe think not. The image of law displayed by too many\nCRLA attorneys is a vision of dissent - on the streets\nif it is expedient- not a basic concern for justice.\nIt is our firm opinion that a great many CRLA\nattorneys are \"true believers\", hitchhiking a ride at\nthe expense of the rural poor to achieve a dislocation\nof our social, political and economic order.\n(129)\nC. CRLA AND THE FARM.\n(1) Introduction.\nCRLA operates in rural and, therefore, largely farm-\ning areas. The relationship of CRLA to farmers, farm\nworkers and the farm industry is intimate. The State\nGovernment of California is equally deeply enmeshed in\nagriculture (California is the number one agricultural\nstate in the union), functioning in areas of farm worker\nhousing, health and safety standards enforcement, farm\nlabor services and so on. The Farm Labor Services Division\nof the Department of Human Resources Development, State\nof California has 42 offices throughout the State which\nact, among other things, as a rallying point or market-\nplace for farm workers so that they may be readily linked\nup with available farm work.\n(2) CRLA's Relationship With Farm Labor Services.\nOne might have expected development of a close work-\ning relationship between CRLA and the Farm Labor Services\nof California, so that the interests of rural poor farm\nworkers could be advanced most effectively. Unfortunately,\nwe find the relationship with Farm Labor Services to be\nextremely poor. The reason for this is that CRLA makes\nit clear from its actions (and even its words) that it\nis seeking to put Farm Labor Services of the State of\nCalifornia out of business.\n(130)\nThe record is replete with substantiation of this\nthrust on the part of CRLA:\n(1) On March 5, 1970, CRLA filed an action\ncommonly known as 250 Farm Workers V. Schultz,\nin the United States District Court for the\nNorthern District of California, seeking,\namong other things, to close down the Farm\nLabor Service of the State of California;\n(Exhibit 09-0116)\n(2) As noted previously in another section\nof this report, CRLA sought and obtained its\nplaintiffs for the 250 Farm Workers suit by a\nvariety of subterfuge and misrepresentation.\nOne man, who was approached to sign a petition\nwhile attending a remedial class in English,\nfor Spanish-speaking farm workers held at\nnight in a local high school, stated as\nfollows:\n\"A Mr. Del Buono of California Rural Legal Aid\nspoke to the class. He asked the whole group\nto sign a petition to get the State Farm Labor\noffices closed. He said that these offices\nwere not of any benefit to the worker and that\nthe offices should be closed, because if they\nwere closed then the workers would get higher\nwages. He recommended that if the offices\nwere closed then the farmers could come to a\nunion run by the workers or an agency run by\nthe workers. Mr. Del Buono tried to get all\nof us to sign the petition. Everyone else\nsigned it but I did not.\" (Exhibit 09-0116)\n(131)\n(3) A former employee of one of CRLA's offices,\nstated in her affidavit the following:\n11\nMany cases were established as a result\nof manufactured situations. I mean by this\nthat clients or potential clients were in-\nstructed in certain actions and dialogue with\nagencies and private firms that would lead\nto litigation\nAnother case I can recall\ninvolved a man at the Day Hall Center,\nCalifornia Farm Labor Service. The persons\nwho were sent to the Day Hall Center were\ninstructed as to actions to take and what\nto say. These instructions came from Dennis\nPowell, who was the directing attorney. As\nI recall, this case involved people handing\nout leaflets and literature at the Day Hall\nCenter. I do not recall the exact instructions\ngiven or to whom they were given. Mr. Powell\ndid coach the persons who went to the Day Hall\nCenter on exact actions to take and instruc-\ntions as to what they were to say. I know he\nwanted the Farm Labor Service to have to remove\npeople from the premises and thereby provide a\ncause of action against the Farm Labor Service\nto the end of abolishing it.\" (Exhibit 09-0174 -\nemphasis added.)\nIn a vacuum, the termination of Farm Labor Services\nwould appear at best folly and at worst disastrous. Without\nconveniently located centers through which they could find\navilable farm work, it would appear that farm workers would\nbe severely harmed and would have to return to their own de-\nvices for work opportunities, possibly going from farm to\nfarm or other inefficient methods. But, of course, we are\nnot operating in a vacuum. As noted in the above statement,\nMr. Del Buono suggested that in the absence of Farm Labor\nService offices, \"the farmers could come to a union run by\n(132)\nthe workers or an agency run by the workers.\" It is just\npossible that Mr. Del Buono had an already extant union in\nmind.\n(3) CRLA and the Farm Labor Contractor.\nIn many areas of California, individuals known as\nfarm labor contractors perform a vital function in the\nagricultural economy. These men are independent contract-\nors who organize groups of farm workers in crews to service\nthe farmers' labor needs.\nOrdinarily, the farm labor contractor operates as\nan independent contractor, arranging with the farmer on a\nfixed-fee contract or a percentage in excess of the actual\nfarm labor dollars involved. For this the farm labor con-\ntractors often provide living facilities, transportation\nand other services for the farm workers.\nOn behalf of certain farm workers, CRLA filed a class\naction in Santa Maria in October, 1969, against a farm\nlabor contractor. (Gates and Avila, and all farm workers\nsimilarly situated, V. Tony Cedillos, Santa Maria No. 7145)\nThe defendant, Cedillos, had made a practice of advancing\nwages to the farm workers on his crews so that they would\nhave money to live on between paydays. He would then deduct\nthe advances on payday. Obviously, this was a service to\nthe farm worker and served to create the kind of relationship\nwith the workers that assured Cedillos of having proper work\ncrews readily available.\n(133)\nCRLA claims that the deduction from the workers'\nwages of the wage advances was equivalent to a garnishment\nand, therefore, Cedillos could withhold only 50% of the\namount advanced. Cedillos responded that this argument\nmade no legal sense, for garnishment occurs only in a\ncircumstance when a third party creditor seeks to reach\nwages of an employee currently in the hands of an employer.\nAlthough the suit is still pending, a demurrer has been\nsustained in favor of the defendant regarding the class\naction status of the suit, and it has been transferred\nfrom Superior to Municipal Court, because the dollar amounts\nare inconsequential.\nIn the case of Hernandez V. Paramount Growers, Inc.\n(Kern County Municipal Court No. 54182), plaintiffs sought\nto hold the grower liable for wages after the labor con-\ntractor who employed them had been paid by the grower and\nrefused to pay the plaintiffs. The Division of Labor Law\nEnforcement made an investigation of the matter and determined\nthat the labor contractor was the employer, not Paramount\nGrowers, Inc., and proceeded to collect the money from him.\nAlthough the needs of the plaintiffs for their wages\nhave been satisfied, CRLA apparently intends to bring the\naction to trial and to appeal the courts action sus-\ntaining defendants demurrer. Why? Probably because\n(134)\nthis constitutes a direct thrust at the legal status of\nfarm labor contractors. UFWOC refuses to recognize farm\nlabor contractors as employers under its closed shop\ncontracts. If the court should decide that farm labor\ncontractors are merely agents of the growers, not employers\nof farm labor in their own right, UFWOC could claim that\nit is legally entitled to ignore the farm labor contractors\nfor union bargaining purposes and bind the workers through\nany labor contract negotiated directly with individual\ngrowers. They could then achieve dues checkoff directly\nwithin the growers.\nCRLA and UFWOC have combined to seek administrative\nhearings against farm labor contractors, for a variety\nof alleged causes. Many of the farm labor contractors\nare very poor themselves. The poor or marginal farm\nlabor contractor, when confronted with a lawsuit or an\nadministrative hearing, may well find it financially\nimpossible to continue on in this business. Even the\nlarger operators, such as those who do provide housing,\ntransportation, etc., find a time-consuming and expensive\nlawsuit too much to handle.\nIf the institution of farm labor contractors (they\nare licensed and are subject to rules of operation and\nconduct) were severely constricted by legal harassment,\n(135)\nand if the Farm Labor Services Division of the State of\nCalifornia were terminated, what would be left for the\nfarm worker in the way of assistance in locating employment?\nWho would he turn to?\n(4) CRLA Relationship with UFWOC.\nBoth the Economic Opportunity Act (Section 603 and\nattendant regulations) and the special conditions to CRLA's\n1970 grant prohibit CRLA from representing a labor union\n(see grant conditions set forth at the end of this section).\nNevertheless, CRLA's relationship with the United\nFarm Workers' Organizing Committee (UFWOC) has been a\nsubject of controversy since CRLA began in 1966. In\nSeptember, 1967, Congressman Robert B. Mathias wrote to\nthe Comptroller General of the United States and requested\nthat the General Accounting Office (GAO) conduct an\ninvestigation of CRLA's activities, with particular\nattention to its relationship with UFWOC.\nGAO conducted a two-month investigation at the end\nof 1967 and published its findings in a report dated\nMay 29, 1968, entitled \"Report on Investigation of Certain\nActivities of the California Rural Legal Assistance, Inc.\nUnder Grants by Office of Economic Opportunity.\" (Exhibit\n03-0150) In his cover letter to Congressman Mathias,\nActing Comptroller General Frank H. Weitzel concluded:\n(136)\n\"We found no evidence that the grantee was\nworking directly for the union or that the\nactivities we reviewed violated special grant\nconditions relating to union activities.\n11\n(Page 1, of the Report.)\nIn the face of the GAO's Report, no one has had the\ntemerity to reopen the issue. Judging from its refunding\nproposal for 1971, CRLA itself regards the issue as closed:\n\"Given the credentials of the Government Ac-\ncounting Office as an investigating agency,\nand given the thoroughness of their investi-\ngation in this particular case, accusations\nregarding CRLA's illicit connection with labor\nunions have become less frequent.\" (Refunding\nproposal, page 33.)\nOur investigation of the relationship between CRLA\nand UFWOC demands that the case be reopened. Far from\ndisposing of the issue, the GAO Report has served as a\nlaunching pad for a relationship that has grown steadily\nsince 1968, when the Report was released. This growth\nhas taken place despite efforts to strengthen the special\nconditions to CRLA's grant in each of the funding years\n1968, 1969, and 1970. If the GAO had conducted its study\nunder the stricter conditions applied since 1968, we are\nconfident they would have reached different conclusions.\nThe GAO Report has served as a mystic shield that\nuntil now has defied penetration. We are confident that\nif the team investigating CRLA - UFWOC relationships at\nthe end of 1967 had known what we know now about the\n(137)\nrelationship, they would have regarded the evidence in\nan entirely different light. The issue has been closed\nsince mid-1968. The importance of effective legal services\nfor the rural poor demands that we reopen it.\nThe close association of CRLA with UFWOC is suggested\nby the following examples:\n--UFWOC's first major target area was the grape strike in\nDelano. In 1968 CRLA's McFarland office, which services\nDelano, was among the largest of its regional offices. In\n1969 and 1970 the union shifted its attention toward Imperial\nCounty and Salinas. During those two years, the CRLA\nMcFarland office shrunk to approximately one-half its\nformer size, as it built up its offices in El Centro and\nSalinas.\n--CRLA's original Board of Trustees included four members\nwho were either directly connected with UFWOC or closely\nassociated with its work. They were: Cesar Chavez,\nPresident of UFWOC; Oscar Gonzales, President of the\nUnited Farmworkers of San Jose; Larry Itliong, of the\nAgricultural Workers Organizing Committee; and Miss Kathryn\nPeake, Vice Chairman, Emergency Committee to Aid Farm-\nworkers.\n(138)\n--Jerry Cohen, now General Counsel of UFWOC, was formerly\nemployed in CRLA's McFarland office. Charles Farnsworth,\none of Cohen's partners and active in UFWOC matters, worked\nin CRLA's El Centro office. Another partner, David Averbuck,\ncame from CRLA's Marysville office. Gilbert Flores (alias\nBaby Huey) is both a community worker for CRLA's McFarland\noffice and a personal bodyguard for UFWOC's Cesar Chavez.\n--In Longoria, et al., V. Martin Produce, Inc., et al.,\nCRLA filed a suit on behalf of nine plaintiffs against a\nformer employer who allegedly fired them because of their\nunion affiliation. The GAO Report concluded:\n\"Although some aspects of this case are union\nrelated, on the basis of information available\nto us, we are unable to conclude that CRLA, in\nrepresenting the farm workers, was acting dir-\nectly for UFWOC.\" (At page 12)\nIn its report, the GAO did not consider the information\nthat became available subsequently, that the plaintiffs\nwere brought to CRLA by one Jose Luna, a member of UFWOC's\nOrganizing Committee. (Exhibit 16-0073-53)\nFurthermore, in her statement, a former employee of\nthe CRLA Salinas office stated, \"This same situation (wherein\nthe men were instructed as to how to go about organizing a\nunion and then when they were discharged an action was\nfiled against the employer) occurred in the Martin Produce\nInc. Case.\" (Exhibit 09-0174)\n(139)\nThe Report disposed of the question of eligibility\nby the finding, supported by the Regional Director of OEO's\nWestern Region, that CRLA had referred the case to a referral\npanel of private attorneys, which rejected the case.\nOn eligibility, the Report concludes:\n\"The directing attorney also informed us that the\ncase had been accepted only after it had been re-\njected by the 11 members of the Salinas Lawyers\nReference Service panel, because they believed\nthat the case would be too time consuming and\nthat the plaintiffs would be unable to pay an\nappropriate retainer.\"\nThe facts appear to be otherwise. Mr. John Martin,\nPresident of the defendant company, wrote Congressman Mathias\non this point:\n\"Since the GAO investigators were in my office,\nit has been admitted to me by attorney Jim Leach\nthat CRLA didn't check with anyone other than\nhimself. In my conversation with Mr. Leach he\nstated \"what was he to do\" when Mr. Gnaizda\nlied to him regarding the fact that no attor-\nneys had been referred to in Monterey County.\"\n(Draft of letter from Martin, President of\nMartin Produce Company, to Mathias.) (Exhibit\n16-0073-55)\nIn the negotiations, CRLA acted exactly like a labor\nunion. They negotiated for wages, hours, and working con-\nditions. (Exhibit 16-0073-53) The collective bargaining\natmosphere is supported by the fact that in settlement,\nthe plaintiffs actually got more than they asked for in\ntheir complaint. The threat of suit was too much for the\n(140)\ndefendant to bear, and so he yielded to superior economic\npower, as he might have to a labor union.\nIn early June 1970, during UFWOC's melon strike in\nImperial County, at least one CRLA attorney and one CRLA\ncommunity organizer were filmed participating in the union\npicketing. The film shows the community organizer with a\nbullhorn, suggesting a supervisory role for the CRLA employees\nin the union's activities on that day. (Exhibit 09-0119)\nThe full extent of CRLA's activities in melon strike\nduring May and June 1970 are described in a letter to our\noffice from James E. Hamilton, District Attorney of Imperial\nCounty, and Oren Fox, a lieutenant in the Imperial County\nSheriff's Office. These two gentlemen describe the follow-\ning involvement, which they witnessed personally:\n\" (1) Hector Reyes (a community worker with CRLA's\nEl Centro Office) was observed on a daily basis\nacting as one of the principle leaders of the\nstriker's group. He directed their activities\nwith a bull horn and was obviously in a position\nof leadership during the entire strike.\n\" (2) Ezequiel Banaga (a community worker with\nCRLA's El Centro Office) was observed frequently\non the picket lines and in a vehicle in the\nvicinity of the picket lines in such a manner\nthat he appeared to be directing the movement\nof the strike group from one field to another.\n\" (3) Robert Johnstone was observed on several\noccasions in the company of the strike group\nacting in an advisory capacity. He questioned\nthe undersigned Fox on two different occasions\n(141)\nconcerning the legality of the actions of the\nSheriff's deputies present at the scene. On\nabout three or four occasions, the undersigned\nFox observed Johnstone and Banage conferring\nin the vicinity of one of the picketed melon\nfields.\"\n(Exhibit 03-0151)\nOn June 4, 1970, and again on June 11, CRLA pur-\nchased first 100 and then 15 sheets of 22 X 28 white\nposter board. The first purchase was made by attorney\nRobert Johnstone of CRLA's El Centro office, and the\nsecond by Hesiquio Banaga, a community worker also in\nthe El Centro office (Exhibits 03-0152 and 03-0153 show\ninvoices.)\nFollowing CRLA's conspicuous participation in UFWOC's\nmelon strike picketing in Imperial County, a local news-\npaper columnist revealed what many people in the community\nsuspected: that CRLA had purchased the poster board for\nUFWOC's picketing in its Imperial County melon strike. The\npurchase was explained, however, as a \"loan\", which CRLA\ncould prove had been repaid. Query: Was CRLA repaid for\nthe time spent by its personnel in the purchases (or\nwas that \"time off\")? Was CRLA suggesting UFWOC is an\neligible client and therefore entitled to a loan? (Ex-\nhibit 03-0198)\nThe August evaluation of CRLA stated about the\nprogram's relationship with UFWOC in McFarland:\n(142)\n\"As opposed to the other legal services offices\nin CRLA in the State, McFarland, from its incep-\ntion, has been subject to suspicion and attack\nby all aspects of the community because of the\ndifferent social and political contact of the\ngrowers and the emerging union. We spoke to a\nlot of people in the community, both pro and con,\nto the office. What emerged is, at this point in\ntime, a cautious optimism. This is how several\npersons expressed it. The people have never really\nbeen able to distinguish in McFarland and Delano,\nthe difference between the role of CRLA and the\nrole of the union. They cite several examples\nsuch as the initial case that the McFarland\noffice brought against the growers by the workers\nand immediately those initial cases linked\nMcFarland's office with the union activity.\nThey cite the interchange of attorneys between\nthe CRLA and now the union law firm. Now there\nare three lawyers who are members of the other\nCRLA office and they cite the similarity of\nthe legal action brought by the union attorneys\nand by CRLA. They cite one of the community\norganizers for the McFarland office is Cesar\nChavez' personal bodyguard. All these\ninstances make it difficult for the community\nto deliberate (sic) the role of CRLA attorneys\nfrom union attorneys.\" (Exhibit 11-0134)\nIn the August 1970, UFWOC called its lettuce strike\nin Salinas and listed with the Monterey County Sheriff's\nOffice the local CRLA office as its local contact point\nin Salinas. See the affidavit of Captain Scott, Exhibit\n03-0186.\nOn September 23, 1970, a teamster organizer was\n\"riddled with bullets\" beside a Guadalupe Highway, and\nsheriff's deputies caught three men minutes later from\na description of the get-away car and jailed them on\nsuspicion of attempted murder. All three are members of\n(143)\nthe UFWOC Organizing Committee. A local news story\nindicated that CRLA Attorney Burton Fretz of the CRLA\nSanta Maria office was one of two attorneys who inquired\nabout the accused at the Sheriff's Sub-station.\n(Exhibit 03-0154) In addition, the Deputy District\nAttorney of Santa Barbara County states in affidavit:\n\"\nafter the arrest of Raul Santiago, UFWOC\nUnion Labor Organizer, and two others for at-\ntempted murder, Mr. Fretz was the first attor-\nney to appear for the UFWOC to interview and\nadvise Mr. Santiago and the other two arrestees\nat the Sheriff's Station. In fact, he made at\nleast two contacts with the defendants on that\nparticular day.\" (Affidavit of Deputy District\nAttorney Houlihan.) (Exhibit 03-0155)\nIn June 1969, UFWOC sued a number of defendants,\nincluding one Angeline F. Mariano for damages for demon-\nstrating against UFWOC's organizing efforts. Mrs. Mariano\nwent to the McFarland office of CRLA for help in\ndefending the suit. Her husband's salary of $300 per\nmonth (for only part of the year) and two additional\ndependents placed her well within the eligibility limits\nto qualify for service. She relates the incidence as\nfollows:\n\"\nI had no money with which to hire a lawyer.\nI went to the CRLA office in McFarland\nI\nwent into the reception room and told the\nreceptionist I had a problem and had to see an\nattorney. She told me to wait\nshe came\nback in five or ten minutes and told me I\nwould have to wait quite a little while as\nthe attorney was busy. I waited about an\nhour or hour and one half. While I waited\nI didn't see anyone else go in to see any\nattorney or coming out of the office area. 11\n(144)\nFinally she was permitted to go in:\n\"I told him I had a big problem and didn't have\nmoney to hire an attorney. He asked me what my\nproblem was. I told him I was being sued and\nhanded him the papers. He looked at the first\nsheet of this complaint at the top part and\nhanded the paper back to me. He then asked me,\n\"What does your husband earn?\", and I told him.\nHe said he was sorry, but there was nothing he\ncould do to help me. Then he suggested that I get\ntogether with the other people named in the suit\nand hire an attorney, that it wouldn't cost much\nmoney. I told him that even $100 looked like a\nmillion dollars and I just couldn't raise it.\nHe said there was nothing he could do for me,\nthat CRLA could only help migrant farm workers\nwho earned less than $2500 per year. I told him\nthe only people you take care of is Cesar Chavez\nand UFWOC. He didn't say anything, but, looked\nat me with a smirk.\"\nCRLA not only serves UFWOC directly, it refuses\nservice, even if they are poor to those who oppose the\nunion. (Exhibit 04-004F).\nOn September 4, 1970, during a UFWOC rally in\nsupport of the union's lettuce strike in Salinas, a per-\nson identified as Neil Levy, who is listed as an attorney\nwith the CRLA Salinas Office, is reported by a newsman to\nhave addressed the rally and offered the support of the\nCRLA Salinas office, to defend against unlawful detainer\nactions.\nA T.V. film clip in the possession of our office\ndescribes the scene as follows:\n\"California Rural Legal Assistance Attorney Neil\nLevy asked that all workers return summonses from\n(145)\ngrowers notifying them to leave the camp, so they\ncan be answered in court, adding that in that way\nhe may be able to prolong the day of eviction.\"\nThe unlawful detainer actions grew out of the\ngrowers' practice of frequently paying part of their com-\npensation in the form of housing for the workers and their\nfamilies. When the union called the strike, the employers\nnaturally sought to cut off all compensation, which\nincluded free housing. The effect of CRLA's intervention\non behalf of the union was to bring additional economic\npressure to bear on the employers - an explicit union\nresponsibility - and to force perpetuation of part\ncompensation (the housing) by the employer.\nIn the case of Ardantz V. Pichardo, CRLA used this\ntactic in a strike in Santa Maria. The affidavit\nof the attorney who handled the case for the landlord-\nemployer states:\n\"During the Summer of 1970 there was a strike,\nthe farm workers no longer performed their work\nand Ardantz asked the Picha rdo family to leave,\nwhich they refused to do. Ardantz served the\nPichardo family with a 30-day notice to leave.\nAgain they did not leave. A complaint was filed\nfor unlawful detainer\nBy law, the individual\nmust answer the complaint within three days. CRLA\nadvised the Pichardo family that they did not have\nto leave the premises and subsequently filed a\nmotion to quash service of the summons. CRLA was\nattacking the legality of the three-day unlawful\ndetainer claiming that it was unconstitutional be-\ncause it did not allow sufficient time for the\nindividual to put in an answer to the complaint.\nThe brief that was submitted supporting this\n(146)\ncontention undoubtedly required much longer to\ncompile than an answer would have taken. A\nhearing on the motion was set, it was denied.\nThe defendants were subsequently given time to\nanswer the complaint; however, no answer was\nfiled because the Pichardo family had moved.\"\n(Exhibit 22-1035--Emphasis added.)\nCRLA's open and formal commitment to UFWOC strikers\nis dramatized by the attached affidavit of McFarland's\nChief of Police, G. Charles Mayes:\n\"In the CRLA offices, 332 West Perkins, McFarland,\nI have personally seen a poster of the \"Red Eagle\"\nwith the word, in Spanish, \"Huelga,\" which means\n\"strike\" in English. Also, bumper stickers of\n\"Strikers\" on the wall that show, in Spanish,\n\"La Raza\", which means \"The Causes\" in English.\nThere were also pictures of \"Strikers\" on the\nwalls\n\" (Exhibit 03-015F)\nOn November 24, 1970 invoices show CRLA's El\nCentro office purchased from Bailey Office Supply, 626\nMain Street, El Centro, 10 \"poster board, white, 22 X 28\".\n(Exhibit 03-0156). On December 11 the \"Free Chavez March\"\ntook place in El Centro, in which 22 X 28 posters were\nused by the demonstrators.\nOn December 11, at 9:00 a.m., 34 high school\npupils were taken from their classes at the Barbara Worth\nJunior High School in Brawley to participate in a march\nto El Centro for a demonstration on the courthouse steps\nto free Cesar Chavez, who was then in jail. (Exhibit\n03-0159). At 9:20 the same morning an additional 16\nstudents left school. Four others never showed up at all\nbut participated directly in the demonstration. The total\n(147)\nnumber of absences was 54. In addition, school officials\nfeel many parents kept their children at home to prevent\ntheir participation, as absences were almost double for\nthe day.\nIn the previous week, at the \"Casa de Armistad\" in\nBrawley, a community center, we are informed that the\nstudents were enticed to join the march by two UFWOC\nworkers and Robert Johnstone, an attorney at the CRLA\nEl Centro office.\nThe students were taken by car and possibly bus\nfrom \"Casa de Armistad\" to Imperial College without\nparental consent. Many parents in the community were\nfurious with what happened, and at the time of this\nwriting, many parents are considering taking legal action\nagainst CRLA and UFWOC. Petitions for signature are being\ncirculated at this time in protest.\nRobert Johnstone was present and involved during\nthe entire march. (Exhibit 03-0158).\nThe parents whose children left school to join the\nmarch were contacted by the school's principal, Jim\nThompson, and other school staff members. Only one parent\nknew where the students were - she stated that her child\n\"went to El Centro to riot.\"\nIn September, 1970, during UFWOC's lettuce strike\nin Salinas, a CRLA community organizer identified as one\n(148)\nManuel Olivas addressed some high school students at a\nformal outdoor meeting and urged them to participate in\nUFWOC activities. (We have a photograph of this.)\nDuring a strike in Santa Maria, Charles\nFarnsworth, a UFWOC attorney formerly with CRLA, came to\nSanta Maria. Deputy District Attorney for the County of\nSanta Barbara, James Houlihan stated:\n\"During his stay in town I saw Mr. Farnsworth in\nconstant company with Mr. Fretz of CRLA. In fact,\non one occasion, Mr. Joseph Gallas, an attorney at\nlaw, informed me that if I could not find Mr. Farns-\nworth at the Union Hall, he would probably be at the\noffice of the CRLA as he was using their law library\nand, by innuendo, possibly their staff to do legal\nwork.\" (Exhibit 03-0155).\nOn November 27, 1970, at approximately 6:30 P.M.,\nRobert Johnstone, an attorney at CRLA's El Centro office,\nand Gilbert Flores (alias \"Baby Huey\"), a community worker\nfor CRLA's McFarland office, and body guard for Cesar\nChavez, were described by a police report as leading a\nmarch of militant demonstrators behind the Christmas Parade\nin Delano. Police Captain Harry D. Gilbert of the Delano\nPolice Department describes the incident as follows:\n\"The Delano Police Department, while handling\ntraffic control for a parade in the downtown area\nof Delano, was confronted by a group of 25 to 30\nlonghaired militants led by Robert B. Johnstone,\nCRLA attorney, El Centro Office, and Gilbert Flores\nAKA Baby Huey, CRLA employee, McFarland office.\n\"This group marched down Main Street with their arms\ninterlocked, blocking traffic in both directions,\n(149)\nshouting \"Viva La Raza\", Viva Cesar Chavez, etc.\nPolice officers stationed along the parade route\nconfronted the group and ordered them out of the\nstreet since they were blocking traffic. John-\nstone and Baby Huey then led the group, four\nabreast, northbound on the west sidewalk of Main\nStreet, forcing pedestrians into the gutter.\n\"I approached the group in front of the Bank of\nAmerica building in the 1300 block of Main Street.\nWhen they observed me, Johnstone shouted in a loud\nvoice \"huddle\". The group then surrounded him in\na tight congregation and he spoke to them in a\nlow voice. They immediately dispersed and went in\nall directions. Johnstone and Baby Huey met with\nJohn Ortega at the Filipino Hall at Glenwood and\nCecil Aveneu approximately ten minutes later where\nthey conducted a meeting attended by approximately\n200 people, mostly of Mexican descent, many of\nwhom are known to man the picket lines for UFWOC's\ndemonstrations.\" (Exhibit 03-0160)\nFour patrolmen, who witnessed the event, also pro-\nvided statements. (Exhibit 03-0160)\nMr. John F. Adam, Jr., of Santa Maria, received a\nletter from UFWOC that was sent in an envelope bearing the\nreturn address of the CRLA Santa Maria Office. Mr. Adams\nrecalls the incident in affidavit:\n\"Another incident that disturbed me was the\nreceipt of a letter from United Farm Workers\nOrganizing Committee (UFWOC) notifying me, as\nan owner of Adam Farms, that UFWOC was about to\nfile a law suit against Adam Farms for supposed\nwrong-doing against farm workers. This letter\nwas inside an envelope which bore the return\naddress of CRLA Office in Santa Maria. I inquired\nat the CRLA Office and was informed that evidently\nthese envelopes had gotten into the wrong hands.\n(Affidavit of John F. Adam, Jr., Dec. 22, 1970.)\nExhibit 03-0161.\n(150)"
}