Truth matters.
Get local, investigative reporting in your inbox.
[one_half]”https://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/207673416″[/one_half]
[one_half_last][box type=”shadow”]
Read this story completely backed up by primary documents by clicking here.
[/box][/one_half_last]
San Diego environmental attorney Cory Briggs, dressed in a suit and tie, stood before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in February to argue against one of the most potentially transformative and divisive development projects in the city’s history — a proposed 12-acre property along the downtown waterfront.
But just as Briggs began his opening remarks, Judge Harry Pregerson interrupted, asking him for details about his client, the Navy Broadway Complex Coalition.
“Who do you represent?” he asked Briggs.
“The appellant, the San Diego Navy Broadway Complex Coalition,” Briggs replied.
“And can you name any people?”
“No,” Briggs said. “It’s a nonprofit 501 C three or four — I don’t remember which one — association with a bunch of members who live in the city of San Diego.”
In some ways, the lawyer’s confusion was understandable.
Briggs and his law firm have sued on behalf of more than 30 charitable nonprofits, almost all of which he and his family helped create. An inewsource review of public records found state and federal governments have suspended more than half of the groups, including the Navy Broadway Complex Coalition (which was later reinstated), for failing to file legally required documents showing finances, mission statements and board structures.
Nearly every nonprofit lists public “education” as its primary mission, yet most have no presence outside of court. One of the charities appears to do nothing other than take money from donors, including a developer, while others exist only on paper. According to the most recent filings, at least a dozen of the nonprofits have illegal board structures.
[box type=”shadow”]To see a comprehensive spreadsheet of the entire network of nonprofits, including each group’s name, status, officers, legal standing and more, click here.[/box]
One nonprofit governed by Briggs’ significant other and his cousin showed nearly a quarter million dollar loss with no explanation of where the money went.
Kristin Ford, spokeswoman for the California Attorney General’s Office, which regulates nonprofits in the state, wouldn’t comment on any specific nonprofit. But she said the “registration and reporting requirement is a critical element in the Department of Justice’s efforts, through enforcement actions brought by attorneys in the Charitable Trusts Section, to protect the public against both improper diversion of charitable assets and misleading and fraudulent charitable solicitations.”
Network of nonprofits
Briggs is a big name in San Diego: He and his firm are often found in the middle of the city’s biggest legal battles involving land, government accountability and the environment, and for several months, inewsource has published a series of stories about him and the ethical and legal questions surrounding his business practices.
Most of the stories revolved around money: Briggs’ environmental lawsuits against the city of San Diego and the resulting settlements, now tainted by conflict-of-interest allegations; as well as his law firm’s multimillion-dollar home loans experts called questionable and possibly fraudulent.
This latest inewsource examination also shows Briggs has collected attorney fees and settlements on behalf of a network of charitable, nonprofit organizations he helped form that, in many cases, repeatedly and persistently violated state and federal laws.
All but two of the nonprofits have shared the same mailing addresses — that of the Briggs Law Corp. in San Diego or Upland. One also listed a P.O. Box in Ocean Beach.
According to the most recent filings, Briggs’ cousin, Karin Langwasser, and his significant other, Sarichia Cacciatore, are on the boards of at least 10 Briggs-associated nonprofits, which are either 501c3 or 501c4 public charities.
[one_half][box type=”shadow”]Briggs-associated nonprofit: A nonprofit that lists its physical address as Briggs Law Corp. in state filings and/or Briggs, his significant other or his cousin sit on the board of directors.[/box][/one_half]
Thirty of the Briggs-associated nonprofits mention “education” or “educating the public” as part of their primary mission — 19 use exactly the same mission statement: “The specific purpose for which this corporation is organized is the promotion of social welfare through advocacy for and education regarding responsible and equitable environmental development.” Another’s is only slightly different.
In the past decade, the state attorney general has sent nearly 100 notices to the nonprofits to register or be revoked.
Nonprofit experts interviewed said Briggs’ network of charities suffers “a serious case of noncompliance.” A forensic accountant said several of the filings were “egregiously wrong.”
Judges, attorneys and municipal officials have long questioned Briggs’ motivations in using the tax-exempt organizations to collect substantial attorney fees during the past decade.
A law firm can’t seek damages on its own. It needs a client who has actually been damaged.
The San Diego City Attorney’s Office is currently trying to persuade a judge in Superior Court that one of Briggs’ most litigious nonprofits, San Diegans for Open Government, is a “mere alter ego” of its counsel.
[one_half][box type=”shadow”]San Diegans for Open Government filed a suit against the city of San Diego in 2013 challenging its approval of business improvement district assessments. In a motion filed in March, the city laid out a series of points arguing that the Briggs Law Corporation uses the nonprofit “to litigate for profit.” It backed up the claims with more than 1,200 pages in a three-volume compendium filed with the San Diego Superior Court.[/box][/one_half]
Briggs did not respond to an emailed interview request on May 15, which included details about the main elements of this story. On May 9, Briggs emailed inewsource’s lawyer requesting a “discontinuance of contact” with inewsource reporters due to the “ethical impropriety of such communications.” inewsource’s lawyer responded on May 14 saying “neither I nor my client inewsource consider inewsource’s requests for you to comment for news stories to be in violation of any law or ethical prohibition.”
Briggs, Cacciatore, Langwasser, and Briggs’ associates, who taken together account for the bulk of most of the organizations’ boards of directors, did not answer requests for interviews.
San Diegans for Open Government
One of Briggs’ most frequent clients, which has filed more than two dozen suits against the city of San Diego, is San Diegans for Open Government — a nonprofit formed in 2008 to “promote social welfare” regarding “responsible and equitable environmental development.” Its high-profile cases have fought hotel and business improvement district taxes and demanded access to public records such as government officials’ emails.
Although it formed in 2008, San Diegans for Open Government did not provide the state attorney general’s charities division with five years’ worth of state or federal filings until April 2014, after the division threatened to revoke the group’s tax-exempt status.
Its officers have stated under oath that Briggs Law Corp. oversees and pays for nearly every aspect of the group’s operation:
According to depositions and other court filings, Briggs and his firm hold and maintain all the group’s corporate records; file and pay for its lawsuits, its annual registration fees and filings with the state and federal governments; control its Facebook and Twitter accounts; and collect all settlements and judgments when the group prevails in court.
[one_half][box type=”shadow”]San Diegans for Open Government sued inewsource after it published 10 stories about Briggs. San Diego State University (where inewsource is located) and other university-related entities also are defendants in the case, which alleges conflict-of-interest violations and problems with inewsource’s lease terms at the school. For the first time in the history of San Diegans for Open Government, court records show, it is not being represented by Briggs, but rather an Orange County environmental lawyer who has sued with Briggs before. As of publication, inewsource had not been served with the lawsuit.[/box][/one_half]
San Diegans for Open Government doesn’t have a penny to its name — nor has it recorded any revenue or expenses with the federal or state agencies, according to government records.
Ofer Lion, a partner at Seyfarth Shaw in Los Angeles and member of the American Bar Association’s Exempt Organizations Committee, looked over the group’s state and federal filings, as did Reynolds Cafferata, a nonprofit lawyer and partner at Rodriguez, Horii, Choi & Cafferata in Los Angeles. Both are recognized experts in the field of nonprofit law.
Lion and Cafferata both found the organization’s lack of transparency and failure to file legally required documents problematic. Lion said the group’s failure to report any income since its formation despite being awarded hundreds of thousands of dollars — if not more — in court settlements over the years, is “really a disclosure and transparency problem at heart.”
inewsource asked the state Attorney General’s Office if it was looking into the matter, and a spokeswoman responded that the office “can’t confirm or deny our investigations in order to protect the integrity of those investigations.”
The group’s mission
San Diegans for Open Government started out nearly seven years ago as the All People’s Breakfast Organizing Committee, with the late activist and environmentalist Ian Trowbridge at one point serving as its CEO, secretary and treasurer.
Under state law governing charities, it’s illegal in California for one person to serve as a nonprofit’s CEO/president while also serving as its secretary or treasurer in order to discourage the public benefit corporation from being used for personal gain. At least 12 Briggs-associated nonprofits show an illegal board structure in their most current filings, including one in which Briggs held both positions and another in which his cousin did.
The All People’s Breakfast Organizing Committee, which shares the exact same mission statement as 19 other Briggs-associated nonprofits, changed its name to San Diegans for Open Government in 2009.
That year, the group challenged the city’s use of an emergency exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act for maintenance work in the Tijuana River Valley. In the years since, the nonprofit has filed dozens of lawsuits, many against the city.
Briggs Law Corp. has represented the nonprofit in every court case it has filed with the exception of a suit against inewsource, filed less than two months after its series on Briggs began.
[one_half][box type=”shadow”]inewsource’s examination of Briggs’ nonprofits began in October 2014 and used publicly-available information from corporate filings with the Internal Revenue Service, California Attorney General’s Office, California Secretary of State’s Office and the state Franchise Tax Board, as well as land records, lawsuits, depositions, social media accounts and blogs.[/box][/one_half]
After Trowbridge died in 2013, Briggs’ associates and family were appointed to the board of San Diegans for Open Government. The group’s policy states it will “maintain the privacy of its members and personnel to the maximum extent permitted by law,” and Briggs has vigorously defended that privacy in court.
Its board members include: Langwasser, Briggs’ cousin, who has been on the board of at least eight other Briggs-associated nonprofits; Richard Lawrence, a retired pastor, civil-rights advocate and friend of Briggs who has been on the board of at least ten other Briggs-associated nonprofits; and Pedro Quiroz Jr.
Theresa Quiroz is an officer of three Briggs-associated entities and sat on San Diego’s 2010 Redistricting Commission.
Sarichia Cacciatore, Briggs’ partner and a former environmental biologist who serves on three Briggs-associated nonprofit boards, was listed as a member of San Diegans for Open Government in a 2012 lawsuit against the city. Briggs said Cacciatore was included in the lawsuit “by mistake.”
Nevertheless, a signed two-page declaration with details about her standing as an apartment owner was included in the group’s court filings. Seven months later, in a related deposition, Cacciatore said she knew nothing about the organization’s mission.
Other members who have appeared in court filings over the years include Linda Perine, director of community outreach under former San Diego Mayor Bob Filner; Dell Cunamay, Trowbridge’s partner before he passed away; Diane Faulds, a bookkeeper and tax preparer; and Mat Wahlstrom, a general manager of an electrical company in Hillcrest.
The primary purpose of San Diegans for Open Government, according to its filings with the California Attorney General’s Office, is to promote social welfare through advocacy and education. But its most prominent public function has occurred as a client of Briggs in cases pushing for open government and compliance with municipal and environmental laws. The group hosted an “open government bootcamp” in Chula Vista in March.
As a charitable organization, San Diegans for Open Government is required under federal law to adhere to the mission it proposed to the IRS to obtain tax-exempt status.
When asked during a deposition how the group educates the public, Quiroz, the CEO, answered, “Well, it’s what is put on the — I kept saying — Facebook. What I’m trying to say is the Internet, articles, accomplishments, links, that type of thing.”
San Diegans for Open Government’s officers meet regularly, Lawrence, its secretary, said in a deposition, but despite the group’s bylaws requiring it, they keep no record of meeting minutes — one of the “Top 9 Ways to Get Investigated” according to the California Attorney General’s Office — nor annual reports. The treasurer, Langwasser, said she had never attended a board meeting.
“Over the years,” Langwasser said during a deposition, “I haven’t been asked to do anything.”
Who filed the tax returns?
“Cory’s office,” she said.
However, her signature appears at least 10 times on documents the group has filed with state agencies. On at least one occasion, the city of San Diego has written a check to Briggs Law Corp. Trust Account “FBO [for the benefit of] Karin Langwasser” for Briggs’ attorney fees.
The Money
San Diegans for Open Government has no checking or savings account because it wants “to operate as simply and cleanly as possible,” said its secretary, Richard Lawrence, during a court deposition.
In an open letter posted on the nonprofit’s blog on June 12, 2014, Lawrence and Quiroz explained the group has,
“…never accepted money in case settlements or in judgments we have won. The media and losers of those cases claim that Mr. Briggs has made himself rich from our cases. But what really happens is simple. When we lose a case, Mr. Briggs does not get reimbursed for his time or expenses. He is willing to risk substantial loss to fight the well-funded groups he takes on for us. When we win a case … Mr. Briggs is reimbursed for appropriate legal fees.”
Cafferata, the nonprofit lawyer, told inewsource, “That really isn’t how it works.”
Here is how he said it is supposed to work: When a lawyer takes a case on a contingency basis — as the arrangement between Briggs and San Diegans for Open Government appears to be — he usually requires no money up front in the hope that if he wins, he’ll get a percentage of the settlement or reimbursement of attorney fees. Typically, according to Cafferata and Lion, that percentage can be as high as 40 percent. The plaintiff would keep the other 60 percent. Judges typically take issue with a lawyer keeping more than 50 percent, Lion said.
A case against San Diego developer Sunroad Enterprises, in which Briggs represented San Diegans for Open Government and another nonprofit, CREED-21, which counts Langwasser and Lawrence as officers, resulted in a $135,000 “settlement of all claims.” Court records show the check was to be made payable to Briggs Law Corp. Trust Account, which lawyers typically use to hold money for clients, but neither group has reported revenue to the state Attorney General’s Office.
Since 2011, records show, the Briggs trust account has recovered nearly $250,000 from the city alone through lawsuits filed on behalf of San Diegans for Open Government.
But settlements involving private companies sometimes are kept secret, meaning it’s sometimes impossible to know how much money he and his network of nonprofits might have been awarded in lawsuits against developers. The nonprofits Briggs has represented in those cases do not list assets or revenue in their state filings.
Because no money is being reported — “and it really should be,” Lion said — these nonprofits wouldn’t be targeted for an automatic government audit.
“There’s nothing really for the IRS to latch onto,” he said.
Southwest Center on Renewable Energy
Another nonprofit associated with Briggs is a 501c3 called the Southwest Center on Renewable Energy, or SCORE. It appears to exist only on paper, despite reportedly raising more than $855,000 in contributions and grants since its inception and spending more than $450,500 on “research,” “advocacy” and “organizing.”
After an extensive online search, inewsource found the name of the group only in one place — its government filings.
SCORE’s governing board is comprised of Briggs’ partner, Cacciatore, his cousin, Langwasser, and his associate, Bill Powers, a prominent environmentalist and advocate for solar energy. It was incorporated in 2008 and Briggs is listed in federal filings as the person in charge of its books. Like 33 other Briggs-associated nonprofits, SCORE shares an address with Briggs Law Corp.
According to its filings with the IRS, SCORE was formed “to provide public education regarding the availability and feasibility of renewable energy resources in place of traditional, carbon-based energy resources,” and had big plans for the future:
The group’s IRS application said it would provide educational materials and training sessions. Its directors would work “approximately 50 hours per month.” It would hire an executive director earning a $100,000 salary and solicit funding “primarily through grants from government agencies” and private sources.
According to its application for tax exemption dated May 2009, SCORE received a $250,000 donation “from a developer to promote more renewable energy in land-use proposals.” The developer was not identified (nonprofits generally are not required to disclose donors). The next year, the group reported spending $20,000 on “consulting fees.” However, the zero-dollar balance at the end of that year gave no explanation as to where the remaining $230,000 went, as required by federal law.
After several warnings, the state Attorney General’s Office suspended SCORE in 2014 for failing to file disclosures, and the group’s status remains “delinquent,” according to the attorney general’s website.
The group did file 2013 and 2014 returns showing it received $605,171 in contributions during those two years, and spent $184,490 on “research” and $266,011 on “advocacy and organizing.”
Langwasser, a certified public accountant, serves as SCORE’s chief financial officer.
Paul Scott, a forensic certified public accountant and co-founder of Full Spectrum Consulting in Carlsbad, examined the group’s filings with the IRS. He called them “egregiously wrong.”
“That’s an invasion on the entire profession when I see CPAs doing this kind of work,” Scott said. “Clearly they’re out of integrity.”
SCORE’s chief executive officer, Bill Powers, did not respond to multiple phone messages. Neither Cacciatore nor Langwasser responded to requests for interviews.
To see a comprehensive spreadsheet of the entire network of nonprofits, including each group’s status, officers and more, click here.
- Editorial Standards Page
- Ethics Policy
- Diversity Statement
- Diversity Staffing Report
- Corrections Policy
- Ownership Structure, Funding
- Founding Date
- Masthead
- Mission Statement with Coverage Priorities
- Fact-checking Standards
- Unnamed Sources Policy
Editorial Standards Page
- Our Mission
- Ethics Policy
- Diversity
- Ownership Structure, Funding and Grants
- Financial Documents
- Fact-checking and Verification Standards
- Unnamed Sources
- Corrections and Clarifications
- Actionable Feedback and Newsroom Contacts
- Masthead
- Byline Policy
- The Trust Project
- Privacy Policy
Our Mission
inewsource is a nonprofit, nonpartisan newsroom dedicated to improving lives in the San Diego region and beyond through impactful, data-based investigative and accountability journalism.
Our Vision
Betrayals of the public trust are revealed and rectified, wrongdoing is deterred, and inequities are illuminated thanks to inewsource’s deep, dogged, fact-based reporting.
Our Values
Truth: Above all else, we value the importance of a free and credible press. Truth is the cornerstone of democracy and the core value for inewsource.
Transparency: We build trust with our readers by adhering to the highest standards and ethics, and to reporting with facts, precision and context.
Collaboration: Our newsroom prioritizes collaboration over competition. We regularly partner with media outlets on reporting projects and to share content.
Community: Our reporting serves the San Diego region, and we strive to build relationships with our audience by getting out into the community to listen and engage.
Ethics Policy
inewsource will conduct its business with the highest standards of decency, fairness and accuracy. These standards shall apply equally to inewsource employees, freelancers and all others engaged in gathering information on behalf of inewsource. All receive a copy of these ethical standards.
In the course of our reporting, we will consistently:
● Identify our organization and ourselves fully and avoid false representations of any kind to any source.
● Obtain consent from all parties before electronically recording any interview or conversation except in extraordinary cases authorized by the Managing Editor and Editor. If a source refuses to be taped, that must be honored; no recordings are to be made without consent.
● Respect the individual’s right to privacy. inewsource will never manipulate or barter private, personal, health, financial or other extraneous information in the course of preparing its reports.
● Any source we describe or write about in any significant manner must be contacted. The employee should document all efforts to contact the source, and if unsuccessful, should summarize these efforts at contact in the body of his/her writing.
In addition, inewsource follows the Code of Ethics of the Society of Professional Journalists. The latest version, revised in 2014, can be found here.
Editorial Independence Policy
We subscribe to standards of editorial independence adopted by the Institute for Nonprofit News (INN) as follows:
Our organization retains full authority over editorial content to protect the best journalistic and business interests of our organization. We will maintain a firewall between news coverage decisions and sources of all revenue. Acceptance of financial support does not constitute implied or actual endorsement of donors or their products, services or opinions.
We accept gifts, grants and sponsorships from individuals and organizations for the general support of our activities, but our news judgments are made independently and not on the basis of donor support. Our organization also may consider donations to support the coverage of particular topics, but our organization maintains editorial control of the coverage. We will cede no right of review or influence of editorial content, nor of unauthorized distribution of editorial content.
Our organization will make public all donors who give a total of $1,000 or more. We will accept anonymous donations for general support only if it is clear that sufficient safeguards have been put into place that the expenditure of that donation is made independently by our organization and in compliance with INN’s Membership Standards.
Diversity
Diverse Voices
Inclusiveness is at the heart of thinking and acting as journalists, and it supports the educational mandate of inewsource. Race, class, generation, gender, sexual orientation, ability, and geography all affect point of view. inewsource believes that reflecting societal differences in reporting leads to better, more nuanced stories and a better-informed community.
inewsource is committed to employment equity and diversity.
Diverse Staffing Report
Below is a breakdown of staffing data at inewsource. We determine the composition of our staff by asking them to self-identify. It is based on a newsroom of 11 and a total staff of 15 as of August 2020. Percentages are based on 15 total survey responses. The numbers include full-time and part-time staff, full-time fellows and full-time and part-time interns.
| All Staff Percentages are based on 15 total survey responses. The numbers include full-time and part-time staff, full-time fellows and full-time and part-time interns. | Newsroom Percentages are based on 15 completed survey responses to this question. | Business Percentages are based on 15 completed survey responses to this question. | |||
| Gender Identity | Gender Identity | Gender Identity | |||
| Women | 80% | Women | 82% | Women | 75% |
| Men | 20% | Men | 18% | Men | 25% |
| Sexual Orientation | Sexual Orientation | Sexual Orientation | |||
| Straight | 87% | Straight | 82% | Straight | 100% |
| LGBTQ-identifying | 7% | LGBTQ-identifying | 7% | ||
| Not specified | 7% | Not specified | 7% | ||
| Speak a language beyond English at home | 33% | Speak a language beyond English at home | 18% | Speak a language beyond English at home | 75% |
| Race/Ethnicity | Race/Ethnicity | Race/Ethnicity | |||
| White | 67% | White | 73% | White | 50% |
| Hispanic or Latinx | 20% | Two or more races | 18% | Hispanic or Latinx | 50% |
| Two or more races | 13% | Hispanic or Latinx | 9% | ||
| Age | Age | Age | |||
| 20-29 | 40% | 20-29 | 45% | 20-29 | 25% |
| 30-39 | 47% | 30-39 | 45% | 30-39 | 50% |
| 60 or older | 13% | 60 or older | 9% | 60 or older | 25% |
* The percentages in the charts have been rounded and may not add up to 100.
Ownership Structure, Funding and Grants
inewsource is a nonprofit organization, whose legal name is Investigative Newsource. It does business as inewsource. The business was incorporated on Aug. 4, 2009 in the state of California. Tax-exempt status as a 501c3 was granted by the IRS on Sept. 15, 2010. inewsource is funded primarily by individual contributions and foundation grants. We are guided by a board of directors.
Editorial independence: Journalists employed by inewsource take no editorial direction from donors whose contributions may support the organization. inewsource will not hesitate to report on its donors when events warrant. Our Editorial Independence Policy details the firewall between journalism and revenue.
To be transparent with the public, inewsource lists its donors on its website. In cases where a donor is the subject of an inewsource story, additional disclosure will be made.
Financial Documents
We do our due diligence to earn your trust in our reporting, as well as in our governance and financial sustainability. All of our financial documents are made available to view so that our supporters can trust we are sound stewards of your philanthropy. Review our IRS Form 990s, audited financial statements and annual reports:
Tax Returns
Financial Statements
Annual Reports
Fact-checking and Verification Standards
Transparency is one of our core values. Today, there is a need to build trust with our audience because new media and ways of communicating spread lies and slanted news faster than “real” news. At the same time, this era of new technologies makes it easier than ever for news organizations to be transparent. People don’t just have to believe us, they can investigate our investigations with our source materials.
Transparency is key to building credibility.
inewsource reporters have primary responsibility for reporting, writing, and fact-checking their stories. But before a story is published, the reporter reviews all facts and sources with an editor or another reporter. Facts must be traced to a primary source.
In addition, we “transparify” certain investigative stories. This process involves publishing a version of the web story with hyperlinks to all the story’s facts. This is proof that all facts have been documented with primary evidence. We do this to build trust with our readers and to be as transparent as we hope the public figures and institutions that we hold accountable will be.
Unnamed Sources
Not all sources are created equal. Some sources cannot speak authoritatively, provide proper analysis or speak specifically to every inquiry placed before them. To maintain the integrity of our reporting, inewsource reporters must select sources who can speak with validity to the topic at hand, and avoid presenting unqualified or underqualified sources as experts.
If an interviewed source has a conflict of interest, or whose qualifications may be tangential or limited, reporters will note that within the context of the story.
It is incumbent upon reporters to fully background their sources to uncover conflicts of interest or slant prior to using them in a story.
Unless discussed prior to an interview, all subjects talking to inewsource journalists are on the record. Specifically, the source is identified by name and title, and their exact or paraphrased words are attributed to them for publication. If journalists speak with sources who are not politicians, public figures or those not commonly interviewed by journalists, staff should explain clearly that information discussed will be on the record and for publication.
There are times, however, when information may be critical for a story but cannot be found or verified by other means. For example, a source may be able to confirm specific information about a series of events they may have witnessed, but have legitimate concerns about using their name or title. The repercussions to the source could be legal, job-related retribution or personal safety. The source and journalist must discuss these potential dangers and terms of use should be agreed upon by both parties.
If inewsource publishes information from an anonymous source, inewsource will explain to readers, in as much detail as possible, why we agreed to anonymity.
Corrections and Clarifications
inewsource strives for accuracy in everything we do, which is why we are committed to fact checking our content. But sometimes we make errors. When that happens, we correct them. We also clarify stories when something we’ve written is confusing or could be misinterpreted.
We endeavor to always be transparent about our commitment to correcting errors and clarifying misperceptions. When staffers see, hear or read about a possible issue with the accuracy of any inewsource content, they are expected to bring it to the attention of an editor and the web producer so it can be evaluated to determine how to proceed.
Including the web producer is key because inewsource is a multimedia news organization and shares its content with multiple partners on multiple platforms. The web producer must alert these partners about corrections and clarifications.
Corrections and clarifications should be included at the bottom of stories and dated.
Actionable Feedback and Newsroom Contacts
Our audiences know the region we cover and have a stake in maintaining and improving the quality of life in San Diego and Imperial counties. We know your knowledge and insights can help shape what we cover and how we cover it. We invite your comments and complaints on news stories, suggestions for issues to cover or sources to consult. We rely on you to tell us when we get it right and when we need to keep pushing.
Your comments, questions and suggestions can be sent to the team as a whole at contact@inewsource.org or you can contact a specific member of our staff.
Masthead
CEO, Editor and Founder: Lorie Hearn, loriehearn@inewsource.org
Lorie Hearn is the chief executive officer, editor and founder of inewsource. She founded inewsource in the summer of 2009, following a successful reporting and editing career in newspapers. She retired from The San Diego Union-Tribune, where she had been a reporter, Metro Editor and finally the senior editor for Metro and Watchdog Journalism. In addition to department oversight, Hearn personally managed a four-person watchdog team, composed of two data specialists and two investigative reporters. Hearn was a Nieman Foundation fellow at Harvard University in 1994-95. She focused on juvenile justice and drug control policy, a natural course to follow her years as a courts and legal affairs reporter at the San Diego Union and then the Union-Tribune.
Hearn became Metro Editor in 1999 and oversaw regional and city news coverage, which included the city of San Diego’s financial debacle and near bankruptcy. Reporters and editors on Metro during her tenure were part of the Pulitzer Prize-winning stories that exposed Congressman Randy “Duke” Cunningham and led to his imprisonment.
Hearn began her journalism career as a reporter for the Bucks County Courier Times, a small daily outside of Philadelphia, shortly after graduating from the University of Delaware. During the decades following, she moved through countless beats at five newspapers on both coasts.
High-profile coverage included the historic state Supreme Court election in 1986, when three sitting justices were ousted from the bench, and the 1992 execution of Robert Alton Harris. That gas chamber execution was the first time the death penalty was carried out in California in 25 years.
In her nine years as Metro Editor at the Union-Tribune, Hearn made watchdog reporting a priority. Her reporters produced award-winning investigations covering large and small local governments. The depth and breadth of their public service work was most evident in coverage of the wildfires of 2003 and then 2007, when more than half a million people were evacuated from their homes.
Managing Editor: Laura Wingard, laurawingard@inewsource.org
Laura Wingard is the managing editor at inewsource. She has been an editor in San Diego since 2002, working at The San Diego Union-Tribune, KPBS and now inewsource. At the Union-Tribune, she served in a variety of roles including as enterprise editor, government editor, public safety and legal affairs editor, and metro editor. She directed the newspaper’s award-winning coverage of the October 2007 wildfires and the 2010 disappearance of Poway teenager Chelsea King. She also oversaw reporting on San Diego’s pension crisis.
For two years, Wingard was news and digital editor at KPBS, overseeing a team of four multimedia reporters and two web producers. She also was the KPBS liaison with inewsource and collaborated with inewsource chief executive officer and editor Lorie Hearn on investigative work by both news organizations.
Wingard also worked at the Las Vegas Review-Journal as the city editor and as an award-winning reporter covering the environment and politics. She also was the assistant managing editor for metro at The Press-Enterprise in Riverside. She earned her bachelor’s degree at California State University, Fullerton, with a double major in communications/journalism and political science.
Assistant Editor and Senior Reporter: Brad Racino, bradracino@inewsource.org
Brad Racino is the assistant editor and a senior reporter at inewsource. He has produced investigations for print, radio and TV on topics including political corruption, transportation, health, maritime, education and nonprofits.
His cross-platform reporting for inewsource has earned more than 50 awards since 2012, including back-to-back national medals from Investigative Reporters and Editors, two national Edward R. Murrow awards, a Meyer “Mike” Berger award from New York City’s Columbia Journalism School, the Sol Price Award for Responsible Journalism, San Diego SPJ’s First Amendment Award, and a national Emmy nomination.
In 2017, Racino was selected by the Institute for Nonprofit News as one of 10 “Emerging Leaders” in U.S. nonprofit journalism.
Racino has worked as a reporter and database analyst for News21; as a photographer, videographer and reporter for the Columbia Missourian; as a project coordinator for the National Freedom of Information Coalition and as a videographer and editor for Verizon Fios1 TV in New York. He received his master’s degree in journalism from the University of Missouri in 2012.
Byline Policy
Most of our articles carry a byline to identify the author. In some cases, inewsource will use a brand byline such as “Staff” or “inewsource” for internal or editorial information about the newsroom. In these instances, inewsource‘s Editor and Managing Editor are responsible for content that uses a brand byline.
The Trust Project
inewsource is proud to be a member of The Trust Project and support efforts to increase transparency in journalism by displaying the 8 Trust Indicators on our stories. We launched the Trust Indicators on Sep. 16, 2020.
Privacy Policy
inewsource has prepared this Privacy Policy to explain how we collect, use, protect, and share information when you use our inewsource.org website (the “Site“) or when you use any of our services (the “Services“).
By using the Site or Services you consent to this Privacy Policy.
Log Data
Like many site operators, we collect information that your browser sends whenever you visit our site (“Log Data”).
This Log Data may include information such as your computer’s Internet Protocol (“IP”) address, browser type, browser version, the pages of our site that you visit, the time and date of your visit, the time spent on those pages and other statistics.
Cookies
Cookies are files with small amount of data, which may include an anonymous unique identifier. Cookies are sent to your browser from a web site and stored on your computer or mobile device.
Like many sites, we use “cookies” to collect information. You can instruct your browser to refuse all cookies or to indicate when a cookie is being sent. However, if you do not accept cookies, you may not be able to use some portions of our site.
Certain pages on our site may set other third party cookies. For example, we may embed content, such as videos, from another site that sets a cookie. While we try to minimize these third party cookies, we can’t always control what cookies this third party content sets.
Additionally, we may use third party services — such as those that provide social media conveniences, measure traffic, send newsletters and facilitate donations — that may place cookies on your computer. We don’t have any way of knowing how such services handle the resulting data internally. inewsource makes no claim, nor takes liability for the insecure submission of information via these applications.
Here are the services whose cookies you can find on inewsource.org:
- Sharing buttons for Facebook and Twitter. These use the standard scripts provided by each company.
- Google Analytics, which we use to measure site traffic. Google Analytics gathers certain non-personally identifying information over time, such as your IP address, browser type, internet service provider, referring and exit pages, time stamp, and similar data. We also use Facebook Pixel to measure, optimize and build audiences for advertising campaigns served on Facebook. In particular it enables us to see how our users move between devices when accessing our website and Facebook, to ensure that our Facebook advertising is seen by our users most likely to be interested in such advertising by analyzing which content a user has viewed and interacted with on our website.
- Stripe, which allows us to accept donations through our website.
- Salesforce to manage newsletter subscriber, donor, and other identifiable user data.
- Mailchimp, to manage newsletter distributions. We collect your email address if you choose to subscribe to one of our email newsletters or email news alerts. Other optional information that you enter when subscribing – such as your first and last names or city are simply so that we can deliver more personalized email newsletters. We DO NOT sell, rent or market your information to any other parties. We retain your information only as long as necessary to provide your service. When we send emails, it collects some data about which users open the emails and which links are clicked. We use this information to optimize our email newsletters and, as aggregate information, to explain what percentage of our users open and interact with our newsletters.
Personal Data
We only collect personally identifiable information such as your name and email address when you sign up for a newsletter, donate to our organization, or otherwise submit it to us voluntarily. We do not share your personal data with any third parties other than some common service providers, whose products use your information to help us improve our site, deliver newsletters, or allow us to offer donation opportunities.
inewsource limits access to all user data for the purposes of newsletter, fundraising, and customer service only. User data is not sold to or otherwise shared with anyone not working with or for the inewsource.
You may unsubscribe or opt-out of our email and mail communications at any time by hitting the “unsubscribe” button in any email you receive from inewsource, or by emailing us at contact@inewsource.org or calling us at 619-594-5100.
Donor Information
The identities of all donors will be listed on our website. inewsource does not share, trade, sell, or otherwise release donors’ personal information to any third parties.
Refunds
If you encounter errors when donating on the website, please contact us at members@inewsource.org. For example, if you submit a donation for an incorrect amount or make a duplicate transaction please email us immediately so we can reverse the charges.
Cancellation of Recurring Donations
You can cancel your monthly recurring donations free of charge by notifying us at members@inewsource.org.
Links to Other Websites
Our site may contain links to documents, resources or other websites that we think may be of interest to you. We have no control over these other sites or their content. You should be aware when you leave our site for another, and remember that other sites are governed by their own user agreements and privacy policies, which should be available to you to read.
Disclaimers and Limitation of Liability
Although we take reasonable steps to prevent the introduction of viruses, worms, “Trojan Horses” or other destructive materials to our site, we do not guarantee or warrant that our site or materials that may be downloaded from our site are free from such destructive features. We are not liable for any damages or harm attributable to such features. We are not liable for any claim, loss or injust based on errors, omissions, interruptions or other inaccuracies on our site, nor for any claim, loss or injust that results from your use of this site or your breach of any provision of this User Agreement.
Contact Us
If there are any questions regarding this privacy policy, please contact us at contact@inewsource.org or call us at 619-594-5100.
This looks like all the other half baked articles attacking people
fighting for the little guy against corrupt politicians and special
interests. For instance you say the Southwest organization is listed as
delinquent by the Attorney General. Did the reporters go to the Attorney
General’s website? http://rct.doj.ca.gov/Verification/Web/Search.aspx?facility=Y
You can see the delinquency notices to the organization, but you can also
click on links to see the delinquent items were turned in over a year
ago. Did the reporters again cherry pick a few negative “facts” and then
stop looking because they got enough to write another hit piece on
these people? The real story sounds like another slow government office
that hasn’t updated its website, which wouldnot be anything new.
The reporters say there was a zero dollar balance at the end of 2010 tax
year, but the return linked in your article shows the $232,954 as the
“Net asset or fund balances at end of year” on line 21. Did you ask the
IRS if it did an audit or thought it was a typo on line 27 since the
same number is on line 21? It looks like your reporters chose to
highlight it because it fits the negative story they want to tell? But
you can’t really say the money disappeared when it is listed immediately
above what you highlighted. Is this sloppy reporting or yellow journalism?
You
also reported that Briggs said he couldn’t name any people, which he said
starting around the 1:07 mark in the court’s video. Your “evidence” is
again cherry picked. Did your “reporters” listen to the rest of what he
said not even 90 seconds later? Starting at the 2:22 mark he asked if
the judges wanted him to name the two people on his client’s executive
committee who direct him, and the judges said no because they had
declarations from those people already. Based on the entire conversation
its obvious he meant he could not name people because his client is not
a human but is a nonprofit corporation and he was willing to give names
of the people who run the nonprofit if the judges want to know, which
they didn’t.
What you wrote at the beginning of the article is
misleading, and what you wrote at the end is wrong, I bet that the “facts” in the middle are also incorrect.
I’m organizing a CORY BRIGGS appreciation event to honor him for his great work on behalf of the environment, social justice, and good government. Those that want to join the event committee should contact me. John Stump, City Heights
As one who has incorporated and served in leadership positions in several California 501(c)3 nonprofits I find the abuses alleged here quite concerning. If indeed Mr. Briggs has been doing so he sullies not only his own reputation, but that of the important causes and the people he represents. It’s important I think to separate the causes from the methods. The causes will be celebrated by some, reviled by others; but it is the methods that deserve attention. Alas the nonprofit sector in California is very poorly policed. Many of the aberrations described which relate to timely reporting and appropriate leadership structures are endemic to fringe organizations in the nonprofit sector.
Ms. Stevens,
Thank you for your comment. To answer your questions from
the top down:
1. The point of the quote taken from the video was that Mr.
Briggs could not remember whether the group he was representing that day was a
501c3 or a 501c4. Hence the quote: “It’s a nonprofit 501 C three or four — I
don’t remember which one — association…” followed by the sentence, “In some
ways, the lawyer’s confusion was understandable.” To drive the point home, we
link the words “was understandable” directly to the spreadsheet showing a
network of 15 501c3 groups, 19 501c4 groups and eight “unidentified” groups Mr.
Briggs has represented in court that identify themselves as nonprofits but are
not registered with the state or federal government.
2. In reference to your term half-baked: this is a 3,000
word article with a completely-hyperlinked version to primary documentation
behind each sentence (available here:
http://inewsource.org/2015/05/28/briggs-associated-nonprofits-flout-state-federal-laws-with-links/).
The article is accompanied by a spreadsheet with 946 cells drawn from 36 sets
of state and federal filings — all public. We’ve linked to all of it.
3. “Cherry-picking a few negative facts” — Again, please see
spreadsheet.
4. Attorney General delinquency for SCORE: Per the AG’s
website, this group is still delinquent. According to the revocation letter,
the AG required a 990 filing and an RRF filing. You are correct in that SCORE
did submit those filings, and I do not know why it is still delinquent — it is
possible SCORE did not pay the accompanying late fees — but since no one from
SCORE, including its CEO, its CFO, its secretary or its bookkeeper would call
us back, we went with the official government record. Also, SCORE is just one
of 23 Briggs-associated nonprofits that are either suspended, revoked or
delinquent. But we have put a call in to
the AG to confirm per your comment.
5. “Zero dollar balance” — If the missing $230,000 was a
typo, there would be a reconciliation of those funds in the following year’s
federal/state filings. That was not the case, per the following years 990s:
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2085413-score-990s-merged.html. Those
funds were never accounted for. To be sure we were not missing something, we
had a forensic accountant look over these filings. He came to the same
conclusion and called them egregiously wrong. If you know something we don’t,
please don’t hesitate to let me know.
Thank you.
I haven’t always agreed with some of the people you cite in these never-ending reports, but It’s astonishing to me that INewSource has spent such an inordinate amount of time, energy and staff resources to investigate a few people- private citizens, not public officials- whose main vice (or virtue) is having the temerity to challenge San Diego’s entrenched and monied status quo.
Moreover, with each installment, you continue to drag others through your digital mud, including a local community leader who got his start in civil rights by marching with Martin Luther King Jr. in Selma 50 years ago.
I’m certain MLK would have been found to be up to no good by your standards… he also questioned the status quo of the times, and probably kept terrible financial records.
If you took a fraction of the resources you’ve invested in this vendetta to look at, say Doug Manchester’s or certain Mission Valley hotel owner’s willful violations of zoning laws that have permanently destroyed public lands in Mission Valley, or CIvic San Diego’s efforts to clandestinely subvert and thwart community redevelopment, or the expensive water schemes that continue to come out of the city of San Diego’s water wasting machinery…. if you looked at any of these major policy issues that impact San Diegans on a daily basis, and found similar causes for concern- I would consider this a somewhat credible line of attack.
But you have chosen to research a few people who question many of the flawed policies that will shape this city and region for decades to come. They have not initiated bad acts- but they have forced agencies and organizations to reconsider at least one illegal scheme (Convention Center funding), and may force others.
Again- I’ve had my disagreements with some of the people in this report. But the lengths you have gone to discredit them is beyond understanding, when there are so many other “upstanding citizens” in this region who are worth much more scrutiny.
To paraphrase Joseph Welch: ”
… may we not drop this? We know he belonged to the Lawyers Guild. Let us not assassinate this lad further, Senator. You’ve done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?”
Ms. Saldana,
By your own argument, isn’t Doug Manchester also a private citizen? I disagree with your assertion that everything we do should revolve around government officials. I think everything we do should revolve around powerful individuals, be they in government or not, who have a major say in shaping the future of this city.
And I know nothing about the character of those associated with Mr. Briggs, only that they are strongly connected to the network we describe and that we gave them ample opportunity to speak to us about this. We have let the facts speak for themselves in this one.
Yes, I used Manchester as an example, since he is a developer, and part of a powerful, monied group of- yes- private individuals. He and his colleagues have often acted behind the scenes to shape major policies impacting San Diego, in ways not everyone values or agrees with. A report on is actions would be appreciated
At least Briggs and his colleagues are doing their work in public, and filing public reports as the law requires, incomplete though they may have been.
As for “facts”- You are handpicking certain items to place prominently in these reports, while leaving others out. Facts don’t “speak” until you call them out- as you’ve done, selectively.
Linking to the full documents and expecting people to follow and read every word is not objective journalism- it’s counting on the reader to do their own investigation beyond what you have chosen to provide.
As a former public official, I experienced similar “investigations” and selective fact finding. It was part of the job. I was fortunate to have the staff resources to counter them at times.
However, the motivations to use investigative “reports” against elected officials are usually transparent: to discredit, disempower and even disgrace, so they are not in a position to raise funds, get elected, author laws and enact policies certain people disagree with- often, the same people funding the “reports.”
So- is that your strategy here, vs. Briggs et al? Are the things that motivate these ongoing investigations the effort to discredit, disempower and disgrace?
I’m sorry that we disagree here, Ms. Saldana. And that’s completely fine. But this is what we do, we investigate powerful people and hold them accountable. If the findings from this series — which have included multiple and repeat violations of state and federal laws, nondisclosures that have resulted in reimbursements to taxpayers, business practices that one of the country’s top fraud experts said are “never done in honest business dealings,” in addition to personal stories about a husband and father who told us Mr. Briggs “put him in the ground” with a real estate deal — are not enough to convince you that these are important stories to tell, I think we’ll just have to agree to disagree. If you can provide us with an independent expert who, after looking at this objectively, does not agree with us, I’d be more than happy to talk to him or her. But because Mr. Briggs is so ingrained in the fabric of this city, with strong supporters who allege we have personal vendettas instead of looking at all of the facts throughout all of the stories, that’s hard to do in this town… which is why we reached out to LA for this one.
Lastly, you could easily swap out the words “Briggs” with “Manchester” in your first paragraph and it would be just as true. And we have reported on Manchester, extensively: http://inewsource.org/power-play-on-the-waterfront/
And I don’t doubt he will come up again in our reporting at some point.
LIENEWSSOURCE is what everyone calls you now, I hope you know that. This is such obvious pay back. You look ridiculous sellouts scratching and crawling at this guy.
I note you have not addressed my question: what is the motivation behind this reporting?
“Holding them accountable?” Finding of illegal acts is the work of law enforcement investigators and courts, not journalists. You may, with the best of intentions, report something one day that hurts someone’s reputation, then realize the next it’s inaccurate and/or misleading.
And FYI, the AG’s office will be sending you Information shortly, regarding an error on their part that you reported as fact in this report.
As for Manchester: he has many resources to overcome the publicity (negative or otherwise) you generate regarding him. The subjects of the reports in question here are not in the same position.
Motivation: We’ve been hearing that a lot in this series as a disguised way of saying that we’re being financed by either hoteliers or the city attorneys office. It’s funny though — no one asked our “motivation” when we looked into Supervisor Bill Horn’s charity, or the North County Transit District, or Manchester, or subacute centers, or Customs and Border Protection, or Carl DeMaio, or the San Diego Opera, or San Diego Hospice, or Filner’s claims about the Port of San Diego, or a hundred other things. Our “motivation” is that we’re an investigative journalism organization that investigates things. The results may not be what you want them to be, but they’re accurate. As far as the AG’s Office, if their website or filings provided us with any bad information, we will correct it accordingly.
And I couldn’t disagree with you more that “Finding of illegal acts is the work of law enforcement investigators and courts, not journalists.” I think you’d be hard-pressed to find a single journalist who would agree with you on that one.
You are relying on others to inform you of the law(s) that the various subjects of your investigations may or may not have violated, or policies/regulations they may have failed to fully comply with.
But a key difference between sworn law enforcement officers, attorneys, judges et al is: they have all taken an oath to uphold the law, and are professionally trained in various laws.
I don’t believe those are requirements for journalists.
Interesting observation.
“If the findings from this series — which have included multiple and repeat violations of state and federal laws….”
Mr. Racino, by “findings” you mean falsely accusing Briggs and his wife of filing fraudulent real estate documents claiming they were “husband and wife” when they were not married? Did you ever publicly take back that false accusation? I doubt it.
Which part of that is inaccurate or false?
For example, you seem to believe failing to file a required form completely, correctly, and/or in a timely manner is “flouting” the law- at least that’s what your headline claims. However, it is an administrative error, not a legal issue. And it could be the result of any number of things- including deaths, lost records, mistakes on the part of those responsible for collecting the reports, etc.
Stating these errors show Briggs “flouts” the law goes a step beyond reporting and into opinion.
Objection! You are leading the readers, … and please don’t reply “another editor does your headlines.” That doesn’t make it fair to the people accused of “flouting.”
As a former boardmember of a few non-profits, I remember that having people hold multiple board positions is a problem with many small organizations, struggling to recruit and retain volunteers to serve on boards.
And frankly, reporting like this doesn’t encourage people to volunteer and take on additional civic responsibilities…
So- Overall, these “violations” are technical, not criminal.
And, if an incorrect report has been corrected, or a file is updated after you have investigated- will you have a headline as inflammatory as today’s, stating that fact? “Briggs Correct Record, provides all required information…!”
And which do you think readers will remember?
I think you are missing the forest for the trees here. This is not simply an “administrative error,” but even if that were the case, it is an error that has been repeated for nearly a decade at almost ever instance possible. The AG’s office has sent nearly 100 (I believe we counted 93) notices to these agencies over the years. If it was once, twice, five, ten, even 20 times, maybe it would be understandable. That is not the case here. Again, please see the spreadsheet and tell me how you can in any way argue that this is not a persistent case of someone ‘flouting’ state and federal law. It has become almost predictably at this point.
If you have information about something that needs to be corrected, please forward it to my attention and if it is accurate we will correct it accordingly. Good information would be — where did the $230,000 go? What public benefit does this organization actually offer? Has the AG’s office been mistaken over the years in sending all of these notices? Why will no one associated with the group answer any questions that would put a stop to our inquiry?
And if you’re going to say we wouldn’t publish it anyway, I would counter that you would have a terrific story about how terrible we are and you could bring that information to any number of outlets that would be happy to write about it.
But I can’t spend any more time today arguing with you over what this story is about any more than I already have. But thank you for this discussion. It was very interesting to hear your thoughts.
Thank you for your thoughtful replies. Perhaps the gap between going after a “terrific story” vs. producing and being committed to journalism for the public good is at the heart of our disagreement.
I’m still at a loss to understand what “public good” has been served by this exercise playing out on your website for the last few months.
At some point, likely not today, could you answer this: as the result of all your document searching, paper reading, interviewing and research. what has Inews ultimately accomplished, besides raising eyebrows and profiles of various individuals who may have preferred relative obscurity?
Many in San Diego believe Briggs et al have at least tried to prevent powerful, monied and influential (if not corrupt) forces from running roughshod over “community right to know,” taxation without representation, transparency, etc. and other odious practices that are all too common in San Diego and beyond.
So, has your reporting on this person who has taken a position against these forces while is, admittedly, flawed himself, really served a public good?
FWIW- There is a whole other discussion going on at the KPBS website on this topic…
http://www.kpbs.org/news/2015/may/28/nonprofits-linked-san-diego-attorney-cory-briggs/
So perhaps if your comments are not appearing, they were posted there and you confused the two similar pages.
It’s not illegal to call yourselves “husband and wife” if you’re living together in a loving relationship but are not legally married. You made it sound like it’s a crime to do that.
Mr. Racino: Correction, these are alleged violations of law, None have been determined by a court. You conflate opinion with fact.
I’m waiting on the investigative reports from Racino and inewsores on the fake groups made by the Lincoln Club and Chamber of Commerce whenever there’s an election they need to subvert.
A corporation or LLC is absolutely essential to shelter plaintiffs and their supporters from retaliation including SLAPP and other frivolous lawsuits which would chill public participation in the protection of the environment and the prosecution of other abuses.
Since these efforts are usually severely under-funded a non profit makes the most sense.
In our case there were three carefully selected officers Chair, Secretary treasurer who were suite-proof named, all the rest were anonymous and our anonymity was protected and is protected. Corry Briggs and other public interest attorneys are absolutely doing due diligence in protecting the people and not leaving them twisting in the wind or subject to harassment (following children and videotaping for example) or assaults which happened in a neighboring City.
Elliana,
As a retired California real estate broker I can tell you that there are very specific legal rights and privileges attached to civil marriage particularly with regard to real estate ownership. Title companies will often require documentary proof of civil marriage or divorce because of those important legal rights.
Lenders and other interested parties rely on documents containing statements of marital status that were notarized and previously recorded at a County Recorder’s Office. Real estate professionals are responsible for determining the all-important marital status of a property’s owners before listing it for sale or originating a mortgage loan secured by it. Any discoverable factual discrepancies that later emerge could cause severe difficulties and liability for the broker. Equally any false claims of marital status made by the owners can cause titling difficulties for everybody involved. That is why the County Recorder’s Office is so vital in our industry. It is the only defense we’ve got.
California is a “Community Property State”. This involves for example very specific rights of survivorship by legally married couples that are not available to non-legally married couples. There are also lien protections not avilable to non-married owners.
Civil marriage is therefore far more than “living together in a loving relationship” as you suggest.
I am currently in Ireland where we just went through a bruising referendum on same-sex marriage (which passed by the way). In the wake of that experience the Irish now fully understand the meaning and importance of “civil marriage” as distinct from “sacramental marriage” (à la the Catholic Church for example). If it were all as simple as you suggest gay and lesbian communities around the world would not be so actively striving for equality in the right to a civil marriage.
I hope that helps.
Mr Beltran:
Please do any one of the following:
1. Go to Google. Type in “Lincoln Club” and “inewsource”
2. Go to the search bar at the top of this website. Type in “Lincoln Club.”
3. Click on “Follow the Money” on the homepage.
4. Click on “Follow the Money” on the sidebar of the homepage.
Any one of them will bring you to EyeNewsSore stories, written by Joe Yerardi, about the Lincoln Club and their groups.
Thanks.
As a citizen, I find it abhorrent that you, a public official yourself, is coming on a comments blog trying to bully a media outlet into not investigating someone who is extremely influential in our community. As a private citizen, I find what this particular article reveals to be both disturbing and newsworthy. As a liberal Democrat, it dismays me when fellow Democrats are willing to overlook corruption of one of their own. You are on here raising questions about “motives” of inewsource. What about your motives for all these posts you have written? Are you not a personal friend or accuantaince of Cory Briggs? Has he donated money to your political efforts? (And keep in mind before you answer, it’s readily available with a simple Google search). Why don’t you – the politicians, insiders, and big name movers and shakers who are in Brigg’s personal influential circle quit your whining and let the media do its job so we nobody citizens actually know the truth about corruption in our city – corruption being committed by both the Republican slime balls that are well known as being dirty and apparently by some Democrats as well like Briggs. Just because many of his goals are noble does not mean it’s ok to use corruption as a means of getting there.
Again, let me be clear – as a private citizens and not a personal friend of Briggs like you, I find this article important and newsworthy and I don’t need politicians and personal friends of Brigg’s inner circle trying to tell me it’s not important and newsworthy.
Respectfully, I assure you I am no friend of Mr. Briggs, personal or otherwise.
However, as the daughter of an old school journalist and object of similar hits, I could not sit silently after reading all these “reports.”
Inews seems to have turned around the old journalism concept of “afflicting the comfortable and comforting the afflicted.” My motivation was to point that out.
Moreover, I too am a citizen, and have been out of public office since 2010. Serving a few years in the state legislature does not mean I must remain silent when I believe an injustice is being perpetrated in this manner.
You may only know me as an elected official but I am an educator these days, ad I was long before my Assembly service.
I appreciate that Mr. Racino replied thoughtfully, and did not seem to perceive my statements as “bullying.”
Ps. I am registered as no party preference as of last September.
Fair enough, then I guess we are both citizens who disagree on the merits of this investigation. I feel that Mr. Briggs is a very powerful person in our community and one that shapes many important issues, therefore he warrants the same scrutiny as other “big players” in San Diego, like Manchester. I also don’t think what inewsource is reporting is inconsequential. They aren’t reporting that Mr. Briggs j-walked or charged organic lemons as regular lemons at the self checkout. They are reporting that he and his family/friends have personal ties to all these groups that the public has been led to think are independent citizens groups. The fact that there is nothing to for these group’s activities outside of serving as plaintiffs for Brigg’s lawsuits shows me these groups were created by Briggs specifically for these lawsuits he profited off of. Now I actually agree with many of the lawsuits, but I can’t excuse the underhanded way they have been conducted.
I would argue that in some ways, people like Biggs and Manchester need MORE media scrutiny than politicians. This is because citizens have the ballot box to get rid of bad politicians. What power do we have to get rid of corrupt non-elected power elites like Briggs and Manchester who are calling the shots in our city? We need the media to keep these types of people honest.
Take this “report” with a healthy dose of skepticism. There appears to be much more to the story according to these two blogs:
San Diegans for Open Government “Has Hit a Nerve” at sandiegans4opengov[dot]wordpress[dot]com
What Happened to the Truth-Loving Angels? at sandiegans4opengov[dot]wordpress[dot]com
Great links
sandiegans4opengov[dot]wordpress[dot]com
sandiegans4opengov[dot]wordpress[dot]com
They are different
we’ve never met so I’ll say it here
THANKS FOR SHARING
KPBS ans Inewsource post a story by reporters who claim the Southwest Center on Renewable Energy exists “only on paper.” One of SCRE’s board members is Bill Powers. If SCRE is not for real, why is Mr. Powers one of the KPBS regular subjects on shows and in reports? Some even have his picture or video. Is this what it means to exist only on paper?
http://www.kpbs.org/news/2013/mar/20/california-utility-commissioners-deliberate-public/
http://www.kpbs.org/audioclips/15178/
http://www.kpbs.org/news/2013/mar/20/california-utility-commissioners-deliberate-public/
http://www.kpbs.org/news/2014/sep/15/questioning-sdge-push-power/
http://www.kpbs.org/news/2015/apr/01/proposed-new-power-plant-carlsbad-hangs-balance/