As more time goes by and no one steps forward more questions emerge about the legitimacy of this case. People are beginning to bail ship before this boat sinks.

On July 17 Channel 10 reported that former Democratic assemblywoman Lori Saldana said Filner should not resign right after she announced that she had been warning people about Filner for years. "So far, the attorneys have not met the burden of proof of criminal wrongdoing,"

This is yet another bizarre story by 10 News who has been spearheading this public lynching of Filner. Why would they even print a story that now calls into question these claims?

My theory is that Filner threatened 10 News and Saldana with a defamation suit because Lori based her "warning" about Filner on gossip and rumor. The complete 180 is very interesting and I don't think they would have done it otherwise.

She said that two years ago she reported hearing stories of Filner mistreating women to the head of San Diego County's Democrats. Well, if the claims were baseless and none of those claims were ever put on record then Filner has a good defamation case against her. So I suspect he and his attorney went to Saldana and threatened defamation if she did not correct her allegations.

She told Channel 10, "Until an employee is willing to come forward, these attorneys are drumming up a lot of anger, a lot of emotion, but they're not presenting the evidence that would be needed for either a civil or criminal conviction."

Interesting, right?

Also the language in the article is really the clincher in validating these claims or shall I say in invalidating these claims. Obviously Lori was privy to the exact same "inside" evidence that all the other politicians like Todd Gloria were and now she claims the evidence would not even hold up in a CIVIL case. That is HUGE for her to say this does not even meet the burden of proof for a civil case.

She said that two years ago she reported to the head of San Diego County's Democrats that she had heard stories of Filner mistreating women. However, "Until an employee is willing to come forward, these attorneys are drumming up a lot of anger, a lot of emotion, but they're not presenting the evidence that would be needed for either a civil or criminal conviction," she told Channel 10.

I have been saying all along there is NO case. These people are acting like they are lying and have been from day one. So why the initial proclamation from Filner that he needed help?

Because likely, they did get video of him from the Republican private investigator they had following him for years (by their own admission). I am sure they sent a honeypot in to bait him and they caught Bob on video kissing someone he works with.

"Victory!", I am sure the Republican developer cabal proclaimed. "This is it, we got him". They quietly presented the video to Bob saying if you step down we will not release this. That was supposed to be it. But lucky for us Filner is a fighter and he can not be bullied.

Filner called them on their bluff and said "bring it on", knowing in court it would be revealed that these girls were sent it to bait him.

Now they are panicked and they keep calling press conferences so they can create the illusion that there is evidence in this case. If there was evidence they would have released it by now. This case is in BIG trouble. And the people behind it are also in trouble.

We have to remain vigilant because these people are not going down without a serious fight. And Filner has to be smart. He has a great card he can play with defamation, but he should not surrender the right to file defamation for anything. They will still try and put recall on the ballot for January 2014 which Council can do without signatures. Don't cave Bob! You are holding the cards! We need you!

Let this play out. They will sink their own ship the longer this goes on.

Comments

Diogenes July 19, 2013 @ 12:17 p.m.

An undercover bingo caught on video?

Bob Filner is accused of twice "jamming his tongue" down the same woman's mouth.

Now that is inherently impossible.

My respect for attorneys Briggs and Gonzalez and the tearful Donna Frye fell.

0

historymatters July 20, 2013 @ 5:07 p.m.

yep.....the infamous "tongue jamming"...I mean this is getting ridiculous. We dont even have the mayor texting his genitals to ladies.

Because it would be sooo hard to send in a honeypot to ask for a kiss w/ the PI in a shrubbery outfit hiding in the bushes. I cant wait for the trial!

0

SurfPuppy619 July 19, 2013 @ 12:29 p.m.

She said that two years ago she reported hearing stories of Filner mistreating women to the head of San Diego County's Democrats. Well, if the claims were baseless and none of those claims were ever put on record then Filner has a good defamation case against her There is NO defamation case as Filner is a public figure and MALICE would have to be proven up, won't happen. .............see NY Times V Sullivan and Gertz v Welch.....

1

historymatters July 19, 2013 @ 3:50 p.m.

i think he could prove malice. Think of it like a tabloid and a celebrity. They have to show reckless disregard for the truth and Saldana def showed reckless disregard by coming forward to proclaim gossip and present it as truth. You can not do that even w/ a public figure.

And w/ Cory Briggs and Marco, its a slam dunk. there is obviously malice and motive and that would emerge in a civil trial which would be excellent for us.

1

Diogenes July 19, 2013 @ 5:01 p.m.

Agreed as to Saldana and Channel 10. Those statements were about actions alleged to be two or more years ago. There was no corroboration. Therefore both defendants were reckless as to the proof or falsity thereof, I.e., the statements were made with malice. This is nothing more than gossip.

Civil Code section 47 (b) makes statements made in the course of litigation absolutely privileged. These new allegations were not yet the subject of litigation. Briggs may not represent these victims. Gonzalez said that his firm might, There may be more corroboration with the latest victims' allegations, but I could also see their conduct being on the outside of the litigation privilege.

The attorneys should file first in court and then give the press a conformed copy of the pleading. Then questions can be answered that "my clients allege, etc."

0

Yankeedoodle July 19, 2013 @ 5:58 p.m.

Curiouser and curiouser! Now I might be starting to enjoy myself.

0

Diogenes July 21, 2013 @ 8:33 a.m.

And when George W. Bush drunkenly massaged German Chancellor's Bach and shoulders, not a single protest was lodged by Pelosi or any of the San Diego crowd. In fact impeachment was "off the table."

In our society, you can lie our country into war, but you must be true to your fiancee'.

Republicans are forgiven their trespasses for sex scandals.

Trying Filner in the press was a bad idea. It is easy enough to have a private investigator take down witness statements and turn those over to the proper law enforcement or govermental claims department of the City. One such claim or police report would have ended the alleged conduct long ago. This should be an empowering lesson for women.

0

Sign in to comment

Join our
newsletter list

Enter to win $25 at Broken Yolk Cafe

Each newsletter subscription
means another chance to win!

Close