By Robert Haugh
Santa Clara News Online (SCNO) regrets an error in previous reports about Indicted Santa Clara City Councilmember Anthony Becker.
SCNO reported that Becker at his first court appearance in April 2023, requested a delay to find a private attorney instead of using a court-appointed public defender.
SCNO relied on a report filed by a reporter at another local publication who was in attendance at the hearing.
But Becker’s public defender clarified that the report was not accurate.
“Mr. Becker was never searching for a private attorney, nor did we ever request time for him to search for private counsel,” wrote Christopher Montoya in an email.
“We requested more time to determine if he qualified for the services of the Public Defender’s Office, which is not always a quick process. Our office must ensure all clients qualify per our parameters.”
SCNO regrets the error and apologizes to Becker and our readers for the error.
[…] informed Santa Clara News Online that last year his office had to evaluate Becker’s finances to make sure […]
Thank you Robert for having the integrity as a journalist to correct a previous error.
I regularly read errors on other local media sources, and never see or hear a correction from them when they make errors.
Stand Up For Santa Clara is a grassroots neighborhood organization formed as a watchdog to politicians and the 49ers management. This is what our Country and Constitution stand for. Free speech and democracy.
Those bloggers, some of which show enough legal and accounting acumen to not be just a layman’s opinion, who come onto blogs like this and attack a grass roots organization for at worst possible technical errors, are so petty and small-minded, and are carrying somebody else’s torch.
It is the absolute pinnacle of hypocrisy to turn a blind eye to the tens of millions the 49ers have put into buying elections through a social media presence of supposed other grass roots efforts that fill our mailboxes and internet, and these same bloggers attacking Stand Up For Santa Clara for some petty bullshit.
It is all so easy to see through and transparent who is wrong here.
Diverging, I hope Judge Kuhn’s decision to not change the one sided ballot vote question is appealed to a higher court, and this does not make it on the March ballot. Is anybody aware if this can, or is, being appealed?
Anthony Becker should never have made any decision to do with our city after he was charged with felony perjury. No, this is not being found guilty before innocent. This is to protect the citizens above a city councilmemeber who may be guilty, and there is no way to undue the decisions he has already made, if found guilty. In that case, all of his decisions and votes would need to be reevaluated at a massive cost to Santa Clara. I have read cases where thousands of police cases and arrests have had to be thrown out after finding the cop who arrested the suspect was dirty himself. No, it is far from an exact comparison, but the point of the outcome is accurate.
Please vote these bums out of office, aside from the “Santa Clara 2.” 🙂
Obervation has encapsulated the issues well. Santa Clara Now is a not a non profit but claims to be.
The crux of Becker’s defense is “someone else did, too!” Huh? *Teacher I may have kicked Johnny, but so did Harry.” Vartan makes a presentation, and the acting chair uses a children’s book to poke fun and Becker giggles. Double huh? City is suing 49ers and Becker, Park and Jain hold ex-parte meetings? Triple huh?? If the Mayor finds an assistant who volunteers training for high-risk businesses to develop new capital, that is wrong, but kowtowing to billionaires is ok.
The Ottoman Empire has three new viziers.
Congratulations, this Is the first non-biased article by you, Robert…. It’s so obvious where you stand . Try being more objective in your reporting instead being against anyone who supports the 49er’s. They are our City’s tenant and should treated like one.
It would be even better if Jed York and mgmt treated Santa Clara with the treatment that is deserved of a landlord and make due on their promises.
It goes both ways.
Try telling those yahoos to treat us like the land lord and property owner instead of their personal piggy bank!
Mr Gamma has been a community hero for decades. He is a great person. I would point tennants seldom act as they were the lsndlord.
“SCNO relied on a report filed by a reporter at another local publication who was in attendance at the hearing.” While public acknowledgement and apology of this error is laudable, I hope this also serves as a reminder that most people will provide an accurate account, explanation, and substantiation if you simply ask them.
This blog has also written a number of pieces about Stand Up for Santa Clara being a 501(c)(3) non-profit blaming Council Member Becker for not doing his research. https://santaclaranews.org/2023/09/22/indicted-city-council-member-anthony-becker-fails-to-do-homework-before-filing-ethics-complaint-against-nonprofit/ According to A2zfilings.com, “…a [state] nonprofit is set up with the intent of getting recognized by the IRS as 501(c)(3). Your tax-exempt status will be declined if the initial documents that you submitted while setting up the organization on the state level do not align with the 501(c)(3) or tax-exempt intent. In this case, the only way forward is to make the required amends to the documents and then apply for the IRS application.”
Stand Up for Santa Clara and its agent, Danta Caldwell, did file on Sept. 13, 2022 as a CA State nonprofit corporation but until the State receives confirmation from the Federal Internal Revenue Service (IRS), they’re not officially a 501(c)(3). Dana has until Sept. 30, 2024 to provide the IRS Determination Letter to the CA Secretary of State. According to the IRS, “Tax-exempt organizations must make annual returns and exemption applications filed with the IRS available for public inspection and copying upon request.” Maybe Robert Haugh can email or call Dana Caldwell and ask for copies of SU4SC’s 2022 and 2023 Annual Returns and Exemption Applications that have been, or will be, filed with the CA Franchise Tax Board and Internal Revenue Service. https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/exempt-organization-public-disclosure-and-availability-requirements#:~:text=Tax%2Dexempt%20organizations%20must%20make,IRS%20makes%20these%20documents%20available.
All that means is you cant get a tax break by giving to it. SANTA CLARA NOW is not even registered.
Santa Clara Now Online has never to my knowledge represented itself as a non-profit, it’s just a guy’s blog. And donors not being able to get a tax break isn’t the only challenge for SU4SC.
501(c)(3) is a Federal tax code, there are many subcategories of Section 501 like (c)(4) or (c)(19) but SU4SC explicitly states on their website they are a (c)(3) which is the specific exempt category for charitable Organizations.
Two very big problems for SU4SC
1. The IRS states “..may not be an action organization, i.e., it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates.” https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organizations/exemption-requirements-501c3-organizations
2. NonProfieIssues.com advises, “It would generally be illegal under state charitable solicitation registration laws or other state laws for an organization to represent or imply that it is a charity to solicit charitable contributions when it is not recognized as a charity.”
SU4SC’s states “Stand Up for Santa Clara is a registered Non-Profit 501(c)(3) Corporation” and they actively engage in outbound campaign activity and anti-politician messaging. https://standupforsantaclara.com/protect-your-voting-rights-sign-the-petition/
Isn’t Santa Clara Plays Fair a non profit that verbally attacked people, spit on their shoes and targeted anyone attached to supporting the 49er stadium?
Where is their paperwork to prove they are legit? They are the same people who now help the 49er 5 ruin Santa Clara.
They are now actively involved to make sure voters lose their rights to elect the chief of police and city clerk. They are nothing but hypocrites and now attack SU4SC when SCPF is guilty of and worse in bringing down Santa Clara.
They talk loud but are blasts of hot air. Just like Becker when he protests too much.
SCPF doesn’t appear to make a claim of 501(c)(3) charitable non-profit.
Good example: the Santa Clara Police Association (aka SCPOA) is a 501(c)(5) which is the category for labor, agricultural and horticultural organizations that are educational or instructive, including unions, created for the purpose of improving conditions of work, and products of efficiency. They don’t claim to be charitable and solicitation on their website clearly states donations are not tax deductible.
You need to do a lot more research, bud.
My research revealed it all. You all are bullies and hypocrites!
It’s odd it should take this long to find out about this. Unfortunately we have to take the word of a lawyer but there should be court records, right? And how long does it take to review his finances? Just seems a bit odd, but not the biggest mystery and whatever it was it gave him more time to stay free and collect money from the taxpayers.
Howard, as always you are way too nice. ‘It’s odd” is an understatement of epic proportions.
This individual has been Indicted for lying to The Gran Jury. This is a Felony Offense with up to 4 years prison time to be served. Pretty serious stuff by any definition.
My real concern is him sitting in a position of power, and making decisions, good or bad for the running and operation of my City.
I’m ok with him still being paid…. I’m not ok with him directing my City, or influencing how my City is run at any level.
Paid leave of absence is perfectly fine at this point.
Hope that helps to explain how I felt this should have been handled.
Thanks again for everything
Burt Field