Town Square

Post a New Topic

Attorney says police report misleads, inflames

Original post made on Jun 18, 2008

The final report on the police investigation of the Palo Alto Children's Theatre used "language intended to mislead and inflame," Jon Parsons, attorney for theater Director Pat Briggs, has said in a lengthy e-mail to the city.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Wednesday, June 18, 2008, 5:38 PM

Comments (62)

 +   Like this comment
Posted by Lets widen this
a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Jun 18, 2008 at 9:33 pm

Its time that wider audiences should be involved in this debacle. Let SJ meercury report on this on a more regular basis.

Lets see what level Briggs get this to.

If Briggs is so clean why is this attorney poking his nose.





 +   Like this comment
Posted by Truth and Justice
a resident of Downtown North
on Jun 18, 2008 at 11:36 pm

Parson's comments are intended to confuse, obfuscate and inflame; that is his job as an attorney/spokesman. Yore's job was to deliver an investigative report. You figure it out.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Jim Curtis
a resident of Mountain View
on Jun 19, 2008 at 5:41 am

Dear "Let's widen this", "Truth and Justice" and all others who would criticize Mr. Parson's 4 page email.

Please read Mr. Parson's email before you jump to the dark side. The email is available on line. After you have read it please come back and let's discuss it one item at a time.

I can assure that there is nothing that Mr. Parson has to say about this issue that is not true. And it must be truth that everyone is after. Everyone is of course entitled to their opinion but everyone is not entitled to their facts.
.
Posted by Jim Curtis a concerned parent


 +   Like this comment
Posted by joe
a resident of Barron Park
on Jun 19, 2008 at 6:03 am

** Posted by Jim Curtis, a resident of Mountain View

Why are people from Mountain View involving themselves in Palo Alto politics, public policy issues and police investigations?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Bye Bye Briggs
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jun 19, 2008 at 7:46 am

Not surprised by Mr Parson's comments--he is Ms Brigg's lawyer--so of course he is going to make those statements--ever seen a lawyer who doe snot claim that police charges are groundless??
Ms Briggs still has not said anything, probably on advise of her council. Again not surprising.
Time for her to go. PACT will survive without her, Curtis and Litfin.
The city needs to exercise greater oversight over the funds given to PACT. while the city is partially to blame Ms Briggs was the responsible adult at PACT, making a big league salary--she shoudl have known better.
I personally think that she was guilty of financial malfeasance and i have a string suspicion that she was ripping off the city for biug bucks over the years under the guise of "working loing hours" and "changing children's lives".
She must go.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Senor blogger
a resident of Palo Verde
on Jun 19, 2008 at 9:12 am

ALL,
Please go and read the Attorney's e-mail in total before you start all this Jib-Jab.
It's very informative- this is going to be a very interesting process --and probably a very long law suit involving several City Departments.
SB


 +   Like this comment
Posted by William
a resident of Charleston Meadows
on Jun 19, 2008 at 9:23 am

> Because Briggs kept records herself, she obviously was not engaging
> in some scam to wait until the City destroyed its records, or
> she would have destroyed her records as well.

This comment is just plain "nutty". It is impossible for anyone to "know" how a person thinks who might have been embezzling from his/her employer, and how an embezzler would go about managing the movement of money once the embezzlement had begun. Statements such as the one above are beyond the realm of proof by anyone--particularly logic impaired defense attorneys.

Criminals make all sorts of mistakes--like NOT destroying records.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Bye Bye Briggs
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jun 19, 2008 at 9:30 am

Senor Blogger--Raed it--nothing unexpected or suprising--typical lawyer talk--my client is a saint and innocent, the police were wrong/on a witch hunt etc.
we will have to let the courts sort this out--in the meantime, we are all free to read the relevant documents and draw our own conclusions.

BTW, if Ms Briggs cares for the PACT and the city so much and is such a saint, so you think that she will sue???


 +   Like this comment
Posted by William
a resident of Charleston Meadows
on Jun 19, 2008 at 9:41 am

> 3. The Yore Report Contains Knowingly False Statements
> The Report states that Briggs spent city money on personal purchases
> at Bazaar del Mundo. No evidence is cited or provided to
> support this factual statement.

There is a big difference between something that can be proven to be false, and something that is included in a police report as "knowingly false". The fact that no evidence is cited in the report does not mean that the line item in the report is "false"--it just does not have a level of documentation to prove without a shadow of a doubt.

It is possible that the line item is false. This is an incomplete police report. Who knows what it would have looked like had the investigation run to its natural conclusion?

For something to be "knowingly false"--the police investigator would have to have known something to be true, and stated it to be false in the police report. Such actions would seem to rise to the level of police misconduct. If this lawyer can prove misconduct--why has he not leveled formal charges against the police investigator?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Grab your tail and RUN !!!
a resident of College Terrace
on Jun 19, 2008 at 9:41 am

Why is Briggs on Administrative Leave. Please fire her. We need to move on. Let this also be an example to other Friends Groups.

This has actually caused many other Friends groups to be SH*T scared. Read other posts elsewhere on this forum - you will know.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by anonymous
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Jun 19, 2008 at 10:14 am

Briggs in on administrative leave because there is a union process (undoubtedly long) involved. Good luck on trying to fire anyone. Taxpayers are just expected to finance this operation (PACT) to the tune of 1M per year and ask no questions.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Bye Bye Briggs
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jun 19, 2008 at 10:20 am

I thought that Briggs' position was not a union one. Curtis' position is union. Briggs is on administrative leave until they rule on the city's call for her dismissal. i do not think the union has anything to say about her--they are only concerned about Curtis.
Why the long wait for a decision. Makes me wonder if Morton and Klein are not working behind the scenes to get her re-instated.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Resident
a resident of Ventura
on Jun 19, 2008 at 10:34 am

I can't understand why the need for long deliberation about Curtis' fate.

He was allowed to enter the theater premises for the funeral, but
warned not to touch anything and yet there is clear evidence he
accessed his computer.

No matter what the surrounding context, this can't be tolerated.

[Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]


 +   Like this comment
Posted by wow
a resident of Barron Park
on Jun 19, 2008 at 11:15 am

Joe - You ask "Why are people from Mountain View involving themselves in Palo Alto politics, public policy issues and police investigations"

WHY NOT? This forum is a place for folks to express their opinion. Sometimes opinions from those outside the community are liberated from being blinded by "agendas to grind" whereas many other posters within the community are not.

Or perhaps poster Jim Curtis, a resident of Mountain View, is involved because he lived here previously, has children who participated in PACT or any other number of possibilities.

Sheesh - your comment suggests that outside opinions are not welcome. Why would that be the case? Are different opinions threatening to a fixed pre-determined point of view?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by fireman
a resident of another community
on Jun 19, 2008 at 12:18 pm

This City has never cared about the truth. Has never wanted to find it. Never will care.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Vic
a resident of Professorville
on Jun 19, 2008 at 12:50 pm

Just what I would expect from the attorney of the accused. Same old strategy. The best defense is a good offense. It's everybody's fault except for the one person who made the bad decisions to begin with. It's the city manager's fault. It's the police department's fault. It's the city council's fault. Spare us the smoke screen. We see right through it.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Disgusted
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jun 19, 2008 at 12:53 pm

They won't be fired; it will turn into another City/Council snow job. Incidentally, Council passed the 2008-09 City budget last week. Hidden in there is another $1 Million for PACT for next year.




 +   Like this comment
Posted by Becky Trout
Palo Alto Weekly staff writer
on Jun 19, 2008 at 1:04 pm

Becky Trout is a registered user.

Hi all,

Just to clarify, Pat is not a union employee but still has certain rights. Thus far, the processes for her and Curtis have been the same.

Both had meetings with city officials on June 5 to present their case. The city is expected to take about 15 business days to decide.

If it decides to proceed with termination, they'll likely stop receiving pay, therefore being officially "fired," soon after.

But, both can still have several rounds of appeals open. If the city does decide to terminate Richard Curtis, a union employee, and the decision doesn't change, the final decision will be made by an outside arbitrator.

For Pat Briggs, a management employee, the city manager has the final call.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Fire all rotten eggs
a resident of Greater Miranda
on Jun 19, 2008 at 1:32 pm

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Jim Curtis
a resident of Mountain View
on Jun 19, 2008 at 2:18 pm

Wow! Never thought one little request to look at the facts before running off at the blog would get so many pitiless replies. For the record I have an agenda, Before moving to Mt. View we did live in Palo Alto for 18 years. And I have known Richard Curtis for 42 years. I am Richard's father. I am the one that encouraged him in the first place to participate in the a Children's Theater. At age 13 he was the lead in the Christmas Carroll and he has been involved with the PARC ever since. Richard is the perfect CCBW, (Chief Cook and Bottle Washer) That's the person that every successful organization needs. The CCBW is the person who gets there early and stays late to clean up but never complains and never turns down task.

Here's what the city thought of Richard before Sgt. Yore put himself in charge.
From Richard's last City performance Appraisal:
"Richard handles the day to day operation of the Box Office, with all its complexity, with superior effect. He is responsive to the public and accurate with information. He works with the Outreach schools PTA representatives as he trains them in the reporting methods required by the theater {and the City)"
"Accuracy of work is excellent not requiring redo. This includes accuracy of cash handling, credit card charges for tickets and registrations, (Approximately $175,00 is taken in by the Box Office each year.)" {Richard has been doing this job since 1995 and never once has there been a hint of mishandling of funds. All he has ever received is complements from the people he worked with and reported to at City Hall.)
"Richard is extremely productive. He uses his time well and completes his work in a timely way. He is able to accomplish this while answering the Box office phone, selling tickets, registering young people and answering the myriad of questions from public, volunteers and participants." There is more--from those who actually know Richard--if you want it,

Just let me ask one last time. Before you criticize Mr. Parsons' email to Mr. Baum we urge you to read Sgt.-Yore's 120 page report release on June 2, 2008--also read Jay Thoerwaldson's BLOG on June 3. 2008, and Mr. Parsons' 4 page email (all of these are on line) and after you have tead them then let's discuss the issues one at a time.
PS If you do not have the courage to sign your comments how do you expect anyone to take you seriously. For all we know you anonymous commentators are just a front for Frank and his crew of hatchet men.
Posted by Jim Curtis a concerned parent


 +   Like this comment
Posted by William
a resident of Charleston Meadows
on Jun 19, 2008 at 2:26 pm

> The Yore Report appears designed to be used against Briggs
> in the City´s employment review.

This statement by Briggs' attorney is clearly "designed to mislead and inflame". The report was generated at some point as a required portion of a referral to the District Attorney. It is difficult to believe that the District Attorney would be interested in reports that "mislead and inflame". (This is Santa Clara County--so anything is possible.)

It stands to reason that if a City employee is convicted of a crime involving city property (or assets), that a follow-on personnel action would be required to remove this person from his/her position, and that the police report (and or trial transcript) used in the conviction would be used by the City to make its case against the soon-to-be terminated employee.

Mr. Attorney--what's your point?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Bye Bye Briggs
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jun 19, 2008 at 2:26 pm

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]


 +   Like this comment
Posted by William
a resident of Charleston Meadows
on Jun 19, 2008 at 2:34 pm

> Approximately $175,00 is taken in by the Box Office each year.)"
> {Richard has been doing this job since 1995 and never once
> has there been a hint of mishandling of funds

---
From the PA Police Report:

Section Three involves the misappropriation of city money collected at the Theaters box office or extra performance of plays that are staged in addition to the regularly scheduled plays. To date, I've qualified $17,164 collected from 20 performances that was misappropriated. I've discovered another 15 extra performances which are still under investigation.

[Redacted] who was in charge of the box office and in charge of depositing all money collected at the box office to the City's general fund, altered the bookkeeping entries to record the deposits to facilitate the misappropriations.

---

Not one hint of box office mischief? Seems the police report has clearly identified $17,164 in possible misappropriation. (Did you actually read the 120 page report that you are encouraging others to read?)

It also seems that there has been no auditing of this operation--possibly ever! So, with no audits, why would there ever be a "hint" of a problem?

[Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Jim Curtis
a resident of Mountain View
on Jun 19, 2008 at 3:09 pm

That is enough. William's quotes from Yore's report are the kind of unfounded claims in the report for which there is no evidence . Do you think the District Attorney would have declined to file charges if Yore had one pice of evidence to support those allegations.
If he had the evidence it's an open and shut case. Give me a break. Just because someone puts something in a report does not make it a fact. If you are going to defend Yore's report you should first make up your mind--is Yore just a bad investigator or is he the worst investigator ever. Still not enough guts to sign your comments? And yes read the whole report before you act like you know what you are talking about. You don't.
Posted by Jim Curtis


 +   Like this comment
Posted by William
a resident of Charleston Meadows
on Jun 19, 2008 at 3:18 pm

> William's quotes from Yore's report are the kind of
> unfounded claims in the report for which there is no evidence

No evidence, then this inclusion would then be a lie?

The inclusion of this sort of information is either an error on the part of the investigator, or it is a lie. [Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

Will this so-called "probe of the probe" look at the unfinished aspects of this investigation? Who knows. One can only hope so.

But if your claim is correct--then I assume the named employee will be filing a slander lawsuit against the Palo Alto Police?



 +   Like this comment
Posted by JIm Curtis
a resident of Mountain View
on Jun 19, 2008 at 4:40 pm

William, You win. Logic seems not to effect your judgments. [Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.] But you are right abut one thing and one thing only. The lawyers can hardly wait to get that one started. In the meantime you can have the blog. I quit. [Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.] Just remember what the DA had to say. No evidence, no victim, no crime. Do you think he knows something you don"t. I do.
Best Wishes and Good Bye no reply necessary.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by William
a resident of Charleston Meadows
on Jun 19, 2008 at 4:46 pm

[Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

The CT should be given over to a private operation--and these guys can do anything they want with the books, the money, the costumes ... anything that they want. The taxpayers should have no reason to be involved in this mess.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Disappointed
a resident of another community
on Jun 19, 2008 at 5:16 pm

nother one bites the dust
Another one bites the dust
And another one gone and another one gone
Another one bites the dust hey
Hey I'm gonna get you too
Another one bites the dust

How do you think I'm going to get along
Without you when you're gone
You took me for everything that I had
And kicked me out on my own

Are you happy are you satisfied?
How long can you stand the heat
Out of the doorway the bullets rip
To the sound of the beat look out

Another one bites the dust
Another one bites the dust
And another one gone and another one gone
Another one bites the dust hey
Hey I'm gonna get you too
Another one bites the dust

Just another one out the door at CPA. They are dropping like flies!
And that is not a good thing for the community. Government jobs were something to look at for a longevity. Times have changed.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by fed up taxpayer
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Jun 19, 2008 at 7:25 pm

"several rounds of appeals open.." - how many of US would have that kind of ridiculous protection?!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Theater Kid since '67
a resident of another community
on Jun 19, 2008 at 7:27 pm

Mr. Curtis et al:

What the DA said was that the statute of limitations had expired, NOT that crimes were not committed.

So far not one cent of misappropriated funds has been returned. 126 double billings were a mistake? Accessing a city computer when told not to is okay?

Let them lie in the beds that they made. After knowing Pat for 41 years I say fire her (and Richard) today. What is criminal at this point is that they're still collecting salaries.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Your wrong again
a resident of another community
on Jun 20, 2008 at 5:49 am

Hey Theater Kid,
Another half truth,
THE DA ALSO SAID:

"Deputy District Attorney Steve Lowney said the evidence does not support the theory that employees had been embezzling funds because there is no proof they had specifically intended to deprive the city of money.

The traveler's checks officers found at the theater in the employees' names had not been spent and remained on city property, Lowney said." etc etc...

If you can't get it right the first time try try again--then it give up.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by William
a resident of Charleston Meadows
on Jun 20, 2008 at 8:10 am

> "Deputy District Attorney Steve Lowney said the evidence
> does not support the theory that employees had been embezzling
> funds because there is no proof they had specifically intended to
> deprive the city of money.

Here is the dictionary definition of a key word here:

em·bez·zle Audio Help /ɛmˈbɛzəl/ Pronunciation Key - Show

Spelled Pronunciation[em-bez-uhl] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–verb (used with object), -zled, -zling.

to appropriate fraudulently to one's own use, as money or property entrusted to one's care.
---

Doubtless there is a legal definition which involves certain "tests" that must be met. While the DA did speak about his lack of understanding of this case, he did not provide a written document to the residents of Palo Alto about exactly how the evidence in the case was insufficient to win conviction in a court of law.

Sadly, the local media did not ask enough questions of the DA, such as: "what evidence would you need to win a conviction?" Since the media articles did make the claim that the PA Police had met with the DA to shape the investigation, presumably the PA Police did ask this question. Since the case involved "negotiables" (cash and cash equivalents) , these are hard to trace and probably represented the hurdle the DA could not overcome, nor the PA Police.

However, there is evidence of a failure to take care of property (cash assets) entrusted in one's care. Again, from Section 3 of the Police Report:

"Briggs admits to scheduling extra performances and diverting the proceeds outside the City prior to this."

This admission would seem to rise to the level of "depriving the city of money". Perhaps this is not an offense under State law and that is why the DA chose to decline the referral. It's sad that the local papers chose not to read the Police Report and couch their questions along the lines proposed in this posting.

The DA should be required to provide a public document that outlines the DA's concerns about a case when it is declined. Otherwise, the public is left with only bits and pieces of the story--as the local media can not be depended upon to do a very good job investigating complicated cases.




 +   Like this comment
Posted by Senor Blogger
a resident of Palo Verde
on Jun 20, 2008 at 8:29 am

[Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

If you were defamed as Pat Briggs has been, would you sue?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Oust Pat "No Credibilty" Briggs
a resident of Evergreen Park
on Jun 20, 2008 at 9:10 am

Will all the hanging allegations Briggs will have no credibility left to run the CT. It is in the best interest of the City to get rid of her.

[Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Bye Bye Briggs
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jun 20, 2008 at 9:19 am

[Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

I do not think that Ms Briggs has been "defamed". Clearly she was irresponsible with public funds and may have been ripping off the city. We shall see. She is free to sue. these days you do not have to really have a case to sue in court--so let her go ahead with a lawsuit.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Senor Blogger
a resident of Palo Verde
on Jun 20, 2008 at 10:15 am

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Shelly Pargh
a resident of another community
on Jun 21, 2008 at 4:51 am

William,
Get a life!!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by William
a resident of Charleston Meadows
on Jun 21, 2008 at 10:16 am

> A few examples of failure to investigate:

The police report is incomplete. However, this is a fair point for any outside investigator to have on the list of items that needs review. Why so many people (like Jack Morton and the Friends Board) were not interviewed is of interest to everyone. The public would definitely like to know if there was any attempt on the part of the "insiders" to shut down this investigation by not cooperating, or insuring that information needed was not provided in a timely fashion.

> The press quotes the affidavits as though they
> contained a final finding of facts

And how is this the fault of the Police Department? The local "press" will print just about anything these days. (Is this lawyer being paid by the word, or the hour?)


 +   Like this comment
Posted by fireman
a resident of another community
on Jun 22, 2008 at 8:20 am

William. Here is an Example. Using the City of Palo Alto and its actions in the past and the present.

During the Sandbag Scandel the City Investigated it. Like this issue after not wanting to. After it started to get out of hand again. More public funds wasted, more cover ups and etc.
Talking with one of the main employees who knew the truth. He was the smokeing gun. The one who got the phone call with the instruction on what was to take place. Clear instructions.
When we (The FD) herad that the Issue was going to be investagated. We wondered ,how are you going to get out of this one chief? We thought that the Fire Department was so screwed up, that if the truth got out. The public would not stand for this extremely high level of incompetence a long with all the illegal cover ups.
Asking about the Investigation and what the INVESTIGATOR had to say when they asked about the phone call HE had recieved. (THE TRUTH) His reply. He never asked. We repeated" HE NEVER ASKED???? " Yea he never asked about that. What did he ask about. Just a bunch of unrelated question. It took about 2 to 3 seconds to know this was just one more part of a huge cover up. To get the citizens on te well wore path of misinformation and smoke screens.
I think that was when I really knew, started to believe that this City Is So OUT OF CONTROL that it is the whole management and City Council that is out to lunch and doing such a huge amount of damage to everything and one. That it will never end. It is imposible for a good employee to do good work in this city, It is always cheapend some how or why by it LEADERS.. And they get paid for it????


 +   Like this comment
Posted by fireman
a resident of another community
on Jun 22, 2008 at 8:39 am

William. You have some harsh words for this Lawyer. Would the same go for the CITIES LAWYERS and ATTOURNEYs. Or the ones you want to believe are so much more, honest then the stero type you place on Mr Parsons.
I guess the Police are saints and the press something different. Again lump them all in one group, Trash them when the do not echo your thoughts. Praise them when they cover for you. GOOD OLD BOYS AT PLAY.

This press, yes. Playing with the truth. PAPD and the city of pa, needed to hide and replace the truth.

This thing is such a huge mess, how could anyone blame just one side?? And have you as citizens had enough of huge messes??
Think you might want to get to the real truth. The real truth is just a unicorn in Palo Alto. What ever you want/need it to be, i guess?

Do any of you think, really think that THE CITY can back up now. It has gone so far over the edge, AGAIN, that there is no backing up. KEEP THE SYSTEM MOVING FORWARD. They are the system, you are not. You lose. They win. The system all ways wins, IN PALO ALTO anyway.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by fireman
a resident of another community
on Jun 22, 2008 at 8:52 am

Senor Blogger. No one should have to sue the City without help. HELP from all the past EMPLOYEES who have had no voice. The City hopes you will sue them. Everyone else does. They can beat/win everytime. They will pay out city money at any rate needed to beat down all the people trying to fight them. This is a CITY they/i/you/she will be fighting. They will spend the money needed for the storm drains on there defense. Need more go to the Public pool fund. They will never cut the funding to there legal defense needs. Have had to add lawyers over the years.
The City will pay to NOT BE GUILTY. Not that there are right. Money buys them the GRAY AREA. of not being innocent but not guilty also??


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Christopher Edward Ritter
a resident of another community
on Jun 22, 2008 at 1:28 pm

Bye Bye Briggs wrote:

"Clearly she was................may have been ripping off the city."

With your chosen words, you are ALSO implying the message,

"Clearly, she may not have been ripping off the city."


By choosing to state one theory and not the other other shows
every
fair minded fencesitter out there that you have a bias;
one that precedes a valid preponderance of evidence.

Why is that?

Are you just given to jumping the gun before all the facts surface?

Were you also gung-ho about sending troops to Iraq without ANY necessary evidence surfacing that supported those motive for war?

Is this simply because your blood boils at a higher flashpoint than the calmer people around you?

As the debate fires on, one thing besides your bias is crystal clear.

I imagine this fact is so completely true that even you won't take issue with it.

Pat Briggs did nothing that warranted a criminal trial and that in America,
that means that she should gets to retain her status of full innocence.

In addition to the reading the full report, I'd like to suggest that you
also pick up a copy of Arthur Miller's "The Crucible."

It might possibly do your jaundiced soul a world of good.



 +   Like this comment
Posted by fireman
a resident of another community
on Jun 22, 2008 at 3:14 pm

Mr Ritter it is a club these people belong to. Americans against freedom and liberty I think they stand for.
I am trying to write a book about all this. When 911 goes South and no cares or can do anything about it. The closest time I can try to compare this to is GERMANY in the 1930 to 1945 eras. What does that tell you.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by PX
a resident of another community
on Jun 23, 2008 at 11:33 am

I don't see why Rich Curtis was even cited to begin with. As an office assistant, he wasn't in any kind of position to make any financial decisions. And there's no statement anywhere from him as to WHY he accessed his computer on that day.

This is only speculation, but knowing him as I do, I would guess he was probably accessing information that proved his complete innocence in this matter. While not exactly a smart move on his part, violating a city directive like that, I don't think that warrants his termination.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Bye Bye Briggs
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jun 23, 2008 at 11:46 am

Christopher Edward Ritter--loved your post--great laugh.

You say:
"By choosing to state one theory and not the other other shows every fair minded fencesitter out there that you have a bias; one that precedes a valid preponderance of evidence.
Why is that? Are you just given to jumping the gun before all the facts surface?"

Did you address the same comments also to Friends of PACt and Jack Morton and Larry Klein. They have been proclaiming Briggs' innocence (and sainthood) from day one--also without waiting for all the facts to surface.
Isn;t that bias also? or is that the kind of bias you approve of.

You also say:
"Pat Briggs did nothing that warranted a criminal trial and that in America, that means that she should gets to retain her status of full innocence."

Partially true--she escaped a criminal trial and she is considered innocent. however her acts of malfeasance are clearly documented in the police report. The DA gave his reasons for not pursuing criminal charges against her. have to wonder whether that came about due to pressure from Simitian/Morton/Klein.
I actually look forward to her suing the city. She will then have to take the stand and answer questions about her actions under oath. then her jaundiced soul will be exposed for all to see,

the sooner she is replaced at PACT, the sooner we can move on. her time at PACt has passed. PACT will survive very nicely without her.



 +   Like this comment
Posted by Diane
a resident of Community Center
on Jun 23, 2008 at 2:28 pm

I have been closely following this Children's Theatre Ordeal unfold over the months and I have amazed to see so many who know nothing about the situation have been so hateful and willing to trash talk people of whom they have no knowledge of.

I am done reading these blogs


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Christopher Edward Ritter
a resident of another community
on Jun 23, 2008 at 5:17 pm

Bye Bye Briggs,

Let's approach this from the supposition
that you have a superior intelligence
and that the running theme of this thread has really been a case of your information flying over the heads of the populace.

Let's also pre-suppose that it is your intent to educate the fencesitters
and that you are neither here to merely rile those who gunned
for Pat Briggs from the beginning
or to bait those who professed her innocence all along.

Agreed?

Let's just (you and me) concentrate on the fencesitters; the people who don't really have a dog in the fight so to speak; basically the people who I think you would want to be interested in winning the hearts and minds of.

But before we begin, if I may pick a nit:

Implying that your bias is fine because there are others out there
(in opposition to your cause) who also seem to show a bias
doesn't seem to be a cogent decision on your part.

It undermines you.

It would be like a political candidate excusing his own smear campaign simply because someone else was doing it simultaneously.

I think excusing yourself in such a manner also puts into question whether your motive is nearly as philanthropic as it is vindictive and/or personal.

Although I hope I am steering clear of disparaging you, I feel it candid to say that although you may not be acting as a hatchet,
your methodology certainly does suggest a certain tool-like quality.

Fair enough?

Now, to the meat of why I think you're failing to be persuasive.

I think the single most problematic area of your argumentation lies in the PROPORTION of blame you've chosen to lay at the hands
of Briggs, Morton, Simitian and Klein.

With respect, please allow me to explain.

It just seems that if you truly believed that Patricia Briggs had done something criminal, then where is your outrage toward the district attorney for not pursuing?

If I knew of a criminal who got away with something that affected children, the D.A. would be my first stop.

Has it been yours?

It's intriguing that you never suggested remedy in lieu of dismissal.
Even if someone else were made the CFO, would you still have claim?

Because of this, I think the fencesitters are all left with the impression that you aren't so much an agent for justice as you are someone who holds a vendetta; perhaps someone who feels that your noble end will justify your anonymous means.

You've said some very harsh things about Pat Briggs.
May I ask IF you are in a position to know?
Is there personal experience of some kind?

I think those are fair questions.

For all I know, perhaps your little Timmy didn't get the lead in the
Pied Piper back in 1986 that he so richly deserved.

In the interest of you educating the free-thinkers who have to this point reserved final judgment, can you present them with any evidence that will prove Patricia Briggs as anything other than a well-intentioned benevolent of selfless integrity?

I'm asking you to cite evidence of malfeasance.

I believe people in the middle simply aren't getting how it is that this amazingly complex accounting system that she didn't control
can equate to intrinsic malfeasance.

Furthermore, I won't ask you your true identity, but could you possibly favor us with the reason why you prefer (or need) to work from behind the proverbial curtain? Doing so could help possibly dispel the notion that you are in line to somehow personally benefit from Patricia's dismissal?

As you might agree, an anonymous person such as yourself has an additional burden of proof to meet in order to make their message
seem less like an unsubstantiated character assassination.

Finally, I would like to address your closing statement.

It was pretty catchy (perhaps you're in advertising).

I'm quoting you here:

"the sooner she is replaced at PACT, the sooner we can move on. her time at PACt has passed.

In all candor, I have a problem with your advocacy here.

It strikes me as the equivalent of a boss throwing mud all over an employee and then firing her for not living up to the dress code.


Contrary to you, I see major repercussions happening; the problems with any such replacement of Patricia Briggs is manyfold.

Children are very intelligent and it's critical of adults to institute judgments of fairness whenever possible.

I think that if either Richard Curtis and Patricia Briggs are dismissed, that it will stigmatize the theatre for at least a decade and trouble some of the children there

It sends a dark message to the children of our community that even if people were found to be ultimately benevolent that they can still be thrown out as trash if the political climate dictates it.

It is a scapegoat mentality and it should be avoided for the best and highest goals that the city should aspire to.

In closing, you mentioned that the theatre will survive nicely
without her?

At this point, many of the fencesitters that I listen to are of the impression that it would be a mistake to discard her, not just for political and ethical reasons, but for practical ones.

You see, every time a key person leaves a institution as valuable as the Palo Alto Children's Theatre, well, it's the social equivalent of the world losing a library that housed original works.

The theatre has already lost Michael Litfin this year.

To lose Patricia Briggs to a dismissal, especially this year,
would deter and slow the progressive mission behind why the
Children's Theatre has so often reached sublimis.

The theatre and communbity will be better off over these next few critical years if Patricia Briggs is reinstated to oversee this
key and critical transitional phase of the theatre and as an added benefit, it will help insure that the anonymous flamethrowers who seek to undermine her through unethical Machiavellian means
will be deterred and delayed in rising to a
position of city power.



 +   Like this comment
Posted by William
a resident of Charleston Meadows
on Jun 23, 2008 at 5:18 pm

On late Monday (23rd), the Weekly reports that Curtis has been terminated:

Web Link

The article reports that Curtis plans to challenge the City's decision.

A few years ago, someone in the Utility threatened to kill a co-worker. The City terminated this guy, who "lawyered up" and challenged the City's decision via an Administrative Hearing. Unbelievably, the Utility worker was about to recover his job, and back wages.

One would have thought that threatening to kill someone would have been more than reasonable grounds to fire the guilty party. But where labor unions are concerned, pretty much anything goes.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by fireman
a resident of another community
on Jun 23, 2008 at 5:43 pm

William, Do you know or remember the City Employee who shot several other Employee's and them himself at the MSC. I think it was 1986 or around then. The MSC is the service yard out at the baylands.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by fireman
a resident of another community
on Jun 23, 2008 at 5:44 pm

KNOW OF... sorry


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Get over it!
a resident of another community
on Jun 24, 2008 at 8:20 am

Fireman,
Yep, I do remember, but was does this have to do with the Children's Theater? And also the sandbagging of June Fleming's house? Ruben is long gone. As well as June. And you too. And also me.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Bye Bye Briggs
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jun 24, 2008 at 9:27 am

Mr Ritter:
To address a few of your points:

"Implying that your bias is fine because there are others out there

(in opposition to your cause) who also seem to show a bias

doesn't seem to be a cogent decision on your part.

It undermines you."

You introduced the bias issue, I just asked if you also addressed the bias on the other side. Anyway, i am not biased, I just want the PACt cleaned up.


"It just seems that if you truly believed that Patricia Briggs had done something criminal, then where is your outrage toward the district attorney for not pursuing?"

The DA explained why he did not pursue a criminal case. While I am not entirely thrilled with Ms Briggs escaping a criminal trial, I am more outraged about her continued malfeasance over the years, dishonesty and mismanagement of city money

"Furthermore, I won't ask you your true identity, but could you possibly favor us with the reason why you prefer (or need) to work from behind the proverbial curtain? Doing so could help possibly dispel the notion that you are in line to somehow personally benefit from Patricia's dismissal?"

I have my reasons--as do the majority of people that post on this and other threads, One big reason is so that I will not become a target of the Friends of PACT and other zealots out to protect/excuse the PACT staff at all costs.

"The theatre has already lost Michael Litfin this year.

To lose Patricia Briggs to a dismissal, especially this year,

would deter and slow the progressive mission behind why the

Children's Theatre has so often reached sublimis."

Litfin is gone and the PACt will carry on. Briggs, will hopefully, soon be gone also. The PACT will survive without them



 +   Like this comment
Posted by fireman
a resident of another community
on Jun 24, 2008 at 9:41 am

Get over it. A poster above mentioned the utility worker who threatened the life of his co worker and did not get canned.

So for several reason I asked.
1, Was it not found out that the Other city Employee's made his life not so nice, His BOSS also. And was he the one who worked here for years then the city tried or talked about canning him? For lack of English skills? Also I think in the start of that issue. It was misleading in the way. People first thought he just went nuts and started to shoot. Then the truth about how he was treated. Like this.
I have tried to google it to get more information on it. So if you have any please tell. Can't find anything, LIKE IT NEVERHAPPENED?

Did you read Mr Ritters post. If the CFO is gone . Just because the CROOKS are gone DOES NOT MEAN THE CRIME NEVER happened. This is not hide and seek, where when you touch the tree you are safe and no one can touch you.

NOW MISLEADING and the sandbag crime. That needs to be explained to you?
Leave JUNE out of it.. She did nothing.. RUBEN was the misleader there and still is. This FIRE DEPARTMENT, and union did not stop Reben and look what happened to SO CAl and CDF, Cal fire. This is the blame/cause of the PALO ALTO FIRE DEPARTMENT. For its members doing nothing but rolling over and selling out its firefighter, its citizens and the whole fire service. No one cared wher he went just that he was gone. NICE pass the crook.

Now as for you being gone, good for you. I will not stand by and let this type of system eat anything it wants to. PEOPLE,$FUNDING, SERVICES. You might not have ever had to deal with these people in this manner. You might think differently if you have.
I WILL NOT STAND BYE and let people get attacked by a system like the CITY of Palo Alto doing anything to anyone and then stand bye and watch. no not for me. Thanks anyway.
A culture of fear might work for you, you might be able to turn your back on people in need and sleep just fine. YOU GOT YOURS, RIGHT,
Close the window honey and do not get involved. or you will be next Is not how I live my life. I support PEDA. that goes for people also. I extend the right of animals to cover the City of palo alto employee;s bye the wy the city treats some. That is what they must think they are.?

If you are not part of WHAT IS RIGHT you are part of WHAT IS WRONG Doing nothing is WRONG> That is A problem. Standing bye and saying better him then me, is WRONG. That is a problem.

Thanks Mr Ritter. Very nice to read your writing.


Examples and History.. You can learn from if you do not try and cover both up. To do this you must look,learn and remember the past.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by fireman
a resident of another community
on Jun 24, 2008 at 9:43 am

BBB, And what about cleaning up the WHOLE CITY.. Not important? Or just the parts you think need cleanning. COUNT?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by fireman
a resident of another community
on Jun 24, 2008 at 9:47 am

Get over it. FYI I was working that day. There where too many bodies at the MSC, so we where heading that way. But got canceled.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Jackson
a resident of another community
on Jun 24, 2008 at 10:06 am

Bye Bye Briggs-

I think it's interesting that you chose to address only some of Mr. Ritter's questions and to note which ones you avoided.

So, if a police officer explained to you sufficiently why he wasn't arresting someone, would you be fine with that as well?

Were you fine with Detective Yore's report or did you find that it failed to succeed because of his tendency to not support his theories with cold hard evidence? Are you mad at him for dropping the ball and for not writing a report that couldn't be shredded to bits in a court of law?

I guess it's important that you say you're not biased because doing so helps others overlook any evidence to support the theory.
Repetition of falsehood leads to historical fact.

As for the zealots in the Friends organization who would target you, can you list an example of what they have done in the past to others?

How nefarious are they?

I guess you are more weary of what they would do to you than what various members of City Hall would be able to do to you?

Please illuminate.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by fireman
a resident of another community
on Jun 24, 2008 at 11:54 am

Get over it. Does my answer work for you. Or as I was told to do before. While working here in CPA . Here is your letter back , how about writing it like this. OK. There goes the truth right down the tubes.
Had to write 3 letter before I finaly said no more. You write the letter if you do not like mine. All I know is the truth. You need to write what you want the truth to be. They did not like that?

So hey write your own truth everyone else does.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Bye bye briggs
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jun 24, 2008 at 12:17 pm

Jackson--I did not realize I was obligated to address all of Mr Ritter's points.

"So, if a police officer explained to you sufficiently why he wasn't arresting someone, would you be fine with that as well?"

That would depend on the situation and his explanation--there is no one correct answer.

"I guess it's important that you say you're not biased because doing so helps others overlook any evidence to support the theory."

Everyone is entitled to their opinion about my postings, as I am entitled to an opinion on other's postings

"As for the zealots in the Friends organization who would target you, can you list an example of what they have done in the past to others?"

I have seen how they have gone after the police department. Their comments are disgraceful.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by fireman
a resident of another community
on Jun 24, 2008 at 2:26 pm

And so are the action of the police and city. Disgraceful. So now what. 1 2 3 DEBATE


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Adam
a resident of Midtown
on Jun 24, 2008 at 3:08 pm

fireman,

What are you talking about? Are you on crack?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by fireman
a resident of another community
on Jun 24, 2008 at 3:48 pm

Adam put your nose in his crack. I do not care how you get your you get your jejejeje's. Have at it mate.

think that one up on your own?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by ? visitor San diego
a resident of another community
on Jun 24, 2008 at 3:53 pm

You funny.

You know why too much.


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Email:


Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: * Not sure?

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Local picks on 2015 Michelin Bib Gourmand list
By Elena Kadvany | 8 comments | 3,635 views

Politics: Empty appeals to "innovation"
By Douglas Moran | 13 comments | 1,552 views

A Surprise!
By Cheryl Bac | 0 comments | 1,447 views

Marriage Underachievers
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 1,396 views

It's Dog-O-Ween this Saturday!
By Cathy Kirkman | 2 comments | 681 views