Commentaries: Opposing views from police union, councilmen on lawsuit
Editor’s note: The Costa Mesa Police Assn. and the legal counsel for Mayor Steve Mensinger and Mayor Pro Tem Jim Righeimer recently released statements concerning their litigation. Righeimer and Mensinger are suing the association as individuals over alleged actions by two private detectives hired by a law firm employed by the association. The association denies involvement in the investigators’ actions. The Daily Pilot obtained permission from both parties to run their statements in full.
By the Costa Mesa Police Assn.
First published online by the association Sept. 4.
It’s been nearly three years since Mayor Steve Mensinger and Council member Jim Righeimer filed a suit against the city’s police officers. Currently, the case is in the Court of Appeals awaiting a decision, which could happen in weeks or months.
The facts remain the same, the short answer being we are being sued for something someone else did. We were not charged with any crime because we didn’t commit any crime. We cooperated since day one, and even waived our attorney/client privilege in front of the Grand Jury. No one does that if they are guilty.
During that time, and even today to some extent, a lot of false intel is circulated. The facts remain today as they were then:
A law firm — that many police associations in Southern California used for years — hired some private investigators who decided to engage in questionable tactics while conducting background checks on people running for elected office.
Being represented by a law firm is not illegal. Using investigators to conduct background checks is not illegal. The fact is, we do not know what went on between the investigators and the law firm. However, at the first sign of impropriety, we fired the law firm.
Critics said we should have known better. For a full decade prior to this incident we worked with this law firm, principally because of the number of O.C. and SoCal agencies it represented. We chose this firm because others in our profession trusted them. That we got blamed, for something a couple private investigators did while supposedly following orders from a law firm, is unfair, not to mention just plain crazy.
Newspapers referred to remarks some of our officers made at a retreat about the council members involved. Did some of our officers talk to each other about the named council members? Absolutely. Officers talk straight with each other just like other folks with work situations.
Lawsuits don’t come out of thin air. We know that the council members running for office were less than pleased that we (A.) chose not to endorse them, and (B.) shared the specific reasons why. As police officers, we owe it to our fellow officers to tell them the truth, and we would do it again. The fact that the same council members we did not politically endorse are the ones suing is not a coincidence.
The fact — after 430 days (as of Sept. 4) — we still don’t have a contract and have only 102 officers for 136 spots speaks to the city council’s low priority of Costa Mesa’s public safety. That all of this is making an extremely hard impact on attracting and retaining candidates is a bitter reality. Choose between a city with a known contract, or one that is being sued by its mayor and council member and has no idea what or when a contract might be offered? The answer is obvious.
The sadder, more sobering fact is that Costa Mesans are the ones suffering, literally. Rape is up, theft and many other crimes … This isn’t all conveniently explained because of Assembly Bill 109 and Prop 47. We need to be operating at full capacity: 136 officers, not 102.
Politicians wield a lot of power but to undermine their own city’s police force by recklessly labeling the police officers’ association and its members as criminals is inherently wrong.
We are pretty sure this isn’t what Costa Mesans had in mind when these officials took their oaths. One can only hope they will soon put politics aside and get on the same page in making public safety a higher priority.
THE COSTA MESA POLICE ASSN. is the bargaining unit that represents sworn police personnel.
*
By the legal counsel for Mayor Steve Mensinger, Mayor Pro Tem Jim Righeimer and Lene RigheimerOn Sept. 4, 2015, the Costa Mesa Police Assn. (CMPA) disseminated a press update entitled “Mayor-Councilmember v. Police Association Lawsuit Update.” The update contains several factual errors, omissions and misleading statements. The present release by Mr. James Righeimer, his wife, Mrs. Lene Righeimer and Mr. Steve Mensinger, addresses those factual errors, omissions and misstatements.
From the outset, the update casts the present lawsuit involving the Righeimers, Mensinger and the CMPA as one brought by the “mayor” and “council member.” However, as the CMPA is acutely aware, the lawsuit was not brought by these persons in their official public capacities — it was brought by them personally and individually. Thus, casting this as a lawsuit by the “mayor and councilmember” is misleading.
It is true that the case has been pending for three years, and that it is presently in the Court of Appeals upon review. However, it is in the Court of Appeals because the CMPA disagreed with, and appealed, the Superior Court’s ruling denying its attempts to cast the lawsuit as a “political ploy” and have it dismissed. The Hon. Judge Gail Andler, in the Orange County Superior Court, clearly and correctly determined that this lawsuit is about the alleged criminal violation of these individuals’ rights.
As to the contention that the CMPA is being sued “for something someone else did,” yes, that is true. However, that is the case with many civil actions. The controlling question is not merely one of who engaged in the illicit acts. It is also one of who hired, directed, controlled and stood to benefit from those illicit acts. Under the centuries-old law of agency, if one knowingly sets into motion an actor who violates the rights of another, he who sets that person into motion is responsible for any damage that results. That is precisely the case here.
The CMPA consistently states it has “cooperated since day one” and now states, in the update, that it “waiver [its] attorney-client privilege in front of the Grand Jury. No one does that if they are guilty.”
However, a critical omitted fact here is that the CMPA negotiated and received immunity prior to cooperating with the investigation and testifying to the Grand Jury. It begs the question — if “no one does that if they are guilty” then why insist upon immunity from criminal prosecution prior to testifying?
The simple truth is that the CMPA knowingly hired a law firm that carved out its niche by specializing in violating the civil rights of individuals who take positions against police associations. The CMPA did this because it stood to gain from intimidating, falsely accusing and “dirtying up” the Righeimers and Mr. Mensinger.
If it is true that the CMPA did nothing wrong, and is not responsible for the criminal accusation that Mr. Righeimer was driving while intoxicated, which was conclusively proven to be false, the allegedly criminal placement of a GPS tracking device upon Mr. Mensinger’s vehicle and the allegedly criminal assault of Ms. Righeimer, then its attorney — Seymour Everett, brother of former CMPA President Ed Everett — should allow the involved members of the CMPOA to testify, under oath, and exonerate themselves.
This has not happened. Instead, the CMPA members have fought this request at every turn and only spoken when provided immunity. The CMPA refused to cooperate and provide any discovery in the civil action prior to the filing of the appeal.
The importance of individual civil rights is paramount to the Righeimers and Mr. Mensinger. They are determined to see this litigation — a search for truth intended to protect the civil rights of all citizens whose rights may have been, and could be, invaded upon by the CMPA and other police associations throughout the state — through to conclusion by determination by a jury. Only then will the truth be exposed. This is a just and reasonable pursuit. It is not “just plain crazy” as the CMPA’s update suggests.
The CMPA states the lawsuit is retaliatory in nature, because the CMPA did not endorse their candidacies. In truth, neither Mr. Righeimer nor Mr. Mensinger requested or desired endorsements from the CMPA.
Do not allow the CMPA to conflate its current staffing, contract negotiations or crime rates with the pending litigation. If the CMPA wishes to discuss those issues, and the relevant facts that support such issues, then it should do so with these council members in their official capacities, in a public forum.
But, asking them to “put politics aside and get on the same page in making public safety a priority” by dismissing the lawsuit is improper and evidences a big problem in the CMPA — one the Righeimers and Mensinger intend to see addressed by a neutral trier of fact, for the benefit of all.
VINCE FINALDI and JOHN MANLY are attorneys representing MAYOR STEVE MENSINGER, MAYOR PRO TEM JIM RIGHEIMER and LENE RIGHEIMER.