Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "118564786",
    "label": "CRLA - Study and Evaluation of CRLA by California OEO, 1971 - Condensation (2 of 2)",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564786"
}

{
    "id": "118564786",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564786",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "CRLA - Study and Evaluation of CRLA by California OEO, 1971 - Condensation (2 of 2)",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564786",
    "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-P29-020-2017.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408627/40-840-7408627-P29-020-2017.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408627/40-840-7408627-P29-020-2017.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564786",
    "naId": 118564786,
    "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-P29-020-2017.pdf",
    "mediaId": "78564e38985ba6ec",
    "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 - Condensation\n(2 of 2)\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/\nA STUDY AND EVALUATION\nOF\nCALIFORNIA RURAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE, INC.\nBY\nCALIFORNIA OFFICE OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY\n1971\nLEWIS K. UHLER, DIRECTOR\nSUMMARY\nGovernor Ronald Reagan has recommended the veto\nof California Rural Legal Assistance, Inc. (CRLA), a Fed-\nerally-funded legal assistance program intended to render\ncivil legal services to the poor in rural California\ncounties.\nA 283-page evaluation report, based on almost\n9,000 pages of referenced material and documentation,\nwas made public during the first week of January, 1971,\nafter its delivery to OEO officials in Washington, D. C.\nThe evaluation report is the work product of the Office\nof Economic Opportunity of the State of California - its\nDirector and its staff. Governor Reagan's veto was based\non the extensive findings of this evaluation report.\nCRLA is one of the largest publicly-financed\nlegal service programs in the United States. It is struc-\ntured as a California non-profit corporation, funded by an\nOEO grant. CRLA functions from nine operational offices,\na central administrative office in San Francisco and an\noffice involved in legislative advocacy in Sacramento.\nThe evaluation report is a voluminous catalogue\nof violations of CRLA's grant conditions, examples of poor\nquality legal service rendered and instances of political\nzealousness on the part of CRLA personnel, who super-\nimpose an activist far Left philosophy over their profes-\nsional and personal relationship to the rural communities\nthat they are intended to serve.\nOne section of the evaluation report details\n\"a dangerous thrust on the part of CRLA and its attendant,\ncooperative 'movement lawyers' into the affairs of our\n(California's) penal system.\"\nTwo murder cases are currently pending against\nBlack inmates at Soledad for the murder of Caucasian guards\nthe celebrated Soledad Soul Brothers' case and the\nSoledad Seven case. The evaluation report, through affi-\ndavits taken at Soledad, shows the accelerated involvement\nof CRLA attorneys at the prison installation since the\nmurders and even includes an affidavit of an inmate (who\nis witness for the State in the \"Soledad Soul Brothers\ncase), stating a CRLA attorney \"threatened the inmate and\n-2-\nsuggested that the inmate, at best, suppress evidence\nand, at worst, commit perjury at the murder trial.\"\nCRLA has filed a series of unorthodox and pre-\nposterous law suits, including a civil action alleging\nconspiracy to commit murder, alleging guards attempted\nto coerce inmates to murder other inmates to gain a\nvoice in the formulation of internal prison policy at\nSoledad. In the civil case for the conspiracy to commit\nmurder, the report on CRLA states:\n\"CRLA personnel had visited both the\nalleged victims of the purported con-\nspiracy, as well as those who were\nsupposed to commit the murders. It\nis truly a most astonishing situation\nfor any attorney or law firm to be\nconsulting with the conspiratorial\nmurderer and the alleged victim at\none and the same time.\"\nIn another section of the report, CRLA, its\nattorneys and personnel, are accused of fomenting school\ndemonstrations.\nAn affidavit from a school official in Marys-\nville, California, relates his conversation with a CRLA\nattorney:\nHearing several friendly convers-\nations on National, State and local\npolitical issues (the CRLA attorney)\nhas indicated to me that nothing short\nof a radical change in the established\n-3-\ngoverning procedures would remedy\nthe ills of National, State and\nlocal government. He informed me\nthat he was one of the first student\nradicals at University of California,\nBerkeley campus, and that he worked\nactively and closely with Mario Savio\nin the fifties.\"\nThis same attorney was a contributing editor\nof an underground newspaper published at the Marysville\nCRLA office, which, among other things, called the At-\ntorney General of the United States \"Pig Mitchell.\nIn Modesto, California, CRLA attorneys dili-\ngently directed the beginning of a school demonstration\nagainst the Modesto Unified School District over a con-\ntroversy relative to the free lunch program. They dir-\nected the demonstration from the streets and carried\nthrough by defending the demonstrators in court.\nIn all, the report, through affidavits and dir-\nect testimony, details nine separate instances of school\ndemonstrations and violence in which CRLA attorneys and\npersonnel helped to foment, continue and, ultimately,\ndefend the demonstrators, despite their grant prohibition\nfrom handling criminal cases.\nIn Imperial County, at El Centro, CRLA attorneys\nand personnel transported 94 high school students (some\n-4-\nof them juveniles) to a \"Free Cesar Chavez demonstration\nin the City of El Centro, without consent of the children's\nparents or the school.\nIn Delano, a CRLA attorney attempted to inject\nnon-student Brown Beret agitators in the internal affairs\nof the Delano school system leading to demonstrations that\nreached proportions of violence.\nAnother case detailed how a CRLA attorney used\nvile and obscene language on a high school panel to the\nchagrin of the faculty involved in the seminar. He cul-\nminated his activities before that junior high school class\nby writing \"F*CK VIETNAM on the blackboard.\nThe report states:\n'Our evaluation reveals very disturb-\ning evidence that CRLA and individual\nCRLA attorneys have acted and are act-\ning as catalytic agents in school agit-\nation incidents. Their actions have\nbeen direct and vigorous in helping to\nfoment serious student harassment of\nschool authorities, assault on school\ndiscipline, and the orderly conduct\nof the local schools.\n\"We've learned a lot from the Black\nPanthers; it's time for a White Pan-\nther Party\nWe have to find a cause\nof action: we have to start -- the\nrevolution is coming,'\none CRLA attorney is quoted in the Marysville, California,\nAppeal Democrat.\n-5-\nEven though CRLA is prohibited from representing\nlabor unions, their involvement with Cesar Chavez' United\nFarm Workers Organizing Committee (UFWOC) is obvious from\nthe incidents related in the report.\nCRLA's actions on behalf of Chavez' UFWOC are\napparently organized along two lines:\n(1) to put the Farm Labor Service Bureau of\nthe State of California out of business; and\n(2) to harass private farm labor contractors\nto the extent that their business enterprise will be un-\nprofitable.\nThe report states,\n\"\nThe termination of Farm Labor\nServices would appear at best a folly\nand at worst disastrous. Without con-\nveniently located centers through which\nthey could find available farm work, it\nwould appear that farm workers would be\nseverely harmed and would have to re-\nturn to their own devices for work oppor-\ntunities. 11\nThe dream of CRLA and UFWOC is that these State service\ncenters would be replaced by Chavez' closed shop farm\nworkers union.\nIn many areas of California, individuals known\nas farm labor contractors perform the function of provid-\ning farm laborers for individual farmers.\n-6-\nOrdinarily, the farm labor contractor operates\nas an independent contractor, arranging with the farmer\non a fixed fee contract or a percentage basis in excess\nof the actual farm labor dollars involved. For this the\nfarm labor contractors often provide living facilities,\ntransportation and other services for the farm workers.\nCRLA has entered lawsuits against private farm\ncontractors to harass them out of business, thus \"greasing\nthe skids for Chavez' union monopoly.\nThe report shows a further close association\nbetween CRLA and UFWOC. CRLA's original board of trustees\nincluded four members who were either directly connected\nwith UFWOC or closely associated with its work. They are:\nCesar Chavez, President of UFWOC; Oscar Gonzales, President\nof the United Farm Workers of San Jose; Larry Itliong of\nthe Agricultural Workers Organizing Committee; and Miss\nKathryn Peake, Vice Chairman of the Emergency Committee to\nAid Farm Workers. Jerry Cohen, now general counsel of\nUFWOC, was formerly employed by CRLA's McFarland office.\nCharles Farnsworth, one of Cohen's partners and active in\nUFWOC matters, worked in CRLA's El Centro office. Another\npartner, David Averbuck, came from CRLA's Marysville office.\nGilbert Flores, alias Baby Huey, is both a community\nworker for CRLA's McFarland office and a personal bodyguard\n-7-\nfor UFWOC's leader, Cesar Chavez.\nThe report states:\n\"It now appears that CRLA's conduct\nwith respect to agriculture in Cal-\nifornia does not consist of simply\nisolated actions in cases helping\nindividual poor farm workers and\ntheir families with their problems.\nThere is, in fact, a grand strategy\nwhich, until one has an opportunity\nto view the scene from a statewide\nperspective, is only a concealed\nagenda.\"\nThe report further accuses CRLA of:\n(1) assistance to UFWOC activists - pickets,\ndemonstrators and organizers;\n(2) actively working to destroy the major ob-\nstacles in its path, which are the Farm Labor Service of\nCalifornia and farm labor contractors who operate through-\nout the State.\nCRLA, by its grant contract, is prohibited from\nhandling criminal cases.\nThe report includes an affidavit from a past\nemployee of CRLA's Salinas office, which states:\nCases were accepted for clients\ncharged with criminal offenses, par-\nticularly after Attorney Bill Daniels\ntransferred from the Marysville office\n\"\nAn affidavit from a judge in Yuba City states,\nin part:\n-8-\nDuring the last year, 1970, there\nhas been at least five criminal cases\nthat have come before me in which the\ndefendant was represented by CRLA\nattorneys\n\"\nThe District Attorney of Santa Barbara County\nprovided the evaluators with four specific criminal cases\nwith CRLA attorneys as attorneys of record.\nThe District Attorney of Sutter County indicates\nthat he has given up objecting to representation of crim-\ninals by CRLA attorneys. Several district attorneys have\nshifted the focus of their concern about CRLA's represent-\nation of criminal defendants from concern about violations\nof CRLA's grant conditions to the quality of representation\nthat the criminal defendants are receiving from CRLA attorneys.\nWhen the fact that CRLA attorneys are representing\nclients in criminal actions is brought to the attention of\nthe management of CRLA in San Francisco, the Central Office\ninevitably responds by saying that the erring attorney\nhas provided representation on his own time, at his own\nexpense, and without charging a fee.\n\"\nIn response to this claim, one district attorney\ndeclared,\n\"This is ridiculous\nto say that an\nattorney working for a corporate law\nfirm may take on clients which are\nprohibited to him during the regular\nworking day. To follow this to its\nlogical conclusion, then a district\nattorney might well represent a lucra-\ntive personal injury case or a rich\ncriminal defendant on 'days off'. \"\n-9-\nThe report accuses CRLA of flaunting eligibility\nstandards for free legal service and accepting cases be-\ncause of personal value judgments often made for political\nreasons.\nIn the eligibility section of the report, one\ncase discussed is a lawsuit against the Registrar of Voters\nin Monterey County by a couple whose assets are in excess\nof $100,000. The report states:\n\"Causes are considered by CRLA attor-\nneys more often than guidelines. There\nseems to be a total disregard for assess-\ning economic eligibility guidelines as\nset out clearly in CRLA's grant contract.\n\"There is no doubt in our minds that\ncases are accepted that tend to reflect\nthe dramatic, the political and tend to\nconform with the cause in vogue of the\nindividual CRLA office involved.\"\nThe report further documents activities of CRLA\nin soliciting clients and stirring up litigation.\nIn one instance reported, CRLA attorneys let it\nbe known that they were \"looking for a woman on welfare\"\nto initiate a suit against the Madera County District\nAttorney's Office, because it was alleged that polygraph\nexaminations were given to Welfare recipients to deter-\nmine the truth.\n-10-\nAnother instance is related in which a CRLA\nattorney solicited clients in a newspaper article that\nstated CRLA \"needs a class suit to work with a group of\npeople to bring an action.\" This incident occurred in\nthe El Centro office, when CRLA decided to take action\nagainst feed lots in the Calexico area.\nIn Modesto, during the school dissentions and\nconfrontations, CRLA attorneys told students in advance\nthat they would represent them in court if they were ar-\nrested, as was also recorded in San Benito County.\nIn Salinas, during the news description of a\nUFWOC rally, the news commentator stated:\n\"California Rural Legal Assistance\nAttorney Neil Levy asks that all\nworkers return summonses from growers\nnotifying them to leave the camp, SO\nthat they can be answered in court,\nadding that in that way he may be\nable to prolong the day of eviction.\nThere are also cases in which the report states\nthat CRLA conscripts plaintiffs.\" On several occasions\nfarm workers were told that they were \"signing a petition\"\nwhen, in fact, they were signing a lawsuit against a gov-\nernment agency.\nIn her affidavit, a former CRLA employee states:\n-11-\nMany cases were established as a re-\nsult of manufactured situations. I\nmean by this that clients or potential\nclients were instructed in certain ac-\ntions and dialogue with agencies and\nprivate firms that would lead to liti-\ngation.\"\nA case is cited in which CRLA attorneys used\nthe name of the President of the Imperial County Medical\nAssociation in a telegram to HEW to accelerate the open-\ning of the Migrant Health Clinic in Brawley, California.\nThe use of this doctor's name was totally without author-\nization.\nMr. Frank C. Bozzo, Department of Farm Labor,\nat a San Benito County Board of Supervisors special\nmeeting, stated the following relative to CRLA's involve-\nment in this meeting:\nAs I was leaving my seat and walking\nto the door of the chambers, Antonio\nDel Buono, community worker for Calif-\nornia Rural Legal Assistance, shouted\nthat he wanted to talk to me, the man\nfrom the Labor Department, as he put it.\nI stated that I did not have anything to\ntalk to him about. He replied that he\nhad plenty to talk to me about\nWhile\nproceeding to walk away from and out of\nthe door, he shoulted 'On July 22nd we're\ngoing to close all the Farm Labor offices\nin the State. He did not elaborate who\n'we' were, but I presume he was referr-\ning to CRLA. I told him not to bother\nme anymore, and that I did not have\nanything to discuss with him. Again I\nrepeated that we have a legal staff\nthat represented the Department in the\nmain hearings and who I thought had done\na good job of it. At this point, a Maria\nMartinez Rivera, who had been in the aud-\nience at the meeting, overheard my last\ncomment to Mr. Del Buono. She intervened\nby making this statement, 'Good, I'm glad\nyou're telling him (Del Buono) off.' When\nhe heard this remark he turned around\nand started to shout to her in Spanish.\nSeveral Mexican-American men who were\nnearby jumped to her rescue and the police\nwere called. The evening ended with Mrs.\nRivera signing a complaint against Mr.\nDel Buono for using vulgar and profane\nlanguage in her presence\nIn Madera County, CRLA attorneys drafted a\ntrust agreement for a female Welfare recipient that put\nthe proceeds of the sale of property into the kind of a\ntrust that would make it possible for her not to report\nthese proceeds to the local Welfare agency.\nThe report states:\nWe have no record of any official\npunitive CRLA action concerning in-\ncidents of the professional behavior\nof individual CRLA attorneys or\nstaff members.\"\nThe report further states that one of the prin-\ncipal tools of CRLA is harassment. Because CRLA has un-\ntold legal power at its disposal and a staff of lawyers\nwith nothing to do but \"think up lawsuits,\" they can file\nlegal actions on questionable merit that would never be\nfiled by a person paying for legal service. In this way,\n-13-\nespecially in unlawful detainer actions, CRLA can harass\nindividuals, companies and public agencies with no regard\nfor the cost of legal services incurred.\n\"One thing about CRLA attorneys is they\nhave no regard for the use of time or\nthe cost of legal services.\"\nThe report states:\nIn our evaluation, in case after case,\nthere seems to be an immediacy and fin-\nality in the modus operandi of CRLA at-\ntorneys in lieu of reason, negotiation and\ncalculation. They are prone to sue, seek\ninjunctive actions, as in the vernacular\n'do their thing, without due respect to\nthe disciplined manner of thought process\nthat is so vitally important to the prac-\ntice of law.\nIn commenting on their lobbying office in Sacra-\nmento, the report states:\nIt is abundantly clear that this office\nnot only generates new legislation, but\nlobbies extensively on behalf of its own\nlegislative programs and those of others\nit considers appropriate. During the 1970\nsession of the Legislature, James F. Smith,\nCRLA lobbyist, successfully opposed cer-\ntain amendments to the State Welfare laws\nthat would have reduced the cost of Welfare\nto the State.\n\"Although lobbying is not specifically\nproscribed in the CRLA grant or OEO legal\nguidelines, neither is it explicitly au-\nthorized.\nIt is time that Congress and/or National\nOEO clarifies this area of activity. The\nlobbying question is a very close bedfellow\nof the 'suit against the government' activ-\nity. Clearly it is time that policy decisions\nwere made regarding these activities.\n-14-\nThe report also accuses CRLA of handling fee -\ngenerating cases (even though it is prohibited from handling\nsuch cases by terms of its grant) and cites the following\nexamples:\nA case of police beating and false imprisonment -\n$125,000; unlawful detention in violation of civil rights -\n$423,000 general and punitive damages; infliction of cor-\nporal punishment upon a school child - $39,600 general and\npunitive damages; a claim of illegal firing for union ac-\ntivity - over $500,000 general and punitive damages; false\narrest and police brutality case claiming $40,000 damages;\na claim of personal injuries in the counterclaim to an un-\nlawful detainer action - $20,000 damages; a personal injury\naction against the City of Delano - claim of $100,000 gen-\neral damages; an action against the City of Delano and its\npolice officers - a claim of $11,000 in exemplary and gen-\neral damages; a charge of injuries sustained due to an\nunlawful dismissal by the City of Delano - $5,000 damages.\nCRLA, in the voluminous evaluation report, is\naccused of \"institutional and structural defects beyond\nrepair. #\nAccording to the report, CRLA is:\n\"constituted at odds with OEO's pre-\nvailing premise. CRLA has had the\nproblems it has, substantially be-\ncause its organization ignored the\nrest of OEO's experience - which has\ndemonstrated the value of community\nparticipation and home rule.\"\n-15-\nThe report emphasizes the lack of community\nparticipation displayed by CRLA - with local bar associ-\nations, the community structure and the citizens of the\ncommunity.\nThe report states:\nWe were startled when we went out into\nthese communities and watched CRLA try\nto relate to the communities.\"\nIn most of its service areas, CRLA is\nthe largest office in the town, with\nprobably the only law firm Xerox machine.\nIn virtually every case, CRLA moved into\ntown and began making demands on everyone\nwith whom they had any contact: judges,\nthe local district attorney, welfare de-\npartment, farm labor burea, and so on.\nOften they dress in blue jeans, even in\ncourt, and sometimes without shoes.\n\"They typically become involved in school\nactivities, in which they encourage high\nschool students to prosecute legal claims\nbased on a constitutional right of a stu-\ndent to be immune from reasonable school\ndisciplinary procedures. In their re-\nlations with children, often they act as\nif they were above the law, indifferent\nto thw siehes of the children's parents,\nwhere the children may be useful to them\nin pursuing a 'cause' that they may think\nis important. Usually it relates to their\ngeneral assault on authority and discipline.\nCRLA's impact on the poor themselves was subject\nto the greatest concern, according to the evaluation report.\nCases are documented in which CRLA attorneys openly state\n-16-\nthey will not handle domestic relations cases and seem\nout of patience and indifferent to what the evaluators\nconsider were \"legitimate needs of the rural poor. \"\nThe evaluation suggests the need for a better\nrural assistance program that is oriented to the needs\nof the community and to the rural poor in those commun-\nities. The report states:\nThis Administration's deep concern\nfor meeting the legitimate civil legal\nneeds of indigents has prompted us to\ndevise a privately financed alternative\nto CRLA which holds enormous promise to\ntruly serving the rural poor.\nThe program, according to the evaluation, intends\nto create variations in the structure of each individual\noffice of the legal program through which it can be deter-\nmined the most effective way, as well as the most efficient\nway, to meet the legal needs of the area. The program in\ndepth will be announced before the end of January, when OEO\nin Washington must make the decision whether to override or\nsustain Governor Reagan's veto.\n-17-\nA STUDY AND EVALUATION\nOF\nCALIFORNIA RURAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE, INC.\nBY\nCALIFORNIA OFFICE OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY\n1971\nLEWIS K. UHLER, DIRECTOR\nSUMMARY\nGovernor Ronald Reagan has recommended the veto\nof California Rural Legal Assistance, Inc. (CRLA), a Fed-\nerally-funded legal assistance program intended to render\ncivil legal services to the poor in rural California\ncounties.\nA 283-page evaluation report, based on almost\n9,000 pages of referenced material and documentation,\nwas made public during the first week of January, 1971,\nafter its delivery to OEO officials in Washington, D. C.\nThe evaluation report is the work product of the Office\nof Economic Opportunity of the State of California - its\nDirector and its staff. Governor Reagan's veto was based\non the extensive findings of this evaluation report.\nCRLA is one of the largest publicly-financed\nlegal service programs in the United States. It is struc-\ntured as a California non-profit corporation, funded by an\nOEO grant. CRLA functions from nine operational offices,\na central administrative office in San Francisco and an\noffice involved in legislative advocacy in Sacramento.\nThe evaluation report is a voluminous catalogue\nof violations of CRLA's grant conditions, examples of poor\nquality legal service rendered and instances of political\nzealousness on the part of CRLA personnel, who super-\nimpose an activist far Left philosophy over their profes-\nsional and personal relationship to the rural communities\nthat they are intended to serve.\nOne section of the evaluation report details\n\"a dangerous thrust on the part of CRLA and its attendant,\ncooperative 'movement lawyers' into the affairs of our\n(California's) penal system.\"\nTwo murder cases are currently pending against\nBlack inmates at Soledad for the murder of Caucasian guards\nthe celebrated Soledad Soul Brothers' case and the\nSoledad Seven case. The evaluation report, through affi-\ndavits taken at Soledad, shows the accelerated involvement\nof CRLA attorneys at the prison installation since the\nmurders and even includes an affidavit of an inmate (who\nis witness for the State in the \"Soledad Soul Brothers\ncase), stating a CRLA attorney \"threatened the inmate and\n-2-\nsuggested that the inmate, at best, suppress evidence\nand, at worst, commit perjury at the murder trial.\"\nCRLA has filed a series of unorthodox and pre-\nposterous law suits, including a civil action alleging\nconspiracy to commit murder, alleging guards attempted\nto coerce inmates to murder other inmates to gain a\nvoice in the formulation of internal prison policy at\nSoledad. In the civil case for the conspiracy to commit\nmurder, the report on CRLA states:\n\"CRLA personnel had visited both the\nalleged victims of the purported con-\nspiracy, as well as those who were\nsupposed to commit the murders. It\nis truly a most astonishing situation\nfor any attorney or law firm to be\nconsulting with the conspiratorial\nmurderer and the alleged victim at\none and the same time.'\nIn another section of the report, CRLA, its\nattorneys and personnel, are accused of fomenting school\ndemonstrations.\nAn affidavit from a school official in Marys-\nville, California, relates his conversation with a CRLA\nattorney:\nHearing several friendly convers-\nations on National, State and local\npolitical issues (the CRLA attorney)\nhas indicated to me that nothing short\nof a radical change in the established\n-3-\ngoverning procedures would remedy\nthe ills of National, State and\nlocal government. He informed me\nthat he was one of the first student\nradicals at University of California,\nBerkeley campus, and that he worked\nactively and closely with Mario Savio\nin the fifties.\"\nThis same attorney was a contributing editor\nof an underground newspaper published at the Marysville\nCRLA office, which, among other things, called the At-\ntorney General of the United States \"Pig Mitchell.\nIn Modesto, California, CRLA attorneys dili-\ngently directed the beginning of a school demonstration\nagainst the Modesto Unified School District over a con-\ntroversy relative to the free lunch program. They dir-\nected the demonstration from the streets and carried\nthrough by defending the demonstrators in court.\nIn all, the report, through affidavits and dir-\nect testimony, details nine separate instances of school\ndemonstrations and violence in which CRLA attorneys and\npersonnel helped to foment, continue and, ultimately,\ndefend the demonstrators, despite their grant prohibition\nfrom handling criminal cases.\nIn Imperial County, at El Centro, CRLA attorneys\nand personnel transported 94 high school students (some\n-4-\nof them juveniles) to a \"Free Cesar Chavez demonstration\nin the City of El Centro, without consent of the children's\nparents or the school.\nIn Delano, a CRLA attorney attempted to inject\nnon-student Brown Beret agitators in the internal affairs\nof the Delano school system leading to demonstrations that\nreached proportions of violence.\nAnother case detailed how a CRLA attorney used\nvile and obscene language on a high school panel to the\nchagrin of the faculty involved in the seminar. He cul-\nminated his activities before that junior high school class\nby writing \"F*CK VIETNAM on the blackboard.\nThe report states:\n\"Our evaluation reveals very disturb-\ning evidence that CRLA and individual\nCRLA attorneys have acted and are act-\ning as catalytic agents in school agit-\nation incidents. Their actions have\nbeen direct and vigorous in helping to\nfoment serious student harassment of\nschool authorities, assault on school\ndiscipline, and the orderly conduct\nof the local schools.\n\"We've learned a lot from the Black\nPanthers; it's time for a White Pan-\nther Party\nWe have to find a cause\nof action: we have to start -- the\nrevolution is coming,\"\none CRLA attorney is quoted in the Marysville, California,\nAppeal Democrat.\n-5-\nEven though CRLA is prohibited from representing\nlabor unions, their involvement with Cesar Chavez' United\nFarm Workers Organizing Committee (UFWOC) is obvious from\nthe incidents related in the report.\nCRLA's actions on behalf of Chavez' UFWOC are\napparently organized along two lines:\n(1) to put the Farm Labor Service Bureau of\nthe State of California out of business; and\n(2) to harass private farm labor contractors\nto the extent that their business enterprise will be un-\nprofitable.\nThe report states,\n11\nThe termination of Farm Labor\nServices would appear at best a folly\nand at worst disastrous. Without con-\nveniently located centers through which\nthey could find available farm work, it\nwould appear that farm workers would be\nseverely harmed and would have to re-\nturn to their own devices for work oppor-\ntunities.\"\nThe dream of CRLA and UFWOC is that these State service\ncenters would be replaced by Chavez' closed shop farm\nworkers union.\nIn many areas of California, individuals known\nas farm labor contractors perform the function of provid-\ning farm laborers for individual farmers.\n-6-\nOrdinarily, the farm labor contractor operates\nas an independent contractor, arranging with the farmer\non a fixed fee contract or a percentage basis in excess\nof the actual farm labor dollars involved. For this the\nfarm labor contractors often provide living facilities,\ntransportation and other services for the farm workers.\nCRLA has entered lawsuits against private farm\ncontractors to harass them out of business, thus \"greasing\nthe skids for Chavez' union monopoly.\nThe report shows a further close association\nbetween CRLA and UFWOC. CRLA's original board of trustees\nincluded four members who were either directly connected\nwith UFWOC or closely associated with its work. They are:\nCesar Chavez, President of UFWOC; Oscar Gonzales, President\nof the United Farm Workers of San Jose; Larry Itliong of\nthe Agricultural Workers Organizing Committee; and Miss\nKathryn Peake, Vice Chairman of the Emergency Committee to\nAid Farm Workers. Jerry Cohen, now general counsel of\nUFWOC, was formerly employed by CRLA's McFarland office.\nCharles Farnsworth, one of Cohen's partners and active in\nUFWOC matters, worked in CRLA's El Centro office. Another\npartner, David Averbuck, came from CRLA's Marysville office.\nGilbert Flores, alias Baby Huey, is both a community\nworker for CRLA's McFarland office and a personal bodyguard\n-7-\nfor UFWOC's leader, Cesar Chavez.\nThe report states:\n\"It now appears that CRLA's conduct\nwith respect to agriculture in Cal-\nifornia does not consist of simply\nisolated actions in cases helping\nindividual poor farm workers and\ntheir families with their problems.\nThere is, in fact, a grand strategy\nwhich, until one has an opportunity\nto view the scene from a statewide\nperspective, is only a concealed\nagenda.\"\nThe report further accuses CRLA of:\n(1) assistance to UFWOC activists - pickets,\ndemonstrators and organizers;\n(2) actively working to destroy the major ob-\nstacles in its path, which are the Farm Labor Service of\nCalifornia and farm labor contractors who operate through-\nout the State.\nCRLA, by its grant contract, is prohibited from\nhandling criminal cases.\nThe report includes an affidavit from a past\nemployee of CRLA's Salinas office, which states:\nCases were accepted for clients\ncharged with criminal offenses, par-\nticularly after Attorney Bill Daniels\ntransferred from the Marysville office\n\"\nAn affidavit from a judge in Yuba City states,\nin part:\n-8-\nDuring the last year, 1970, there\nhas been at least five criminal cases\nthat have come before me in which the\ndefendant was represented by CRLA\nattorneys\n11\nThe District Attorney of Santa Barbara County\nprovided the evaluators with four specific criminal cases\nwith CRLA attorneys as attorneys of record.\nThe District Attorney of Sutter County indicates\nthat he has given up objecting to representation of crim-\ninals by CRLA attorneys. Several district attorneys have\nshifted the focus of their concern about CRLA's represent-\nation of criminal defendants from concern about violations\nof CRLA's grant conditions to the quality of representation\nthat the criminal defendants are receiving from CRLA attorneys.\nWhen the fact that CRLA attorneys are representing\nclients in criminal actions is brought to the attention of\nthe management of CRLA in San Francisco, the Central Office\ninevitably responds by saying that the erring attorney\nhas provided representation on his own time, at his own\nexpense, and without charging a fee.\n11\nIn response to this claim, one district attorney\ndeclared,\n\"This is ridiculous\nto say that an\nattorney working for a corporate law\nfirm may take on clients which are\nprohibited to him during the regular\nworking day. To follow this to its\nlogical conclusion, then a district\nattorney might well represent a lucra-\ntive personal injury case or a rich\ncriminal defendant on 'days off 11\n-9-\nThe report accuses CRLA of flaunting eligibility\nstandards for free legal service and accepting cases be-\ncause of personal value judgments often made for political\nreasons.\nIn the eligibility section of the report, one\ncase discussed is a lawsuit against the Registrar of Voters\nin Monterey County by a couple whose assets are in excess\nof $100,000. The report states:\n\"Causes are considered by CRLA attor-\nneys more often than guidelines. There\nseems to be a total disregard for assess-\ning economic eligibility guidelines as\nset out clearly in CRLA's grant contract.\n\"There is no doubt in our minds that\ncases are accepted that tend to reflect\nthe dramatic, the political and tend to\nconform with the cause in vogue of the\nindividual CRLA office involved.\"\nThe report further documents activities of CRLA\nin soliciting clients and stirring up litigation.\nIn one instance reported, CRLA attorneys let it\nbe known that they were \"looking for a woman on welfare\"\nto initiate a suit against the Madera County District\nAttorney's Office, because it was alleged that polygraph\nexaminations were given to Welfare recipients to deter-\nmine the truth.\n-10-\nAnother instance is related in which a CRLA\nattorney solicited clients in a newspaper article that\nstated CRLA \"needs a class suit to work with a group of\npeople to bring an action.\" This incident occurred in\nthe El Centro office, when CRLA decided to take action\nagainst feed lots in the Calexico area.\nIn Modesto, during the school dissentions and\nconfrontations, CRLA attorneys told students in advance\nthat they would represent them in court if they were ar-\nrested, as was also recorded in San Benito County.\nIn Salinas, during the news description of a\nUFWOC rally, the news commentator stated:\n\"California Rural Legal Assistance\nAttorney Neil Levy asks that all\nworkers return summonses from growers\nnotifying them to leave the camp, so\nthat they can be answered in court,\nadding that in that way he may be\nable to prolong the day of eviction.\nThere are also cases in which the report states\nthat CRLA conscripts plaintiffs.\" On several occasions\nfarm workers were told that they were \"signing a petition\"\nwhen, in fact, they were signing a lawsuit against a gov-\nernment agency.\nIn her affidavit, a former CRLA employee states:\n-11-\nMany cases were established as a re-\nsult of manufactured situations. I\nmean by this that clients or potential\nclients were instructed in certain ac-\ntions and dialogue with agencies and\nprivate firms that would lead to liti-\ngation.'\nA case is cited in which CRLA attorneys used\nthe name of the President of the Imperial County Medical\nAssociation in a telegram to HEW to accelerate the open-\ning of the Migrant Health Clinic in Brawley, California.\nThe use of this doctor's name was totally without author-\nization.\nMr. Frank C. Bozzo, Department of Farm Labor,\nat a San Benito County Board of Supervisors special\nmeeting, stated the following relative to CRLA's involve-\nment in this meeting:\nAs I was leaving my seat and walking\nto the door of the chambers, Antonio\nDel Buono, community worker for Calif-\nornia Rural Legal Assistance, shouted\nthat he wanted to talk to me, the man\nfrom the Labor Department, as he put it.\nI stated that I did not have anything to\ntalk to him about. He replied that he\nhad plenty to talk to me about\nWhile\nproceeding to walk away from and out of\nthe door, he shoulted 'On July 22nd we're\ngoing to close all the Farm Labor offices\nin the State.' He did not elaborate who\n'we' were, but I presume he was referr-\ning to CRLA. I told him not to bother\nme anymore, and that I did not have\nanything to discuss with him. Again I\nrepeated that we have a legal staff\n-12-\nthat represented the Department in the\nmain hearings and who I thought had done\na good job of it. At this point, a Maria\nMartinez Rivera, who had been in the aud-\nience at the meeting, overheard my last\ncomment to Mr. Del Buono. She intervened\nby making this statement, 'Good, I'm glad\nyou're telling him (Del Buono) off. When\nhe heard this remark he turned around\nand started to shout to her in Spanish.\nSeveral Mexican-American men who were\nnearby jumped to her rescue and the police\nwere called. The evening ended with Mrs.\nRivera signing a complaint against Mr.\nDel Buono for using vulgar and profane\nlanguage in her presence\nIn Madera County, CRLA attorneys drafted a\ntrust agreement for a female Welfare recipient that put\nthe proceeds of the sale of property into the kind of a\ntrust that would make it possible for her not to report\nthese proceeds to the local Welfare agency.\nThe report states:\nWe have no record of any official\npunitive CRLA action concerning in-\ncidents of the professional behavior\nof individual CRLA attorneys or\nstaff members.\"\nThe report further states that one of the prin-\ncipal tools of CRLA is harassment. Because CRLA has un-\ntold legal power at its disposal and a staff of lawyers\nwith nothing to do but \"think up lawsuits, they can file\nlegal actions on questionable merit that would never be\nfiled by a person paying for legal service. In this way,\n-13-\nespecially in unlawful detainer actions, CRLA can harass\nindividuals, companies and public agencies with no regard\nfor the cost of legal services incurred.\n\"One thing about CRLA attorneys is they\nhave no regard for the use of time or\nthe cost of legal services.\"\nThe report states:\nIn our evaluation, in case after case,\nthere seems to be an immediacy and fin-\nality in the modus operandi of CRLA at-\ntorneys in lieu of reason, negotiation and\ncalculation. They are prone to sue, seek\ninjunctive actions, as in the vernacular\n'do their thing, without due respect to\nthe disciplined manner of thought process\nthat is so vitally important to the prac-\ntice of law.\nIn commenting on their lobbying office in Sacra-\nmento, the report states:\nIt is abundantly clear that this office\nnot only generates new legislation, but\nlobbies extensively on behalf of its own\nlegislative programs and those of others\nit considers appropriate. During the 1970\nsession of the Legislature, James F. Smith,\nCRLA lobbyist, successfully opposed cer-\ntain amendments to the State Welfare laws\nthat would have reduced the cost of Welfare\nto the State.\n\"Although lobbying is not specifically\nproscribed in the CRLA grant or OEO legal\nguidelines, neither is it explicitly au-\nthorized.\nIt is time that Congress and/or National\nOEO clarifies this area of activity. The\nlobbying question is a very close bedfellow\nof the 'suit against the government' activ-\nity. Clearly it is time that policy decisions\nwere made regarding these activities.\n-14-\nThe report also accuses CRLA of handling fee -\ngenerating cases (even though it is prohibited from handling\nsuch cases by terms of its grant) and cites the following\nexamples:\nA case of police beating and false imprisonment -\n$125,000; unlawful detention in violation of civil rights -\n$423,000 general and punitive damages; infliction of cor-\nporal punishment upon a school child - $39,600 general and\npunitive damages; a claim of illegal firing for union ac-\ntivity - over $500,000 general and punitive damages; false\narrest and police brutality case claiming $40,000 damages;\na claim of personal injuries in the counterclaim to an un-\nlawful detainer action - $20,000 damages; a personal injury\naction against the City of Delano - claim of $100,000 gen-\neral damages; an action against the City of Delano and its\npolice officers - a claim of $11,000 in exemplary and gen-\neral damages; a charge of injuries sustained due to an\nunlawful dismissal by the City of Delano - $5,000 damages.\nCRLA, in the voluminous evaluation report, is\naccused of \"institutional and structural defects beyond\nrepair. \"\nAccording to the report, CRLA is:\n\"constituted at odds with OEO's pre-\nvailing premise. CRLA has had the\nproblems it has, substantially be-\ncause its organization ignored the\nrest of OEO's experience - which has\ndemonstrated the value of community\nparticipation and home rule.\"\n-15-\nThe report emphasizes the lack of community\nparticipation displayed by CRLA - with local bar associ-\nations, the community structure and the citizens of the\ncommunity.\nThe report states:\nWe were startled when we went out into\nthese communities and watched CRLA try\nto relate to the communities.\nIn most of its service areas, CRLA is\nthe largest office in the town, with\nprobably the only law firm Xerox machine.\nIn virtually every case, CRLA moved into\ntown and began making demands on everyone\nwith whom they had any contact: judges,\nthe local district attorney, welfare de-\npartment, farm labor burea, and so on.\nOften they dress in blue jeans, even in\ncourt, and sometimes without shoes.\n\"They typically become involved in school\nactivities, in which they encourage high\nschool students to prosecute legal claims\nbased on a constitutional right of a stu-\ndent to be immune from reasonable school\ndisciplinary procedures. In their re-\nlations with children, often they act as\nif they were above the law, indifferent\nto thw siehes of the children's parents,\nwhere the children may be useful to them\nin pursuing a 'cause' that they may think\nis important. Usually it relates to their\ngeneral assault on authority and discipline.\nCRLA's impact on the poor themselves was subject\nto the greatest concern, according to the evaluation report.\nCases are documented in which CRLA attorneys openly state\n-16-\nthey will not handle domestic relations cases and seem\nout of patience and indifferent to what the evaluators\nconsider were \"legitimate needs of the rural poor.\"\nThe evaluation suggests the need for a better\nrural assistance program that is oriented to the needs\nof the community and to the rural poor in those commun-\nities. The report states:\nThis Administration's deep concern\nfor meeting the legitimate civil legal\nneeds of indigents has prompted us to\ndevise a privately financed alternative\nto CRLA which holds enormous promise to\ntruly serving the rural poor.\nThe program, according to the evaluation, intends\nto create variations in the structure of each individual\noffice of the legal program through which it can be deter-\nmined the most effective way, as well as the most efficient\nway, to meet the legal needs of the area. The program in\ndepth will be announced before the end of January, when OEO\nin Washington must make the decision whether to override or\nsustain Governor Reagan's veto.\n-17-"
}