This is, boiled down, the issues about the "Hit Piece" Garland had done for them at the San Francisco Chronicle Friday.
Here's the piece: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/07/23/MN7I1EGO2E.DTL
Pray tell, Garland?
How much did you pay them off for this - or one of the politicians who threatened me known to be "living" in their "news" room?
The reporter slandered me to my face, saying I was "not credible" and I had not won my case.
And that that was what Linda Morshed at the Legislative Committee on Accountability and Administrative Review told her.
UPDATE IN 2013: Linda Morshed took documents given to the FBI by whistleblowers at the Kern High School District and gave those documents to the District....getting the men fired. They were literally frogmarched out of their offices by police at the end of October, 2010. Linda was directly responsible for creating more havoc and allowing this evil to continue - and to destroy two good mens' lives and their families. Not to mention to all the teachers being laid off because of the scams and the remaining teachers paying for school supplies out of their own pockets. She was evil to the core - and so is this reporter, who must be getting something for continuing the scams.....Because she destroyed their lives, these men fought back and for the first time ever, won against involved administrators August 12, 2013.
The reporter didn't bother to ask what the facts were - move the goalposts, hide them, during my case so I "lose".
She also must not have known that the California Supreme Court Justices had to move my oral hearings out of public view, took them to San Diego and a private University at Christmastime, had locked the doors, and turned the TV's off. Since she doesn't know - here's a courtroom witness account:
The youngest male justice stand up, leaned over the bench, pointed his long wagging finger at and screamed at the UC attorney for 10 minutes, and I quote, "You tell your clients these were criminal acts!!! You tell your clients these were criminal acts!!!!! over and over again....
And she also must not have known that the Federal Attorney General's Offices ruled the same specs were illegal - being used to redo the same roofs only 12 years later - as we speak, right now - with the same products on the same UCSF Hospitals.
Nor must she have seen the still on-line, blistering about the illegalities, report on the same specs from the State Auditor (BSA), who was finally "allowed" to do so - in their Investigative Report of Sept. 17, 2003, Chapter 5 -still online.
Nor did she apparently know that the investigator they hired to do that BSA report was the same roof consultant from Chicago that worked on the New Jersey State Commission of Investigation Report, "Waste and Abuse in School Roofing Projects" of Sept. 2000.
And she also must not have known that her paper refused repeatedly from Oct. 22, 2000 for over 17 months to reprint the first national link of the roofing scam in schools - linking my case at UCSF with that of the New Jersey Report.
The reporter involved, Steve Bennish, called Chuck Finney and Lance Williams - reporters at the SF Chronicle, repeatedly, over the story...and was totally confounded at their blowing-off of the story.
There's a fact for you!
Oh, what a great coverup of the facts, and the truth, San Francisco Chronicle.
Thank you so much for proving that you do coverup, in writing, Friday! ________________________________________________________
Dear Chronicle:
I find it disturbing when you put out an unresearched, wildly stated so-called "report" Friday - with no state or federal investigatory backup - that no kickbacks were involved in the illegal, sole-sourced non-compete "bid" specs in the poorest school district and San Franciscos' - with no reference to who said it, what investigation they held - and then gave excuses for two districts' illegal roofing specs.
No allegations about those two districts' widely-known involvement were made - so why the preemptive defense?
You undermined the public trust in your "newspaper", your own reputation, and tried to undermine potential investigations of what apparently someone you are apparently working for fears the most - investigations of those two specific districts.
Not one media outlet anywhere across the US who has done stories on the massive school roofing scam would ever believe you now, because they do their research.
Garland has no warranty, for instance, while you declare without investigation in your "hit piece" Friday that the reason it's OK Richmond has this kind of roof going down (again and long-term - which you also did not bring out) is because they had to "repair" an "existing roof" because of Garland's "warranty."
Had you done your homework, you would have found the trade articles laying out the fact that Garland has a very tricky 5-year "renewable Maintenance Agreement" - not a real "Warranty".
And you would have also found out that Garland regularly destroys real warrantied roofs allllll over California schools - starting with the largest High School District in the state to the poorest - by having purchasing agents by hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of their materials every year for no good reason and then have their materials inserted into real, warrantied roofs.
No one in the roofing industry locally finds it even believable that the man whose door they have been trying to get through at the SFUSD for years "doesn't know why they are doing only Garland".
But you didn't ask, did you?
Which means only one thing: You are certainly working for someone - but not the public's best interest.
You are working for Willie Brown and the Cabal that controls California, and has brought it to its knees.
Thank you for proving in writing what I have had to explain to confounded men and women in the media and the roofing industry nationwide for 10 years now - that you coverup...as did the "Justice" system here.
There's a lot more that will come out.
