Press Democrat Owner Darius Anderson Requested a Restraining Order Against Me After Texas State Law Enforcement Asked Me Who to Subpoena Regarding DEMA Consulting's Missing Homeless Monies
I recommended for Texas Law Enforcement to subpoena Anderson - Anderson's Attorney, Regan Masi, is simultaneously representing DEMA Consulting & Darius Anderson in various lawsuits
![If you're not careful..." — Malcolm X [900x684] [OC] : r/QuotesPorn](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!KMui!,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F91bd7b43-e7db-4ccf-9265-c791acd1d5d1_1800x1367.jpeg "If you're not careful...\" — Malcolm X [900x684] [OC] : r/QuotesPorn")
On Friday, November 1, 2024, the owner of Sonoma County’s Press Democrat, media mogul and lobbyist Darius Anderson, filed a civil request for civil harassment restraining orders against me with the Sonoma County Superior Court. I have not been officially served with any court paperwork.
Oddly, court staff chose to spell Mr. Anderson’s first name as ‘Darious’ rather than ‘Darius’ when entering the case into the court database.
On November 1, Mr. Anderson requested an Ex Parte Hearing, but the Ex Parte request was denied. Ex Parte means that the defendant does not have to be present or given notice of the hearing. This is a preliminary hearing where the judge can grant a temporary restraining order for 10 days. At this hearing, the judge reads the petition, and asks the plaintiff why they want a temporary restraining order.
On October 1, 2024, I received a call from the Sergeant of Public Safety for the State of Texas, Mr. Jonathon Christian.
I was told that my research regarding missing homeless monies pertaining to DEMA Consulting & Management is being utilized in an active investigation. I was asked to forward my articles by email, and who I would recommend to subpoena. I provided the names of Mr. Darius Anderson, Sonoma County Supervisor James Gore and The Press Democrat’s team at large.
The Press Democrat has refused to share the bulk of facts I have presented which indicates they may be helping to cover up for those involved in DEMA’s nefarious ways.
Ironically, Mr. Anderson’s Attorney, Mr. Regan Masi, Perry, Johnson, Anderson, Miller & Moskowitz LLP Attorneys at Law, is currently serving as a legal representative for DEMA Consulting & Management in active litigation in which they are the defendant against former employee Kyle Wescott.
On October 14, 2024, I reported Mr. Anderson to the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) for failing to disclose his income from Sonoma Media Investments on his Form 700.
He retained Mr. Gary S. Winuk as his legal representative, the former Chief of the Enforcement Division at the FPPC from 2009-2015.
On October 23, 2024, Mr. Winuk issued the following response to the FPPC:
On October 15, 2024, I filed a complaint with the FPPC regarding Mr. Anderson’s business partner, our former Congressman Doug Bosco.
I published an article which summarized my findings:
Railbanking Conflict: Coastal Conservancy Chair Bosco Used Taxpayer Monies to Fund Great Redwood Trail Project While Serving as CEO for Northwestern Pacific Railroad Company
Per the California State Coastal Conservancy’s website:
On October 29. 2024, the FPPC informed me that they needed additional time to further investigate the allegations against Mr. Bosco presented within my article.
I have written a series of articles which highlighted concerns regarding Mr. Anderson’s endeavors:
Cannabis Cartel: Weeding out Local Farmers – California Globe
How Newsom Makes Funds for Fire Victims Disappear
‘Sustainable’ Sonoma-Marin SMART Train: Environmental or Autocratic?
As the leading activist for Sonoma County, I often utilize dark humor and satire within my social media channels. As a 5’3 East Indian woman, Mr. Anderson does not appear to be ‘threatened’ by me physically, but is perhaps afraid of the truth I continue to bring forward.
Tiktok failed to load.Enable 3rd party cookies or use another browser
Tiktok failed to load.Enable 3rd party cookies or use another browser
On February 13, 2013, the Bohemian shared an article titled: Darius Anderson Wants to “Rape and Pillage Other Publications”.
Based on the headline, as a freelance, unpaid journalist, I am frightened that Mr. Anderson wants to ‘rape me’. As a survivor of domestic violence and sexual assault, this language is concerning.
The premise of Mr. Anderson’s desire to file a civil restraining order most closely resembles Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP).
California has a strong anti-SLAPP law. To challenge a SLAPP suit in California, defendants must show that they are being sued for “any act . . . in furtherance of the person’s right of petition or free speech under the United States Constitution or the California Constitution in connection with a public issue.” Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.16 (2019). Under the statute, the rights of free speech or petition in connection with a public issue include four categories of activities: statements made before a legislative, executive or judicial proceeding; statements made in connection with an issue under consideration by a governmental body; statements made in a place open to the public or a public forum in connection with an issue of public interest; and any other conduct in furtherance of the exercise of free speech or petition rights in connection with “a public issue or an issue of public interest.” § 425.16(e).
California courts consider several factors when evaluating whether a statement relates to an issue of public interest, including whether the subject of the statement at issue was a person or entity in the public eye, whether the statement involved conduct that could affect large numbers of people beyond the direct participants, and whether the statement contributed to debate on a topic of widespread public interest. Rivero v. Am. Fed’n of State, Cty., & Mun. Emps., 130 Cal. Rptr. 2d 81, 89–90 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003). Under this standard, statements that report or comment on controversial political, economic, and social issues, from the local to the international level, would certainly qualify. Conversely, a California court has held that statements about a person who was not in the public eye did not relate to an issue of public interest. Dyer v. Childress, 55 Cal. Rptr. 3d 544 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007).
Under these circumstances, were Mr. Anderson’s actions retaliatory due to the issues I have been uncovering to create public transparency?
I found it interesting that Mr. Anderson made his request for a restraining order on the same exact date that Santa Rosa City Schools issued my settlement check. This was also on the same day that the City of Petaluma’s Attorney sent me a threatening letter for bringing M-Group concerns to light. Are local attorneys colluding to silence our First Amendment rights by attempting to exhaust our resources?
Nov. 1, 2024, email thread with Santa Rosa City Schools Defense Attorney Mark Peters:
Nov. 1, 2024, threatening email from Petaluma City Attorney Eric Danly:
‘Rejoice not over me, O my enemy; when I fall, I shall rise; when I sit in darkness, the Lord will be a light to me.’ -Micah 7:8
Hmm maybe the court was on to something…
Obvious
Oblivious
Suspicious
Overambitious
Pretentious
Malicious
Noxious
What do they call that… a Freudian typo?
question.....wasn't PD the first one to investigate DEMA and note the suspect billing?