A huge step in DLSE/DIRt intimidation is to violate their target's right to privacy: thanks to Greg Rupp, Lupe Almaraz, and Richard Munoz

Back when DIRt attorney Richard Munoz was in the Los Angeles DLSE office intimidating witnesses, they made no bones about who the blogger was. The DLSE issued memos that identified who the blogger was, and that the blogger was involved in litigation with the DLSE.

What they forgot to include in their memo was that the DLSE violated the United States Constitution, and the blogger only had the court to tell the the DLSE to "stop." Honestly, what court is going to say that the DLSE can command an employee to submit private diaries and confidential sources? If anyone looked seriously at the legal issues, it's not really about the blog; it's what they tried to demand. Why did they demand the diaries and confidential sources? Because DIRt wants to harass, intimidate, and retaliate against those who dared to speak freely.

Can you imagine if Regional Manager Susan Nakagama filed a sexual harassment lawsuit against Art Lujan, or Assistant Chief Greg Rupp filed a sexual harassment lawsuit against Dean Fryer, and then the DLSE commenced to issuing memos, informing & educating state employees of such litigation? Because it was the blogger, someone seemed to think that violating the blogger's privacy was/is perfectly acceptable. Yes, litigation is a matter of public record, and yes, the DLSE, as a state agency, had a duty to protect the state employee's privacy. Litigation does not absolve them from their duty to keep personnel matters confidential; furthermore, their actions forced me to litigate their violations.

This is the California agency charged with protecting employees from employer abuses, so if this is how they treat their own, then how much do you think they care about protecting outsiders?