[three_fourth]
inewsource was founded in 2009 to dig into big issues affecting San Diegans. We’ve covered health care, politics, education, transportation, immigration, taxes and land use over the years, and we’ve made sure each story, and each investigation, is done fairly and accurately. We provide links to the documents used during the course of our reporters’ research so readers can examine them firsthand.
Our overarching mission is to hold the powerful accountable: Politicians, government agencies and institutions are a major part of that, but sometimes powerful people aren’t in public office.
Over the last decade, Cory Briggs has become a prominent figure in San Diego. His lawsuits against cities and developers, mainly over environmental issues, are polarizing: environmentalists champion his efforts and believe he is working for the public good, while his critics, including government agencies and developers, believe he brings boilerplate lawsuits to line his own pockets at the taxpayer’s expense.
Briggs has become so much a part of the establishment that he was one of the stars of the San Diego County Taxpayers Association’s promotional video for its 2015 award ceremony: Briggs acts as if he’s drowning in the ocean, while the mayor and council members, who are acting as lifeguards, wave him off.
“I’ll let you have the convention center,” Briggs screams, arms flailing.
The video is lighthearted — but underscores just how enmeshed the attorney is in San Diego’s affairs.
He’s not a run-of-the-mill lawyer whose actions don’t affect many people — on the contrary, for better or worse, he has held up billions of dollars in development, cost taxpayers millions as a result of lawsuits against government agencies, and in 2013 led the charge to force then-Mayor Bob Filner to resign from office. His initial criticism had nothing to do with Filner’s sexual improprieties, but rather Filner’s involvement with a developer Briggs later sued.
A reporter recently wrote of him in the Union Tribune:
“Nothing peeves Briggs more than trying to get around the law. He scoffs at the notion he is an obstructionist. He just holds with uncommon passion that ‘You have to follow the rules.’”
inewsource has spent months looking into Briggs, and at every turn, has found that there is much more to the man who holds himself out to be a steward for the environment, an advocate for transparency and a champion for the little guy. We have interviewed scores of experts for our ongoing investigation, including professors, authors, politicians, attorneys, developers, ethicists and law enforcement.
[box type=”shadow post-form”]
Oops! We could not locate your form.
[/box]The series has been divisive, to say the least. A look at the comment sections on any of the stories yields an impressive amount of criticism about inewsource’s motivations and its findings. Many of the most vocal opponents are close associates of Briggs, including his clients, friends or colleagues.
Despite repeated requests for answers, some big questions are outstanding. Briggs would not answer the ones posed during an interview in February, the only time he has talked with inewsource. He has not responded to requests for comment since then.
However, he and/or his associates have done the following: sued inewsource over its lease with San Diego State University, subpoenaed inewsource’s executive director, demanded extensive documentation of inewsource’s nonprofit status and three times demanded retractions of published information.
inewsource is fighting the lawsuit; Briggs withdrew the subpoena, and inewsource provided legally required documentation of its nonprofit status. None of the retraction demands warranted corrections.
Here are the outstanding questions in no particular order of priority:
[box type=”shadow”]
1. Why all the nonprofits?
[/box]
As detailed in a May 28 story, the Briggs Law Corp. shares an address with more than 30 nonprofits and Briggs and his firm have represented nearly all of them in court. More than half of the nonprofits have the exact same mission statement, as filed with the IRS and state Attorney General’s Office:
“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.”
The Briggs Law Corp. is responsible for having registered nearly all of the groups. Briggs’ cousin, along with his wife, sit on the boards of 10 of them. Yet according to state and federal filings, the majority of the nonprofits don’t exist outside of court. Instead, they serve as vehicles for lawsuits. And lawyers can’t collect attorney fees on their own — they must represent a client to do that.
State and federal agencies have suspended or revoked the nonprofit or corporate status of more than half of the groups for failing to file legally required documents showing finances, mission statements and board structures. As detailed in a June 3 story, Briggs got in hot water with a Superior Court judge after it was discovered that the attorney had entered into at least six lawsuits on behalf of one of those nonprofits — San Diegans for Open Government — while its corporate status was suspended.
“Mr. Briggs may be in a whole heap of trouble with, not only the State bar, but potential criminal prosecution,” said the judge.
[box type=”shadow”]
2. Why the secrecy over Briggs’ “wife”?
[/box]
Briggs is a big name in San Diego and a quick Google search returns more than 600 news stories referencing him over the last decade. Yet none of the extensive profiles written about him has ever made reference to Sarichia Cacciatore, an environmental biologist Briggs refers to as his wife (the technical details of that relationship are another matter).
During an interview with reporters at his law office in February, Briggs removed a framed photo of the two from the wall before filming began and said, “I don’t put family on stuff.”
Cacciatore has twice been profiled: the San Diego Reader and the Presidio Sentinel covered her cafe after it opened in 2011. Neither mentioned her relationship to one of San Diego’s most litigious attorneys.
“She’s actually an environmental planner who decided to bust out,” wrote a reporter for the Reader in 2012.
Her “environmental” history goes deeper than just a mention in a profile.
Cacciatore has contributed to environmental impact reports for local, state and federal agencies as a biologist for Helix Environmental Planning, a consulting firm that helps government agencies comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
CEQA, it turns out, is Briggs’ specialty in court.
On behalf of the nonprofits mentioned above, he has sued cities, the San Diego Unified Port District, state agencies, the federal government and developers throughout the state alleging environmental violations.
An inewsource review found he has sued at least twice, on behalf of San Diegans for Open Government, over projects Cacciatore worked on directly.
Whether information was exchanged or not, legal experts interviewed said the situation “screams conflict of interest” and “raises enough questions that somebody better be checking this out.” The California State Bar wouldn’t comment on the matter, citing a policy never to discuss potential or current investigations.
In December 2014, Cacciatore was deposed in connection to a San Diegans for Open Government lawsuit against the city because she was listed as one of the nonprofit’s members to give it standing. During the deposition, she said:
- She was vice president of the Briggs Law Corp. and had been for 20 years.
- She hadn’t “done any work as an environmental planner in connection” with San Diegans for Open Government’s lawsuits.
- She wasn’t a member of the organization.
- She didn’t know she was listed as a member.
- She wasn’t aware of the organization’s mission.
- She only knew of the nonprofit’s lawsuits from “the newspaper.”
Briggs later said that Cacciatore was listed as a member of San Diegans for Open Government by mistake, despite including her signed declaration in the lawsuit. Cacciatore later told a reporter she was mistaken when she said she was vice president of Briggs’ law firm for 20 years.
In a Feb. 25 open letter, Briggs wrote,
“…spouses working in the same field is nothing new. My wife has a job, and I have a job. We don’t talk about or share client confidences, and we take measures to avoid creating any conflicts. There isn’t anything illegal, unethical, or even unusual about this either.”
Helix, in a letter to the San Diego city attorney, said it knew of the personal relationship between the two but not that Cacciatore was vice president of her husband’s law firm.
“Ms. Cacciatore verbally assured HELIX’s senior management that she was not involved in Mr. Briggs legal practice,” wrote HELIX’s CEO.
The vice president information from the deposition led to HELIX reimbursing the city $143,000 for attorney fees and costs it incurred fighting one Briggs lawsuit that involved Cacciatore’s work. The settlement prohibited the city from seeking additional damages related to any future “potential conflict of interest arising from, caused by or related to Ms. Cacciatore’s employment at Helix.”
The next day, inewsource published a story about another project Cacciatore worked on directly involving her husband’s litigation.
Cacciatore, through her lawyer — and close associate of Briggs — Marco Gonzalez, sent a request to inewsource in May for all of inewsource’s reports, bylaws, articles of incorporation and policies regarding fundraising, conflicts of interest and “sale of services.” She has also sent two retraction demands to inewsource that can be read, with inewsource’s point-by-point responses, here and here.
[box type=”shadow”]
3. Where did $3 million come from and why won’t anyone explain the liens?
[/box]
As described in a Feb. 23 story, the Briggs Law Corp. has been entering into deeds of trust with people in four Southern California counties since 2007.
A deed of trust is a real estate transaction that some states, like California, use instead of mortgages. The transaction is evidence of a debt and creates a lien on a property. A $100,000 lien means the homeowner owes the lender that amount of money.
Sometimes the lien can be a court-ordered payment. For example, if you come out on the losing side of a lawsuit and owe the other side money, they can take a lien out on your house, which potentially grants them title to your place if you default on the repayment. After the loan is paid off, the title to your property is “reconveyed” back to you.
The Briggs Law Corp. liens range from $15,000 to more than a million dollars. One of the nation’s leading experts on white collar crime, William Black, laughed when told about Briggs’ biggest transactions — two $1.5 million deeds of trust with members of the same family on the same day against houses worth a fraction of that amount.
You do this, Black said, “to hide flows and influence people.”
After declining to answer questions about the liens during an interview in February, Briggs responded to inewsource’s story in an open letter, which read in part,
“My clients aren’t wealthy corporations. They are people who have to fight and need a lawyer to represent them but often can’t pay right away. I still fight for them. When you represent clients like this you take other kinds of security, such as deeds of trust on property. There are bar association rules that govern this practice as well. I follow them.”
An exhaustive online search found no instance of Briggs ever representing any of the Wolfinbarger family members — the people on the other side of Briggs’ two $1.5 million liens — or their businesses in court. The Wolfinbargers refused multiple requests to speak about the liens but sent a letter in February stating an inewsource reporter had harassed and accused them of paying Briggs millions of dollars to oust former Mayor Bob Filner from office. Video from the brief interview attempts, along with notes and multiple witnesses, disproves that claim.
The question remains: How did this family, who operates a landscaping business in San Bernardino County, come to owe an environmental lawyer in San Diego $3 million?
Also, why did Marlene Nisbet, another Briggs Law Corp. lien recipient, tell inewsource she entered into a $200,000 lien with Briggs to protect her assets in the face of a personal injury lawsuit, that she barely knew the attorney and that the money never actually changed hands? And why did Briggs remove the lien shortly after inewsource asked him about it?
[box type=”shadow”]
4. What is SCORE and where did all that money go?
[/box]
In a May 28 story, inewsource catalogued all the nonprofits associated with Briggs. One of them, the Southwest Center on Renewable Energy (SCORE), stood out for what it was missing: a real-world presence.
Despite raising more than $850,000 in grants and contributions since its formation in 2008, the public benefit corporation doesn’t appear to actually do anything. IRS forms show it spending $450,000 on research, advocacy and organizing in the past seven years, but its CEO, Bill Powers, would not explain to inewsource what it was researching, where it was advocating or who it was organizing.
He also did not answer questions about a large amount of money: $230,000 that went unaccounted for from one year of SCORE’s federal filings to the next. In a retraction demand sent to inewsource shortly after publication, Powers wrote that the missing money was a “clerical error” on a 2009 form — but he didn’t account for following years, when the money was still missing. He also sent bank statements that further complicated the nonprofit’s story by showing it had more than $150,000 in an account the same year it told the California Attorney General’s Office it was broke.
Powers is on SCORE’s board of directors along with Briggs’ cousin, Karin Langwasser, and Briggs’ significant other, Cacciatore — who together sit on the boards of at least 10 other Briggs-associated nonprofits. Briggs is in charge of SCORE’s books.
After sending the retraction demand, Powers was asked by phone, “Can you tell us anything SCORE does?”
After five seconds of silence, he answered “no.”
It was unclear whether Powers could not or would not answer.
[box type=”shadow”]
5. What is San Diegans for Open Government and why is it suing a journalism organization?
[/box]
San Diegans for Open Government, a public benefit corporation (501c3), was formed by the late activist Ian Trowbridge through the Briggs Law Corp. to “promote social welfare through advocacy for and education regarding responsible and equitable environmental development” in 2008.
The nonprofit’s cases — more than 24 of them — have fought hotel and business improvement district taxes and demanded access to public records such as government officials’ emails.
Briggs has legally represented the group in every case it has filed, with the exception of one — the lawsuit filed against inewsource, San Diego State University, its foundation, California State University, and inewsource’s Executive Director Lorie Hearn in April.
Represented by an environmental attorney who has sued with Briggs before — Laguna Hills lawyer John McClendon — San Diegans for Open Government sued inewsource after it published more than 10 stories about Briggs. The 69-page complaint, filed in San Diego Superior Court, alleged conflict-of-interest violations, misappropriation of public property “and other illegal activities.”
Hearn, inewsource’s executive director, said, “This feels like retaliation for inewsource’s coverage.”
“Increasingly,” she said, “the subjects of journalistic investigations attack the journalists themselves as a way to stifle honest reporting and damage credibility. It is a disturbing trend.”
But who’s paying McClendon, and who runs San Diegans for Open Government, is debateable. The nonprofit’s 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 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.
In one of the group’s ongoing cases against San Diego, the city filed more than 1,200 pages of uncontested evidence alleging San Diegans for Open Government to be an “alter ego” of Briggs Law Corp. — a nonprofit controlled by the firm and used to litigate “for profit.” The allegation was never legally decided because Briggs dropped the case in May.
Calls to San Diegans for Open Government’s CEO, Pedro Quiroz, about why the environmental nonprofit was suing inewsource over its lease terms were deflected to the group’s lawyer.
Calls to the lawyer, McClendon, went unanswered and unreturned.
On 1st read, @sandog lawsuit against @inewsource is ugly. Petulant watchdog fight & money grab meant only to burden https://t.co/PJwCjCRKfc
— Seth Hall (@loteck) April 11, 2015
WTF. The SDOG lawsuit against @inewsource is disgusting. For the sake of Ian Trowbridge, stop it. — Defunct Dave (@DaveMaass) April 15, 2015
@rdotinga @loteck @DaveMaass @inewsource Paging @sdspj. I’d sign a letter calling on Briggs to drop the lawsuit for starters.
— Joel Hoffmann (@JoelCHoffmann) April 15, 2015
@DaveMaass @inewsource lawsuit is picayune, focused on minor and meaningless matters, and vindictive, designed to shut down the press.
— Randy Dotinga (@rdotinga) April 15, 2015
Disclaimer: San Diegans for Open Government is currently suing inewsource, KPBS and San Diego State University challenging the legality of their lease agreements. The Superior Court dismissed the case, concluding that it was prompted by inewsource’s investigative journalism, but SDOG has appealed.
[/three_fourth]
- 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: Mark J. Rochester, markrochester@inewsource.org
Mark J. Rochester began as inewsource managing editor in April 2021, having served as editor in chief at Type Investigations, a nonprofit investigative newsroom in Manhattan. He was previously senior news director for investigations at the Detroit Free Press. Both newsrooms, he notes, shared a commitment to diversity and inclusion, and their investigative journalism often received national recognition for exposing problems impacting communities of color.
His family looks forward to returning to California, having spent more than seven years in San Francisco where Rochester was a senior manager for the Associated Press. While with the news cooperative, he led computer-assisted reporting training efforts around the West, both inside and outside of AP, and conducted a widely used analysis of the $74 million in campaign contributions that went toward the California gay marriage ballot initiative in 2008. The AP analyzed who gave and why and then made the data available to member newspapers. The resulting series of stories based on the data was AP’s 2009 Pulitzer nomination for Local Reporting.
Rochester, who served as a Pulitzer Prize jurist in 2017, also has held senior leadership positions at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, The Denver Post, Newsday and The Indianapolis Star. Rochester is vice president of Investigative Reporters & Editors Inc., the 6,000+ member international organization dedicated to improving investigative journalism. He also serves on the national advisory board of the Investigative Reporting Workshop at American University in Washington, D.C.
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 ClickBait-style tweet reminded me of the one major reason I no longer contribute to #KPBS.
“@inewsource: The 5 Major Questions Cory Briggs Won’t Answer:…”
Enough already… Please, move on. You made your point, have stopped being “investigative” and have now become petty, personal and vindictive,
The authors show bias when they post opinions not facts
example: “cost taxpayers millions as a result of lawsuits against government agencies”
The fact is that the costs are caused by those trying to slide bad projects past an ineffective government, or shall we say indicted co-conspirators
Your reporting has a taint and that suggestive indicator odor of spoiled meat or Ethyl mercaptan. Before you start casting aspersions on private persons, their wives, and families, you should completely reveal all your funders, conditions of funding grants and contracts you have. Transparently reveal your and your family’s finances and relationships. Your quasi governmental union with with San Diego STATE University and the local PUBLIC Broadcasting Corporation demands greater transparency and scrutiny. Your approach seems to be an attempt to chill private citizen attempts to question or inquire into the schemes of government as carried out as a handmaiden for the rich hegemony that most benefits from government’s support of tourism and over development. Any Hotel owners, land developers, their wives or relatives among your funders, staff, or governing Board?
That aside, for the moment, Dr. Briggs and the poor and middle class regular folks he represents are not the Spanos, Manchester’s, or named major donors of KPBS and the like. They don’t profit from the construction of Stadiums, over development of Mission Valley, or Convention Centers, by their Hotels supported by City Goverment and their political donation lobbyist funded politicians. It would be real journalism to publish a list of the benefactors from major City projects, your funders, and maximum City political contributors. My experienced expectation is that such a list would show a lot of common funders and a high degree of correlation – approaching that taint of rotten corruption.
Citizens so needed controls upon the addicting influences of money and politicians, that they imposed the public vote requirements for new taxes, the City Charter requirements for votes on support with taxpayer funding of private benefiting Stadium Center projects, and open meeting and political contributors disclosures. Recent journalism articles on the profit based San Onofre Power Plant and the PUC demonstrate the corruption in government. Environmental suits are based on failures by the government to transparently reveal the costs and real profiteering from these schemes. The Bernie Sanders movement has growing support because of the distrust and dissatisfaction with the purchased government. San Diego’s City government’s consistent history of corruption is unrivalled – how many Mayors and Councilmen have resigned or been charged in this generation? Have we forgotten “Enron by the Sea” , Stripper Gate and the FBI raids, J David and the Golden Girl, The Convention Finance/Pension deals, or even the Yellow Cab scandals?
Thank G_d for citizen activists and their contingency lawyer knights. G_d Bless Dr.Briggs and Michael Aguirre!
The contingency lawyer knights, like Dr. Briggs and Michael Aguirre, are on no one’s payrolls. They only get paid when they can objectively demonstrate, to an independent Judiciary, that the government did wrong. Government pays as a penalty for this wrongful behavior, so that the City will reform it’s behavior and begin to follow the established rules. Public Paladins, like Dr. Briggs and Michael Aguirre, are the citizen majority’s only equalizer against the schemes of the 1%ers. Inewsource reporters need to ask themselves the question so well stated by Pete Seeger – Which side are yo on? http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5iAIM02kv0g
Amen. http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5iAIM02kv0g
Attorney Stump, can you name one lawsuit brought by Cory Briggs that has been a benefit to the citizens of San Diego?
Petty, vindictive and personal? I disagree because I have always felt that Briggs was a charlatan and the evidence presented just shows I was right…back to the days of the NBC…he has organized a way to enrich himself under the guise of helping the little guy..What little guy ever benefited from his lawsuits? What do you have to gain from the position “enough already” when the reporter only wants answers to questions? As you are a public person it would be interesting to know if you and he are friends, colleagues, business associates or just a reader of inewsource without any connection to Briggs.
1) If you consider the taxpayers who avoided the illegal hotel tax scheme “little guys,” I think they benefitted from Briggs’ actions.
2) I gain nothing from these comments- except attracting the wrath of Inews acolytes such as yourself, apparently. And as the daughter of a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist, I know a bit about the tactics members of this profession use to get answers to questions. In this case, not all have been professional, nor fair, nor ethical.
3) I’m a teacher, no longer a public person- I’ve been out of public office since 2010.
4) No connection; I am not friend, colleague, nor associate of Briggs.
We are considering a new CEQA suite and are considering Cory Briggs who has done excellent work for us before. We also considered Laguna Hills lawyer John McClendon however he has a conflict with the Respondent, however he is on our short list. It is not unusual for significant others to be on the same or opposite sides of issues. Bill and Hillary? Carville and Matalin?
An incorporated medical practice may have a spouse as vice president but there is only Physician, same with a law practice, someone has to fill in the blanks.
Good you got an opportunity to throw in the Pulitzer thing–halo effect that somehow gives you special insight, a generation removed though it may be…So then what “tactics” were employed that you think were unprofessional, unfair and unethical? And sorry, I didn’t think I was being wrathful, just merely asking you to defend the “petty, personal and vindictive” comment that you seem unable to do. Not a slavish acolyte to inews.. or anyone else, just an ordinary reader.
Dear Ms. T. In answer to your question as to whether Dr. Briggs lawsuits benefited the public, the answer is objectively obvious. All suits he filled, won and was awarded attorneys fees benefited the public good, as that is the standard that the independent Judiciary uses to determine the award. If there was no wrong and no benefit to the public, then there can be no award. You may not agree with our system of government or support some of the schemes of developers and profiteering developers, but under our system we have Judicial review to keep such abuses in check. https://youtu.be/tvtJPs8IDgU
I am also an ordinary reader, who happens to have a professional writing and research background of my own. It makes me admire the Pulitzer earned by my father and his colleagues all the more- it was the only one ever earned by the San Diego Union or Evening Tribune in their century of publication.
I know journalism and research tactics, policies and procedures: I’ve seen them used on myself and others, and I’ve used them in my own work as a research fellow at UCSD and other universities.
I’ve also written a modest book, and my share of news and research articles and OpEds for San Diego and national publications and scholarly journals, along with having had them written about me. All of this has provided interesting perspectives on the role and purpose of journalism, as writer and subject.
So this latest “exposé” strikes me and others not as illuminative investigation, but as a crass attempt to destroy a person’s professional reputation.
Using colleague’s Twitter comments to bolster one’s credibility is absurd: Good for them to stick together. But a “Pack” mentality is rarely a useful or credible way to undermine people’s reputations or actions.
As for tactics: The INews reporters went to peoples homes, uninvited and without notice, after business hours, in the dark, with the intent to dig up dirt. Then they wonder why people refuse to talk with them.
They cast aspersions on NGO’s for various things, including not having paid taxes, and/or filed state required reports improperly- but don’t realize the same is true of them until others point it out.
They failed to file this report, despite having a $15K budget for accounting and legal firms- paid, professional services well beyond the reach of most other NGOs I’ve worked with who rely on volunteers.
INews portrays “no reply” from credible, ethical people as signs of culpability, or obfuscation- apparently unaware that many private parties consider it perfectly fine to offer “no comment” in response to obtuse questions.
I could go on, but frankly, I doubt it will change your opinion.
It’s easy to believe the worst about people based on what others write. It’s harder to do your own inquiry.
Ms “T”- it has occurred to me that John Stump and I are willing to use our full names as we engage in this discussion and respond to your questions.
Would you extend the same courtesy to us and other INews readers of these comments, and let us know who you are? And perhaps offer your motivation for questioning us so diligently?
You obviously do not understand the purpose and mechanism of CEQA. Why so vindictive? This sounds like a chamber or lincoln club hit piece!!!!
This series continues to appear to me to be slanted and increasingly vindictive. It’s almost as if inewsource went all in on this and feels reputationally obligated to see something happen to prove its allegations. Maybe some relevant authority will take one or more of the allegations up. Maybe not. Recycling old stories buttressing a point of view, quoting yourself in an article, reprinting Twitter posts that support your point of view, and implying that a large number of those who criticize your journalistic practices are toadies of Mr. Briggs doesn’t help with the perceptions in my view.
Dear Ms. T., Ms. Saldana and Dr. Briggs are private persons not governmental officials. They are not subject to the questions and whims of reporters trying to set up and sell a story. Please tell us about yourself and all the clubs you are a member of, your friends, employers, and sources of income. Don’t be any more indignant or demand privacy beyond that you want to deny Ms. Saldana or Dr Briggs. Good for the Goose Good for the Gander. Fess up and tell us what the “T” stands for
Why is Lorie Hearn listed in the byline, and not Brooke Williams, even though Brooke Williams’ profile is provided, and she has been part of past reports? Is Lorie as executive director and editor stepping in to take responsibility for the series?
At the risk of dignifying this article, perhaps we can come up with 5 questions that Brad Racino and iNewsource still won’t answer?
1) What communications came from Jan Goldsmith or his office, that you refused to provide citing the shield law? That law protects you from being compelled to provide them, just as the law protects Briggs from providing the information you want. If there’s an argument to be made about credibility, transparency, working in the public interest, etc., that such information is important for the public to know and should be released even if not legally required, I think it applies to both.
3) What if any are the financial components to the “cutting-edge collaboration” between KPBS and iNewsource? If no money changes hands, what about in-kind services or facilities, or shared fundraising (email lists)? How _does_ the office space at SDSU work? When I was at a (different) university, I certainly couldn’t freely sublet my space or let others use it without explicit permission from the administration, but I was merely faculty.
3) What is the editorial interaction between iNewsource and KPBS? Not every iNewsource article appears on the KPBS website (for instance, this one isn’t cross-posted yet). Who decides, and what criteria do they use? Do either or both organizations have an assignments desk, even if the assignments are pitched by individual reporters/investigators and the “desk” only coordinates & balances topics?
4) Why so much re-packaging instead of direct reporting? For instance, KPBS repeatedly aired an interview or discussion between Tom Fudge & Brad Racino rather than a straight reading of the reporting as posted on both websites. Is this just an extra degree of separation so you can claim “we didn’t defame”, we only reported what others said? Or was that a decision to liven-up what aired because someone thought that the actual reporting either didn’t have enough meat or wasn’t interesting enough to appear on the airwaves with a legal public interest requirement?
5) Would Brad take the time to go back through the comments and answer the direct questions he did not answer? OK, that’s cheating, lumping more than a handful of “won’t answer” questions into a single point, but Brad was very selective in which comments he replied to and which he ignored, and the pattern appears more driven by question than by tone.
Finally, and a new question, could you provide links to your documents behind your assertion “Many of the most vocal opponents are close associates of Briggs, including his clients, friends or colleagues.”? Everything in this series is extensively documented, so perhaps you inadvertently omitted that link, or your CMS ate it? I’ve certainly never met Briggs, nor hired him nor donated to any of the public interest charities he works for, I’m a scientist so a lawyer is certainly no colleague of mine, and I’m not sure I’d even want to drink a beer with him. I’m curious what if any information you have assembled about commenters on your website. Do some of them have solid relevant credentials, rivaling or even more relevant than those of the outside experts you fed pieces to and then published quotes from?
Five SUPER-MAJOR Questions:
1. Why did inewsource buy Adwords from Google for “Briggs?”
2. Did iNewsource “investigation” into Briggs result in anything more than “Major Questions”?
3. Does inEwsource have anything better to report than Major Questions about Briggs?
4. Does anyone care about Brigg’s personal life, more or less than other prominent San Diegans? (Excluding ineWsource, that is).
5. Exactly how many KPBS contributors have refused to give one more red cent based on the continuing “investigation to nowhere” on Briggs?
6. (Bonus Question) Is there any new information in this article, or just recycled “questions” re-couched as “Major Questions.” Major Questions are ALOT more serious than just Questions. Mucho more alot. http://i.imgur.com/m29Q9W4.png
PBS and NPR went over to the dark side (or maybe the gray side) a long time ago. This article is a great example of why I went from being a regular donor to giving zip for about 8 years.
Ugh, give it a rest Lori, your friend Briggs is a disgusting ambulance chaser.
I’m not a friend of Briggs. And FYI – This article is from over 3 months ago. It had been given a rest.