Get free daily email updates

Syndicate this site - RSS

Recent Posts

Blogger Menu

Click here to blog

James V. Lacy

LA Times screws up on Gilchrist report

Sometimes you just can’t get a Los Angeles Times reporter to read a sentence for what it actually says.  

In the decision in the Gilchrist Minuteman case yesterday, the Judge wrote a pretty clear sentence in his order regarding Gilchrist’s request:  "The application for a writ of possession is denied." 

Unfortunately, the reporter for the Times couldn’t quite get what that sentence in the Order meant, as she wrote in today’s paper "Minuteman Project co-founder Jim Gilchrist and his opponents within the anti-illegal-immigration group both claimed victory Friday after an Orange County Superior Court judge put Gilchrist back in charge of the organization’s funds but indicated that those assets might soon be put into receivership."  The reality is, the Judge DID NOT put Gilchrist "back in charge of the organization’s funds."  I explained this ad nauseum to the reporter, but she was argumentative with me, didn’t like the Orange County Register front page above-the-fold headline stating "Gilchrist Loses Round in Court," complained to me that the Register "often gets facts wrong," and just didn’t grasp the simple statement of the Judge: "The application for a writ of possession is denied." 

The truth is, the Court DENIED the Court Order Gilchrist was seeking to be put back in charge of all the organization’s funds.  That is what the words "The application for a writ of possession is denied" mean.

As a result of the Court Order, Gilchrist maintains control of assets he always had in his possession, and the Defendants retain control of the assets they have, such as membership lists, web based assets, office equipment, and a bank account (which is frozen for now, but not turned over to Gilchrist).  Gilchrist did not "regain" anything.  In fact, by filing his case, Gilchrist has now made himself vulnerable to a very likely Court-ordered receivership on April 25.  (Which would not have been possible if Gilchrist had never filed his case.)

As for the story, fortunately, most of the other journalists covering the case got it right for their readers.