Episode 26 - North State Breakdown - Controlling the Narrative

This week the North State Breakdown analyzes the Ellis Report regarding the controversial handling of a letter from the Attorney General by Kevin Crye and Patrick Jones, raising questions about transparency and potential legal violations. We also examine the disturbing pattern of minimizing violence by certain board members and their supporters, due to a recent altercation involving community members Thomas Hildebrandt and Christian Gardinier.

Transcript:

Episode 26: "Controlling the Narrative"

Welcome to the North State Breakdown with Benjamin Nowain. Today I will be discussing the recently released investigation into the handling of the Attorney General's letter by Kevin Crye and Patrick Jones, and a concerning trend of minimizing violence by Patrick Jones and his supporters.

Let's discuss the  district attorney's letter and the investigation that followed. Recently, a report was released concerning Supervisor Patrick Jones' actions regarding a letter from the California Attorney General's office. This report, although technically absolving Jones of any wrongdoing, also highlighted some concerning procedural gaps.

To give you some context, the letter in question was a response from the Attorney General to a request originally sent by Kevin Crye on behalf of the Shasta County Board of Supervisors. Crye's letter had asked the Attorney General to investigate potential improprieties in the way District Attorney Stephanie Bridgett handled the settlement funds related to the Zogg Fire. At the time, Crye made a bold statement, saying, "One of us will be highly vindicated, and the other should be embarrassed." This set the stage for a highly contentious and politically charged situation.

The matter of the Attorney General's response was discussed during the May 7th, 2024, Board of Supervisors meeting. During this meeting, Patrick Jones admitted that he received the letter in January and alerted Kevin Crye to its contents. He also confessed to throwing the letter away, which is a critical point reflected in the Ellis Investigations report. Following Jones's admission, Kevin Crye attempted to downplay the significance of the letter, suggesting it "wasn't important."

This downplaying of the letter’s significance is at odds with the public interest and the legal obligations of transparency.

Why is this important? Well, under the California Public Records Act (CPRA), this letter clearly falls within the definition of a public record. It was sent to a public official in their official capacity and pertains to public business, specifically addressing allegations made in a public meeting and clarifying the legal standing of the District Attorney. The content of this letter is of significant public interest.

By not disclosing this letter, both Patrick Jones and Kevin Crye may have violated the CPRA. The Act mandates the disclosure of such records unless a specific exemption applies, and the argument that the letter "wasn't important" does not align with the legal obligations under the CPRA. This law prioritizes the public's right to access information over a public official's subjective judgment.

Moreover, the county’s claim that it lacks a retention policy for letters does not absolve them from these responsibilities. The CPRA requires that public records be available for public inspection, and this obligation exists regardless of whether a formal retention policy is in place. The absence of such a policy may highlight poor governance practices, but it does not exempt the county from complying with state transparency laws.

There is also the issue of potential Brown Act violations. The allegations against District Attorney Stephanie Bridgett were made during a public meeting, a forum governed by the Brown Act, which seeks to ensure transparency in governmental proceedings. The failure to disclose the Attorney General's response, which directly relates to these public allegations, undermines the transparency and accountability that the Act is designed to protect.

By withholding the letter, the Board may have deprived the public of crucial information that would have informed their understanding of the allegations and the integrity of the officials involved. This lack of transparency could be seen as a form of indirect violation, as it hampers the public's ability to engage meaningfully in the governmental process.

If the letter exonerating Bridgett was withheld to manipulate public perception or to maintain a narrative contrary to the facts, this could constitute a serious breach of the Brown Act’s principles.

The actions taken by the Board of Supervisors, particularly by Kevin Crye and Patrick Jones, may not only expose the county to legal challenges but also damage public trust in local governance. To uphold the principles of open government, it is crucial that all relevant public records be disclosed in accordance with the law, and that public officials act transparently and in the public’s best interest.

The potential legal ramifications for Kevin Crye, Patrick Jones, and Shasta County are significant. Violations of the CPRA could result in litigation against the county, potentially leading to court orders compelling the release of records, fines, and attorney fees. Moreover, intentional violations of the Brown Act could result in criminal charges against the involved officials. If it is found that there was an intentional effort to manipulate public perception by withholding the letter, this could lead to civil lawsuits or further state-level investigations.

At one point, Kevin Crye had previously mentioned that he wanted to vote for this investigation to make Supervisor Mary Rickert look bad. He also insinuated that her opponent in the district 3 race should create an ad for the money spent.

After the closed session on August 20th, Crye stated that he had worked with CEO Rickert to develop methods to ensure similar incidents wouldn’t happen again. It would appear that this is an admission that the county's policies and procedures were either not properly followed or were insufficient to handle the situation. Remember his statement at the beginning of the investigation that at the end of this process, one of us would be highly vindicated, and the other should be embarrassed? That statement feels particularly relevant now.

The release of the Ellis Investigations report to the public wasn't the only controversial thing to happen at the August 20th meeting. During this meeting, an altercation occurred involving Christian Gardinier, who was assaulted by Thomas Hildebrandt. Several reports provided detailed accounts of what happened.

According to video footage from the meeting, the altercation began when Thomas Hildebrandt was at the podium addressing the supervisors. Shortly after starting his public comment, Christian Gardinier could be heard saying something off camera.

Hildebrandt then left the podium and walked toward Christian Gardinier. Shortly after, Hildebrandt returned to the podium and said, "he's speaking up, I'll kick his ass out," expressing his frustration. The actual assault happened shortly after Hildebrandt's public comment, off camera, but the reactions from the board members clearly indicated that something serious had occurred.

Christian's account of the incident suggests that he tried to de-escalate the situation by placing his hand on Hildebrandt's shoulder in a friendly gesture. However, this gesture appears to have been misunderstood, leading to Hildebrandt striking Gardinier in the abdomen.

What makes this incident even more troubling is the differing accounts from board members. Supervisor Patrick Jones described Hildebrandt’s action as a "sharp poke" to the abdomen, a characterization that seems to downplay the seriousness of the assault. In contrast, Supervisor Tim Garman witnessed Hildebrandt striking Gardinier with his fist in the abdomen, a more aggressive and violent act than what Jones described. This discrepancy between the supervisors' accounts raises concerns about potential bias and the intent to minimize violent behavior by a known supporter.

It's important to note that this incident is not Hildebrandt's first act of aggression. He was involved in a previous incident where he shoved reporter, Mike Mangus, in September 2022. Hildebrandt is a veteran who has expressed frustration with government and has chronic medical issues, which some might argue could explain his quick reactions. 

Hildebrandt's frequent presence at events supporting Patrick Jones and his support of recalling previous district 2 Supervisor Leonard Moty may provide context for his actions. That recall movement led by Jones, has often taken a hardline stance against perceived political adversaries, and created an environment where aggression is, at times, tacitly encouraged or excused.

Christian Gardinier, despite being the victim, showed remarkable composure. He recounted how he tried to offer a handshake and a few calming words to Hildebrandt, saying, "Thomas, we don't need to get violent. You know, I think it was a misunderstanding. Gardinier, later speaking to deputies, expressed concern for Hildebrandt’s well-being, highlighting his own willingness to look beyond the assault and recognize the broader issues at play.

What's deeply concerning is how certain board members and their supporters have minimized these violent incidents. Individuals involved in the Moty recall and supporters of Kevin Crye and Patrick Jones have downplayed the violence, trivializing its seriousness. This is not just dismissive but dangerous.

For example, in discussions on programs like the Mountaintop Media Times and Poke the Hornet's Nest, individuals sympathetic to Jones and Crye have suggested that Christian was at fault for merely touching Hildebrandt's shoulder. While they might argue a point about personal space, the level of violence used by Hildebrandt was disproportionate and unacceptable.

It's also important to note that the Mountaintop Media Times is connected to the same individuals who produced the Red White and Blueprint docuseries. They have a vested interest in downplaying these incidents, especially when a supporter of theirs, like Hildebrandt, is committing acts of violence. This connection is a conflict of interest that compromises their ability to report objectively on such matters.

It's also worth mentioning the 2021 incident involving Carlos Zapata, a figurehead of the Red White and Blueprint docuseries, who has a history of promoting and engaging in violent acts. Zapata was involved in an altercation with Nathanial Pinkney at Pinkney's workplace. During this incident, Zapata accompanied Chris Meagher and Elizabeth Bailey who physically attacked Pinkney.

In the footage you can see that Meagher tried to use a CO2 container as a weapon, something that could have caused serious harm, or potentially a fatality. Zapata was charged with disturbing the peace by fighting and sentenced to anger management for his role in the assault, while Meagher and Bailey faced disturbing the peace by fighting and battery charges. This incident serves as a reminder that political violence has been an issue for some time in Shasta County.

I would also like to  address an incident involving Anewscafe’s founder Doni Chamberlain. On July 6, 2023, journalist Doni Chamberlain attended a meeting at the Cottonwood Community Center, which she believed was open to the public based on its advertisement on Facebook. The event, organized by local conservative leader Jesse Lane, aimed to unite various far-right groups in Shasta County. Despite the public promotion, Chamberlain was asked to leave by the organizers, who claimed they didn't want her misreporting their words. When she refused, Mark Kent allegedly tried to forcibly remove her by grabbing her phone, which was attached to a lanyard around her neck, resulting in injuries and a subsequent trip to the emergency room. Chamberlain posted about the incident on social media, while Kent later discussed it at length on his show, Sovereign Minds.

This incident underscores the escalating hostility faced by perceived political opponents, even journalists, in Shasta County, particularly those who challenge the narratives of certain political factions. 

This type of violence cannot be tolerated. It sets a dangerous precedent, especially when members of our current Board majority and their supporters speak so flippantly about it.

We're witnessing a troubling pattern where violence is minimized, and critical information is withheld to control the narrative.

And that's the Breakdown.