Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "118564778",
    "label": "CRLA - Study and Evaluation of CRLA by California OEO, 1971 (4 of 6)",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564778"
}

{
    "id": "118564778",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564778",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "CRLA - Study and Evaluation of CRLA by California OEO, 1971 (4 of 6)",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564778",
    "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-P29-016-2017.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408627/40-840-7408627-P29-016-2017.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408627/40-840-7408627-P29-016-2017.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564778",
    "naId": 118564778,
    "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-P29-016-2017.pdf",
    "mediaId": "8d77d87424618899",
    "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 (4 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/\nIn answer to questions raised by the District\nAttorney of Imperial County, Robert Johnstone, of CRLA's\nEl Centro Office, sent a letter to the El Centro Press,\nopenly stating his support of UFWOC, but claiming that all\nof his activities were on his own time. He wrote to the\nEditor:\n\"In regard to Mr. Hamilton's question about me\nsupporting the Chavez movement, he is absolutely\nright. I have never made any secret of the fact\nthat I support Cesar Chavez in his attempt to\nbring the basic rights of collective bargaining\nto farm laborers. This is particularly so in the\nabsence of any meaningful legislation governing\nfarm labor organization.\nHowever, anything I do for Cesar Chavez is\nentirely on my own time. Our office records\nreflect that so far this year at different times\nand at varying intervals I have taken a total of\n11 days of my 15 day annual vacation to work for\nMr. Chavez, and no other vacation whatever.\nThere are tremendous social conflicts in this\ncountry today and if I choose to spend my free time\nworking for social issues in which I believe while\nMr. Hamilton and others are sitting around sipping\ncocktails and wondering what the world is coming\nto, that is my business.\" (Exhibit 03-0176)\n-- In August, 1970, Judge Warren C. Conklin was\nassigned to the Municipal Court in Salinas during the\nlettuce strike called by UFWOC. Judge Conklin describes\nthe representation provided UFWOC members by CRLA\nattorneys\"\n\"While this strike was in progress, 3 women were\narrested for trespassing. While I was in my\nchambers, prior to noon, I was contacted by an\n(151)\nindividual who stated that he was an attorney for\nCRLA, however, he also stated that he was not repre-\nsenting CRLA. This person, a male caucasian, light\nbrown hair, afro-style, approximately 5'8\", 140 to\n145 lbs., dressed in a sports jacket, pants, tie and\nwearing saddle shoes, stating that he was making a\ncourtesy appearance for William Carder, attorney\nfor UFWOC, who was making a court appearance in\nFresno, California. This CRLA attorney asked me if\nI would arrange bail for the 3 women or release them\non their recognizance. I advised this attorney\nthat I would arraign these women if the charges\nwere filed. My normal position in these matters is\nthat I would not release anyone prior to arraign-\nment before I had a chance to read the police re-\nport. That afternoon, Mr. Carder returned and the\n3 women were arraigned and released. Shortly after\nlunch of the same day, I was contacted by another\nattorney who claimed to be from CRLA who was making\na courtesy appearance on behalf of Mr. Carder and\nrequesting release of 10 men who had been arrested\nfor, I believe, blocking a driveway. This\nindividual, as with the first attorney, stated\nthat he was not representing CRLA but was doing\nthis on his own time. I explained my position to\nthis attorney as I had done with the first attorney.\nThis attorney made it quite clear that he was not\nrepresenting the defendants in any court action and\ntherefore he could make no commitment on behalf of\nUFWOC. When I was advised of this, I stated to\nthis attorney that I was not interested in re-\nleasing these 10 men without receiving some type\nof commitment from UFWOC that UFWOC would influence\ntheir people against using violence, and would con-\ntrol their pickets. I cannot, at this time, recall\nthe physical description of the second attorney.\nAt a meeting held later in the day, attended by\nmyself, the first attorney from CRLA, a Mr. Kahn,\nMr. Ross and attorney William Carder from UFWOC,\nit was resolved that the 10 men would be released\non reduced bail. (Exhibit 03-0162).\nBrice Bonnard, Ranch Manager for Cel-A-Pak, told of\nhis experience with CRLA during the recent UFWOC strike\nin the Salinas area:\n(152)\n\"Originally, when some of our workers went on strike\nhere, who are living in our own housing units, I\ncame down with two of the foremen one day early in\nthe year and requested - went door to door, and\nrequested - of each member of the family that was\nstriking that we couldn't continue to give them\nfree housing unless they showed up for work, which\nI thought was reasonable. And about that time a\ncouple of gentlemen approached us with quite a\nfollowing behind them, and they were from the CRLA,\ntwo attorneys, and they did not state at first who\nthey were. And he asked me, he said, \"what are\nyou telling these people?\" Well, when somebody\nasks you that, you know, on your own ranch and\nyou're talking to your own personnel, that sort of\ngets your ire up a little bit. So I told him, I\nsaid, well, I said, it's none of your business,\nand with that\nFrane: Did they identify themselves?\nBonnard: Well, he did, he said I'm with the CRLA.\nFrane: Did he give you a name?\nBonnard: Yes, he did.\nFrane: Will you quote the name, please?\nBonnard: Levy.\nFrane: Levy?\nBonnard: Levy was the only name I remember; I\ncan't remember his first name. And with that he\nturned around and told all the people, he said,\ndon't listen to this man and don't pay any atten-\ntion to this man at all. He says, I'm going to\nrepresent you. And with that I jus t told him to\nturn around and get off the ranch, and with that\nhe wheeled around and left. And then after that\nwas when we were served with an injunction, which\nstated that we couldn't bother or harass any of\nthe people in our apartments - we weren't harass-\ning them - we were merely asking them if we were\ngoing to give them free housing they had to show\nup for work.\n(153)\nFrane: This housing is actually free?\nBonnard: That's right, that's right.\nFrane: To your employees?\nBonnard: To our employees. And we've never had\nany problems in the past about this.\n(Exhibit 03-0181)\nDuring the same strike in Salinas, Silvio Bernardi\nstated:\n\"I observed eight to ten pickets at the Apollo\nRanch Company on Preston Road on August 26, 1970.\nThe pickets have threatened workers of Apollo\nRanch Company by telling them that if they worked\nthey would be hurt and that the pickets would get\nthem after work. The pickets have gone into the\nfields of Apollo Ranch Company and prevented new\nworkers from working. The attorneys for the\npickets, the California Rural Legal Association,\nhave come on to my property to contend that I have\nshut off water, gas and electricity of my workers,\nwhich is untrue.\" (Exhibit 03-0182-09)\nA prominent attorney who has represented a number of\ngrower defendants in actions carried by CRLA has commented\nupon the relationship between CRLA and UFWOC. He has\nnoted especially the \"orchestration\" between CRLA and\nUFWOC in the organizing activities of UFWOC and the suits\nfiled by CRLA.\nNaturally, during a time of strike, any narrowing\nof reduction of the available labor force serves to put\nadditional pressure upon employers to recognize a union\nin order to be assured of adequate labor supply. In the\ncase of Diaz V. Kay-Dix Ranch (Sacramento County Superior\n(154)\nCourt No. 194357), CRLA sought to preclude the hiring of\nwetbacks by placing the responsibility for determining\ncitizenship status upon employers prior to hiring of\nlabor. The allegation was that wetbacks constituted un-\nfair competition with U. S. Citizens in agricultural work.\nThe case was commenced on meager evidence, lost in the\ntrial court and subsequently lost on appeal. However,\nthe timing of this case is what may be paramount. As the\nprominent attorney suggests:\n\" The Diaz V. Kay-Dix Ranch case and six other\nlike cases involving 16 grower defendants were\nfiled during approximately the same period and in\nthe same area that UFWOC was actively engaged in\na campaign to organize agricultural workers and to\nforce growers to sign union contracts without\nelections, etc. Also, UFWOC was using the pesti-\ncide issue in its organizational campaign in\nCalifornia and boycott activities in eastern\nmarkets, and the Bravo and Atwood Aviation cases\nwere efforts to assist unions in that direction.\"\n(Exhibit 03-0177-01)\n(Note: The citations on the above cases are: Bravo V.\nAlthouse Groves (Tulare County Superior Court No. 69754),\nand Atwood Aviation V. C. Seldon Morley (Kern County\nSuperior Court No. 103595) .)\n(5) Conclusion.\nIt now appears clear that CRLA's conduct with\nrespect to agriculture in California does not consist of\nsimply isolated actions and cases helping individual poor\nfarm workers and their families with their problems.\n(155)\nThere is, in fact, a grand strategy, which, until one has\nan opportunity to view the scene from a State-wide per-\nspective, is only a concealed agenda.\nThis grand strategy is to organize and unionize\nthe farm workers in California into a labor monolith -\na monopoly union - under the control and direction of\nUFWOC. The means of accomplishing this objective are:\n(1) assistance to UFWOC's activists - pickets,\ndemonstrators, organizers - and its rank and file members\n(and, therefore, necessarily, to the union itself); and\n(2) diminution or destruction of the major ob-\nstacles in this path. These obstacles are the Farm Labor\nService of the State of California and the farm labor\ncontractors who operate throughout the State, both of\nwhich constitute competition for UFWOC in providing\nemployment opportunities for farm workers.\nDoes this help the poor? Does this provide legal\nservices for the disadvantaged in rural areas? Or is\nthis legal services at taxpayers' expense to favor a\nlabor organization?\nAnd what about the long run? Inevitably, on the\nheels of the union comes mechanization. Of course, only\nthose who have the capital necessary to mechanize may do\nso, and the marginal farmers simply cannot compete. With\nmechanization and a reduction in the number of farms\n(156)\ncomes the inevitable reduction in farm labor jobs. It is\nan unfortunate fact that the knowledge and skill level of\nmost of those displaced does not auger well for their re-\ntraining potential. Probably, permanent exclusion from\ngainful employment will be the lot of many farm workers.\nIn the name of the poor, the number of poor will have been\nincreased.\n(157)\nVI.\nA CASE OF NON-COMPLIANCE\nA. Criminal Representation\nCRLA is prohibited from representing criminals\n(except in very special and restricted instances). This\nprovision has been made to assure that CRLA's resources\nwill not be dissipated where other Legal Services, such\nas those of the Public Defender, are already available\nto the indigent in California.\n\"The grantee shall not provide legal assistance\nin the defense of persons indicted or proceeded\nagainst by information for the commission of a\ncrime, except in extraordinary circumstances where,\nafter consultation with the court having jurisdic-\ntion, the Director of OEO has determined that\nadequate legal assistance will be available for\nan indigent defendant unless such services are\nmade available;\n=\n(CRLA Grant, Special Condition,\n6a)\n(1) The Honorable Claude J. Miller, Judge of\nthe Yuba Judicial District, Yuba City, stated in affidavit:\n\" During the past year, 1970, there has been at\nleast five criminal cases that have come before\nme in which the defendant was represented by CRLA\nattorneys.\nThe types of criminal cases that\nare handled by CRLA were disturbing the peace.\nTwo of these cases occurred in July, 1970, when\non two different and separate occasions two indivi-\nduals were brought before me for vulgarity. Both\nthe defendants were colored people. One, a Mr.\nGoodwin, had called the Police \"dirty fu-king pigs\"\nat the Sutter County Fairgrounds. He was represented\n(158)\nby Peter Haberfeld of the CRLA. Mr. Haberfeld\nrepresented the defendant in my court. Mr. Good-\nwin was later held to answer in the higher court\n(Superior Court). The other vulgarity case was\nBeatrice Johnson, a colored woman. She was also\nrepresented by Peter Haberfeld through completion\nof the case by trial when she was found guilty.\nThe only other case that I can recall was a wel-\nfare fraud case. Mr. Rogers of CRLA represented\nMr. Whitney through the entire court process. This\ncase occurred in September, 1970. It is my\nopinion and observation that any of the criminal\ncases that were handled by CRLA would have been\nhandled by the public defender's office.\"\n(2) James W. Houlihan, Deputy District Attorney of\nSanta Barbara County, stated that CRLA attorneys had been\ninvolved in the following criminal cases:\nPeople V. Angel de Jesus, (a criminal failure to\nprovide for minor children) ; People V. Santiago\nArquijo (another criminal failure to provide case) ;\nTiburcio Cardoza V. Guadalupe, Justice Court (a\ncriminal matter in which CRLA is attempting to have\na guilty plea set aside).\nThe CRLA paid staff attorney named by the affiant\nas handling the criminal cases for the above clients\nis Donald W. Haynes, of the Santa Maria CRLA office.\n(Exhibit 01-0004)\n(3) Eugene Grady, Jr. (alias Eugene Four X Brady)\nwas arrested by the California Highway Patrol,\nAugust 5, 1966, at the intersection of Lakeview\nand Brundage in Bakersfield. Grady, Jr., was\ncharged with a violation of PC 370 (selling the\nBlack Muslim newspaper, \"Muhammed Speaks\"). Grady,\nJr., had an arrest record of 33 previous arrests.\nAfter a three-day trial, Grady, Jr., was found\nguilty. His defense attorney was one Carol Ruth\nSilver, a paid staff member of the CRLA office in\nMcFarland.\n(Exhibit 01-0006)\n(159)\n(4) Martha White was found guilty of a violation\nof Section 242 CPC - assault on plaintiff Sam Evans\n(Case No 8725, Justice Court, El Centro, California,\nDecember 6, 1966). In February, five paid CRLA\nattorneys, Don B. Kates, Frank N. Denison, L.\nHarold Chaille, James D. Lorenz, Jr., and Robert\nE. Burke, undertook the representation of Martha\nWhite, alleging by way of habeas corpus that her\njail sentence on the misdemeanor was unconstitutional.\n(Exhibit 01-0008)\n(5) In April and May of 1970, CRLA attorneys Dan\nLowenstein and Phil Neumark represented initially 42,\nbut ultimately only 3, demonstrators who had been charged\nwith trespassing at the district offices at the Modesto\nUnified School District. (Exhibit 01-0010) The problems\nfor the poor people represented in criminal cases by CRLA\nattorneys are illustrated in the following statement by\na private attorney representing one of the co-defendants\nduring the trial that followed:\n\"This trial consumed eight days. Mr. Neumark\nand Mr. Lowenstein had represented all of the de-\nfendants originally and represented approximately\nfive of the defendants who actually went to trial.\n\"During the course of the trial I felt that Mr.\nNeumark and Mr. Lowenstein did not exhibit the\nprofessional competence necessary to adequately\nrepresent the defendants. Further, during the course\nof the trial, while engaged in conferences with\nall of the defendants and all of the attorneys, I\nwas given the impression that Mr. Lowenstein and\nMr. Neumark had given their clients erroneous\nadvice before the sit-in demonstrations took place\nin that the section of the Penal Code with which\n(160)\nwe were dealing, namely, Section 602 (p) of the\nPenal Code had been twice tested and found consti-\ntutionally valid prior to the time these incidents\narose.\n(Exhibit 09-0143-28)\n(6) Juan Riveria Lopez and Alberto Treillous\nLopez. Both entered a plea of guilty to battery\nin Municipal Court in Salinas, (Municipal Court\nTrial No. 60492.), April 18, 1970. Juan Lopez\npleaded guilty to the charge and was sentenced\nto 90 days. Alberto Lopez was referred to juve-\nnile officer.\nMr. Maurice Jourdane, a paid attorney in the\nSalinas CRLA office, represented both brothers.\n(Exhibit 01-0011)\n(7) Maria Castro Reyes stood trial at Soledad\nJustice Court October 1, 1970 (Case No. 40965)\ninvolving two Vehicle Code violations (CVC 22350\nand CVC 21950). Attorney of Record for Reyes was\nDennig Powell, CRLA Salinas office, directing\nattorney.\n(Exhibit 01-0012)\n(8) Ramon Mazon and Carlos Bowker were arrested\non June 13, 1970, and charged with the violation\nof an Imperial County ordinance that prohibits\nths use of a sound equipped vehicle without a per-\nmit.\nMazon and Bowker were represented in the criminal\naction by the CRLA El Centro Office.\n(Exhibit 01-0014)\n(9) Roger Goodwin was arraigned in the Yuba City\nDistrict Court on August 4, 1970, for attacking\nSutter County Sheriff Deputy Stephen Sizelove with\na piece of pipe at the intersection of Franklin\nRoad and Garden Highway in Marysville.\n(161)\nGoodwin's attorney of record in this criminal\naction was CRLA attorney Peter Haberfeld of the\nMarysville CRla office.\n(Exhibit 01-0005)\n(10) Trinidad Segovia (alias Trinidad Perez) was\narrested and tried for a violation of Section\n11482 of the Welfare and Institutions Code rela-\ntive to welfare fraud. On January 27, 1969, she\nwas found guilty of the charge in Superior Court,\nMadera County, No. 3572.\nTrinidad Segovia's defense attorney of record was\na Dennis R. Powell, a paid staff attorney for the\nCRLA office, Madera.\n(Exhibit 01-0015)\n(11) On January 3, 1968, Gary Bellows, a CRLA\nattorney with the McFarland office, successfully\npetitioned the Municipal Court to dismiss proceed-\nings against Samuel R. Florez and Frank Espinozo,\nwho on October 16, 1969, had been convicted by a\njury of resisting arrest.\n(Exhibit 01-0016)\n(12) Judge Howard T. Hudson, Judge in the King City\nJudicial District, Monterey County, California, states:\n\"I have been a judge for six (6) years. I have\nhad knowledge of California Rural Legal Assistance\nCRLA since its inception. On numerous occasions\nI have had personal contact with attorneys from\nCRLA who represented individuals regarding civil\naction in unlawful detainer cases. Approximately\nthree (3) years ago, in Soledad Judicial District,\nan attorney defended an individual in a criminal\nmatter, violation of section 12500 California Ve-\nhicle Code which is operating a vehicle without\na valid driver's license. I cannot recall the\nname of the case or the attorney; however, I do\n(162)\nrecall that he was a member of CRLA. This attor-\nney stated that he was appearing for the defendant\nas a private attorney and not as a member of CRLA.\nIn the matter of the People VS. Manuel Echavarria,\nBurton Fretz appeared as counsel for the defendant;\nhowever Mr. Fretz made it a point to state that he\nwas defending Echavarria as a private attorney and\nnot as a member of CRLA. Several weeks ago, Mr.\nFretz appeared in the Grover City Judicial District,\nSan Luis Obispo County, to defend an individual and\nagain stated that he was appearing on behalf of the\ndefendant as private counsel and not as a member of\nCRLA. In both of these incidents in the Grover City\nJudicial District, Mr. Fretz has appeared before\nme during the normal hours the court is in session.\nThese hours are normally 9:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.,\nMonday through Friday. Mr. Fretz appeared in this\ncourt on four (4) different occasions with respect\nto Echavarria matter. Mr. Fretz appeared in\ncourt on July 31, 1970 to file a motion to dis-\nqualify me on the grounds that I was lay judge,\non August 6th and August 7th, 1970 for the trial,\nand on October 5th, 1970 to prepare a settled state-\nment. Mr. Fretz also appeared in the Superior\nCourt, San Luis Obispo, after October 5th, 1970,\nto argue the case on appeal. Mr. Fretz has also\nappeared in this court on other occasions with\nregard to this matter. However, I was not present\non these occasions and I do not know the exact dates.\n(In my opinion the original concept of CRLA is a\nvalid one; however, CRLA, during recent months ap-\npears to be more concerned with filing suits in\nclass action suits as opposed to representing under-\nprivileged individuals in civil matters)\n(Exhibit 01-0017)\n(13) Louis Gordan was charged with the misdemeanor\nof disturbance of the peace and failure to disperse\nin the Yuba City District Court in August, 1970.\nGordan was arrested for disturbance at the Sutter\nCounty Sheriff's Office when he was demanding the\nrelease of a prisoner held on an assault with a\ndeadly weapon charge.\n(Exhibit 01-0007)\n(163)\n(14) Dolores Duarte Padilla, Delano, was arrested\non September 1, 1967, for double parking, resisting\narrest and reckless driving. She was convicted of\nresisting arrest and entered a plea of guilty to\nreckless driving.\nDolores Duarte Padilla was represented in court\nby a paid CRLA staff member, Carol Ruth Silver, of\nthe McFarland office.\n(Exhibit 01-0013)\n(15) CRLA attorney Burton Fretz of the Santa Maria\noffice defended one Pedro Castillo Ybarra on a\ndrunken driving charge (violation of CVC 232102a).\nWhen Fretz was asked by Deputy District Attorney\nR. A. Carsel his reason for taking this case in\nlight of the OEO restrictions, Fretz (on or about\n12/7/70) replied he had received a special dispen-\nsation \"because the issues presented were of great\nsignificance to large numbers of persons on a class\naction basis. =\n(Exhibit 01-0049)\n(16) Jorge Jarpa was listed as a community worker\nfor the Santa Maria CRLA office. He was arrested\non February 21, 1970, by the California Highway\nPatrol on a charge of possession of marijuana.\nJarpa was defended in this criminal action by\nBurton D. Fretz, listed as a paid associate attorney\nfor the Santa Maria CRLA office. Although no longer\non the staff, Jarpa remained in the employ of\nCRLA for more than six months after his arrest.\n(Exhibit 01-0138)\n(17) People V. Art Bryant, Bakersfield Municipal\nCourt, charge of disturbing the peace, to wit,\nallegedly mouthing obscenities at a police officer\non a college campus in the presence of female\nstudents - represented by Martin Spiegel, CRLA\nattorney, Santa Rosa.\n(Exhibit 01-0021-01)\n(164)\nContrary to the claim of CRLA, as contained in\nits 1971 Refunding Proposal, - narrative and budget, in\nwhich on page 33 thereof is claimed, \"CRLA has never\nbeen formally accused of violating the conditions of its\ngrant with regard to handling of criminal cases.\" (11-0171).\nIt is obvious that CRLA attorneys have ignored the pro-\nscription as to representation of those accused of crimes.\nThe record is replete with such representations. The\nDistrict Attorney of Sutter County, Mr. David Teja, indi-\ncates that he has given up objecting to representation of\ncriminals by CRLA attorneys. Several District Attorneys\nhave shifted the focus of their concern about CRLA's\nrepresenting criminal defendants from concern about vio-\nlations of CRLA's grant conditions to the quality of rep-\nresentation that criminal defendants are receiving from\nCRLA attorneys. CRLA's indifference to complaints about\ncriminal representation has successfully deterred people\nfrom complaining about that. But these District Attorneys\ncontinue to be concerned about the quality of representation,\nbecause of their deep concern that the poor receive quality\nservice. One District Attorney we spoke to said he felt\nuncomfortable having to assist CRLA attorney in criminal\ndefense, when his office was supposed to be on the other\nside of the case. He said his office continued to do it\nreluctantly, because of his fear that otherwise the defendants\n(165)\nwould not receive adequate counsel.\nWhen the fact of CRLA attorneys representing clients\nin criminal actions has been brought to the attention of\nCRLA Management 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.' = (See letter of\nRichard Petherbridge, Chairman, CRLA Board of Trustees,\nto James R. Hanhart, District Attorney, Madera County,\nDecember 23, 1969 (Exhibit 01-0199)\nIn response to this claim, Mr. Hanhart declared,\n\"This\nis\nridiculous\nto say that an attorney working for\na corporate law firm may take on clients which are prohi-\nbited to him during the regular working day. To follow\nthis to its logical conclusion, then a District Attorney\nmight well represent a lucrative personal injury case or\nrich criminal defendant on internal \"days off\". It may\nbe that neither CRLA nor Mr. Spiegal has given this matter\nany close thought. (Exhibit 01-0199)\nSee also the affidavit of Reverend Monroe Carter\nTaylor, commenting on the participation of CRLA attorneys\nin the Modesto school demonstrations, and their claim\nthat it was all \"on their own time.' (Exhibit 09-0143-18)\n(166)\nEligibility\nEligibility as per OEO Instruction 6004-lb\n(December 1, 1970) is as follows:\nOEO Poverty Guidelines for All States Except\nAlaska and Hawaii:\nFamily\nNonfarm\nFarm\nSize\nFamily\nFamily\n1\n$1,900\n$1,600\n2\n2,500\n2,000\n3\n3,100\n2,500\n4\n3,800\n3,200\n5\n4,400\n3,700\n6\n5,000\n4,200\n7\n5,600\n4,700\nFor families with more than 7 members, add\n$600 for each additional member in a non-\nfarm family and $500 for each additional\nmember in a farm family.\n(Exhibit 11-0172)\nThis office, during our recent evaluation, never\nsaw any grave concern in any CRLA office that this guide-\nline be adhered to. Busy as so many CRLA offices are with\ntheir class action law suits, representation of school\ndemonstrators, harassing local and governmental agencies,\nand generally doing their \"legal thing,\" they neglect\nmonumentally their obligation to conform with the guide-\nlines for poverty qualifications for free legal services.\n1. OVER $100,000 NET WORTH AND GETS CRLA LEGAL\nAID\nJames T. May and Margaret H. May were co-plaintiffs\nin a lawsuit filed against Emmett Gene McMenamin, County\n(167)\nB.\nELIGIBILITY STANDARD FOR CRLA ATTORNEYS\nThere is a requirement for CRLA that clients meet\na prescribed income eligibility standard, so that those,\nin fact, able to pay for an attorney will do so and will\nnot utilize the limited resources of CRLA.\n\"The grantee shall not provide legal assis-\ntance in\nrepresentation in any case where\nthe applicant exceeds the financial eligibi-\nlity standard where a private attorney is\nwilling to provide representation and the\nclient and private attorney are able to reach\nan agreement on representation. In all cases\nexceeding the financial eligibility standard,\nthe applicant shall be referred to the local\nlawyer referral panel in order to obtain re-\npresentation. In the event the lawyer referral\npanel is unable to make satisfactory arrange-\nments for representation, the grantee shall\nconsider the following factors in order to\ndetermine whether representation shall be\nprovided: (1) the amount of the fee likely\nto be charged the applicant by a private attor-\nney; (2) the extent to which the income of\nthe applicant exceeds the financial eligibility\nstandards; (3) the debts and obligations owing\nby the applicant; (4) the amount of real and\npersonal property owned by the applicant; (5)\nthe urgency of the applicant's problem; (6) the\nrelationship of the nature of the applicant's\nlegal problem to the general legal problems\nof the low income community intended to be\nserved by the grantee.\n\"If private counsel can be obtained for repre-\nsentation at any time during the case proceed-\nings, without jeopardizing the client's in-\nterest, the grantee shall terminate its repre-\nsentation of said client.\"\nCRLA Grant, Special Condition\n6c\n(168)\nClerk Registrar of Voters for Monterey County, for in-\njunctive relief after McMenamin discharged the Mays as\ndeputy registrars (civil action number 68060 -\nAugust 25, 1970, Monterey County Superior Court.)\nJames T. May, co-plaintiff, is a supervising\naccountant for Kaiser Refractories at Moss Landing, with\na salary in excess of $1,000 per month. Further, James\nT. May has property in Monterey County with an approxi-\nmate market value in excess of $75,000. A credit source\nin Salinas, California, indicates May's net worth is in\nexcess of $100,000.\nIt must be assumed that CRLA attorneys Dennis\nPowell, Maurice Jourdane, Richard A. Gonzales, David H.\nKirkpatrick, and Neil M. Levy (all of the Salinas CRLA\noffice) felt that the Mays qualified for poverty law\nlegal service. To be sure, the Mays in their lawsuit\nhad the whole CRLA office in Salinas at their disposal\nfor legal services free of charge. (Exhibit 06-0050-01)\n2. CRLA REPRESENTS SELF\nCRLA, on October 16, 1970, represented themselves\n(CRLA, et al, versus Eugene Zanger, et al, U.S. District\nCourt, Northern District of California, No. C702236GSL)\nin a complaint for injunction, damages, and declaratory\nrelief, for a violation of the plaintiff's civil rights.\nPlaintiffs (including the following CRLA Gilroy\n(169)\noffice staff members: Jose Chapa, Senior Investigator,\nannual salary - $8,250; Brian Paddock, Associate Attorney,\nannual salary - $14,000; and Don B. Kates, Directing\nAttorney, annual salary - $17,500) claimed their civil\nrights were violated while attempting to visit a farm\nlabor camp on defendant Zanger's property, and that they\nwere unlawfully detained by deputy sheriffs, who were\nalso listed as co-defendants. CRLA, Incorporated, has\nan annual budget in excess of $1,500,000 a year and the\nGilroy office of CRLA, one of the plaintiffs of this cause\nin action, has an approximate budget in excess of $80,000\na year. It is only for us to speculate how any of these\nnamed plaintiffs or CRLA, Incorporated, qualified for a\npoverty lawyer or rural legal assistance. (Exhibit 06-\n0051-01 through 48)\n3. ANOTHER CLEAR-CUT CASE\nAttorney Elmer L. Winger of Modesto, in an affi-\ndavit dated December 11, 1970, discusses a lawsuit in\nwhich CRLA attorneys of the Modesto office defended one\nRoy T. Hodge during the month of March 1968, in a civil\nmatter, wherein Hodge was being sued for delinquent pay-\nments on outstanding obligations.\nHodge lost the case and immediately paid his cre-\nditors. Hodge owned his own home, his wife was employed,\nhe owned an automobile and a Dodge mobilehome valued at\n(170)\n$20,000. Hodge's net worth barred him from free legal\nservices of CRLA, as stated in the guidelines, yet he\nwas provided those services by CRLA. (Exhibit 06-0052-01\nthrough 03)\n4. SOME WEALTHY ORGANIZATIONS GO TO CRLA\nPrior to February 1970, the Chowchilla, California,\nSchool District had a disciplinary policy that demanded\nsuspension of students guilty of using vile and profane\nlanguage on the school grounds.\nAccording to Edward Chidlaw, President of the\nMadera County Bar Association, CRLA attorneys came to\nChowchilla to organize the Chowchilla Committee for\nBetter Schools -- an organization that purported to be\ninvolved with equitable treatment of students in the\nabove matters of discipline. The legal counsel for the\ncommittee was a CRLA attorney, Fred J. Hiestand, who\nwas the attorney of record as legal counsel for the\ncommittee.\nIn his affidavit, Mr. Chidlaw states that the\ntreasurer of the Chowchilla Committee for Better Schools\nwas worth in excess of $250,000, and that the main mem-\nbers of the committee were financially above the pro-\nscribed guidelines for eligibility to receive free legal\naid (Exhibit 06-0053-01 through 08).\n(171)\n5. CRLA AND THE ROCK FESTIVAL\nCRLA has acted as attorney for entrepreneurs who\nstaged a rock festival in El Centro on December 15, 1970,\nat Buckland Park. According to news reports, an estimated\n800 persons attended the rock festival.\nBob Johnstone, of the CRLA office in El Centro,\nacted as legal representative of the entrepreneurs who\nstaged this rock festival, which does not conform with\neligibility guidelines for the CRLA in the opinion of\nthis office. (Exhibit 06-0129-01 and 02)\n6. CAUSES ARE CONSIDERED MORE OFTEN THAN GUIDE-\nLINES BY CRLA\nThe representation of Steve Smith and Kieth Jeffers\nby the Marysville CRLA office in a suit against the Yuba\nCity Unified School District over dress regulations as\nregards the length of male students hair, according to\nDon Soli, Vice-Principal of Yuba City High, may well\nhave been in violation of CRLA's financial eligibility\nguidelines. Mr. Soli reports that the father of Steve\nSmith is an electrician. He further states that the\nfather of Kieth Jeffers is retired from the Air Force\nand is now employed by a newspaper and that Jeffers mother\nis a bookkeeper at a bank. Exhibit 09-0103\n7. ELIGIBILITY IS OF LITTLE CONCERN TO CRLA\nAn article in the Los Angeles Times, July 30, 1968,\n(172)\ndiscusses a complaint filed by two attorneys for CRLA,\nin which two teachers at Seaside, California, High School,\nBedford and Wilhelmina Vaughn, are plaintiffs against a\nSeaside landlord for refusing to rent a house to the couple.\nDespite the merits of the case, the Vaughns have only two\nchildren, and it would certainly appear that their com-\nbined salaries as high school teachers places them above\nthe eligibility standards for service to the rural poor.\n(Exhibit 21-0196)\n8. CRLA SUES FOR POLITICAL ORGANIZATIONS\nNews article from the Wall Street Journal dated\nNovember 16, 1970, states that CRLA filed a suit against\nHuman Resources Development on behalf of five organiza-\ntions:\nAmerican G.I. Forum\nSpanish Speaking Surnamed Political Association\nMexican-American Political Association\nLeague of United Latin American Citizens, District 10\nChicano Law Students Association\nThe suit charges discriminatory employment practices\nby the California Department of Human Resources Develop-\nment toward California's three million Spanish surnamed\nresidents.\nAll five above-named organizations are political\nin nature and CRLA is prohibited from representing political\norganizations.\n(173)\n9. CONCLUSION\nThere seems to be a total disregard for assessing\neligibility guidelines as per the CRLA grant as a matter\nof course in all CRLA offices.\nIt seems apparent that CRLA offices accept or re-\nject clients on the particular whim of the local office.\nThere is no doubt in our mind that cases are accepted\nthat tend to reflect the dramatic, the political and\ntend to conform with the cause in vogue of the indivi-\ndual CRLA office involved.\n(174)\nC.\nSOLICITING CLIENTS AND STIRRING UP LITIGATION.\nLawyers are prohibited from soliciting clients\nand stirring up litigation or cases.\n\"Stirring up litigation, directly or through\nagents. It is unprofessional for a lawyer to\nvolunteer advice to bring a lawsuit\nStirring\nup strife and litigation is not only unprofes-\nsional but it is indictable at common law. It\nis disreputable to hunt up\ncauses of action\nand inform thereof in order to be employed to bring\nsuit or collect judgment, or to breed litigation\nby seeking out those with\ngrounds of action\nin order to secure them as clients, or to employ\nagents or runners for like purposes\nA\nduty\nto the public and to the profession devolves upon\nevery member of the bar having knowledge of such\npractices upon the part of any practitioner im-\nmediately to inform thereof, to the end that the\noffender may be disbarred. \"\nCanons of Professional Ethics\nof the American Bar Association,\nRule 28.\n\"A member of the State Bar shall not advise the\ncommencement, prosecution or defense of a case,\nunless he has been consulted in reference thereto\n=\nRules of Professional Conduct,\nCalifornia State Bar, Rule 10\nThe issue of stirring up litigation is a particu-\nlarly sensitive one, because of the extent to which liti-\ngation of any sort, particularly suits alleging exploitation\nbetween one group and another, tend to stir hostilities and\ntensions between them. This is especially dangerous in\n(175)\nrace relations, where tensions and hostilities may already\nbe aggravated to near violence.\nThe importance of keeping controversies at the low-\nest level is vital with respect to the poor. The greater\nthe publicity suggesting exploitation, the more the indi-\nvidual poor person is apt to feel he has no real control\nover his own life and his own chances for personal ful-\nfillment. Consequently, there are here opportunities for\na very special kind of exploitation of the poor - - one\nwhich promotes psychological dependency by the poor person\non the individual raising the complaint.\nSettling a problem at the lowest level of contro-\nversy does not compromise the material solution. But\nthe quieter the solution, the less apt it is to encourage\nand aggravate the psychological dependency that may make\nit virtually impossible for \"poor people to help them-\nselves.\" It is for this reason that the following section\nis so important: because it illustrates the depths of\nthe exploitation that is taking place in CRLA's relations\nwith its clients and constituents.\nThe dangers in the situation are explored with\nsensitivity and depth in the 1970 Introduction to Nathan\nGlazer's and Daniel P. Moynihan's classic Beyond the\n(176)\nMelting Pot (Joint Study for Urban Studies of the Massa-\nchusetts Institute of Technology and the President and\nFellows of Harvard University) :\n(page XVI of \"Beyond the Melting Pot\")\n\"\nbut we do not feel, on balance, that the pri-\nmary failure (in race relations) was in the poli-\ntical response of government to recognized need\n\"We would point to two other areas of failure, at\nleast as important. One was the failure of intel-\nlectuals and the mass media to report and analyze\nwhat was happening. The intelligencia, as it\nso often has, lusted after the sensational and\nthe exotic. The hard work of politics and social\nchange bored it. An increasingly dangerous romance\nwith social brinkmanship and violence developed.\nThe main task of individuals, keeping the channels\nof thought and of communication honest, was in-\ncreasingly abandoned. Thus, until the rise of Black\nmilitancy a few years ago, it was typical for the\nintelligencia to argue that whatever the shape\nof race realtions, whatever the conditions of\nNegroes, it was fully and exclusively to be ascribed\nto Whites. This was an exaggerated and distorted\nview of the situation even 5 and 10 years ago. \"\n(page XVIII)\n\"The point is that the political failures of the\n1960s also include a failure by intellectuals\nand by the mass media they increasingly influenced\nto give a true and honest account of the situation.\nLies started, and they were not stopped, because\nthose whose task was to monitor words and ideas\nhad less and less interest in doing SO. It was no\nwonder that, even while progress was substantial,\nfears of genocide rose. =\nThe point to be emphasized here is that by escal-\nating their charges of exploitation, the intelligencia\n(177)\n(and here CRLA) tended to render the constituents psycho-\nlogically impotent to control their own affairs and to\n\"help themselves.\" A New Exploitation was at hand, and\nthe result was to make the poor more helpless than ever.\nIt was difficult to avoid the tragic irony of the situation\nwhich occurred as the agents of the Economic Opportunity\nAct, which had been charged with promoting independence,\nin fact set about to produce the most aggravated and in-\ntractable dependency the poor had yet known.\n(1) CRLA's Passion for Controversy.\nCRLA's passion for controversy and litigation are\ncaptured in the following incident, described by Detective\nC.E. Brown of the Delano Police Department.\nOn May 8, 1970, Patrolman Brown stopped a vehicle\ndriven by two Mexican-Americans in their early 20's for\nrunning a stop light. Because of a call on his Police\nradio, the Patrolman warned the driver but did not issue\na traffic citation for the violation. He describes the\nincident as follows:\n\"I was standing talking with the driver when a\nvehicle pulled up across the street and stopped.\nA MMA (Mexican-American) got out of the vehicle\nand walked over to the officer and traffic vio-\nlator saying in Spanish 'what's the trouble,\n(178)\nbrother?' I thought the two subjects were\nrelatives and advised him that there was no\ntrouble and that the vehicle had run a stop\nsign. I also advised him that the subject\nhad received a verbal warning and that no\ntraffic citation was being issued.\n\"At this point the MMA identified himself\nas John Ortega (CRLA attorney in the McFarland\noffice), stating that he was an attorney and\nwas there to give the driver legal advice.\nI asked Mr. Ortega for one of his business\ncards, whereupon he stated, 'I wouldn't give\nyou cops the time of day, and walked around\nto the passenger side of the vehicle and\nbegan talking with the other passenger. I\nasked the driver if he knew this subject and\nhe stated, 'No, but he sounds like some type\nof nut.' Again Ortega approached the under-\nsigned, demanded my name and badge number,\nsaying, 'We'll see you in court.' The driver\ntold him there was no problem and that he did\nnot need an attorney, whereupon Ortega stated,\n'Don't say anything, I'll represent you free.\nIt appeared to me this subject was attempting\nto cause a confrontation and to antagonize the\nundersigned. I advised Mr. Ortega of Penal\nCode Section 148 (interfering and delaying\na Police Officer), again stating there was\nno citation being issued and no need for his\npresence. He turned and put his face close\nto mine and shouted, 'You had better read the\nConstitution, if you can read.' The driver\nwas advised he was free to go, and drove away.\nOrtega stood and looked at the undersigned\nfor several moments, muttered to himself and\nwalked back to his vehicle.\"\n(Exhibit 17-0080.)\nThe Patrolman's recollection of the incident is\nsupported by the affidavit of Jerry Silva Hernandez, at-\ntached here as Exhibit 17-0080-08, which he signed July 21,\n1970, more than two months after the incident.\n(2) \"Looking\" for a Woman on Welfare.\nAnother incident reveals the general orientation.\n(179)\nIn 1969 Mr. Fred Hiestand, a paid CRLA staff attorney,\ninformed Mr. Herbert E. Bartow, a private attorney in\nMadera, that CRLA was \"looking\" for a woman Welfare recip-\nient who had been requested to take a polygraph examination\nby the Madera County District Attorney's office, so that\nthey could take legal action. Mr. Bartow mentioned to\nMr. Hiestand that he had talked to just such a woman re-\ncently, but when Hiestand asked him to furnish him with\nher name and address, Mr. Bartow refused. (Exhibit 07-0086.)\n(3) One Class Action Needed\nCall CRLA.\nThe CRLA local office in El Centro solicited clients\nto make complaints against feed lots in the Calexico area\nin a newspaper article in the Imperial Valley News of Feb-\nruary 3, 1967. The CRLA attorney soliciting clients in\nthis matter was Frank Dennison. Dennison said in his news\narticle that he \"needs a - class suit - to work with a\ngroup of people to bring an action\n\"\nThe article goes\non to state that complaints may be made to Dennison at\nthe legal assistance office in El Centro. (Exhibit 07-0089.)\n(4) A CRLA Either-Or Lawsuit.\nThe experience of Rachel Hubbard with the CRLA\nMarysville office combines an illustration of CRLA's\ninsensitivity to poor people with their passion to stir\nup litigation. As discussed in other sections,\n(180)\nMrs. Hubbard went to the Marysville office shortly after\nthe death of her husband to finalize adoption proceedings\nfor the child she had brought up since he was three days\nold. Mrs. Hubbard found the maximum grant of $150 that\nshe was able to receive from Welfare was insufficient to raise\nher child, but in order to qualify for the Social Security\npayments from her late husband's account, she had to have\nadoption papers for the child. Mrs. Hubbard went to CRLA\nfor assistance with the adoption, but CRLA told her they\nwould help her only if she agreed to act as a plaintiff in\na suit against the Sutter County Welfare Department. Mrs.\nHubbard refused to be a party to CRLA's scheme, and she\nleft the office. She states, in affidavit, that CRLA at-\ntempted to contact her five times on the telephone, offer-\ning to assist her with her adoption proceeding if she would\nsue the Welfare Department. She said their particular in-\nterest in this case came from the fact, described by a\nCRLA attorney over the phone to her, that this was \"the\nbest case they had come across.\" (Exhibit 02-0018.) She\ncontinued to refuse to submit to this form of extortion,\neven though it meant she had to do without the Social\nSecurity payments that would otherwise have been coming\nto her.\nIn other sections, we have discussed CRLA's\n(181)\nprosecution of the Santa Maria Berry Farm case, in which\nthe CRLA Santa Maria office sued a local grower, alleging\nthat he was spraying dangerous pesticides, but without\nbothering to communicate with him before the prosecution\nof the suit. As stated in his letter of dismissal, CRLA\nattorney Burton Fretz implicitly admits the only purpose\nof the litigation was to force the Department of Agriculture\nto make public, information regarding the spraying of pest-\nicides. CRLA imposed great costs both on the private de-\nfendant and on the Department of Agriculture in defending\nthe suit, which was brought against a private defendant\nfor the purpose of getting information from a public agency.\n(5) Solicitation Before a Demonstration.\nIn the Modesto School demonstration incident, de-\nscribed at pages and herein, CRLA was responsible\nfor organizing and directing a demonstration which resulted\nin the arrest and trial of some 42 demonstrators for tres-\npass at the Modesto School District building in April, 1970.\nThe affidavit of Rev. Monroe Carter Taylor, who is a mem-\nber of the local CRLA Advisory Board and Director of Social\nServices at the King-Kennedy Memorial Center in Modesto,\nis especially important in description of this incident.\nRev. Taylor states:\n(182)\nThese two lawyers were all too active.\nFirst, they told the demonstrators that\nthey would represent them legally in court\nif arrested. Second, they spent the entire\nday, day after day, at the City School's\noffice, with the demonstrators, where in\nfact they should have been at their offices\ndoing their official duties talking to clients.\nThirdly, they did represent some of the dem-\nonstrators who were arrested, and the two,\nLowenstein and Neumark, spent weeks in court\ndefending the demonstrators.\"\nCRLA's offer in advance to legally represent the\ndemonstrators in court if they were arrested was part of\nCRLA's organization of the incidents that resulted in the\narrests. It is notable that when the arrests actually took\nplace, the two CRLA attorneys who had organized the demon-\nstrations that led to them, had absented themselves and\navoided the discomfiture they had caused for their followers.\nSolicitation of cases is essential to CRLA's prison\npenetration, which is explored and revealed in Section V.A.\nhereof. In most of the affidavits we collected from pris-\noners at Soledad Prison and San Quentin, CRLA attorneys\ncontacted them in a great many instances for the purpose\nof solicitation. See Section V. (A) for further discussion\non this point.\n(6) The \"Hot Stove\" Case.\nThe so-called Hot Stove Case,\" described at page 60\nhereof, indicates both CRLA's passion for litigation of\n(183)\ncases that have publicity value and for perpetuating liti-\ngation after a solution has already been found. In that\ncase, CRLA claimed that the Welfare Department was with-\nholding funds to meet unmet shelter needs of Welfare recip-\nients. As pointed out above, the total moneys available to\nthe Sutter County Welfare Department amounted to $1200\n(some State, some County and some Federal) - which were\nestimated by the Director of the local County Welfare De-\npartment to be sufficient to assist two families during\nthe entire year when they were allocated. The Welfare\nDepartment was notified of the availability of these funds\nin December, and CRLA filed its suit in mid-January. No\neffort was made to negotiate the release of the limited\nfunds. When a local merchant offered to provide a stove,\nfor payment of which CRLA was suing the Welfare Department,\nCRLA asked the merchant to hold off until they could press\nthe case to decision. The result delayed delivery of the\nstove to the Welfare family for between four and six weeks.\nThe court sustained the Welfare Department's demurrer.\n(7) T.V. Solicitation in Salinas.\nIn September, 1970, at 6:00 p.m. newscast on KSVW,\nChannel 8, in Salinas, described a UFWOC rally and CRLA's\nparticipation in it as follows:\n(184)\n\"California Rural Legal Assistance Attorney\nNeil Levy asked that all workers return sum-\nmonses from growers notifying them to leave\nthe camp, so that they can be answered in\ncourt, adding that in that way he may be\nable to prolong the day of eviction.\n(Exhibit 07-0088.)\nHis purpose is clearly to assist the organizing\nefforts of UFWOC by soliciting and stirring up litigation.\nThis incident is dealt with at pages\nand\nhereof.\n(8) Deluded into CRLA Suit.\nStirring up litigation often involves conscripting\nplaintiffs. In the case of Wolfin V. Vinson, discussed at\npage\nhereof, CRLA filed suit on behalf of 16 Indians\nagainst a local car dealer. When they were later questioned\nin depositions, 15 of the 16 plaintiffs denied that they had\never been requested to be part of the lawsuit. For more on\nthis see page\n(9) Conscription of Plaintiffs.\nConscripting plaintiffs obviously goes considerably\nbeyond mere solicitation, for solicitation implies some\nkind of consent by the plaintiff. Another blatant case of\nconscription occurred in the 250 Farm Workers case against\nthe California Farm Labor Bureau, discussed herein at page\nThe affidavit of one of the plaintiffs states as follows:\n\"On or about March 3, 1970, I attended an\nEnglish class at the San Benito County High\nSchool\nA Mr. Del Buono of California Rural\n(185)\nLegal Aid spoke to the class. He asked the\nwhole group to sign a petition to get the\nState Farm Labor offices closed. He said\nthat these offices were not of any bene-\nfit to the worker and that the offices\nshould be closed, because if they were\nclosed then the workers could get higher\nwages. He recommended that if the offices\nwere closed then the farmers could come to\na union run by the workers or an agency\nrun by the workers. Mr. Del Buono tried\nto get all of us to sign the petition.\nEveryone else signed it, but I did not.\n(Exhibit\nThe conscripted plaintiffs' later surprise is re-\ncorded explicitly, for instance, in the affidavit of Felix\nGusman Gaono:\nA bearded man who said he was an attor-\nney for the California Rural Legal Assistance\ncame to my home inquiring of the people next\ndoor. With this man was a Mexican-American\nof approximately 25 years of age They\nsaid they were gathering signatures\ntoward the protection and betterment of farm\nlabor wages\nApproximately two weeks\nlater the Mexican-American returned to my\nhome with a typed statement for me to sign.\nHe did not read the statement to me. He\nsaid the statement was for the protection\nof the farm laborer who worked by the hour\nor piece rate. The man who had me sign the\nstatement did not tell me that the paper I\nwas signing was a complaint against the\nFarm Labor Office. If I had known that it\nwas, I would not have signed it, as I have\nno complaint whatsoever against the Farm\nLabor office. \"\n(10)\nManufactured Situations.\"\nIn some ways, CRLA's passion for solicitation and\nstirring up litigation is best described in the affidavit\nof Mrs. Amelia Harris, who was employed by the CRLA Salinas\n(186)\noffice from September, 1966, to June, 1969:\n\"Many 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 dialog with\nagencies and private firms that would lead\nto litigation.\"\nShe goes on to describe several cases brought in\nresponse to manufactured situations. Mrs. Harris was\ntreated summarily when she raised an objection to CRLA's\nconduct:\n\"After the California Rural Legal Assistance\ndecided to drop domestic relations cases,\nconsumer credit cases and automobile credit\ncases, I voiced the opinion that this was\nnot correct procedure under the guidelines\nset forth and that acceptance of other types\nof cases outside the guidelines while not\naccepting cases inside the guidelines was\nwrong, morally and legally. I was discharged\nin June, 1969.\"\n(11) CRLA Intolerant of Criticism - Private\nLaw Firm.\nCRLA is not tolerant of opinions that deviate from\ntheir own. Mrs. Harris was entitled to leave pay and sev-\nerance pay at the time of her discharge, but CRLA forced\nher to go to the Labor Commissioner through an attorney:\n\"The Labor Commissioner ordered payment of\nthe moneys due me plus punitive damages,\nand I was finally paid through the Labor\nCommissioner office.\" (Exhibit 09-0174)\nOccasionally, an effort by CRLA to stir up litigation\nand solicit clients is foiled by a private attorney who\n(187)\nsadistically offers to donate time. This situation is\nfrustrating enough for CRLA's attorneys, but it is intol-\nerable when the attorney appears satisfied that the problem\ncan be settled without filing a suit and going to court. It\nhas been suggested by one observer that perhaps such insensi-\ntive behavior by the private bar ought to be expressly for-\nbidden by OEO, or the Bar. The reasoning is that no exper-\nience is more frustrating for a poverty lawyer than judicial\nonanism.\nSuch a case as that described above was the case of\nDelfina Bocanegra, et al., V. Salinas Strawberries, et al.,\nSuperior Court, Monterey. The farm workers were represented\nin that case by Mr. W. F. Moreno, who described his contact\nwith CRLA in a letter he wrote on May 5, 1970:\n\"You may not know that we received a tele-\nphone call just prior to the time when we\ncontacted your office in that case and in\nthis telephone conversation the CRLA tried\nto convince us that we did not want this case\nbecause of the fact (a) that the people could\nnot get into our office during normal times;\n(b) that they did not speak English, and:\n(c) that it would not produce very much money.\n\"We insisted that we would make some special\narrangements to have a meeting at a time\nconvenient to the workers, that we could\nspeak Spanish if no other interpreter was\navailable, and that we were willing to don-\nate our services.\n\"As it turned out, the CRLA had already pre-\npared a complaint which they wanted us to\nfile before even contacting the proposed\n(188)\ndefendants. They requested permission to\nbe associated with our office in the suit,\nand we denied them permission. It was ob-\nvious from the fact that appointments were\nnot kept and other innuendos that they were\nnot really happy that we had accepted this\ncase. We believe that someone had required\nthem to really go down the list of lawyers on\nthe lawyers referral panel before they could\ntake the case.\"\nMr. Moreno continues in his letter a description of\nthe inappropriateness of litigation in this case:\n\"As you will recall, we contacted your office\nand demanded, and received, complete copies\nof all of the payroll records and we were\nable to resolve the matter to everyone's\nsatisfaction. There were errors in the\npayroll and the back pay was collected. No\nsuit was required. In the course of our\ninvestigation of the matter, we found that\nno attorney from the CRLA had ever talked to\nany of the proposed plaintiffs at any time,\nand as far as we know, even up to today.\nThe entire matter was handled by one of the\nCRLA field workers whom we have information\ntending to indicate was also an organizer\nfor the Chavez union.\"\nMr. Moreno ends his letter expressing the general\nhelplessness that people in the communities feel against\nthe poverty law establishment:\n\"Quite frankly, we are sending this inform-\nation over to you, but we do not expect that\nyou will have any luck in doing anything about\nthe CRLA.\nMr. Moreno's letter is Exhibit 07-0180. (See also\nthe affidavit of Mrs. Amelia Harris, Exhibit 09-0174.)\nMrs. Harris indicates that CRLA set up the Salinas Straw-\nberries case with a \"contrived situation. At the time,\n(189)\nshe was directing legal secretary for the CRLA Salinas office,\nwhich attempted to take the case. (As indicated in our dis-\ncussion of Mrs. Harris' affidavit at pages and hereof,\nin recalling both the Salinas Strawberries case and the\nMartin Produce case, she evidently confused their respective\nfacts, ascribing the Martin Produce facts to the Salinas\nStrawberries case. The significance of the testimony,\nhowever, is not compromised, in view of her charge that\nin both situations CRLA \"contrived\" the circumstances on\nwhich the suits were based.)\n(12) Conclusion.\nTo end the discussion of solicitation and stirring\nup litigation by mere reference to the rules of professional\nconduct of the American Bar Association and the State Bar of\nCalifornia would be to miss the vital significance that those\nrules have where poor people are involved.\nAs we have said, the genius of the Economic Oppor-\ntunity Act and its major innovation was its attempt to\napproach the problems of poverty by attacking poverty's\npsychological roots, which are buried in dependency. The\nissue is complicated, of course, because dependency has\nboth material and psychological dimensions, which often\nconflict. Often, a material victory (reducing material\ndependency) may produce a psychological defeat (by\n(190)\naggravating psychological dependency). This fact explains\nthe critical importance of the Bar Associations' rules\nagainst solicitation and stirring up of litigation when\nthey are applied to the poor. If a poverty lawyer spends\nall of his time telling an agricultural worker that he is\nbeing exploited by the grower, the lawyer is almost cer-\ntainly exploiting the worker psychologically. For the\nresult of this relationship will be to encourage the worker\nto resent the grower and depend on the lawyer, who has be-\ncome at once his \"champion\" and exploiter.\nWe think the incidents cited above concerning CRLA\nattorneys soliciting cases and stirring up litigation\nreveal at best a blatant indifference to the needs of\nthe poor, at worst a disposition to use their clients\nas ammunition in their efforts to wage ideological\nwarfare.\n(191)\nD.\nA CASE OF NON-COMPLIANCE - CONDUCT UNBECOMING\nAN ATTORNEY\n\"He (an attorney) should strive at all times\nto uphold the honor and maintain the dignity\nof the profession\n=\nCanons of Professional\nEthics of the American\nBar Association, Rule 29\nProfessional behavior just as ethical behavior\nmust have some objective yard stick of measurement.\nThis is a factor not readily understood by the \"new breed\nmovement lawyer\" who is more often than not the captive\nof a strong and dogmatic set of socio-political emo-\ntions that result in a behavioral myopia. Thus, a\n\"movement lawyer\" (As defined by Faye Stender) can,\nin the course of his legal profession write \"F*ck\nVietnam\" on the blackboard in front of a junior high\nschool class (as CRLA's Newmark did) and feel that his\nact is constructive and productive in its brash crudity\nand rote simplicity.\nTHE LEGAL STYLE OF THE \"MOVEMENT LAWYER\"\n(1) On August 30, 1970, a telegram was sent\nto Dr. James Cavanaugh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for\nHealth and Scientific Affairs, Department of Health,\nEducation and Welfare in Washington, D.C. The telegram\nrequested that Health, Education and Welfare funds for\nthe Migrant Health Clinic in Brawley, California, not be\n(192)\ndealyed or its opening date postponed. This telegram\nwas sent over the name of Dr. Elmer Werner, President,\nImperial County Medical Association. The charge for the\ntelegram was made to CRLA. On October 21, 1970, another\ntelegram was sent to Dr. Cavanaugh stating in part the\nfollowing:\n\"The telegram of August 30, 1970, over my signa-\nture was not sent by me and did not represent\nmy opinion.\"\nAccording to a letter of August 31, 1970, addressed\nto Dr. Werner, CRLA attorney John Denvir admits he sent\nout the original telegram without the approval of Dr. Werner.\n(Exhibit 14-0120)\n(2) The Director of Legal Services of the\nState Bar of California, F. Jay Lutz, sent a letter dated\nOctober 26, 1970, to Cruz Reynoso, Director of California\nRural Legal Assistance. In this letter Mr. Reynoso was\n\"advised that the committee (of the State Bar)\nhas reviewed the application of California\nRural Legal Assistance for OEO refunding for\nthe year ending December 31, 1971, and has\napproved the same.\"\nThe letter stated further that \"concurrently\nherewith\nappropriate members of the\nstaff of the Honorable Ronald Reagan are being\nadvised of the foregoing.\"\nIn response to this routine approval by the State\nBar, CRLA issued a press release beginning \"In an un-\nprecedented action,\" = and suggesting that the Bar had\n(193)\naffirmatively urged the Governor to approve the program.\nThe Sacramento Bee picked up the story and escalated the\nlanguage, presenting an even stronger impression of the\nState Bar's action.\nA member of our staff contacted the Chairman of\nthe Bar's Committee on Legal Services, which was responsi-\nble for the approval, and asked (a) if it was true that\nthe Bar was doing anything it had not done over the years\nfor all programs, and (b) if the Bar was urging the Gover-\nnor affirmatively to approve the program. The Chairman\nof the committee said on the phone emphatically that his\ncommittee had done no such thing, and that it would have\nbeen inappropriate for them to have done it, in any event.\nIt is interesting in this connection to consider\nthe nature of the State Bar's approval of CRLA. In an-\nother conversation with a member of our staff, the same\ngentleman referred to above indicated a dissatisfaction\nwith the amount of information they were given on the\nbasis of which they had to approve or disapprove the pro-\ngram. In some respects, this latter point, no doubt true\nin view of the evidence collected in this report, suggests\na possible area for reform in the way Bar Associations go\nabout evaluating legal service programs.\n(3) In an affidavit taken on December 23, 1970,\nMr. Richard A. Weiss, Los Angeles attorney, attested to\n(194)\nthree separate instances of \"unprofessional conduct and\nfrivolous waste of taxpayers' money by attorneys employed\nby the California Rural Legal Assistance.\" The first\ninstance concerns the case of Dubney versus Harold L.\nAnderson, wherein Mr. Budney was represented by Mr. Weiss'\nfirm, and Mr. Anderson was represented by CRLA attorneys\nRobert Bell and James A. Kealey. Mr. Weiss states that\n\"the CRLA attorneys represented Anderson for\nthe sole purpose of filing a motion to trans-\nfer the Los Angeles Municipal Court case to\nSonoma.\nThey lost their motion in the\ntrial court. They appealed and lost their ap-\npeal. They then made a motion for a rehearing\nand lost that.\nThe second instance cited by Mr. Weiss was in the\ncase of Creditors Service versus Fred Reed, wherein\nMr. Reed was represented by the CRLA through Florence\nBernstein, Barbara Sena, and Armando Rodriguez. This\ncase was started in the Los Angeles Municipal Court and\nthe CRLA attorneys filed in answer,\n\"A cross complaint for injunction and four-\nteen counts of punitive damages in the amount\nof $2,000.00 per count and moved to transfer\nthe case to the Fresno Superior Court.\"\n\"They then, in direct violation of the Code\nof Civil Procedure, paid the transfer fees.\nNo notice was given to the plaintiff and\nwithin ten days after transfer caused the\ndefault of plaintiff to be taken. Despite\ntelephone calls and letters they (the CRLA\nattorneys) refused to set aside the default.\nPlaintiff was forced to go to Fresno and move\nthe court set aside the default.\nAt the\nsame time the defendants made a motion to quash\n(195)\na writ of attachment. At the time of making\nthe motion there was no writ of attachment\nin existence. Their motion was denied. They\nfiled an appeal. We filed a respondent's\nbrief. They filed a reply brief. They then\nstipulated to dismiss their appeal.\nThe third instance also occurred in conjunction\nwith the Reed case. Here, CRLA attorney Barbara Sena,\nin opposition to plaintiff's motion to vacate the default,\n\"contained several items that were absolutely\nfalse and that declarant knew or should have\nknown were false.\" (Exhibit 14-0164)\n(4) In an affidavit taken on December 23, 1970,\nMr. Emil A. Markovitz, Manager and Corporate Secretary of\nCreditors Service of Los Angeles, states the following:\n\"I have been told by attorneys personally in-\nvolved in cases where parties were represented\nby CRLA attorneys, that when the CRLA attor-\nneys were informed that their clients owned\nassets which should disqualify them from re-\nceiving the services of CRLA, the informants\nwere told that it was none of the informants'\nbusiness that these persons owned these assets.\"\n(Exhibit 14-0164-04)\n(5) In a letter to Lewis Uhler dated December 8,\n1970, Mr. E. M. Azevedo, a Modesto attorney, relates and\ndocuments an instance of unprofessional conduct on the\npart of CRLA attorney Phil Newmark. The first point\nmade concerns a letter written by Mr. Newmark which was\nsent directly to one of Mr. Azevedo's clients, Dial Fin-\nance Company, by-passing Mr. Azevedo altogether.\nMr. Azevedo states that he was \"quite shocked\" to find\nfrom his client that Mr. Newmark had \"communicated\n(196)\npersonally with them.\" Another point Mr. Azevedo makes\nregarding Mr. Newmark's conduct is as follows:\nthe tenor of Mr. Newmark's letter is\nobviously slanted towards a class action\nthreat. They do not really seem to be con-\ncerned about the rights of the individual\nclient. If they were I am sure they would\nhave researched the law more carefully than\nthey did to determine that they were in fact\nin error, or they would have at least made\nsome kind of proposal to me that I could dis-\ncuss with my client (emphasis added) (Ex-\nhibit 14-0091)\n(6) CRLA paid staff attorney Philip Newmark\non invitation from the History Department at Grace Davis\nHigh School in Modesto, spoke on October 27, 1970, be-\nfore an audience of juniors at that High School. The\ntopic was \"What are the legitimate limits of dissent\nin America today;\" this talk brought an investigation by\nMr. Pete Doane of the Stanislaus County District Attorney's\noffice of the use of offensive language by Newmark dur-\ning his presentation. Mr. Doane's report indicates that\nMr. Newmark used the words \"sh*t\" and \"fu*k\" or forms\nthereof on three separate occasions during his speech\nand wrote the latter word on the blackboard. While\none teacher \"related that Newmark seemed to have gained\nrapport with a number of students by his use of the ob-\njectionable words,\" one must conclude that such conduct\nis hardly in keeping with an attorney's obligation to\n\"maintain standards of appearance and decorum.\" (Ex-\nhibit 17-0136-01)\n(197)\n(7) On September 4, 1970, during a UFWOC rally\nin support of the union's lettuce strike in Salinas, a\nperson identified as Neil Levy, who is listed as an attor-\nney with the CRLA Salinas office, is reported by a news-\nman to have addressed the rally and offered the support\nof the CRLA Salinas office to defend against unlawful\ndetainer actions. A television film clip in the posses-\nsion of our office describes the scene as follows:\n\"California Rural Legal Assistance Attorney\nNeil Levy asked that all workers return sum-\nmonses from growers notifying them to leave\nthe camp, so they can be answered in court,\nadding that in that way he may be able to\nprolong the day of eviction.\"\nRule 13 of the \"Rules of Professional Conduct for\nthe State Bar of California\" states, in part:\n\"A member of the State Bar shall not accept\nemployment\nsolely for the purpose of\ndelaying another\n\"\nMr. Levy's actions in the case cited here appears\nto constitute a clear violation of this rule. (Exhibit\n14-0130)\n(8) On January 17, 1970, El Centro CRLA attor-\nney Robert Johnstone was arrested for \"willfully and un-\nlawfully, as driver of a privately owned vehicle, keep\n7 partially filled 11 OZ. bottles of beer which had\nbeen opened\nand the contents of which had been par-\ntially removed\nin a place other than the trunk\n(198)\nwhile such vehicle was upon a highway. Johnstone\nforfeited $50 bail on March 18, 1970. (Exhibit 17-0082)\n(9) Mr. Frank C. Bosso, Department of Labor,\nat a San Benito County Board of Supervisors special meet-\ning, June 25, 1970, entered the following into his re-\nport concerning the behavior of CRLA attorney Antonio\nDel Buono:\n\"As I was leaving my seat and walking to the\ndoor of the chambers, Antonio Del Buono,\ncommunity worker for California Rural Legal\nAssistance, shouted that he wanted to talk\nto me, the man from the Labor Department, as\nhe put it. I stated that I did not have any-\nthing to talk to him about. He replied that'\nhe had plenty to talk about to me. I suggested\nthat if it concerned the farm labor services he\nshould contact our legal staff in Sacramento\nfor any discussion he may want to have with\nme. While proceeding to walk away from and\nout the door, he shouted 'on July 22nd we are\ngoing to close all the Farm Labor offices in\nthe State.' He did not elaborate who 'we'\nwere, but I presume he was referring to CRLA.\nI told him not to bother me anymore and that I\ndid not have anything to discuss with him.\nAgain I repeated that we had a legal staff\nwho represented the Department in the main\nhearings and who I thought had done a good\njob of it. At this point, a Maria Martinez\nRivera, who had been in the audience at the\nmeeting, overheard my last comment to\nMr. Del Buono. She intervened by making\nthis statement, 'Good, I'm glad you're tell-\ning him off.' When he heard this remark he\nturned around and started to shout to her in\nSpanish. Several Mexican-American men who\nwere nearby jumped to her rescue and the police\nwere called. The evening ended with Mrs. Rivera\nsigning a complaint against Mr. Del Buono for\nusing vulgar and profane language in her pre-\nsence. According to the police records four\nwitnesses attested to the allegations.\" (Ex-\nhibit 17-0081)\n(199)\n(10) On or about March 27, 1970, Delano\nPolice Officer, C. E. Brown, stopped a vehicle driven\nby Gerry S. Hernandez, who ran a stop sign. According\nto his 7/21/70 affidavit, Officer Brown issued a warning\nbut no citation and was about to respond to a pending\ncall when CRLA attorney John Ortega pulled up offering\nto give the driver legal advice. Brown explained that\nno citation was being issued and asked Mr. Ortega\nfor a business card, whereupon Ortega stated, \"I\nwouldn't give you cops the time of day.\" When Brown\nasked the driver if he knew Ortega, the driver said,\n\"No, but he sounds like some kind of nut.\" Ortega de-\nmanded Brown's badge number, saying \"We'll see you\nin court.\" When Brown advised Ortega of Penal Code\nSection 148 (interfering and delaying a public officer),\nOrtega shouted in Brown's face, \"You had better read\nthe Constitution if you can read,\" and left mumbling.\nOfficer Brown's statement is sustained by the July 21,\n1970, affidavit of Gerry Hernandez, who stated that\nBrown was\n\"\ncourteous and friendly at all times,\"\nand that Brown treated Ortega \"\nwith respect during\nthe entire time.\"\nCanon 28 of the American Bar Association's \"Canons\nof Professional Ethics\" states, in part, that:\n(200)"
}