Attorney Objects to Carson Story

If Carson City Councilman Michael Mitoma paid George Stein to write the campaign literature that appeared in the guise of “news” on February 14 (“Carson’s Bitter War of Words,” South Bay edition), he certainly got his money’s worth. In the typically propagandist style that readers have come to expect from this would-be news writer, Stein distorted facts and left out every scrap of information that would have provided at least an appearance of honest and balanced reporting.

Contrary to Stein’s representation, no judge has found that the defendants in a libel lawsuit arising out of a 1986 political brochure either made “defamatory” statements or may have done so with knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth. What was determined on February 4 was that Mitoma, after two years of attempting to plead a legally sufficient complaint, finally managed to say enough magic words to compel the defendants to respond by way of formal answer to the allegations. There has been no determination whatsoever as to any substantive merits the action might have. As Judge Kurt Lewin noted in making his ruling on the sufficiency of the complaint, “pleading it is one thing; proving it is another.”

Also inaccurately drawn is Stein’s picture of “victim” Mitoma as demanding no less than individual apologies from the defendants for the brochure that ruffled his feathers. In fact, as Stein well knew when he wrote the piece, Mitoma has, on two occasions, offered to pay his political opponents for a portion of the expenses they have incurred as a result of having to defend against his hastily filed lawsuit. Unfortunately, the sums offered were inadequate to cover the considerable costs and fees incurred by the defendants, and thus Mitoma’s offers to date have been rejected. The matter of an apology has never been a stumbling block: The defendants have no trouble stating that they never intended to imply or suggest that Mitoma was involved in criminal conduct of any description. To whatever extent the political brochure might have been understood in that sense, they have always been willing to say it was misunderstood. What the brochure perhaps inartfully intended to convey was the opinion that since, as Mitoma testified in “United States v. Arocha,” he did not realize the size of cash transactions that were taking place right under his presidential nose in a tiny bank, and did not know the banking laws applicable to reporting of those transactions, he might not be qualified to take on the considerable responsibility of running a city the size of Carson. Had Mitoma gone to the involved parties at the outset and discussed the brochure with them, rather than taking the rash and ill-considered course of seeking immediate legal redress, he could have obtained the apology which he now says is all he ever wanted and thus avoided embroiling the city in a most unseemly and needlessly divisive and purely personal controversy. It is difficult enough for municipal representatives to see eye to eye on any given issue; that task is made virtually impossible when some council members are subjected to a one-sided trial by fire in the newspaper, fueled by a fellow council member who wants $62.5 million for his hurt feelings and fanned by a staff writer who scorns objectivity.

Stein’s Valentine to Mitoma also fails to mention that among those sued are several Carson residents who have given their support to Councilwoman Sylvia Muise throughout the past, and who have been forced to pay dearly for their political persuasions. Had the most cursory investigation been done by Mitoma prior to filing his lawsuit, he would have discovered that at least five of the people he sued had nothing to do with the political brochure, directly or indirectly. Those Carson residents have been put through two years of personal suffering and expense, defending themselves against allegations which are, and always have been, utterly baseless. In spite of ascertaining the true facts in this regard during eight months of civil discovery, Mitoma has at no time offered to dismiss those five Carson residents--Leon Cornell, Connie Hathaway, Effie Clarke, Gilbert Smith and James Winston--from the lawsuit. One must ask whether a government representative has the interests of the community he serves at heart when he first initiates and then persists in litigation naming persons against whom he has not a shred of evidence as to potential liability for alleged defamation. One must also ask why it never occurred to Stein, after spending what must have been hours poring over deposition transcripts, to interview any of those defendants and seek their input in the interests of balanced reporting.

Stein’s partisan piece also suggests, incorrectly, that the issues of Mitoma’s carpetbagging in Carson and his association with Vera Robles DeWitt are part of the libel suit. Had Stein read the complaint or any of the series of amended complaints which have followed, he would have seen that the sole issue raised by the councilman is that which relates to the defendants’ opinion that Mitoma, who sought to run an entire city, wasn’t doing much of a job overseeing the affairs of his bank. At no point has Mitoma himself purported to claim that there is anything untrue or defamatory about statements regarding his 11th-hour establishment of a residence in Carson or the support given to him by DeWitt.

In regard to the depositions upon which Stein relies for his carefully selected quotes, it is of note that such testimony is not part of any public record and will not become part of a public record until such time as either party utilizes it, under strict judicially and statutorily controlled procedures, in the litigation itself. Mitoma’s delivery of private testimony transcripts to Stein raises a question as to the true motivation underlying the lawsuit. Mitoma has told the press that he brought the lawsuit to put an end to “dirty tricks” in Carson politics. The question is raised, under the circumstances, whether, when material obtained ostensibly for the purpose of proving one’s case in court, is used instead for political haymaking and self-aggrandizement, as to whether it is not a textbook example of the kind of “dirty tricks” that are proclaimed by Mitoma to be so repugnant as to cause him outrage. In the old days, the situation here would have been viewed as one involving the pot calling the kettle black.

Mitoma’s taking his lawsuit to the press is perhaps understandable in light of his lackluster record and the absence of any substantive issue to convince the voters of Carson that he is the best person to serve as their representative. Stein’s willingness to serve Mitoma’s purpose is less understandable. He quoted Mitoma’s attorney as stating that it was his “business” to make Mitoma’s political opponents “look real bad.” Stein himself has apparently decided that such is his “business” as well. While making the opposing party “look real bad” may be acceptable in the context of paid professional adversaries in a legal proceeding, it is unacceptable in the context of newspaper reporting, for the simple reason that the reporter, unlike the attorney, is not supposed to take sides.

The 1986 libel suit, which for two weeks has provided Stein with bandwagon material for Mitoma, is not news. The South Bay readers of The Times deserve better. An in-depth article dealing with the political or philosophical issues involved in the current election would be of considerably greater value to the residents who will cast their votes in April. It is on the basis of those issues that the residents of Carson should be informed, so that they can make an intelligent decision about whether Mitoma has fulfilled his campaign promises and should be allowed to stay on the city council, or whether there are others who would be more willing to put aside their own personal interests in order to better serve the interests of the community as a whole. Stein’s ostensible “news” coverage of Carson is lamentable, and his vision of his role as a reporter is cockeyed. Endorsements of political candidates should be made by the editor and printed in an editorial, where they can be instantly recognized for what they are and weighed accordingly. In the interests of fairness, The Times ought to invite response and make reply available whenever Stein puts on his unbecoming and inappropriate partisan hat and takes his political crusade to the public.

PATTY MORTL

Torrance

Mortl is attorney for defendants Sylvia Muise, Thomas G. Mills, Leon Cornell, Aaron Carter, James Hayes, Constance Hathaway and Effie Clarke.