Carson’s Bitter War of Words

It was a last-minute hit piece: a critical campaign brochure put out by a shell organization, the sort that arrives too late for the victim to respond in kind--a phenomenon that has become familiar in Carson politics.

The pamphlet, used in the 1986 City Council races, hit hard at candidate Michael I. Mitoma. It linked him and the bank where he is president, Pacific Business Bank of Carson, to drug-money laundering. It called him a carpetbagger. It questioned why he was supported by Councilwoman Vera Robles DeWitt, whose name had surfaced in the spreading W. Patrick Moriarty political scandal.

Mitoma counterattacked on the day before the election with a libel suit, denying the allegations and accusing the brochure’s sponsors of misrepresenting the facts. Mitoma lost the election, but in a special election a year later he won a seat on the council and he is seeking reelection in April.

Libel suits often are filed in the heat of a campaign and are often quickly forgotten. For a public figure, such as a candidate for office, to win a libel suit, he must prove that statements made against him were false, defamatory and that the person who made them knew they were false or made them with reckless disregard for the truth.

Despite that difficulty, Mitoma and his bank have pressed their suit with vigor, spending “well into the five figures,” according to Mitoma. The Carson officials and political figures named in the suit say it is groundless and have sought to have it dismissed.

But on Feb. 4, a Superior Court judge refused to dismiss the case, ruling that defamatory statements in the brochure may have been made with knowledge they were false or with reckless disregard for the truth, and that the case should go forward. No trial date has been set for the suit, which seeks $62.5 million in damages.

Four of the five main defendants in the suit--Sylvia Muise, Tom Mills, Aaron Carter and Leon Cornell--are leaders in one of the city’s two main political alliances. The fifth defendant is political consultant Jim Hayes.

Muise and Mills, who won the election in 1986, form a council faction opposed to Mitoma, DeWitt and Mayor Kay Calas, who make up the other grouping and who all are running for reelection in April. Among the six candidates challenging them are Carter and Cornell, who are accused in the suit of helping Muise and Mills disguise their involvement in putting out the brochure in 1986.

As the case has ground on, the defendants--plus City Atty. Glenn Watson, who is not named in the suit--have filled hundreds of pages testifying in depositions that Mitoma provided to The Times.

The defendants’ accounts provide a rare look--in sworn testimony--at how seriously politics is taken--and how nasty it can get--in Carson.

The defendants’ depositions--sworn statements typically taken in the office of an attorney to determine what a witness would say at a trial--examine the circumstances surrounding the pamphlet in minute detail.

But at heart, they tell a simple story:

On center stage is Muise. According to some defendants, she orchestrated the creation and distribution of the brochure, provided a newspaper article and trial transcript quoted in it, arranged for Carsonites Organized for Good Government, rather than her campaign committee, to mail it, and paid for almost half the cost of its printing and mailing.

Working with her was Hayes, the consultant, who suggested it as a tactic and who drafted the actual wording on the brochure.

The supporting cast included Mills, who bankrolled almost half the expenses, and Carter, who put the name of Carsonites Organized for Good Government on the brochure at the request of Muise and Mills.

Muise and Carter said they did not read the brochure they had ordered until after it had been printed. Mills and Cornell said they first saw it when it arrived in the mail.

Although Muise’s allies were forthcoming about her role, she herself frequently pleaded a faulty memory. During her lengthy deposition, she said she did not recall or did not remember 112 times.

For example, she pleaded memory loss when asked when she decided to run for council, how she decided where to concentrate her mailings, what materials she provided for the brochure, whether she recalled writing a $700 check bearing her signature to pay for part of the expenses of the pamphlets, and whether she was surprised when thousands of bundled copies of them arrived at her home a few days before the election.

Amil Roth, the attorney who took the depositions for Mitoma, sarcastically noted Muise’s memory lapses during her testimony. “I am glad you can recall something . . .,” he said after Muise noted at one point that she had already answered a question he had asked.

Muise attributed her memory lapses about the 1986 campaign to stress caused by her husband’s fatal cancer. He died three months after the election.

“I pride myself on being able to remember details,” she testified. “However, I was not able to control, apparently, my memory function during that period of time.”

But Roth, in an interview, offered an alternate explanation: “These people came in prepared to tell me nothing. It is my business to get them to tell me something or (make them) look real bad.”

In a recent interview, Muise said she preferred to let her attorney comment about the suit, but added: “It was politically motivated from the beginning.”

In the 1986 election, Muise and Mills were running as allies against seven opponents.

Hayes, a Long Beach resident whose occupation is political consulting, testified that he was assisting Muise in the race without pay, as he has done for her political endeavors since 1981.

He said he advised her to publicize her own achievements to gain votes, but he also gave advice about how to deal with opponents.

“I told her that it would be wise to publicize negative facts about her opponents,” he testified.

Mitoma, whose campaign was well financed, was singled out for special treatment “strictly (because) Mr. Mitoma was a formidable candidate,” Hayes said.

In discussions on what to use against Mitoma, Hayes testified, he and Muise talked about “his residence status, his alliance with Councilwoman DeWitt and the involvement of his bank in a drug-laundering case.”

Hayes had been building a file.

Rosemead Voter Registration

He testified that in January, 1986, he had gone to the Registrar of Voters in Commerce, paid $1.75 for a copy of Mitoma’s voter registration record in Rosemead, where he lived before moving to Carson, and $1.75 for Mitoma’s subsequent voter registration record showing where he lived in Carson.

“I was helping Mrs. Muise in her campaign for reelection,” he explained. “It is standard procedure to obtain any information you can on opponents.”

Both records were made part of the brochure. They show that Mitoma registered to vote in Carson on Dec. 15, 1985, which, said Hayes, “I believe was only 15 days before the legal limit for him to reside in Carson and run for office. . . .

“My experience told me that any candidate (who) moved into a town that close, was moving in to run for office, normally had no interest in the community, and that that would be a definite political negative.”

The Muise campaign did not stop with that.

“We had volunteers approach the apartment, see if Mr. Mitoma answered the door. We talked to people who lived in the complex to see if he appeared to be a resident there,” Hayes testified.

“Who is ‘we?’ ” Roth asked.

“Mrs. Muise and I,” Hayes said.

Muise and Hayes also talked about how the support of DeWitt might hurt Mitoma.

“We discussed Mrs. DeWitt’s involvement in what has been labeled the Moriarty scandal . . . and her votes on mobile home park ordinances,” he said, referring to votes by DeWitt that were controversial among the city’s large population of mobile home dwellers.

But on the brochure, Hayes did not bring up these issues, questioning instead DeWitt’s support for Mitoma, not in connection with the Moriarty scandal or mobile home parks, but in connection with the residency issue: “With over 80,000 people in Carson, why did Councilwoman DeWitt feel she had to go outside the city to find a candidate she could support?”

The core of the libel suit, however, involves what the pamphlet suggested about Mitoma and his bank.

Mitoma alleges that the brochure falsely implied that he and his bank were involved in illegal drug activities, that he was on trial in a drug-money laundering case and that he was unfit in his profession as a banker. He contends that the brochure misrepresented testimony he gave in federal court by putting it in a false context.

Actually, five men, none of whom were connected with the bank, were on trial for allegedly moving $5 million in drug money through the Bank of America and Mitoma’s bank. Neither the banks nor any of their officers were on trial.

In taking the depositions, Roth went over every part of the page of the brochure that deals with Mitoma’s bank.

In his deposition, Hayes said Muise was the one who spotted the issue. He said she brought him a copy of a Feb. 28, 1986, article in the Daily Breeze headlined “Money-laundering trial under way.”

The article, which was reprinted on the brochure, mentions $3.5 million allegedly moved through an account at Mitoma’s bank. The article did not name Mitoma.

Hayes said he had drafted a headline at the top of the page that is set in type larger than the one used by the Daily Breeze: “MITOMA’S BANK INVESTIGATED IN DRUG LAUNDERING CASE.”

“You created this language, knowing that the bank was not a defendant in the case; is that correct, sir?” Roth asked.

“Yes,” Hayes answered, adding that he knew that Mitoma also was not a defendant. “I meant that the banks . . . in the case had been examined and investigated by the federal authorities who conducted the case.”

Later in the trial, on March 13, 1986, Mitoma testified as a government witness. City Atty. Watson testified that Muise called him.

“And she said she’d like to have a copy of Mike Mitoma’s testimony,” Watson said in his deposition. He added that Muise did not mention that Mitoma was a candidate opposing her, although he knew it anyway.

Roth asked Watson whether he thought Muise was asking for the transcript in her role as city official or as a personal favor.

“I didn’t analyze it. My best thought would be that I assumed that she was calling as mayor pro tem,” he said.

Watson paid $26 in cash for the 51-page transcript and sent it to Muise. He said he was not reimbursed.

Muise gave the transcript to Hayes, and the two studied it for 1 1/2 to 3 hours at her house. At his home later, Hayes testified, he focused on an exchange in which Mitoma was questioned about the bank’s compliance with a federal requirement that banks report the identities of those making cash deposits of $10,000 or more. The requirement is intended to spot possible drug-money laundering.

The particular question concerned a list of regular customers, such as supermarkets, that make frequent large cash deposits and are exempted from the reporting requirement.

The federal prosecutor asked Mitoma:

“Did you have any ceiling amounts, and when I say ceiling amounts, I mean any certain top figure that you would limit that exempt list to?”

Mitoma replied:

“We were not aware we had to do that. We were told on examination we were remiss in that area.”

But on the brochure, only Mitoma’s answer was quoted verbatim on the brochure. Hayes testified that he altered the question.

What appeared on the brochure was:

“When asked by federal attorneys at the Drug Laundering Trial why his bank had allowed such practices to go on in violation of banking laws and practices, Mitoma said:

“ ‘We were not aware we had to do that. We were told on examination we were remiss in that area.’ ”

Asking Hayes why he changed the question, Roth said: “You did not wish to convey that the answer you quoted pertained to ceiling amounts; is that correct?”

Hayes responded: “We wished to convey the quote as a summary statement of (Mitoma), that he had allowed practices to go on in his bank that were not in conformity to federal law.”

Roth continued:

“You in fact put this quotation here with the intention that the reader of the pamphlet would think that this answer had been given in response to a question about Mr. Mitoma allowing practices in his bank to go on in violation of banking laws and practices far more generally than merely failures to get along properly with an exempt list; is that true?”

Intended as Summary Statement

Hayes answered:

“I intended that quote to serve as a summary of statements by Mr. Mitoma that he was neglectful and uninformed about rules and practices he was supposed to follow, and that if he did not exhibit, in the conduct in his bank, that kind of concern, that then he should not be elected to the City Council, because we could expect the same kind of performance as a city councilman.”

In her deposition, Muise said: “I believed that the citizens of Carson were entitled to know that . . . he couldn’t even manage his bank.”

At the bottom of the page on the brochure, under the altered question and Mitoma’s response, is the assertion: “HE WANTS TO RUN OUR CITY. HE CAN’T EVEN RUN HIS BANK!”

About 10 days before the election, Hayes said, he drafted the actual language used on the brochure during a 15-minute session at his dining room table. Then he took all his materials to a Long Beach print shop.

But before the brochure was printed, financing and the involvement of Carsonites Organized for Good Government had to be arranged.

Hayes testified that he never discussed the organization with Carter or Cornell, who described themselves in their own testimony as its only members. Hayes said Muise was the one who had authorized him to put the organization’s name on the pamphlet. Hayes conceded it was his intent to make the reader believe the brochure was sent out by Carsonites Organized for Good Government.

Roth asked Muise if her campaign committee, the Friends of Sylvia Muise, would have put out the pamphlet if she had asked them to.

“I don’t know,” she replied.

Roth expressed surprise at “the idea that you would say that you don’t know whether or not the people who support you would do what you asked them to do. . . . In any event, you didn’t see fit to ask the people who operated under the name of the Friends of Sylvia Muise to put out an informational pamphlet about Mr. Mitoma in connection with the 1986 campaign, did you?”

“That’s correct,” Muise said.

Carsonites Organized for Good Government was not new to Carson politics.

Muise, Mills and others involved in a recall effort organized it in 1978 and it later supported their candidacies in campaigns for City Council. The group was inactive from about 1981 until the 1986 campaign. Carter described himself as the organization’s “caretaker chairman” during this period and said he and Cornell, who was treasurer, were its only members.

“When COGG agreed to put out the pamphlet was when we became active,” Carter said.

About a week before the mailing, Carter said he first heard about plans for the brochure when he went to Muise’s house and met with Muise and Mills. They asked him to send out an anti-Mitoma pamphlet under the group’s name. He agreed. The three discussed the residency issue, DeWitt’s support of Mitoma, the Moriarty case and Mitoma’s well-heeled campaign. The drug-money laundering case was not discussed, and Carter said he was not aware that it would be on the brochure. He said he first learned that the issue was being used after the pamphlets had been printed--”When I read it,” he said.

“It did not really surprise me to see it there. . . . I think as the subject was presented, it was not a money-laundering issue. It was an administrative issue.”

Carter said Muise and Mills each agreed at the meeting that the organization would receive $1,000 from their campaign committees so it could mail the pamphlet.

Carter later received $950 in two checks from the Friends of Tom Mills Committee and $1,140 in three checks from the Friends of Sylvia Muise. Carter put the checks directly into the organization’s account at the Security Pacific Bank in Inglewood, according to Cornell, the treasurer.

The group’s campaign finance reports also say that Carter lent the organization $350 that was used to pay for expenses of the mailer. Carter testified that he has not been paid back.

Cornell testified that he first learned that the pamphlet was being prepared about the same time it was being mailed out and said he had almost nothing to do with it.

The libel case has yet to go to trial and may be settled.

Defendants’ attorney Patty Mortl, whose clients include Muise, Mills, Carter, Cornell and Hayes, said they are willing to issue a public statement that says:

“Carsonites Organized for Good Government and its individual members wish to advise all recipients of the COGG political campaign mailing circulated in April of 1986 that the publication was not intended to suggest or imply that Michael Mitoma or Pacific Business Bank had been accused of criminal conduct in relation to laundering drug money.”

But Mitoma said he insists that Muise and the others issue individual apologies.

In any event, some of the issues raised in the brochure may come up again.

Mitoma said he expects a renewed attack on the residency issue. He said his gardener recently spotted a couple taking pictures of the house he bought in June. The couple identified themselves as real estate agents, although the house is not on the market, he said.

“My, my,” Muise said in response. “Very clear paranoia.”