Prosecuting Lorena Gonzalez: Part One
Exposing Fraud of California’s Progressive Policymaker
Open letter to elected officials
Hello, my name is Brittany Sheehan. I will introduce myself in more detail in an accompanying piece.
This is an exposé styled opinion piece. This work is both conjoint in facts and sincere perspective relevant respectively to the politics and chicanery of California Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez.
I attest to being well within my First Amendment Rights to express views held within this multi-part series.
Aside fundamental Freedoms of Press, Speech and Conscience are equally fundamental Rights to Petition our government for redress of grievances without fear of punishment or reprisals.
Simply put, Petition may apply to the Right to present requests of our government sans intimidation for retribution. I do have requests of each of you to be made upon conclusion of this eye-opening series.
Today, I come to you without fear, trepidation prevented from me since 1791. I do not fail to properly appreciate such Rights acknowledging both the bloodshed of those who perished so I may embody them and the (especially women) people of the world who have only imagined possessing such a thing.
It would be my failure and shame not to assert such hard-won Freedoms at the behest of their dignities and my own honor.
This multi-part series is of harrowing importance at this moment in our political culture. There are many bills in this legislature that will forever impact Californians economically, socially and psychologically. The latter speaks to their outlooks, morale and resolve as Californians and to their confidence in our governing and elections institutions.
I urge you to consider the sentiments of this series as a notification, the canary in the coal mine, that something is deeply wrong in the State. I am calling on the Executives, Representatives and other stakeholders to hear this well, that things must not continue this way. I hope you take it upon each of yourselves to examine where we are, how we got here in recent years and make a determination to not oblige incorrigible politics.
Thank you for your time. This series will be released in a daily communication, giving you the opportunity to digest each piece. “Part One”, contained herein, is the longest of the tentative five pieces. It lays foundational understandings, so, I kindly suggest this may be a morning-coffee read.
I appreciate your open minds, tolerance of ideas and opinions along with readiness to take appropriate action in each of your important roles and duties to our free society and the People of California.
Additionally, it is an unfortunate reality of our day-and-age that “unpopular speech” become repressed or censored speech. I am intent on invoking my First Amendment Liberties even in the face of such obstacles.
In salutation: I do not wish each of you luck.
I would never want a government that came to be by chance or fortune rather than appointed by the People for their deliberate integrity, ample humility and distinguished character.
I do wish you all courage.
I do wish you all prudence.
I do wish you all vigilance.
Sincerely,
Brittany Sheehan
Who is Lorena Gonzalez?
Lorena Gonzalez, elected to the Assembly in 2013, is California’s leading lady of the liberal legislature playhouse. Gonzalez is Chair of the Latino Caucus, Appropriations Committee and Select Committee on Women in the Workplace.
Prior to that, she served as CEO and Secretary-Treasurer for the San Diego and Imperial Counties Labor Council, AFL-CIO. The AFL-CIO is the largest federation of Unions in the country and Lorena’s major campaign donor; already endorsing Lorena for her 2020 Secretary of State bid.
She is recognized for her progressive polices doing everything from subsidizing diapers, sick leave, to classifying high school cheerleading as an official sport. She has many contentious policies, from kicking religious minority students out of public and private schools indefinitely over Measles fears, to compulsory enrollment in voter registration at the DMV and now employment classifications that stifle some industry-specific small businesses.
Gonzalez is married to Former Assemblyman Nathan Fletcher, currently 4th District County Supervisor. Fletcher was once a Republican, later an Independent and now a Democrat.
Gonzalez’s father, a Mexican immigrant, worked in agriculture; her mother in nursing. Gonzalez attended public schools in San Diego County before earning a bachelor’s degree from Stanford University, a master’s degree from Georgetown University, and a Juris Doctor from UCLA School of Law. She is currently registered with the State Bar.
Lorena’s “young mother” fuzzy math
Gonzalez became a mother at a young age — but what age depends on which version Lorena is recanting. Speaking at a “Rise up- Get Down” event February 4, 2017 Gonzalez said:
“We have four kids between us, three boys, 5, 8, 13, yes, it’s hell, and a 20-year-old daughter. I’m here because I’m a parent, and quite frankly, ya know, to be clear I had my 20-year-old when I was really, really young. Just in case you are wondering, 16. I know incredible, right? That program at Stanford and parents…”
During another Speech, Lorena testifies:
“I walked into a Planned Parenthood in my early twenties, when I was a college student… I had an unplanned pregnancy. Now, 20 years later my daughter, who I choose to have, an unplanned, unintended but totally desired child.”
But that’s not the truth, either.
Lorena Gonzalez was born September 16, 1971. If Gonzalez’s daughter was born in or around 1997, or twenty years prior to her statement, Gonzalez was 26. Tierra Gonzalez was born Feb 10, 1996 which means Gonzalez was 24 at the time of her daughters birth.
Here’s the thing: I believe she knew she was lying, she immediately laughed it off as “incredible, that program at Stanford and parents…” Indeed, incredible. She wasn’t 16 when her daughter was born. She wasn’t 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 or 23. The reality is saying you had a baby in high school at age 16 in the late 80’s and having one at Stanford in your twenties in the mid-nineties is hardly an unintentional fumble. It’s a lie, and not even a good one.
Hiding Her Hand in the Motor Voter Program
In this series, I aim to expose Gonzalez and her political maneuvers defrauding Californians. I believe voters deserve to know they are being bamboozled by a progressive policymaker pandering with political double-speak.
Lorena Gonzalez has had her share of scandals including California’s Motor Voter Program. A bill she authored, opportunistically rolled out ahead of the 2018 primary election. A reporter from the LA Times wrote:
“ California’s new “Motor Voter” system was hit by likely foreign hackers right before it’s spring 2018 launch…”
Under Gonzalez’s bill, when a citizen obtains or renews a driver’s license or state ID card, the DMV must automatically transfer voter registration information to the Secretary of State’s office. At hearings on the bill, ACLU representative Raul Macias testified:
“We haven’t heard from the DMV about if they think they are capable of doing this and what is the accuracy of their data.”
The ACLU’s concerns were prescient. It doubted the DMV’s ability to properly handle and transfer the necessary personal data to the Secretary of State.
ACLU representation also pointed out that motor voter, as originally created on the federal level, envisioned an opt-in system, not the opt-out system California was putting in place. Huge difference. The problem with the opt-out program is it does not provide adequate protection against data errors.
They were right.
According to the LA Times, Gonzalez’s Motor Voter Program enrolled 23,000 people incorrectly. A number that has since skyrocketed to 105,000. Many are enrolled without their knowledge of registration to vote. Some voters were enrolled with the wrong party preferences because of DMV error failing to clear out previous appointment data, replicating it on the next registry. People were also registered without qualifying to vote in our elections while legally being in the country. A months-long investigation recently revealed six people of those people who were improperly registered at the DMV voted in the 2018 election. Let’s not forget the foreign government hacking.
In response, The Sac Bee quoted Lorena saying:
“In hindsight, I wish we could figure out the damn technology issues that we have in our state government.”
Is this the best statement Gonzalez could muster for the foreseeable issues concerning legislation she wrote? Does Gonzalez deserve to be California’s next Secretary of State? Hardly.
Secretary of State Alex Padilla has taken much of the criticism of this program, as well as the DMV while Gonzalez escapes accountability for her own legislation. Was it not Gonzalez’s responsibility to make sure the program could function before it became law?
Taking money from immigrant detention facilities accused of forced labor
Lorena Gonzalez accepted campaign donations from immigrant detention centers while promoting herself as an immigration and DACA advocate.
CoreCivic, formerly the Corrections Corporation of America, gave Gonzalez two campaign contributions totaling $2,000. CoreCivic has come under scrutiny from the Southern Poverty Law Center who claimed the company was:
“Placing profits above people by forcing detained immigrants to perform manual labor for next to nothing.”
Once these funds were discovered lawmakers rushed to purge their elections accounts of the contributions.
Electing Nathan Fletcher by Moneybomb
Not only did Lorena Gonzalez accept these donations, but she funneled large amounts of money to the San Diego Democratic Party that soon would fund party communications for her husband’s campaign for County Supervisor.
The party spent $958,000 supporting Nathan Fletcher leading up to the June Primary. Some sources say that is more than either Republican or Democratic parties of the county have spent on any candidate this decade and that it is 37 times the standard contribution limit.
On May 23, 2018 Lorena transferred $50,000 from her campaign account to the San Diego Democratic Party. That same day, the party spent $50,000 on communications promoting Fletcher’s campaign.
I personally believe Lorena’s contribution to the party was a “at the behest” donation. Chapter 6 of Fair Political Practice Manual 2 for local candidates defines this as:
“Is made at the request, suggestion, or direction of, or in cooperation, arrangement, consultation, concert, or coordination with the candidate or committee on whose behalf, or whose benefit the expenditure is made…”
Fletcher was indeed already the party’s top spending priority, but I do not believe that Lorena wasn't aware of her husbands campaign finance needs. To pretend that she did not make the donations “at the behest” of Fletcher, is a little insulting to the voters intelligence.
It cost the San Diego Democratic Party more money to get Fletcher elected than any other county candidate in recent history. His campaign was heavily financed by the donations coming from his wife’s own re-election committee. Next to a failed Mayoral race, what does that really say about Nathan Fletcher? It means he’s not exactly a shoe-in, and buying him a job costs a undue amount of money lest the voters pick someone they actually like.
Hiding the Timeline
Not only did she take the immigrant prison money earned on the backs of forced low wage labor, it can be said she used it to tiptoe the line of legality in funding Fletcher’s campaign communications through the party (or as I like to jestingly call it: buying her husband a job) while she continues to exploit the Latino vote.
After this transfer and subsequent expense of the party, hundreds of people signed a petition for her to forfeit the CoreCivic immigration detention money. She claims to have donated it to a group or groups that work with immigrants on legal issues. I have never seen any specifics of this donation in or around June 2018, although at the time of writing I have requested Lorena to name the group she claims to have donated to or otherwise verify.
Lorena likes to avoid that timeline, as if having the CoreCivic money during those major fiscal transactions doesn’t matter because she claims it has now been donated. After, Lorena — you claim it was donated after all this political money-bombing… I’m still awaiting any kind of verification of specifications of the charities working with immigrants on legal issues.
Update: Since requesting this verification Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez has blocked me from her Lorena Gonzalez twitter account. More on the legality of this in accompanying parts of this series. See my twitter thread on this issue here:
The Opportunism of Redesigning Elections
I called the Secretary of State Voter Hotline and found that since voter records, at least in part, are public record, by registering to vote you may receive voter materials from political parties. This means that compulsory voter registration may result in member communications. There are nearly twice the number of California voters registered Democratic over Republican, per the Secretary of State website.
The more people she registers, the more people can possibly be directly targeted without contribution limits from an elected official nor expenditure limits, so long as they placate, claim ignorance and pretend this is all a coincidence.
It was reported in June that Democratic officials are aiming to “fast track” the parties endorsement process. The Coast News Group wrote:
“Some critics believe that a hasty endorsement process could invite large amounts of outside money into the race and shape perceptions about candidates before voters get to know them on the campaign trail. And much of that money could flow from Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez (D- San Diego) …”
According to an open letter posted by Rosalind Winstead, an African American community advocate criticized the party’s early “strategically critical” designation allowing for an early endorsement of Lorena Gonzale’s’ husband, Nathan Fletcher. She wrote:
“It appears an open and transparent process has been successfully undermined by a “rush to judgment” paranoia on the part of the County Democratic leadership — and the undue influence of a politically potent spouse whose bias and prospective economic benefits can hardly be denied… The apparent Aug 28 “orchestration” by the party leadership undermines confidence in political fair play and the protection in integrity of the voting process.”
She goes on to describe the voting process that occurred to select Nathan Fletcher as the early, “strategically critical” endorsement as:
“…a disturbing but instructive election process that was, at minimum, chaotic. The “all or none” votes suggest that a candidate selection process was a foregone conclusion and that the meeting itself was little more than a disappointing formality.”
The votes in that meeting were 0 for Omar Passons, 1 for Ken Malbrough, 46 votes for Nathan Fletcher, 0 votes for Lori Saldana (a former state Assemblywoman) and 2 votes for “no endorsement”.
Since 2012, California runs an open, top two primary known as a “jungle primary” where the top two candidates advance to the general election and anybody can vote without party affiliation. This means at the general election we don’t necessarily have candidates from each respective party, we just have the most popular two. This did help include third-party or voters without party affiliation, somewhat, but it may have also stacked the deck.
In the first year they used the “jungle primary system” 9 California congressional districts with same party candidates, 7 of those were between Democrats. There were 19 same-party races at a state level. Of these 28 races, Public Policy Institute of California found only 12 as “competitive.”
Lorena plans even more changes to our elections: minors
A new Lorena Gonzalez-authored bill would change the registration age to 17 so long as the voter will be 18 years of age by the next election. I assume with her compulsory voting registration this will inevitably mean these teens are required by law to be register when they get their permits/licenses/ID cards too. Then they will be targeted by the endless member communications spending campaigns, right?
I wonder if Lorena has considered how much parents can pressure or influence their children’s views of political ideology or how contentious this situation could be for school-aged kids? This legislation is along the lines of targeting of kids still under their parents’ roofs; inadvertently putting them in ideological conflicts the teen getting their ID card didn’t foresee.
Does she read her own Tweets?
The amount of psychological sadism and emotional blackmail it takes to tell someone they are okaying, endorsing, or approving of “a mass shooting by a domestic terrorist” by voting for the incumbent, sitting, US President is hard to swallow.
As I see it, this tweet is nothing more than a thinly veiled threat to small businesses while weaponizing stigma to disenfranchise voters. She insults the reader’s intelligence by playing coy, as if we aren't supposed to infer she is clearly speaking of Trump. Lorena sure does like tapdancing and using passive aggressive signaling as some kind of voter intimidation.
Can you imagine being an elected official and publishing that people should report businesses who display their political support for the sitting and incumbent US President, to her? She also called Trump “an asshole” in another very, very, recent tweet.
Yet, she thinks this is a realm of society we should be extending to children?
Isn’t the political culture she creates daily consisting of profanity, thinly veiled intimidations, stigma and social retribution, nothing less than bullying itself? #StigmaIsBullying
Should we put teens in the position of answering to hard-lined parents? No. This kind of political bullying need not be extended to children, frankly.
We will further explore how Lorena Gonzalez is shaping up to be quite a threat to the foundations of our democracy, later.
Small business vs Union interests
More recent legislation marginalizes small businesses and undocumented migrant workers by cracking down on contracted labor, while pushing union-opportune regulations.
Lorena Gonzalez has authored a piece of legislation introduced this year, AB 5. It claims to codify a California Supreme Court decision known as the “Dynamex Decision”, that created a new “test” and a standard presumption that contractors are considered employees and placing burdens on entities to prove otherwise.
Last month in an online publication called Construction Citizen, Scott Braddock tackles the issues. Opposition groups under the name “I’m Independent Coalition” noted that 2 million people choose to work as independent contractors, stating:
“Today Californian's choose to work independent for many reasons: quality of life, more control over their healthcare, more economic security, extra money on the side or simply because they enjoy it. We need our State Legislature to protect our freedoms to work independently. It is time to modernize our laws to reflect the way Californians are choosing to work today.
I will take a moment to note most independent contractors are Sole Proprietorship entities. A Sole Proprietorship is a self-owned small business consisting of one individual without designation between the person and the business entity. A Sole Proprietor contracts their sills, talents or services in lieu of working for another person’s business. The difference between business ownership and employee status cannot be understated.
Lorena Gonzalez defends her AB 5 legislation by painting a very different story:
“These billion-dollar companies can complain but we have to ask ourselves as taxpayers: Should we subsidize their business by subsidizing their workers?”
Personally, I have no idea where she gets these huge generalizations.
Firstly, she makes it out to be about big corporations. I’m not so sure paid athletes, tattoo artists, tutors, private investigators, personal trainers, freelance journalists and photographers, models, consultants, accountants or court reporters are really being taken advantage of by these so -called billion-dollar corporate bullies.
Secondly, in most cases independent contractors do not qualify for workers comp and other employee designated benefits unless purchase of coverage is made of free-will.
The Employment Development Department of California offers optional insurance for those independent contractors who are not required to pay into State Disability Insurance, but would like to have access to State Disability and Paid Family Leave. Plainly, no you do not get to access employee benefits you have not paid into. I will note State Income tax is still applicable to these individuals, of course along other forms of everyday taxation.
Lorena Gonzalez's AB 5 legislation exempts certain professions including physicians, dentists, real estate agents, barbers and hairdressers, insurance agents and brokers and direct sales. Oh, also lawyers, including herself since she is registered with the State Bar at this time and could head to a court room near you if she loses her 2020 bid for Secretary of State. Amen.
What her bill aims to do is make a California high court decision codified into law over allowing people who do feel they are under unfair circumstances to sue the employer that wrongly classified them. As of now, independent contractors could bolster lawsuits of their own merits based on this legal precedent. Much of these would be class-action law suits, likely at no cost to workers. Lawyers certainly take these kinds of lawsuits against billion- dollar bullies and get multi-million dollar payouts from those Lorena claims her bill protects almost everyone from.
Other contracts may have arbitration clauses as an affordable, amicable way to settle disputes, while this is a contentious subject in itself, people sign contracts at free will and opt-in can be included. It does provide both parties an affordable way to resolve disputes, while it may not lead to multi-million dollar settlements for workers; neither does her bill.
The point is leaving it as a legal precedent as opposed to statutory law gives the workers the right to decide if they think their classification meets their needs or is an injustice done to them.
People once working as independent contractors can find themselves working more hours for less money when the overhead costs to small businesses and payroll taxes come to play. This means less time to pursue other ventures like education, community focused volunteering, or having much less flexibility to spend time with their families, instilling values and caring for children. They lose this work/life balance because Lorena Gonzales decided for them that having their own business was an injustice, and exempted her own profession. These contracts are of the free market, mutually agreed upon by both parties should not be presumed to be harmful.
Cracking down on small businesses is no way to go after corporate bullies, while using illogical statements that suggest people to “go work for one instead”. Go figure. While all of this this may seem a little confusing to audiences, I think I found all the clarification needed, on Twitter. Twitter’s maximum capacity of 280 characters sure has a way of cutting down on the political fluff-talk:
Abandoning Immigrant Labor
Undocumented immigrants do not qualify for employment status due to federal law. Her “employment misclassification” laws make migrants using once contracted labor to feed their families, subjected to Federal I-9 Employment Eligibility Verification forms. These forms, by design, can be used by ICE federal immigration enforcement for targeting. Further, these migrants do not qualify for employment status and wouldn't want to fill out a federal form to double-check that they are indeed here illegally while, their employers can get fined for hiring them. Contracted labor does not require such verification forms of eligibility through the federal government.
I see these policies as the fruition of Lorena’s acceptance of immigrant prison money to pander to Latino voters as an advocate while economically suffocating them and making them vulnerable to deportation through federal agencies.
Public Policy Institute of California puts the number of undocumented laborers in California’s work force at 1.75 million. Additionally, when these people do, in fact get a job with employee status (even at a large corporations) it is often done so often using identity theft on part of the employee or business, or more often, both.
While I fully understand that the workers are just trying to get by, feed their families and collect an income: identity theft should not be a prerequisite for this. It is too dangerous for our citizens. Often the migrant worker will get paid on a preloaded card to avoid having to cash a check in the person’s name whose identity was stolen.
Further, there is no evidence that these employers will treat them better even if they pay into and somehow qualify for employee benefits under someone else’s name or identity. They are still told that nobody will believe them of their grievances, that there are no records of them ever being there and made to be intimidated by ahem, even mega-corporations.
Forcing undocumented workers into these labor scenarios is not acceptable. It is an abandonment of everything Lorena Gonzalez panders to the Latino and Hispanic communities about in exchange for their sought-after vote. Lorena Gonzalez’s AB 5 bill is nothing but a gut punch to economic advancement of migrants while leaving them vulnerable to ICE federal enforcements.
It is just as concerning to our citizens whose identities are stolen to accommodate undocumented workers who cannot qualify with federal verifications. This legislation is a concern to the free market as a whole, this is essentially telling citizens that they cannot own the small businesses as sole proprietorships as they currently do. That they must work for another company instead. It undermines the private agreements and contracts citizens are in their right to agree to in their own interests.
I cannot emphasize enough how politically dangerous the government telling citizens they may not own and operate their businesses is; that they may not sell their skills and labor under free-will agreements. Moreover, I expect litigation to challenge if any of the occupations have such a right. Do freelance journalists have a right to sell their work, talents, or skillset to publications? Undoubtedly. How could one not foresee litigation on the issue?
The implications of this legislation are economically so vast I’m not even sure Lorena Gonzalez understands it herself as more than just a union-friendly way to drive more tax dollars into state funds under the guise of some kind of justice. This bill isn't an economic plan, its just a regulation to inconvenience anyone who previously was not because it’s advantageous for Lorena Gonzalez and her union buddies while generating more dues and tax revenues. Shocker.
In Part One we have learned of Lorena Gonzalez’s questionable integrity and fraudulent antics in:
a) lying having a child at the age of 16;
b) taking contributions from immigrant prisons;
c) using those donations to tap-dance campaign finance rules in a wholly incredible way;
d) her opportunistic Motor Voter disaster she takes zero accountability for;
e) the reconstruction of California politics and threats to democracy;
f) her employment classification politics that leave the migrants she claims to advocate for without labor, vulnerable to maltreatment and ICE immigration enforcement;
h) and how these union-friendly tax generating policies negatively impact citizens, small businesses and the free market.
The lies, fraud, and political deception described here are merely setting the tone for the following works in this exposé: Prosecuting Lorena Gonzalez: Exposing Fraud of California’s Progressive Policymaker. This is a multi-part series.
Please continue to follow this series and share this information widely as I aim to bring the truth to light surrounding the many layers of Lorena Gonzalez’s political playbook and the taxpayers who are on the hook for billions to pay for it.
