GUEST COMMENTARY
Katharine Russ
C ongressional candidate AND constituent, Mark Reed was forced by armed guards to leave Congressman Brad Sherman’s town hall meeting at the Temple Ramat Zion in Northridge California or face arrest.
The meeting was a public forum open to all constituents of California’s 27th Congressional District and was paid for by tax-payer’s money. The topic of the event was the Middle East, US-Israel relations, and Iran’s nuclear weapons program. Sherman’s guest was Gil Artzyeli, Deputy Consul General of the State of Israel.
Prior to the program, Matt Dababneh, Sherman’s District Deputy, along with armed guards asked Congressional candidate, Mark Reed, to remove a campaign sign from his vehicle. He complied and entered the meeting.
As Reed entered the hall, Sherman’s mother accosted him. Reed said, “I was shocked when she verbally attacked me in front of hundreds of people in the Temple. She said I did not belong there, I was not welcome, I should leave and I was a bad man. I remained calm and showed complete respect for her.”
An anonymous email sent to Reed condemning his “campaigning” verified this fact.
‘A fellow constituent’ wrote, “Mr. Sherman's mother was out of line by telling you that you were unwelcome, but after all, her son is the congressman. She was just being a mother and not acting in any official capacity.”
Regardless of what Mrs. Sherman’s logic was, Reed did not pose a threat to anyone. According to all accounts, Reed sat quietly through the meeting and listened.
At the end of the public forum, Reed exited the building and was speaking to several constituents about the event and the positions offered by Sherman. Another candidate was also speaking to people and handing out cards was left alone.
Frank Guzman, an armed private security officer employed by Nastec International Security and hired by the temple, approached Reed and asked him to leave or he would be arrested.
Guzman, along with three armed guards and a temple staffer, escorted Reed from the property to the street. During the meeting there were several people who were loud and disruptive and none were asked to leave.
After Reed left the property, LAPD officers approached him on the street and told him to leave the area or he would be arrested. When Reed inquired as to the reason, the officer repeated his threat even more loudly.
Reed was fearful that the officer would arrest him, so he, again, complied and left the area. Subsequently, he drove to the Devonshire Division and made a complaint against the officer.
David Plumb, a supporter of Reed, accompanied Reed to the Police Dept. to file a complaint against officers who threatened him with arrest. Plumb said the desk officer told them a call pertaining to a suspicious package left in a white import car (Kia Optima) was received and officers responded. Reed was not near the alleged ‘suspicious car’ and drives a truck.
Sgt. Maria St. Pierre wrote in the complaint, “an unknown officer approached him with a flashlight and flashed the light in his eyes. He then threatened to arrest him if he did not leave the scene of a suspicious package incident.” (Complaint Form # 10-002290).
St. Pierre could not be reached for comment. However, Reed said, “St. Pierre falsified my statement. I did not know of the suspicious vehicle until hours later. The officer at the scene only threatened me with arrest if I didn’t leave the area. He never mentioned a suspicious package in any car.”
David Perren, President of Temple Ramat Zion, said he knew nothing of Reed’s expulsion. Perron did not divulge that it was one of his staffers walking with the armed guard who was escorting Reed out of the building and refused to name her even after several “cat and mouse” emails.
He, finally, offered, “I am her supervisor. I have inquired about the allegations and have been told differing accounts of what took place.”
Yet the Operations Manager (Kevin) from Nastec said, “In speaking with Frank (Guzman); this ‘escort’ was requested by Ramat Zion management. Please address any further questions to the Temple’s Administration.”
Upon inquiry of the incident to Sherman’s San Fernando office on June 12, Dababneh answered the phone and refused to answer questions, referring the call instead, to the Washington D.C. press office.
Several attempts to reach Matt Farrauto, Shermans Media Director in Washington, were unsuccessful and Farrauto did not return calls.
At the June 11 (publicly funded) town hall meeting, Sherman, himself, taunted Reed.
A woman who identified herself as ‘an American’ who was upset about the conduct of attendees and could not hear some of Sherman’s responses, asked when all the candidates could debate.
Sherman said, “ There is someone that says they’re running against me. If you go to the Federal Election Campaign (FEC) webpage, you’ll see that that candidate has not filed the report due in January, nor the one in April, nor the one that was required in June. That means that all the other candidates, if you get 53 districts in the state, all 53 democrats and 53 republicans have all filed their campaign disclosure statements with the FEC. There’s one person that says he’s a candidate who hasn’t filed and that means this candidate…” Sherman was directly referring to Reed with his comments.
Reed, who was in attendance, stood up and defended himself. “You know I have filed. We have requested four debates and you have refused all four. I am on the ballot in November. I won the primary and our only required filing is due July 15,” he said.
Sherman, further, provoked Reed by saying, “I’m confident that at some point the person you want me to debate will have filed. Once he does then I’ll entertain requests to debate. Every time the League of Women’s Voters has asked me to debate, I’ve done so and as soon as my opponent is willing to reveal who it was that financed all those billboards on Saticoy and Reseda, whatever, and complies with federal law, an opponent who is not above the law, but complies with the law then I will accept his challenge to debate. I hope the League of Women’s Voters is able to conduct a debate where people only speak when they’re supposed to.”
Prior to the end of the second quarter (June 30), Sherman filed a complaint with the FEC about Reed’s “billboards” and asserted that Reed spent more than $5000 in the second quarter.
Reed said, “The ‘billboards’ went up on May 10, but we did not get final funding until the end of June. Our reports were filed before July 15, when they were due.”
Reed maintained he did not meet the required $5000 contribution spending threshold that would have required him to file anything prior to the end of the second quarter.
Elected officials, from any Party, using tax-payers money to host town hall meetings, should not have the right to taunt or bully challenging candidates, nor should they have the right to debase or malign them in such publicly funded forums.
These kinds of subversive tactics by elected officials and their overzealous staffers are rapidly becoming the ‘norm’ in America and do nothing more than foster dissension and distract from the real issues facing Americans today.
In November, voters will send a message to their candidates.
(Katharine Russ is an investigative reporter and writes for the North Valley Reporter. She can be reached at
This email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it
) -cw
CityWatch
Vol 8 Issue 58
Pub: July 23, 2010
|
