Member of the public refuses to leave DLSE office at 5pm, 2 women fearful, and still no safety barrier for the DLSE

On Monday, 02/26/2007, a man refused to leave the Santa Ana DLSE office. Becky and Vicki tried calling the CHP (no such luck), then tried contacting building security (not to be found), then tried the building manager (nothing there, either). Eventually, the guy left...but what if he hadn't?

This is why I have nicknamed Acting Labor Commissioner Robert Jones "The Joke." Robert Jones would rather investigate the blogger than fix this legitimate concern. Ask him about the safety barrier in Santa Ana, and he vomits nothing but excuses. Ask him about CMS, and he spews the same...excuse after excuse after excuse.

The end result of this inaction is that there's no safety barrier, and a day may come where a member of the public will jump across that counter and assault those female DLSE workers. This is how powerful managers in the DLSE act: in their self-serving individual interests (send Lee Pearson and Richard Munoz after the blogger) and not the interests of the group (Santa Ana doesn't need safety glass and extend the deadline for CMS)..

3rd week since Robert Jones threatened to terminate blogger

Robert Jones threatened the blogger with termination should the blogger refuse to take one-month's pay and resign. The blogger refused, so where is the termination? Please don't tell me that the Acting Labor Commissioner merely relied upon a threat of intimidation, hoping that the blogger - quivering from Jones' threat, would act in Jones' favor and take the money & run.

He (or through his minion Richard Munoz) tried that same weak play in June, 2006. They offered the blogger one month's pay (July, 2006) in exchange for the blogger's resignation. It didn't fly in 2006 & it's not flying in 2007. Is Jones so stoopid that he'll make the same weak threat right before the trial? Will he play this broken record (again) in late 2007 or early 2008? Why is the blogger still employed, since Jones threatened to terminate?

Why can't The Joke further the mission of the DLSE? Why can't The Joke bring CMS into play? Why can't The Joke have safety barriers installed in the Santa Ana office? If The Joke wants the blogger investigated, then the DLSE mission stops and the blogger is investigated. It seems that no one can hold The Joke accountable; he only answers to John Rea & Vicky Bradshaw...the working Californian is not relevant...The Joke must pursue the blogger...at all costs.

Week # 2 ends with No-Senate-Confirmation-Needed Robert Jones failing to act on his threat to terminate blogger

Robert Jones has problems fixing that computerized mess called CMS, he has problems with free speech (Miles, rescinded memo to DLSE attorneys, blogger), he has problems investigating "protected" DLSE staff, he has problems fixing problems. The Santa Ana office has no protective safety glass; what the heck, it's only one of the busiest (if not the busiest) DLSE office in California.

Here's the problem with Santa Ana: no one "important" works there: there's no Lupe Almaraz, there's no Greg Rupp, there's no John Rea, there's no Victoria Bradshaw, and there's certainly no Robert Jones. No one in Santa Ana can further the career of Robert Jones, so why should he bother? To put it another way, if John Rea and Vicky Bradshaw suddenly got transferred to Santa Ana, then how fast would this guy make moves? Yeah, exactly.

Comment made that blogger's days are numbered (click here to view Comment #4)

I'm not sure what the exact quote was, but the Commenter compared the shooting of rogue elephants to the firing of rogue employees.

Whoever that Commenter was-if you're a DLSE employee, then I'm fairly certain that you will get promoted if Robert Jones knows your identity!

One week since No-Senate-Confirmation-Needed Acting Labor Commissioner Robert Jones threatened me with termination...

Back in 06/2006, Jones offered me a month's salary (07/2006) if I would go away. Not only did I refuse, but the DLSE acted in such a manner that provoked me into filing a preliminary injunction against the DLSE. A judge agreed. They acted; I reacted. Had the DLSE chose a wiser course of action, they would not be where they are today.

Fast forward eight months, and the same players made the same time-wasting offer. They'd pay me for 03/2007 if I would resign, but I didn't attend the court's voluntary settlement conference to discuss my separation of state service. It was incredulous that Mr. Jones was so incompetent to make the same offer he made eight months ago, knowing that his bargaining powers were currently weaker. Mr. Jones wasted the court's time, wasted my time, wasted my lawyer's time, wasted the state's time, he wasted taxpayer money (by flying down to So Cal and not settling), and failed to further the mission of the DLSE.

There's this State Personnel Board case file where they placed a state employee on a 30-day paid suspension for stealing two rolls of paper towels (click here to view a copy of SPB's Precedential Decision) and lying about it. I'm no mathmatics wizard, but two round-trip airline tickets for Mr. Jones and Mr. Almaraz is a helluva lot more costly to the taxpayer than two rolls of paper. What about Jones' fiduciary duty to the taxpayer? Isn't it his responsibililty to keep costs down?

Jones, as Acting Labor Commissioner, will always find a way to mitigate his taxpayer-paid expenditures. He steps inside a DLSE office and looks around, well then-he's inspecting the operational efficiency of that office. By him initially communicating to me that settlement offer of one month's pay, how can he say (without laughing) that he expected me to take it, since I didn't in 06/2006? Did he really think I would accept his offer after he (then) threatened to fire me? Is he so financially negligent (on behalf of his employer) that he would terminate someone who has current First Amendment litigation pending? He made the threat: I didn't. All I asked for was to work and to be free from their harrasment. Jones couldn't live with that, so he threatened me with termination.

2nd open letter to Acting Labor Commissioner Robert Jones

Why did Victoria Bradshaw give you the title of Acting Labor Commissioner? Is it because you could not receive senate confirmation if she appointed you as the actual Labor Commissioner? Is this how you and she are side-stepping the Labor Commissioner confirmation process? Is mocking the senate confirmation process of political appointees something to be proud of?

Remember when you issued that 'no-speak' memo to your fellow DLSE attorneys? Rescinding it was an act of cowardice; you should have stayed the course if you had the conviction to write it, sign it, and issue it. After all, didn't you think you were right? What is it about the 1st Amendment that bothers you?

In June, DLSE Deputy Chief Lupe Almaraz lied on his 06/16/06 memorandum to me when the meeting was to discuss "job performance." Richard Munoz, one of your minions, subsequently submits to the court that the DLSE is not required to provide any reason for an investigation, so why did Deputy Chief Lupe Almaraz take the time to intentionally mislead his meeting from the start? You really want a public record of this "credibility" issue on June 4th? What is he going to say, under penalty of perjury, when he's deposed about the details of that memo?

I asked Lupe to settle this, and Richard Munoz just laughed like any arrogant attorney would. Your actions inspire me, and you'll need to terminate my employment for me to leave. You wrongfully terminated Miles Locker, and word on the street has him coming back to DLSE. You like apples? How do you like those apples?

Open letter to that wanna-be Acting Labor Commissioner Robert Jones

Dear Robert Jones,

I've been trained to square off on the toughest guy in the bar because that's the challenge. There's no honor in waging war against children, the elderly, women, the ignorant, or the innocent. You, on the other hand, incorrectly think that you can bully me into doing your bidding. I don't work for you; I work for the People of California. You're charged with directing the work of your subordinates. I'm not duty-bound to jump through your ego hoops, and I certainly did not sign an Official Secrets Act that requires me to keep anything confidential. If I was in charge of an inept agency that sat at their desks and did nothing for almost two years, I'd want to keep it a secret, too. I cannot wait to highlight your knee-jerk timeline: on the record, in an open forum.

A softer approach would have been a wise course of action, but then again, you don't have the wherewithal to see what's around a glass corner. "You can acquire more bees with honey than you can with p*ss and vinegar" is an adage you should consider using...I don't respond well to threats, and I'm certainly not intimidated by you. Should you take the time to review the past, then you'll come to know that every unjust action you take only strengthens my resolve. My spirit will not be broken (hint-it never has in my life), but keep trying if you think it's fulfills DLSE's Mission Statement.

I realize that you can terminate anyone once you've got them in your crosshairs; ferchrist, look at what you did to Miles Locker. It took you twenty-one pages to justify your firing of him? Why so many pages...did you use a crayon? How's that working out for you? You think you're gonna win that one? The evidence is not on your side and certainly not the IQ points. Isn't it gonna be a real kick in the sack to see Miles walking around the office again? Will that become a daily symbol of your failure in wrongfully terminating him? When he returns, won't the other laywers laugh at and mock you behind your back? Besides Anthony Mischel and a few other lackeys, do you think that they are not doing that now?

I don't consider you as one possessing a modicum of honor; I see you as just another bully, with only a law degree and your title of Labor Commissioner as your weapons of intimidation. If you're gonna throw a punch, then stop wasting time and throw it. You may knock me down with your legal maneuverings, but eventually I'll stand up; I'm a quick study. I was hired to serve the People of California, and I will continue to do so - be it battered and bruised.

Is this Jones' message to subordinate Almaraz: we won't settle with the Blogger, so you'll (still) be a Defendant.

What does this message say to other managers? If Jones takes this to trial and loses, then the message to other DLSE managers will be that the DLSE will sacrifice their own managers because they don't have the common sense to settle. What kind of DLSE loyalty is that? Guys like Robert Jones and Richard Munoz have experience shuffling legal papers and talking about how great (they think) they are; they're state attorneys who rarely see a real courtroom. When they actually step inside a courtroom, they rarely have the litigation experience to win. The one DLSE attorney that did have successful litigation experience...Robert Jones fired him! How's that for serving the public's best interest?! If I was Lupe Almaraz, I'd be very afraid at having Robert Jones and Richard Munoz as legal representation. Arrogance and pride can sometimes backfire; common sense usually prevails. Ask them if they have any available.

Lupe Almaraz should ask Richard Munoz two questions

(writs and motions don't count...real litigation experience):
1. Have many times have you litigated in Superior Court?
2. How many times have litigated and won in Superior Court?

To put it another way, how much has Lupe Almaraz paid for his legal representation? Exactly: Lupe Almaraz is getting what he's paying for. Does Lupe Almaraz really think that Jones and Munoz care, since their names are not on the same line as Lupe's?

Why No-Senate-Confirmation-Needed "Acting" Labor Commissioner Robert Jones is officially a joke and a tool.

As advised by one who was advised by a state Department of Justice attorney [Deputy Attorney General], all DLSE employees should spend the majority of their time fulfilling the mission of the DLSE. Here's the mission of the DLSE:

"The mission of the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE) is to vigorously enforce minimum labor standards in order to ensure employees are not required or permitted to work under substandard unlawful conditions, and to protect employers who comply with the law from those who attempt to gain competitive advantage at the expense of their workers by failing to comply with minimum labor standards."

Squandering state time, resources, and money on a blogger comes nowhere near the DLSE's mission, so why is Jones not doing the job he's paid to do? Now, if Robert Jones is not spending the majority of his day fulfilling this mission, then that makes him a tool and a joke. When he spends his time as well as directs his minions like DIR attorney Richard Munoz and DLSE Deputy Chief [Defendant] Lupe Almaraz to spend their day in trying to terminate a blogger who blogs in the off hours...well, that makes

Robert Jones unfit for duty,

whether he's DLSE Chief Counsel or the coward that will not go before the senate and be confirmed as the official Labor Commissioner. When he spends so much money, when he ties up so many lawyers (Holton, Mc Ginty, Mischel, Munoz, himself), when he spends time with the blogger and not fulfilling DLSE's mission, then that makes him inefficient. Unfortunately for Jones, his inexcusable neglect of duty will find him. His actions are a burden to the taxpayers, his lack of devotion to the DLSE mission is a burden to the working Californian.

What's the total amount that Robert Jones and Lupe Almaraz wasted on February 2, 2007...in time, resources, and most important-taxpayer dollars?

Let's assume that they both flew down from San Francisco to Los Angeles. Let's assume that they failed to resolve an impending court case in Southern California. Let's also assume that they had no intention of resolving that court case.

There were two items to be resolved in avoiding the lawsuit:

1) they leave the blogger alone

2) they can pay attorney fees (no damages)

They had stipulated to pay the attorney's fees, but we were not there to discuss separation of service; the blogger wanted to continue serving the public, as the blogger's productivity statistics demonstrate excellent success (as opposed to the DLSE's lack of any productivity standards). We were not there to discuss a 1-month paid severance package. If they knew that we were not there to discuss that, then why did they waste taxpayers funds with full knowledge that the court's voluntary settlement conference would not yield the results that the court had desired.

The Acting Labor Commissioner and the DLSE Deputy Chief have a duty of care concerning how taxpayer dollars are to be spent. These two have a fiduciary responsibility to the People of California. If these two had a reasonable belief that this would not be resolved, then they could have only sent Richard Munoz to not settle and saved the taxpayers thousands of dollars. It's as if Acting Labor Commissioner Robert Jones and Deputy Chief Lupe Almaraz conspired to waste state time, state resources, and most importantly-taxpayer dollars by flying down to mock to court's voluntary settlement conference.

Office of the Director staff counsel Richard Munoz thinks the blogger will go away once the blogger's employment with the state is terminated...

You know, it would (probably) be more challenging if Richard Munoz was smarter. After personally observing his arrogance and failure to live in reality, I bet that he thinks he has a "big one."

If he really wants to put his money where his mouth is, then I'd like the opportunity to show him how correct he is (or isn't). He thinks that I'll just go away once I've left my friends. I'll give this big-brain just a taste...

The only way I can be stopped from blogging is to chop off my hands, but then I'd go to voice-recognition software. If my vocal chords were removed, I would (then) put a pencil in my mouth and type out one letter at a time. Silencing Free Speech is intolerable, and Munoz is really, really stupid for thinking it can be done. If Munoz is man enough to pick up those dice, then he should be man enough to roll those dice. Munoz thinks I won't blog once I'm gone, then he should roll those dice and find out. I know the outcome; a good chess player is five moves ahead...it seems that this guy can barely play checkers.

"No-Senate-Confirmation-Needed" Robert Jones takes a dump on a state employee's rights; blogger remains employed despite Jones' threat to terminate...

The blogger didn't want to hire an attorney and fight the issue of Free Speech; the blogger is only reacting to the Gestapo & Stormtrooper tactics of an Acting Labor Commissioner who has no consideration for the US Constitution.

In the beginning, the blogger first told Jones the endgame: how this would play out should Jones continue to use the Bill of Rights as toilet paper. What did Jones do? He continued to abuse his authority, so the Blogger filed. Jones was served a Preliminary Injuction, and it is now headed for a June 4th court date. Currently, the blogger is not requesting damages from the court; all the blogger asked for was two things: 1) to be left alone and help the People of California and 2) reasonable attorney fees. If Jones, John Rea, and Victoria Bradshaw are stoopid enough to see this through, then the blogger's attorney fees will surely double, triple, or quadruple...depending upon how much time the blogger's attorney must prepare to win. The blogger may (even) ask for damages, should push come to shove.

You know who eats it if Jones loses? Not Jones, but the taxpayer. If the monetary loss came out of Jones' wallet, then he might think twice. That's the problem with Jones; he doesn't consider his fiduciary responsibility to the taxpayers. Since it's not his money, then his attitude seems to be that he can spend as much as the taxpayer's money as he wants. For people of his ilk there are no consequences, just the taxpayers getting screwed over by someone who should be doing better yet isn't.

At the settlement conference, in Jones' truest character, Jones wanted to know how much it would cost the state for the blogger to resign. Jones didn't want the blogger working and doing good things for the People of California because Jones doesn't give two sh*ts about the People of California; it seems that his job is to bend over when Rea and Bradshaw tell him to bend over. Jones offered the blogger one month of pay for the blogger's resignation. When the blogger refused that offer, Jones was actually stoopid enough to tell the judge that the DLSE will terminate the blogger's employment. So the judge, who felt really bad about such a threatening offer being made during a settlement conference, had to convey the message. The blogger thanked the judge for attempting to resolve this, understood that the judge was merely the messenger, and left the settlement conference. If you give Jones a problem to fix, then he makes it worse; at least a monkey will have random success. Given a chance, Jones will try to jam that square peg into the round hole every time...just because someone passes the State Bar doesn't necessarily mean that they should be a lawyer.

It seems that only two are only investigative results coming from Robert Jones' helm at USS Labor Standards: unprotected employees are hammered, protected employees are unscathed. Right and Wrong & Guilt and Innocence have no place in a Robert Jones investigation. I recently learned that he might have traded the career of Miles Locker for his own promotion to Acting Labor Commissioner. Maybe Jones had help from his boss, the other dysfunctional John Rea (yeah, he's still afraid to go in front of those pesky elected-types to be confirmed as DIR Director, so he caustiously/desperately clings to the title of "Acting Director," also bypassing the senate confirmation process). Maybe his marching orders came from Governator lackey/toady Victoria Bradshaw. Their internal process is not as important as the result; the end result is that Robert Jones fired someone who did good work for the People of California. I hope that the State Peronnel Board see through Robert Jones' bullsh*t and reinstate Miles. What better way to humiliate Robert Jones? What better way to see a man who abused his title and authority sentenced to a daily dose of humiliation and laughter? Once Miles comes back, the message will be clear: never resolve a bully's attempt to intimidate.

As far as Jones' message that was sent to the blogger (take one month's pay & leave or the DLSE will fire you). I don't think he has the grapes to do it; the last thing the DLSE really needs is a First Amendment-Retaliation lawsuit and a wrongful termination lawsuit. It reminds me of a line in a movie, "that pit-bull mouth is gonna get that puppy-dog ass in trouble." That's the thing about issuing ultimatims; you gotta be prepared to launch the nukes if you threaten to launch the nukes. This joke of a Labor Commissioner cannot jump-start the multi-million dollar fiasco CMS into operation, yet this joke of a Labor Commissioner is gonna square off against the US Constitution? Well, the blogger called Jones' bluff. Jones can either follow through on his threat or not. If he doesn't follow through, then we'll know that all of Jones' huffing and puffing are just merely empty threats from an empty suit.