Concealing of Davis' Names Rejected

"These are outlandish claims by a convicted felon trying to reduce his sentence, and they're not worthy of a response,"

How does he know this if the name is still concealed? Oops, I guess that means that Davis did it.

Concealing of Davis' name rejected

The Bee was seeking unedited papers accusing the governor of
misdeeds.

By Sam Stanton -- Bee Staff Writer
Published 6:20 a.m. PST Tuesday, Dec. 4, 2001

                  Ruling that "the press must be free to monitor the courts," a federal appeals court
                  Monday found that U.S. District Judge Lawrence K. Karlton had "no adequate
                  justification" for concealing damaging allegations against then-state Controller Gray
                  Davis more than five years ago.

                  The ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals stems from a legal challenge by The
                  Bee to gain access to legal documents that Karlton had released only after blacking out
                  the name of a public official who had been accused of seeking help for contributors
                  from disgraced Coastal Commissioner Mark L. Nathanson.

                  Karlton had issued orders preventing the release of the name in the documents, and
                  even Monday's ruling did not name Davis, now governor, as the public official.
                  However, several sources have told The Bee that the allegations Nathanson leveled
                  were about Davis.

                                        "It's been a long and expensive fight, but we felt that the
                                        public has an absolute right to hear what's going on inside
                                        its courtrooms," said Rick Rodriguez, executive editor of
                                        The Bee. "In this case, there was an overwhelming public
                                        interest in disclosing this information. We are happy with
                                        the ruling."

                                        Rex Heinke, who argued the case for The Bee before the
                                        appeals court, said the ruling was "just what we sought:
                                        copies of the letters without any redactions."

Davis' aides have flatly denied the allegations and refused
to discuss them.

                                        "These are outlandish claims by a convicted felon trying to
                                        reduce his sentence, and they're not worthy of a response,"
                                        Davis spokesman Steve Maviglio said Monday.

                                        James C. Harrison of San Leandro, who was identified in
                                        court papers as the attorney "for the unnamed government
                                        official," declined to comment on the ruling Monday and
                                        whether he would appeal.

                                        The ruling orders Karlton to unseal the documents without
                                        editing and make them publicly available, a move that will
                                        bring to an end a bizarre legal fight over the allegations
                                        themselves as well as over what The Bee could legally
                                        publish.

                                        The case stems from the May 1992 federal indictment of
                                        Nathanson in which he was accused of using his position to
                                        seek bribes from people with business before the
                  commission.

                  Nathanson, a prominent Los Angeles-area businessman and associate of various
                  big-name politicians, cut a deal with prosecutors before trial to plead guilty to using his
                  post as a "racketeering enterprise" in which he sought bribes from 14 people ranging
                  from $25,000 to $250,000.

He also pleaded guilty to filing a false tax return in 1991 to conceal one of the bribes.

The bribes largely were sought from people with property or homes along the California
coast who needed permission from the commission for building.

                  Under the agreement, Nathanson was sentenced on Aug. 24, 1993, to four years and
                  nine months in prison, and the agreement included a provision stating that the
                  government could seek to reduce his sentence within a year if he cooperated with
                  investigators.

                  The government did not do so, but exactly one year after he entered the plea
                  Nathanson's attorneys asked for a reduction and included two letters as evidence of his
                  cooperation.

                  The letters claimed that a "high political figure" had approached Nathanson about
                  getting campaign contributions from people who had appeared before the Coastal
                  Commission and that the politician had also sought favorable votes from the panel for
                  friends and supporters.

One of the letters also named a developer who had agreed to pay Nathanson a bribe
that would be disguised as a consulting fee to gain a favorable vote on the commission.

                  No action was taken on the motion by Nathanson's attorneys, and the documents were
                  never made public. Instead, they were placed inside a court clerk's safe, where they sat
                  out of public view for five years.

                  In August 1997, Assistant U.S. Attorney John Vincent filed a motion to cut
                  Nathanson's sentence by a year "in light of assistance he had provided to the
                  government," court documents say, as well as from concern for his health because of a
                  serious skin condition.

No hearing was held on the motion, and Karlton granted it a month later.

Nathanson later was set free, but on Sept. 14, 1999, his probation officer filed a
petition to revoke his probation because he had failed to pay restitution in the case.

                  Bee federal courts reporter Denny Walsh learned of the petition and noticed that the
                  original request for a reduction and the letters naming Davis were not in the Nathanson
                  files.

The Bee went to court to gain access to those documents, and after a hearing on the
matter Karlton ordered them sealed.

                  In December 1999, Karlton released the letters in redacted form, saying he had
                  blacked out some names for Nathanson's safety as well as to protect "the reputation of
                  other people" whom Nathanson had accused of wrongdoing in accusations that
                  prosecutors said were groundless.

                  The Bee challenged the redactions, and eventually printed a story based on sources
                  saying that the letters indicated Nathanson had accused Davis of seeking campaign
                  contributions and favorable treatment for contributors at the commission.

                  The newspaper also continued its legal challenge, and last April Karlton ruled that the
                  letters "contain no newsworthy information" and that the accusations against the
                  politician were "prejudicial to the official's reputation."

In releasing court documents at that time, however, the federal court mistakenly issued
a document with the name of the politician still visible.

The newspaper was ordered by Karlton not to reveal the name of the politician and to
return the document and all copies of it.

The Bee complied and continued its legal challenge.

                  Monday's 9th Circuit opinion by Judge John T. Noonan found "clear error" in the
                  Karlton rulings and said there are no "compelling privacy interests" protecting the official
                  from having his name disclosed in connection with the Nathanson accusations.

                  Citing other landmark cases involving freedom of speech, the court found that
                  protecting an official's name and reputation "is an insufficient reason" to suppress free
                  speech guarantees.

                  The Bee's efforts to explore why Nathanson's sentence had been reduced "was a
                  subject of legitimate public interest," the appeals court found, and the relevance of the
                  letters is something the press has a right to publish.

"No adequate justification for their redaction has been offered by the court or by the
official and the individual affected (the real estate developer)," the appeals court found.

It was unclear Monday whether any of the parties involved would try to appeal the 9th
Circuit ruling or seek a stay before Karlton receives the order to release the documents.

Please post the full text.

Rodney:

LOL :o)

Well, surely EVERY allegation against Gray Davis must be outlandish. He is a saint. An angel.

Also a liar, cheat, criminal, power thief, extortionist, baby killer, psychotic attacker of his employees, and a few other things...

If this was a GOP Govenor it would be the talk of Rather, Jennings and Browkaw tonight... *if* - sigh :\

Thanks Doughty.

The once invulnerable Davis is really starting to crumble. Definately gives Bill Simon a better chance this November!

Simon For Governor!

Here's the whole article for those who are interested:

Concealing of Davis' name rejected

The Bee was seeking unedited papers accusing the governor of misdeeds.

By Sam Stanton -- Bee Staff Writer

Published 6:20 a.m. PST Tuesday, Dec. 4, 2001

Ruling that "the press must be free to monitor the courts," a federal appeals court Monday found that U.S. District Judge Lawrence K. Karlton had "no adequate justification" for concealing damaging allegations against then-state Controller Gray Davis more than five years ago.

The ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals stems from a legal challenge by The Bee to gain access to legal documents that Karlton had released only after blacking out the name of a public official who had been accused of seeking help for contributors from disgraced Coastal Commissioner Mark L. Nathanson.

Karlton had issued orders preventing the release of the name in the documents, and even Monday's ruling did not name Davis, now governor, as the public official. However, several sources have told The Bee that the allegations Nathanson leveled were about Davis.

"It's been a long and expensive fight, but we felt that the public has an absolute right to hear what's going on inside its courtrooms," said Rick Rodriguez, executive editor of The Bee. "In this case, there was an overwhelming public interest in disclosing this information. We are happy with the ruling."

Rex Heinke, who argued the case for The Bee before the appeals court, said the ruling was "just what we sought: copies of the letters without any redactions." Davis' aides have flatly denied the allegations and refused to discuss them. "These are outlandish claims by a convicted felon trying to reduce his sentence, and they're not worthy of a response," Davis spokesman Steve Maviglio said Monday. James C. Harrison of San Leandro, who was identified in court papers as the attorney "for the unnamed government official," declined to comment on the ruling Monday and whether he would appeal.

The ruling orders Karlton to unseal the documents without editing and make them publicly available, a move that will bring to an end a bizarre legal fight over the allegations themselves as well as over what The Bee could legally publish. The case stems from the May 1992 federal indictment of Nathanson in which he was accused of using his position to seek bribes from people with business before the commission.

Nathanson, a prominent Los Angeles-area businessman and associate of various big-name politicians, cut a deal with prosecutors before trial to plead guilty to using his post as a "racketeering enterprise" in which he sought bribes from 14 people ranging from $25,000 to $250,000.

He also pleaded guilty to filing a false tax return in 1991 to conceal one of the bribes. The bribes largely were sought from people with property or homes along the California coast who needed permission from the commission for building.

Under the agreement, Nathanson was sentenced on Aug. 24, 1993, to four years and nine months in prison, and the agreement included a provision stating that the government could seek to reduce his sentence within a year if he cooperated with investigators. The government did not do so, but exactly one year after he entered the plea Nathanson's attorneys asked for a reduction and included two letters as evidence of his cooperation. The letters claimed that a "high political figure" had approached Nathanson about getting campaign contributions from people who had appeared before the Coastal Commission and that the politician had also sought favorable votes from the panel for friends and supporters.

One of the letters also named a developer who had agreed to pay Nathanson a bribe that would be disguised as a consulting fee to gain a favorable vote on the commission. No action was taken on the motion by Nathanson's attorneys, and the documents were never made public. Instead, they were placed inside a court clerk's safe, where they sat out of public view for five years.

In August 1997, Assistant U.S. Attorney John Vincent filed a motion to cut Nathanson's sentence by a year "in light of assistance he had provided to the government," court documents say, as well as from concern for his health because of a serious skin condition. No hearing was held on the motion, and Karlton granted it a month later.

Nathanson later was set free, but on Sept. 14, 1999, his probation officer filed a petition to revoke his probation because he had failed to pay restitution in the case.

Bee federal courts reporter Denny Walsh learned of the petition and noticed that the original request for a reduction and the letters naming Davis were not in the Nathanson files.

The Bee went to court to gain access to those documents, and after a hearing on the matter Karlton ordered them sealed.

In December 1999, Karlton released the letters in redacted form, saying he had blacked out some names for Nathanson's safety as well as to protect "the reputation of other people" whom Nathanson had accused of wrongdoing in accusations that prosecutors said were groundless.

The Bee challenged the redactions, and eventually printed a story based on sources saying that the letters indicated Nathanson had accused Davis of seeking campaign contributions and favorable treatment for contributors at the commission. The newspaper also continued its legal challenge, and last April Karlton ruled that the letters "contain no newsworthy information" and that the accusations against the politician were "prejudicial to the official's reputation."

In releasing court documents at that time, however, the federal court mistakenly issued a document with the name of the politician still visible.

The newspaper was ordered by Karlton not to reveal the name of the politician and to return the document and all copies of it.

The Bee complied and continued its legal challenge.

Monday's 9th Circuit opinion by Judge John T. Noonan found "clear error" in the Karlton rulings and said there are no "compelling privacy interests" protecting the official from having his name disclosed in connection with the Nathanson accusations. Citing other landmark cases involving freedom of speech, the court found that protecting an official's name and reputation "is an insufficient reason" to suppress free speech guarantees.

The Bee's efforts to explore why Nathanson's sentence had been reduced "was a subject of legitimate public interest," the appeals court found, and the relevance of the letters is something the press has a right to publish.

"No adequate justification for their redaction has been offered by the court or by the official and the individual affected (the real estate developer)," the appeals court found. It was unclear Monday whether any of the parties involved would try to appeal the 9th Circuit ruling or seek a stay before Karlton receives the order to release the documents.

Thank you for pointing us to this article. It's an important one. I just don't want it to disappear in a day or two. Once posted here, we can reference it for years. I know I'll want it handy next fall...

I know the Sacramento Bee has been pursuing this for a while and wrote a damning story about this (I think they've written many) where they talk about a politician who Nathanson implicated as demanding people/companies pony up money for policy (in addition to many other dirty secrets involved here). The name of the politician was not printed but it was rumored to be Gray Davis.

The wheels are coming off the wagon.

Impeach thanks for posting this and thanks to DoughtyOne for posting the full article.

Just another example of how dangerous this Facist Davis is. There is no law that he will not break or ignore to be reelected.

As Impeach posted, there will be zero mention of this on the national and local tv news programs.

Only via Free Republic can these messages get out and get the coverage needed to wake up people re Davis.

We must continue to support Free Republic with our donations to insure that the truth can get out.

Freepathon Holidays are Here Again: Let's Really Light Our Tree This Year, Official link: (Thread #5)

Why Free Republic needs 5000 regular monthly donors: (5000 Freepers who care are needed now!)

For regular snail mail donations:

FREE REPUBLIC, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794

(link for monthly credit card donations)

(Reindeer says, "Send PayPal direct to JimRob@psnw.com")

I think you're right ... and nothing has changed. I highly doubt that the lobbyists and special interests in California will ever turn against Davis, but it's "common knowledge" around the Capitol that he puts fundraising and legislation together. He's such a slime. I hope he's caught with his hand out once too often.

We always knew "GrayOut" Davis was a crook.....and being I live and breath in the Socialist Republic of NY, which is almost a political twin to California, we are used to liars, thieves, bribery, power-hungry politicians....so I say Good Riddens to Gray Out Rubbish! Plaster this article on every website and telephone pole you guys can find.

California is going to elect a Republican Governor folks!!!!

Unfortunately, one thing stands between your prediction and reality: The California Republican Party.

Perhaps I'm being pessimistic, but watch for them to run "Red" Riordan against "Gray" Davis. Davis will then run as a conservative and win. Why? Because he'll be telling the truth about who's more liberal or more conservative. I'd say that the odds are even money that the CA-GOP will run with Riordan and to the left of Davis. They'll get blown out of the water; just as they'll deserve.

Oh, the irony. Of course, it's Gray-out & friends that are the advocates of the Coastal Commission. But, they want to leave themselves an out, naturally! Hypocrites, the whole lot of them!

It is so sad that people think all politicians are crooks, when it is only a few. Gray Davis, of course, is the most aggressive fundraising -- stopping at almost nothing to raise money. He doesn't deserve to be dog catcher, let along Governor.

Let's hope someone solid with integrity like Bill Simon can come up and clobber him in the next election.

Bump for later read

I agree. The Calif Republican Party is PATHETIC. "Gay" Davis has been able to out-maneuver them every time. I'm supporting Bill Jones for governor, however, and I will fight to the end. For victory & freedom!!!

Normal democrat behavior. He'll probably be re-elected.

Excellent. Glad to hear it.

Simon For Governor!

It's a great time to be a California Republican!