"Are you gonna stand there and bark all day or are you gonna bite?"

So Richard Munoz and Lupe Almaraz are hell-bent on terminiating this blogger from state service. They're just taking orders from above, as they don't earn the coin to make decisions on their own. Well, that defense didn't work at Nuremberg, and it shows a lack of personal accountability & responsibility...what a surprise at Labor Standards. DLSE Regional Manager Susan Nakagama is on the record, giving sworn testimony that she signed and issued a memorandum to Christopher Lotts, but she didn't author it! What kind of horsesh*t is that? That's the status quo at DLSE: no accountability, no responsibility.

If Lupe's peeps are complete morons and push this into Lupe testifying under oath, then he'll give up those that made him do what he did. I don't think that the word 'perjury' is in his vernacular, and don't ask me about Anthony Mischel. If Lupe was half the man that he thinks he is, then he should "advise" those above him that the DLSE is doing this or that right or wrong (we can't go after an employee's personal diaries), and the DLSE can better spend their time elsewhere. If he's not "Deputy Chief" enough to stand his ground, then he's just as guilty as the dolts who are pulling his puppet strings. I really don't think that Lupe has the kind of stones to tell his higher ups what they do not want to hear; after all, he's on probation, so he's gotta walk the line of being a Yes Man. He had the chance in June to settle this, and it was partly his job to ensure that his puppeteers understood what was around the corner should they push.

The DLSE wanted private diaries, and what they got was a temporary restraining order.

The DLSE wanted a different judge to hear this case, and what they got was a delay in the date to hear this.

The DLSE wanted to disobey a court order and continue their interrogation of the Blogger, and what they got was potential notification of a contempt of court charge.

Here's the big question: what lawyer told Lupe to go forward with this? When did the DLSE think that their actions are above common sense, much less constitutional law? Why is so much money, time, and resources being wasted by the DLSE to fight such a losing battle? Is there any way the judge can force the DLSE attorneys to personally reimburse the State of California for such a flagrant misuse of state funds? How is this different than stealing DLSE office supplies? It doesn't take an entire workday to steal office supplies. Anthony Mischel and Richard Munoz might as well rent and watch the dvd, "The Verdict," and list it as part of their workday under 'research.' It's a crime to practice law without a license, but is it a crime to have a license without practicing law? The keyword being "practicing."