Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

ellisonz

(27,759 posts)
Thu Dec 19, 2024, 07:11 PM Thursday

Part 144: An LAPD Battle in Court - Free Speech and Hacking in Los Angeles?

Published December 18, 2024.

By Zachary Ellison, Independent Journalist

For the last two mornings, just after 9:00 am, the courtroom of Superior Court Judge Bruce J. Iwasaki was the scene of a test of speech in the workplace and the power of anti-hacking laws. The lawsuit filed with a boisterous press conference by the Los Angeles Police Protective League (LAPPL) against two high-ranking Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) officers passed the first test but failed on the second. Attorneys for the defendants, Commander Lillian Carranza and Deputy Chief Marc Reina, had filed separate anti-SLAPP motions, which stand for a strategic lawsuit against public participation and demurrers, an objection that the lawsuit is legally deficient against the litigation brought by the LAPPL. The Los Angeles Times headline on the August 9 original story by journalist Libor Jany had asked, "Is it part of a broader rift?”

This question of internal politics in the LAPD is the one that needs to be answered and not one that was addressed before Judge Iwasaki on Tuesday and Wednesday mornings in Department 58 of the Stanley Mosk Courthouse. Now, in fairness to the LAPPL, they will get another bite at the apple with the option to re-file an amended complaint by January 20, 2025. Whether they choose to do so may be a question of how much money they want to sink into what’s legally a sinking argument. The LAPPL’s case centered on allegations of fraud and hacking might be described as the proverbial fishing expeditions, grounded in the completion of surveys with admittedly bogus credentials going back years, in fact beyond the statue of limitations for bringing the lawsuit forward. The union's other claim is that the two officials, by nature of their position, are not technically LAPPL members, even though they’re required to go through the union for benefits, and somehow breaking the law by opening their emails is speculative at best.

Link: https://zacharyellison.substack.com/p/part-144-an-lapd-battle-in-court

2 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Part 144: An LAPD Battle in Court - Free Speech and Hacking in Los Angeles? (Original Post) ellisonz Thursday OP
Kick because this story is important! ellisonz Monday #1
What in the world?? Blue_Tires Yesterday #2
Latest Discussions»Editorials & Other Articles»Part 144: An LAPD Battle ...