Agenda packet, special meeting — National City City Council, September 2, 2025

AGENDA
Special Meeting
City Council Chamber - 1243 National City
Boulevard, National City, CA
Ron Morrison, Mayor
Marcus Bush, Vice-Mayor – District 4 Scott W. Huth, Interim City Manager Luz Molina, Councilmember- District 1 Barry J. Schultz, City Attorney Jose Rodriguez, Councilmember -District 2 Shelley Chapel, MMC, City Clerk Ditas Yamane, Councilmember – District 3
_______________________________________________________________________

The City Council also sits as the City of National City Community Development Commission, Housing Authority, Joint Powers Financing Authority, and Successor Agency to the Community Development Commission as the National City Redevelopment Agency
Thank you for participating in local government and the City of National City Council Meetings.

Meetings: Regular City Council Meetings are held on the first and third Tuesday of the month at 6:00 p.m. Special Closed Session Meetings and Workshops may be same d ay, the start time is based on needs. Check Special Agendas for times.

Location: Regular City Council Meetings are held in the Council Chamber located at City Hall, 1243 National City Boulevard, National City, CA 91950, the meetings are open to the public.

Agendas and Material: Agendas and Agenda Packet for items listed are available on the City website, and distributed to the City Council no less than 72 hours before the City Council Meeting.

Public Participation: Encouraged in a number of ways as described below. Members of the public may attend the City Council Meeting in person, watch the City Council Meeting via live web stream, or participate remotel y via Zoom. Recording of Meetings are archived and available for viewing on the City’s website.

To listen to the live stream in Spanish, you must register for Zoom prior to the meeting for access.

All Zoom registration must be completed two (2) hours prior to the City Council Meeting for access.

Public Comment: Persons wishing to address the City Council on matters not on the agenda may do so under Public Comments. Those wishing to speak on items on the agenda may do so when the item is being considered. Please submit a Speaker’s Slip to the City Clerk before the meeting or immediately following the announcement of the item. All comments will be limited up to three (3) minutes. The Presiding Officer shall have the authority to reduce the time allotted to accommodate for a large number of speakers.
(City Council Policy 104)
All written comment must be submitted no later than four (4) hours prior to the start of the meeting to allow time for distribution to the City Council.

EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2023
All Contributions to Candidates and Current Elected Officials are required to self -report a Declaration of Campaign Contribution to a Councilmember of more than $250 within the past year (effective Jan 1, 2023). This report may be included on the Public Comment Speaker Slip to be completed prior to the City Council Meeting.

Spanish Interpretation Services: Spanish Interpretation Services are available; please contact the City Clerk before the start of the meeting for assistance.

American Disabilities Act Title II: In compliance with the American Disabilities Act of 1990, persons with a disability may request an agenda in appropriate alternative formats as required by Title II. Any person with a disability who requires a modification or accommodation to participate in a meeting should direct such request to the City Clerk’s Office (619) 336-4228 at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting.

The City Council also sits as the City of National City Community Development Commission, Housing Authority, Joint Powers Financing Authority, and Successor Agency to the Community Development Commission as the National City Redevelopment Agency
Gracias por participar en las reuniones del gobierno local y del Consejo de la Ciudad de National City.

Reuniones: Las reuniones regulares del Consejo Municipal se llevan a cabo el primer y tercer martes del mes a las 6:00 p.m. La reunión especial de sesión privada y los talleres pueden ser el mismo día, la hora de inicio se basa en las necesidades. Consulte las agendas especiales para conocer los horarios.

Ubicación: Las reuniones regulares del Concejo Municipal se llevan a cabo en la Cámara del Consejo ubicada en el Ayuntamiento, 1243 National City Boulevard, National City, CA 9195 0, las reuniones están abiertas al público.

Agendas y Material: Las Agendas y el Paquete de Agenda para los temas enumerados están disponibles en el sitio web de la Ciudad y se distribuyen al Concejo Municipal no menos de 72 horas antes de la Reunión del Concejo Municipal. Regístrese para recibir notificaciones electrónicas cuando se publiquen artículos.

Participación pública: Se fomenta de varias maneras como se describe a continuación. Los miembros del público pueden asistir a la Reunión del Concejo Municipal en persona, ver la Reunión del Concejo Municipal a través de la transmisión web en vivo o participar de forma remota a través de Zoom. Las grabaciones de las reuniones están archivadas y disponibles para su visualización en el sitio web de la Ciudad.

Para escuchar la transmission en Español, registration por Zoom es requerido antes del comienzo de la sesión.

Todo registro para la trasmisión por Zoom debe completarse dos (2) horas antes de la Reunión
del Concejo Municipal.

Comentario Público: Las personas que deseen dirigirse al Concejo Municipal sobre asuntos que no están en la agenda pueden hacerlo bajo Comentarios públicos. Quienes deseen hacer uso de la palabra sobre los temas del programa podrán hacerlo cuando se esté examinando el tema.

Por favor, envíe una solicitud del orador al Secretario de la Ciudad antes de la reunión o inmediatamente después del anuncio del artículo. Todos los comentarios estarán limitados a tres (3) minutos. El Presidente tendrá la autoridad para reducir el tiempo asignado para dar cabida a un gran número de oradores. (Política del Concejo Municipal 104)

Si desea enviar comentarios por escrito, envíe un correo electrónico a la Oficina del Secretario de la Ciudad al menos 1 hora antes de la Reunión del Consejo Municipal para dar tiempo a la distribución al Consejo Municipal.

Todos comentarios deben estar sometidos a más tardar cuatro (4) horas antes del comienzo de la sesión.

A PARTIR DEL 1 DE ENERO DE 2023
Todas las contribuciones a los candidatos y funcionarios electos actuales deben autoinformar una Declaración de contribución de campaña a un concejal de más de $ 250 en el último año (a partir del 1 de enero de 2023). Este informe puede incluirse en el Recibo del orador de comentarios públicos que se completará antes de la reunión del Concejo Municipal Servicios de interpretación en español: Los servicios de interpretación en español están disponibles, comuníquese con el Secretario de la Ciudad antes del inicio de la reunión para obtener ayuda.

Título II de la Ley de Discapacidades Americanas: En cumplimiento con la Ley de Discapacidades Americanas de 1990, las personas con discapacidad pueden solicitar una agenda en formatos alternativos apropiados según lo requerido por el Título II. Cualquier persona con una discapacidad que requiera un modificación o adaptación para participar en una reunión debe dirigir dicha solicitud a la Oficina del Secretario de la Ciudad (619) 336 -4228 al menos 24 horas antes de la reunión.

AGENDA
Special Meeting

Tuesday, September 2, 2025, 4:00 p.m.

City Council Chamber - 1243 National City Boulevard
National City, CA
Pages

1. CALL TO ORDER

2. ROLL CALL

3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG

4. PUBLIC COMMENT (Public Comment will be restricted to Agenda Items Only) (Public Comment will be restricted to Agenda Items only)

5. CLOSED SESSION 3

5.1 CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
Government Code Section 5457.6
Employee Organizations:

Municipal Employees’ Association (SEIU, Local 221),
National City Firefighters Association (Local 2744), and Police Officers Association (POA),
Unrepresented Groups: Executive, Confidential, and Management Agency Designated Representatives:

Steven Berliner (Labor Negotiator)
Scott Huth (Interim City Manager)
Bruce Foltz (Finance Director)
Alicia Hicks (Human Resources Director)
Conchita Waite (Human Resources)

5.2 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Significant Exposure to Litigation
Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(2)
Number of Potential Cases: 1

5.3 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Significant Exposure to Litigation
Government Code Section 54956.9(e)(3)
Claimant: Josie Flores Clark

6. ADJOURNMENT

Page 2 of 74 ends

August 26, 2025
Mayor Ron Morrison
City of National City
1243 National City Blvd.

National City, CA 91950
Re: Josie Clark v. City of National City et al.

Dear Mayor Morrison:

We represent Josie Clark, who submits this Claim pursuant to Gov. Code § 910. Hyperlinks provide access to all supporting evidence, all of which is incorporated by reference into this Claim as the factual basis.

I. PARTIES TO THE ACTION
Plaintiff Josie Clark (“Clark” or “Plaintiff”) is an adult resident of San Diego County (the “County”). Clark has been employed by Defendant City of National City since July 9, 2007. At all material times, Clark worked directly for the City of National City’s Mayor Ron Morrison (“Morrison”).

Prospective Defendant1 La Vista Mortuary, Inc. is a California corporation headquartered in San Diego County, and at all material times was licensed by the California Cemetery and Funeral Bureau (“CFB”) as a Funeral Establishment (CFB No. 2231) and Crematory (CFB No. 414).

Defendant La Vista Enterprises, Inc. is a California corporation headquartered in the County.

Prospective Defendant Villalobos Investment Company, Inc. is a California corporation headquartered in the County, and at all material times was owned, managed, and controlled by Prospective Defendant Micaela Polanco aka Micaela Polanco Villalobos as its Chief Executive Officer, Secretary, and Chief Financial Officer. La Vista Mortuary, Inc., La Vista Enterprises, Inc., and Villalobos Investment Company, Inc. (collectively “LVMP”) did business as La Vista 1 “Prospective defendants” are not themselves subject to the Government Claims Act (Gov. Code § 810 et seq.).

However, because this Claim also names a public entity and its employees, Plaintiff must wait until the Claim is rejected—or 45 days have passed—before filing suit. (Gov. Code § 912.4).

Item 5.3

Page 3 of 74 ends

Clark v. City of National City, et al. Gov. Code § 910 Claim dated August 26, 2025 Page 3 of 73 Memorial Park, and held a Certificate of Authority–Cemetery (CFB No. 590). At all material times, LVMP employed the following employees: Martha Hernandez (“Hernandez”), who was a licensed Cemetery Salesperson (CFB No. 61100) under Polanco’s broker license; Gabriela Magana (“Magana”), also a licensed Cemetery Salesperson under Polanco (CFB No. 38940); Rosaura Marin (“Marin”); and Pablo Bermudez (“Bermudez”). Prospective Defendant Micaela Polanco aka Micaela Polanco Villalobos (“Polanco”) is an adult resident of Bonita, California, and at all material times was a licensed Cemetery Broker (CFB No. 1119), Cemetery Manager (CFB No. 286), Funeral Director (CFB No. 3084), and Crematory Manager (CFB No. 851) for LVMP. Polanco is married to Prospective Defendant Maria Luisa McCarthy (“McCarthy”), who at all materials times resided in Bonita with Polanco and acted as Polanco’s

partner

the

management

and

operation

LVMP

self-proclaimed

“
owner
”

and

its

“
Executive

Director
.”

March

2007,

McCarthy

obtained

licensed

Cemetery

Salesperson
license (CFB No. 39315). Polanco and McCarthy are coercive actors with malignant personalities who deceive, dominate, manipulate, and gaslight people around them as techniques of

psychological

abuse

designed

make

themselves

feel

they

are

control

the

people,

places,

and

things

their

worlds.

Prospective Defendant Patricia Teran aka Patricia Teran-Vega (“Teran”) is an adult County resident, and at all material times was a licensed Cemetery Salesperson (CFB No. 57385) operating under Polanco’s broker license, and was employed by LVMP as a Family Services Counselor.

Prospective

Defendant

Scott

Richard

Hamilton

(“Hamilton”)

adult

County

resident,

and

all

material

times

was

employed

LVMP

Mortuary

Supervisor.

Respondent City of National City (“City”) is a public entity governed by a City Council—a legislative body composed of five Councilmembers: the Mayor, who is elected at large (citywide), and four Councilmembers 2 elected by voters within four distinct districts. The Council makes all land ‑ use decisions after hearing recommendations from a Planning Commission, which consists of appointed community members and relies on technical guidance from the Planning Division of the City’s Community Development Department. The Planning Division also assists developers and residents with project coordination and compliance. It is well

understood—and

widely

practiced—that

mayors

and

other

city

leaders

routinely

meet

with

developers

help

recruit

investment,

advance

public
‑
private

partnerships,

and

steer

local

development

initiatives.
3 Yet

this

standard

function

has

perversely

become

basis

for

Polanco

3 See, e.g., the Mayor’s Leadership Role in Economic Development (Mayors must proactively initiate and facilitate economic

development

strategies,

including

engaging

stakeholders

and

private

developers)
planning.blogspot.com;
and

“
Mayors

play

integral

role

urban

development

…

collaborating

with

…

developers
”
socialstudieshelp.com
.

2 Luz Molina, Marcus Bush, Ditas Yamane, Jose Rodriguez 3 Page 4 of 74
Clark v. City of National City, et al. Gov. Code § 910 Claim dated August 26, 2025 Page 4 of 73 and McCarthy’s allegations, recast as evidence of covert wrongdoing rather than ordinary governance.

Respondent Jose Rodriguez (“Rodriguez”) is an adult County resident, and at all material times was

City

Councilmember,

“
elected

official
”

defined

Gov.

Code

815.3,

and

“
supervisor
”

defined

Gov.

Code

12926(t).

all

material

times,

was

bound

the
mandatory duties contained in the City’s Code of Ethics and Conduct (“Policy 119”). On July 30, 2025, Rodriguez confirmed his intention to campaign for the City’s mayoral seat. Respondent Lydia Flores-Hernandez (“Flores-Hernandez”) is an adult County resident, and at all material

times

was

employed

the

City

its

“
Human

Resources

Director
”

carry

out

the

duties

the

City

Manager’s

office.

all

material

times,

she

was

“
supervisor
”

defined

Gov.

Code

12926(t),

and

was

bound

the

mandatory

duties

contained

Policy

119.

Respondent Elyana Delgado (“Delgado”) is an adult County resident, and at all material times was

employed

the

City

“
Recreation

Supervisor

Miss

National

City

Liaison
”

carry

out

the

duties

the

Community

Services

Director.

Respondent

Juanita

Castaneda

(“Castaneda”)

adult

County

resident,

and

all

material

times

was

employed

the

City

“
Recreation

Supervisor

Miss

National

City

Liaison
”

carry

out

the

duties

the

Community

Services

Director.

Respondent

Ron

Williams

(“Williams”)

adult

County

resident,

and

all

material

times

was

employed

the

City

its

“
Information

Technology

Manager
”

carry

out

the

duties

the

City

Manager’s

office.

Respondent

Karla

Apalategui

(“Apalategui”)

adult

County

resident,

and

all

material

times

was

employee

the

City,

the

President

the

National

City

Municipal

Employee

Association

(“MEA”),

and

sat

the

Executive

Board

MEA’s

exclusive

representative,
SEIU Local 221. City employees regarded Apalategui, Delgado, Castaneda, and Williams

group

contentious

employees,

collectively

known

the

“
Clique
.”

all

material

times,

each

member

the

Clique

was

“
supervisor
”

defined

Gov.

Code

12926(t)

and

bound

the

mandatory

duties

contained

Policy

119.

At all material times, Respondents were bound by the mandatory duties stated in California’s Fair

Employment

and

Housing

Act,

Gov.

Code,

12900

seq.

(“FEHA”),

e.g.,

the

duty

not

harass,

retaliate,

otherwise

discriminate

against

Clark

because

her

gender

protected

activity.

all

material

times,

Respondents

and

Prospective

Defendants

were

prohibited

Civ.

Code

51(b)

(Unruh

Civil

Rights

Act)

and

Civ.

Code

52.1 (Bane

Act)

from

harassing

otherwise

discriminating

against

Clark

because

her

gender.

II. STATEMENT OF FACTS
This Claim arises from a personal tragedy suffered by Josie Clark and her family on November 11,

2024,

when

she

discovered

the

decomposing

body

her

43-year-old

nephew,

Javier

4 Page 5 of 74
Clark v. City of National City, et al. Gov. Code § 910 Claim dated August 26, 2025 Page 5 of 73 Francisco Escarsega II (“Javier”), who was born on May 30, 1981. Clark treated and referred to Javier as her “ son ” and “ mijo .” In most workplaces, such a loss is met with compassion, not exploitation.

What

occurred

the

aftermath—both

with

former

friendships

(namely

Polanco

and

McCarthy)

and

within

her

workplace

City

Hall—was

anything

but

normal.

Because

the

overlapping

events,

statements,

and

actions

spanning

nearly

nine

months,

the

account

that

follows

not

simply

chronology—it

reconstruction

built

from

multiple

forms

evidence,

arranged

make

complicated

story

clear

the

reader.

Instead of attachments, all supporting materials are provided through the use of hyperlinks, most of which will direct any electronic device being used to read this Claim to a Google Drive folder owned

and

controlled

Gilleon

Law

Firm,

APC,

which

holds

the

documents,

photographs,

videos,

etc.

When

possible,

the

hyperlinks

will

direct

the

device

public

web

pages,

e.g.,

references

California’s

Cemetery

and

Funeral

Bureau,

the

City’s

web

pages,

news

articles,

etc.

The terms “ gaslight ,” “ gaslighting ,” and “ gaslit ” appear throughout this Claim to describe recurring

patterns

conduct

Respondents,

Prospective

Defendants,

and

their

associates.

These

terms

are

not

employed

for

rhetorical

effect,

but

identify

conduct

which

deception

was

the

intended

strategy

from

the

outset.

The

Oxford

English

Dictionary

defines

“
gaslighting
”

“
the

action

manipulating

someone

psychological

means

into

doubting

their

own

perceptions,

memories,

understanding
.”

Its

core

meaning

calculated

effort

mislead—particularly

when

objective

evidence

undermines

the

manipulator’s

position—making

denial,

distortion,

and

fabrication

the

preferred

tools

over

honest

acknowledgment.

In the coming pages, this pattern of distortion and irony will be revisited in detail. For now, the narrative

turns

the

deep

personal

context

that

made

these

events

devastating—beginning

with

the

Clark

family’s

long

and

meaningful

history

Vista

Memorial

Park.

A. Legacy of Burials at La Vista Memorial Park The Clark family’s interments at LVMP span multiple generations, reflecting what is often referred

the

funeral

and

cemetery

industry

“legacy”—a

tradition

which

cemetery

becomes

the

chosen

resting

place

for

members

the

same

family

across

decades.

That

legacy

begins

with

Clark’s

sister,

Yolanda

Escarsega

(“Yolanda”),

whose

death

April

1992

central

this

matter

and

the

events

that

follow.

Yolanda’s death will be addressed in greater detail later. At the time, she and her son, Javier, had briefly

taken

refuge

with

her

(and

Clark’s)

mother

San

Diego,

having

fled

Sacramento,

where

they

had

lived

with

Javier’s

abusive

father,

Javier

Francisco

Escarsega

Jr.

(“Javier

Frank”).

When

Javier

Frank

discovered

their

whereabouts

and

traveled

San

Diego

intending

force

them

back,

Yolanda

tragically

ended

her

life.

She

was

buried

LVMP,

where

Clark’s

(and

Yolanda’s)

5 Page 6 of 74
Clark v. City of National City, et al. Gov. Code § 910 Claim dated August 26, 2025 Page 6 of 73 grandfather was also buried three years later. After her death, Javier returned to Sacramento with his

father,

Javier

Frank.

Eight years after Yolanda’s death, on September 30, 2000, a woman with whom Javier was in a relationship gave birth to a boy, who was named Javier Francisco Escarcega III. The boy’s birth certificate identified Javier as the “ Father of Child .” The boy was later adopted by Guadalupe Lopez, a man who became his legal father, and his name was changed to Daniel Gary Henry Lopez (“Lopez”). His birth certificate was also amended to reflect Lopez’s new name and to identify Guadalupe Lopez as his father. Pursuant to Cal. Probate Code § 6451, the adoption “
sever[ed]

the

relationship

parent

and

child”

between

Javier

and

Lopez.

Javier lived with his father until Javier Frank passed away in September 2005. Javier was supposed

inherit

the

family

home,

but

Javier

Frank’s

family

took

possession

the

home

and

expelled

him.

24 years

old

and

homeless,

Javier

found

his

way

back

San

Diego,

where

Clark

took

him

into

her

home

and

treated

him

part

her

immediate

family.

Clark

referred

Javier

her

son,

and

Clark’s

other

children

treated

him

their

brother.

In June 2008, Clark’s father passed away and was buried at La Vista Memorial Park, near Yolanda and Clark’s grandfather. Around that time, Clark wrote about her family’s legacy at La Vista Memorial Park, and her budding friendship with Polanco and McCarthy, in a testimonial 4 that

remains

LVMP’s

website,

follows:

That friendship would grow significantly over the years. Between 2008 and November 2024, Polanco

and

McCarthy

developed

friendship

with

Clark

and

her

family.

The

Clarks

attended

Polanco

and

McCarthy’s

wedding

well

McCarthy’s

daughter’s

quinceañera,

and

the

couples

welcomed

each

other’s

families

into

their

homes

for

gatherings,

parties,

and

holiday

dinners.

Polanco

and

McCarthy

also

leveraged

Clark’s

position

the

Mayor’s

assistant,

accompanying

her

City

events

network

for

LVMP.

4 Mayor Morrison's testimonial—another former friend of Polanco and McCarthy—still appears on their website. 6

Page 7 of 74 ends

Clark v. City of National City, et al. Gov. Code § 910 Claim dated August 26, 2025 Page 7 of 73 On May 31, 2021, Clark’s mother passed away and was buried in the same plot as Clark’s father.

McCarthy

attended

the

funeral

mourner,

with

Teran

and

Hamilton

present

LVMP

employees.

Despite

this

long-term

friendship,

Clark

was

never

enough

Polanco

McCarthy

perceive

the

patterns

conduct

characterized

manipulation

and

lack

empathy.

Those

traits

surfaced

with

devastating

clarity

November

2024,

when

Polanco

and

McCarthy

turned

gaslighting—accusing

Clark

the

very

misconduct

they

themselves

were

committing.

Exploiting

their

roles

morticians,

with

control

over

her

son’s

remains,

they

manipulated

Clark’s

grief

deceive

and

dominate

her,

ultimately

sabotaging

development

the

real

property

adjacent

LVMP

that

they

sought

acquire.

B. Polanco v. the California Cemetery and Funeral Bureau On February 3, 2023 and February 15, 2023, the CFB cited and fined Polanco for “ unprofessional conduct … by failing to submit the marker proof approval for a decedent’s headstone

until

after

Bureau

involvement

and

further,

installing

said

headstone

the

wrong
grave .” The CFB also cited and fined LVMP for “ unprofessional conduct ,” on February 3, 2023 and February 15, 2023, related to fees LVMP was charging its customers for headstones. C. Polanco v. the San Diego County Air Pollution Control District The following year brought new trouble for Polanco and McCarthy, particularly when County’s Air

Pollution

Control

District

(“APCD”)

discovered

through

“source

testing”

that

for

least

four

months

2024,

LVMP’s

crematory

had

been

exposing

the

citizens

National

City

to
nearly three times the high-end limit of “particulate matter” emitted during the cremation of expired humans. When the APCD air-tested LVMP’s crematory on August 15, 2024, it “failed due to exceeding their particulate matter emissions permit condition.” Polanco was cited in “ [T]wo Notice of Violations (one for each source test exceedance), ” the most recent on, “ August 15,

2024

Source

Test

Results
:

Particulate

Matter

results:

0.27 gr/dscf

…

the

crematory

exhaust

stack

total

particulate

grain

shall

not

exceed

0.10 grains/dscf

12%

CO2

volume
excluding auxiliary fuel CO2. (Rule 53.d.2) ” (emphasis and hyperlink in original). LVMP’s response was not to accept responsibility, but instead to attack the messenger, accusing the

APCD

unspecified

misconduct.

The

agency—vested

statute

with

the

authority

safeguard

the

public

inspecting

crematories

and

enforcing

air

quality

standards—swiftly
dismantled McCarthy’s accusations, making clear that its actions were lawful, necessary, and firmly supported by the evidence:

To address Luisa [McCarthy’s] concern about a potential conflict of interest with SDAPCD

conducting

the

source

test

and

then

enforcing

the

result

would

7 Page 8 of 74
Clark v. City of National City, et al. Gov. Code § 910 Claim dated August 26, 2025 Page 8 of 73 reply that La Vista has the right to hire their own source test company to conduct the

source

test

stated

Permit

Condition

15. In an email dated November 4, 2024, asking Clark for help with a City business license issue, Polanco openly acknowledged her crematory’s ongoing air pollution troubles: I have been extremely busy with an audit and also going up to the Air Pollution Board

due

not

being

[able]

pass

the

Source

test.

have

not

been

able

operate

our

crematory

usual.

super

stressed

right

now

trying

fix

everything

get

back

normal.

(emphasis

added).

Less than a month later, McCarthy, LVMP’s “ Executive Director ” (and holder of a Delinquent CFB License) would step onto her soon-to-be well-worn City Hall soapbox to proclaim LVMP’s “ highest standards of air pollution control .” She was using projection to hypocritically chastise LVMP’s

competitor,

Robert

Zakar

(“Zakar”),

and

members

his

honorable,

civic-minded

family,

Eddy

Brikho

and

Joey

Brikho

(the

“Brikhos”)

about

their

request

for

categorical
exemption (Class 32) from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). Mortician that she is, McCarthy managed a deadpan calm as she hurled a stone 5 straight through her own glass
house—a

moment

worth

both

reading

and

watching.

With the straight face
6 only a mortician in her own glass parlor could muster, McCarthy delivered

these

shameless

lines—ones

that

deserve

both

read

and

watched:

Hello, my name is Luisa McCarthy… we have a crematorium … and we have to go

above

and

beyond

ensure

that

are

held

the

highest

standards

air

pollution

control
.

And

lot

money,

but

you

have

what

you

have

order

comply

and

make

sure

that

it's

done

right.

can't

here

conscious

[sic]

mind

and

not

ask

for

the

same….

have

right

and

…

serve

the

community

National

City

and

large,

then

the

people

also

deserve

have

that,

right?

put

myself

their

shoes

and

live

there

and

wake

the

fumes

every

day
,

the

morning,

night,

throughout

the

day

with

kids,

cetera,

that

would

big

red

flag.

just

say,

just

it,

right?

…

[I]t's

only

the

right

thing

do
.

(emphasis

added).

6 Six months later, McCarthy’s hypocritical crusade against air pollution and hidden records showed no signs of slowing

down,

appearing

on
Fox News

accuse

another

kettle

being

black—this

time,

biofuel

company:

“
Local

business

owner

Luisa

McCarthy

also

brought

forward

letters

from

the

California

Air

Resources

Board

she

believes

were

also

not

disclosed.

‘Where

stipulates

bold

about

how

the

project

will

further

expose

residents

elevated

levels

pollution,’

McCarthy

said.”

5 At the Council meeting on January 21, 2025, McCarthy’s wife, Polanco, would hurl her own: “ I would like to see fewer

…

pollution-generating

businesses,”

noting

that

the

City

was

“the

top

percentage

pollution,

top

asthma
.”

8 Page 9 of 74
Clark v. City of National City, et al. Gov. Code § 910 Claim dated August 26, 2025 Page 9 of 73 D. Polanco v. The Zakar Family (aka The Brikhos) Back in July 2024, Zakar and his own funeral home, East County Mortuary, Inc. (“ECMI”), formalized their National City operations (“AAA Cremations”) a couple of miles from LVMP. Clark and Zakar knew each other through Zakar’s cousins, Eddy and Joey. Polanco was well aware

Clark’s

friendship

with

Zakar

and

the

Brikhos,

who

Polanco

referred

“
your

Iraqi

friends
”

when

speaking

Clark.

Polanco, McCarthy, and LVMP did not welcome the competition from Zakar and AAA Cremations,

especially

when

its

crematory

was

failing

air

pollution

tests.

particular,

Polanco

and

McCarthy

feared

that

Zakar

would

compete

with

them

retail

flower

sales,

which

comprised

substantial

portion

LVMP’s

revenue.

August

2024,

Zakar

sent

Clark

text

asking

for

Polanco’s

telephone

number.

Zakar

called

Polanco

and

left

her

voicemail,

but

she

never

returned

his

call.

October

29,

2024,

ECMI

filed

documentation

with

the

County

San

Diego

after

issuing

public

notice

begin

doing

business

AAA

Cremations.

In early November 2024, the City mailed a Notice of Public Hearing for “ a proposed development comprised of a new service station, convenience store with request for off-sale alcohol

(ABC

Type-21),

drive-through

car

wash,

drive-through

eating

place,

and

five

residential

units

with

zone

variance

request
”

(“the

Project”).

Polanco

was

the

first

addressee

the
mailing list for the November 8 notice: “ Rec #: 1 ... Villalobos Investment Co Inc ,” addressed to LVMP’s address at 3191 Orange St, National City. The Project was proposed “t o be located on vacant

properties

the

north

side

Sweetwater

Road

between

Olive

Street

and

Orange

Street
”

owned

Muraoka

Enterprises,

Inc.

and

Emerald-Gold,

LLC

(“the

Project

property”

“the

Muraoka

property”),

and

leased

Zakar

and

the

Brikhos

(“the

Zakar

family”).

E. Clark Discovers Javier’s Body
On November 11, 2024, having not heard from Javier and learning he had not shown up for work,

the

Clark

family

contacted

the

Sheriff’s

Department

who

met

them

Javier’s

home

Boulevard,

CA.

the

Sheriff’s

Incident

Report,

Dep.

Mario

Saldana

described

Clark’s

traumatic

discovery

her

son’s

body:

Page 10 of 74 ends

Clark v. City of National City, et al. Gov. Code § 910 Claim dated August 26, 2025 Page 10 of 73 On November 12, 2024, the County Medical Examiner performed an autopsy on Javier’s body, concluding the “ Cause of Death ” was “ Sudden death associated with cardiac dilatation of unknown

etiology
.”

The

Medical

Examiner

wrote,

“
The

autopsy

demonstrated

[a]

moderately

decomposed

man

with

significant

traumatic

injuries….

Toxicological

testing

detected

alcohol

his

liver

(0.027%;

probably

due

decomposition)

and

common

drugs

abuse
.”
F. Three Morticians: One with Integrity, Two with Hidden Agendas On November 13, 2024, at 9:39 a.m. Polanco texted condolences to Clark, writing, “ Josie, I just heard what happened with your son I am so sorry Just want you to know that I am here for you .” Clark called Polanco and left a voicemail, later replying by text, “ it's an indescribable pain .” Given her family’s legacy with LVMP, it went without saying that Clark wanted Javier buried in the

same

cemetery

his

mother,

grandmother,

grandfather,

and

great-grandfather.

The

same

day,

around

3:00

p.m.,

Clark

spoke

Polanco

and

emphasized

that

she

wanted

Javier

buried

near

Yolanda

before

she

left

December

2024,

for

trip

Virginia

spend

month

with

her

daughter

who

was

giving

birth.

Clark

asked

Polanco

the

burial

could

take

place

November
23, 2024, texting, “ Can we have a service and everything next Saturday? ” Polanco replied that a November 23 burial was possible: “ It will depend on when he is released into our care .” Later in the evening, Clark sent a text to Polanco and McCarthy, saying, “ Thank you both so much. I appreciate and love you both very much … Your thoughtfulness will always remain in my heart,

you

are

here

for

me.
”

McCarthy

replied,

“
My

dearest

Josie,

our

hearts

are

broken

just

knowing

you

are

such

immense

pain.

pain

other.

Please

know

you

are

not

alone.

love

you

very

much.
”

Javier’s

body

was

released

LVMP’s

care

the

following

day,

November

14,

2024.

G. LVMP's Binding Promise to Clark: Javier Will Be Buried with His Mother The next day, November 15, 2024, Clark met with Polanco at LVMP to sign funeral contracts and

submit

vital

information

the

County

for

Javier’s

death

certificate.

Pursuant

Cal.

Health

Page 11 of 74 ends

Clark v. City of National City, et al. Gov. Code § 910 Claim dated August 26, 2025 Page 11 of 73 & Safety Code § 7100, Clark had the unequivocal “ right to control the disposition of [Javier’s] remains.
”
Clark was horrified to hear from Polanco, however, that the County would not allow Javier’s body

buried

because

its

condition

and

odor.

Polanco

told

Clark

that

cremation

was

her

only

option.

Cremation

was

not

part

the

Clark’s

family

legacy

casket

burials,

and

conflicted

with

some

her

family

members’

religious

beliefs.

Clark

asked,

“
Can

they

that?
”

and

Polanco

replied,

“
Absolutely.
”

The

truth:

absolutely

not.

The

County

does

not

refuse

burials

due

odor

decomposition,

but

Clark

had

reason

believe

Polanco’s

assurance

was

false.

1. LVMP and Clark Enter Into Written Contracts for Javier’s Funeral In reliance on Polanco’s representation, on November 15, 2024, Clark executed the following six documents

(collectively

“November

15 Documents”):

Vista

Memorial

Park
Interment/Entombment/Disinterment Authorization Form (“Interment Authorization”); b) La Vista Crematory Authorization for Cremation (“Cremation Authorization”); c) Cemetery Interment Rights, Merchandise, and Services Purchase/Security Agreement, numbered 25773, which referred to a separate headstone contract numbered 25774 (“Cemetery Contract No. 25773”), d) a second Cemetery Interment Rights, Merchandise, and Services Purchase/Security Agreement, numbered 25774, for a headstone aka marker (“Headstone Contract No. 25774”), e) Statement of Funeral Goods and Services Selected/Purchase Agreement (“Cremation Contract No. 24141”), and f) Declaration for Disposition of Cremated or Hydrolyzed Human Remains (“Disposition Declaration.”) LVMP also executed the November 15 Documents, which included three contracts, Cemetery Contract

No.

25773,

Headstone

Contract

No.

25774,

and

Cremation

Contract

No.

24141

(collectively

“November

15 Contracts”)

agreeing

that

Javier’s

body

would

cremated,

the

remains

placed

“
small

cremation
”

container,

which

would

lowered

into

Yolanda’s

plot

and

placed

inside

the

vault

containing

her

casket.

The

funeral

service

would

witnessed

graveside

“Large

Service

40+”

friends

and

family.

Pursuant

the

Headstone

Contract,

28”

16”

Oxford

Granite

headstone

would

mark

Yolanda’s

plot

memorialize

the

mother

and

son

resting

below:

11 Page 12 of 74
Clark v. City of National City, et al. Gov. Code § 910 Claim dated August 26, 2025 Page 12 of 73 For Cemetery Contract No. 25773, LVMP unilaterally gave Clark a “friends and family” rate of $6,340.36,

writing

“
Gratis
”

indicate

reduction

“$6,328.86.”

Cremation

Contract

No.

24141

stated

that

“
total

charges
”

were

“
$1,602.12
”

but

that

“
La

Vista

Mortuary

pay

cremation
”

the

amount

“
$1,495.00
,”

with

“
balance

do
”

(due

from

Clark)

$107.12.

Headstone

Contract

No.

25774

totaled

$1,296.40

without

any

indication

reduced

charges,

except

that

LVMP

was

providing

“
accidization
”

(acidization/cleaning)

“
No

Charge
.”

The
burial was tentatively scheduled for November 30, 2024. Clark paid LVMP a deposit totaling $1,403.52. 2. LVMP Botches Javier’s Death Certificate As LVMP’s Funeral Director, Polanco was solely responsible for providing the County with complete

and

accurate

information

prepare

Javier’s

death

certificate,

using

California’s

Electronic

Death

Registration

System

(“EDRS”).

Health

Safety

Code

102790

states,

“
The

funeral

director

shall

obtain

the

required

information

…

from

the

person

source

best

qualified
to supply this information. ” The Funeral Director’s Handbook, issued by the National Center for Health Statistics states, “ An accurate death record is the responsibility of the funeral director, both

service

the

decedent’s

family

and

the

cornerstone

the

nation’s

death

registration

system.
”

Health

Safety

Code

103775

goes

further,

stating

that

funeral

director

guilty

misdemeanor

she

“
fails

furnish

correctly

any

information

his

her

possession

that

required

this

part,

furnishes

false

information

affecting

any

[death]

certificate.
”

part

this

obligation,

Teran

verified

that

she

completed

unbiased,

objective
“blind check” of the information provided by Clark. Polanco, McCarthy, Teran, and Hamilton knew that Javier’s mother, Yolanda, was buried at LVMP,

that

Javier

was

Clark’s

nephew,

and

that

Lopez

was

Clark’s

biological

great-nephew

who

had

been

adopted

when

was

fifteen

years

old.

Despite

this

knowledge,

LVMP

wrote

“
Josie

Page 13 of 74 ends

Clark v. City of National City, et al. Gov. Code § 910 Claim dated August 26, 2025 Page 13 of 73 Clark, Mother ” in EDRS field 26, labeled, “ Informant Name and Relationship. ” LVMP’s knowledge that Yolanda, not Clark, was Javier’s mother was made clear when it entered Yolanda’s

name

into

EDRS

fields

35,

36,

and

37,

for

“
Mother/Parent’s

Legal

Birth

Names
.”

(McCarthy

would

later

gaslight

the

public

Council

Meeting

accusing

Clark,

not

LVMP,

for

“
two

death

certificates.

Hmm.

One

that

says

‘mother’

and

the

one

that

asked

her

rectify

say

what

truthful—and

that’s

‘aunt’
”).

H. Polanco v. Clark Three days later, on November 18, 2024, Javier’s employer contacted Clark to inform her that, pursuant

company

policy,

the

employer

would

pay

for

Javier’s

burial

expenses.

Clark

immediately

contacted

Polanco

tell

her

what

Javier’s

employer

had

said.

Polanco

responded

that

Clark

would

need

sign

new

contracts

LVMP’s

full

(non-reduced)

rates,

which

amounted

disavowal

and

breach

the

November

15 contracts.

Polanco,

McCarthy,

and

Teran

would

later

gaslight

the

public

about

Clark,

not

themselves,

demanding

new

cemetery

contracts,

e.g.,

Teran’s

comment

Council

meeting:

“
La

Vista

gave

[Clark]

free

burial,

right?

Interment

and

all

the

services

involved.

And

then,

couple

weeks

later,

she

came

back

requesting

redo

the

contract

with

items

it
.”

1. Clark Maintains Ethical Boundaries—Polanco Calls It Betrayal During the November 18 call, Polanco confronted Clark about the Project, which she had learned about,

either

mail

recipient

written

notice

from

the

City,

from

her

“
neighbors
”

(according
to her letter to the City, dated November 27, 2024) or when “ a family member of ours came in to do a marker for their loved ones … and left me a copy of the information ” (as she said at a City Planning

meeting

December

2024).

When

Clark

asked

which

development

she

was

referring

to,

Polanco

replied,

"
You

know,

the

one

your

Iraqi

friends

are

planning
."

Polanco was angry that Clark had not informed her of the Project or offered to use her position as the

Mayor’s

assistant

block

it.

Clark

explained

that

she

could

not

anything

that

may

give

the

appearance

conflict

interest.

Polanco

nonetheless

insisted

that

Clark

schedule

meeting

with

the

Zakar

family.

Correctly

sensing

that

her

friend

for

the

past

sixteen

years,

possession

Javier’s

remains,

was

turning

her,

Clark

agreed

sign

new

funeral

contracts.

After

the

call,

Clark

contacted

Eddy,

who

agreed

meet

with

Polanco

and

McCarthy

November

25,

2024.

2. The Breach Later that afternoon (November 18), LVMP began emailing Clark with demands that Lopez, Javier’s

adopted-out

son

with

legal

right

disposition,

sign

the

November

15 Documents.

13 Page 14 of 74
Clark v. City of National City, et al. Gov. Code § 910 Claim dated August 26, 2025 Page 14 of 73 LVMP had already determined that Lopez had no right to disposition over Javier’s remains and had

executed

the

November

15 Documents

based

that

knowledge.

Nonetheless,

4:20

p.m.,
Hamilton sent Clark an email, subject line, “ cremation authorization front and back pages. ” Hamilton attached three documents, two of which were duplicates of a document that described the

cremation

process

(which

Clark

had

signed

November

15).

Apparently

thinking

was

sending

the

front

the

Cremation

Authorization,

Hamilton

wrote,

“
Here

the

front

page

and

back

page

you

signed.

Both

pages

have

space

for

him

sign

second

person.
”

(Hamilton

would

not

send

Clark

the

front

page

until

December

2024).

A new document, labeled “Affidavit,” was attached for Lopez’s notarized signature, releasing LVMP from all legal liability. Hamilton wrote, “ Also I need him to fill out the affidavit page giving you rights. It must be notarized. ” Ten minutes later, Hamilton sent Clark another email, subject line “ disposition form ,” attaching a copy of the Disposition Declaration that Clark had signed

November

15. Hamilton

wrote,

“
I

need

the

disposition

form

his

signature

also
.”

Clark
immediately forwarded all four documents to Lopez, emailing, “ Hi mijo, Please follow the instructions of Scott from the mortuary. Please send it back to him and my email .” At the public hearing that evening (November 18) to discuss the Project, Polanco’s and McCarthy’s

neighbors

were

present

for

public

comments.

After

acknowledging

they

had

received

notice

the

hearing,

they

voiced

their

traffic-related

opposition

the

Project.

The

hearing

was

continued

December

2024.

The next day, November 19, 2024, in performance of the Headstone Contract, Teran emailed Clark a draft of “the headstone proof.” The message carried an undertone of pressure that would steadily intensify over the following weeks: “ Keep in mind that without your signature, unfortunately

won't

able

place

the

order
.”

3. Polanco’s Bait-and-Switch: Friendship Rate Becomes a Profit Grab The next day, November 20, 2024, Clark texted Polanco, asking if they could meet to “ redo the contract ,” as Polanco had demanded on November 18. Polanco scheduled a meeting for at 9:00 a.m. the next day. On November 21, 2024, at 8:29 a.m., Polanco texted Clark, “ Josie, I will be running a little late but Scot and Pati are already re doing [t]he contracts … [which] will also include

the

overtime

fees.
”

Polanco

never

showed

for

the

9 a.m.

meeting.

Instead, Teran presented Clark with new documents to sign, backdated to November 15, 2024, including:

another

cemetery

contract

with

new

number

(25784)

totaling

$11,880.43
(“Backdated Cemetery Contract No. 25784”) and 2) another cremation contract, number unchanged from (2024141), that totaled $3,169.32 (“Backdated Cremation Contract No. 14 Page 15 of 74
Clark v. City of National City, et al. Gov. Code § 910 Claim dated August 26, 2025 Page 15 of 73 2024141”). LVMP did not ask Clark to sign a new headstone contract. Instead, the headstone charges, now totaling $2,790.72, were included in the Backdated Cemetery Contract No. 25784.

sum,

LVMP

increased

the

amount

was

charging

Clark,

from

$7,743.88

$15,049.75,

which

was

difference

$7,305.87.

(Polanco

would

later

accuse

Clark

trying

profit

from

her

son’s

death

and

his

employer’s

generosity,

claiming

Clark

“
asked

give

her

$7,000

out

the

$15,049

the

employer

was

pay

for

cemetery

and

funeral

arrangements
”).

Before leaving the November 21 meeting, Clark asked Teran about Hamilton’s November 18 request

that

Lopez

sign

the

November

15 Documents

and

notarize

the

Affidavit.

Teran

told

Clark

that

Lopez

only

needed

sign

the

Interment

Authorization.

Teran

confirmed

the

same

when

she
emailed Clark, “ Attached you will find the Interment Authorization Doc. that needs to be signed by Francisco Javier Escarsega II's son…. That's the only signature that we need from him in order

for

the

burial

take

place
.”

4. The Brikhos Get Pressured for Perks—Clark Gets Blamed Eddy, Polanco, and McCarthy met on November 25, 2024, at a Starbucks store on Bonita Rd. in Chula Vista (“the November 25 meeting”). At Polanco’s request, Clark also attended the initial part of the meeting but left before it ended. Clark was still suffering from Javier’s death, the discovery

his

decomposing

body,

and

the

hostility

and

coercion

she

was

receiving

from

long-term

friends

who

continued

hold

his

remains.

Clark was particularly troubled when Polanco presented Eddy with a quid pro quo offer, telling him

that

she

(and

McCarthy)

would

not

publicly

oppose

the

Project

the

Zakar

family

agreed

sell

them

alcohol

and

fuel

substantial

discount

and

paid

for

large

sign

for

LVMP.

Before

leaving,

Clark

reiterated

that

she

could

not

take

sides

given

her

employment

with

the

City.

Polanco asked her to create a group text, which Clark did, at 12:37 p.m., stating, “ Hello, Eddy, Joey, Luisa and Mica. ” The Starbucks Meeting continued, during which Polanco expressed her concern that Zakar would

compete

with

her

retail

flower

business

and

build

mortuary

storefront

part

the

Project.

They

conveyed

Eddy—effectively

threat—that

they

could

raise

any

number

pretexts

oppose

the

Project.
7 Eddy

had

little

option

but

agree

Polanco’s

and

McCarthy’s

demands.

Polanco

stated

she

would

prepare

written

agreement

formalize

the

deal.

Polanco’s

and

McCarthy’s

last-minute

attempt

extort

the

Zakar

family—demanding

value

exchange

for

withholding

opposition—occurred

one

week

before

the

public

meeting

with

the

City’s

Planning

Department

December

2024.

7 Cal. Penal Code §§ 518–519.
15 Page 16 of 74
Clark v. City of National City, et al. Gov. Code § 910 Claim dated August 26, 2025 Page 16 of 73 Under California law, extortion occurs when property or value is obtained through consent induced

wrongful

threats,

including

threats

economic

harm

unconnected

any

legal

claim

right.

Courts

have

held

that

when

party

conditions

silence

withdrawal

opposition

receiving

benefit,

that

conduct

constitutes

extortion

matter

law.
8 By

contrast,

there

nothing

unlawful

about

developer

voluntarily

offering

benefits

surrounding

residents

who

have

legal

authority

over

project.

Such

arrangements

resemble

Community

Benefits

Agreements,
9 which

are

common

contractual

tools

and

not

crimes.

5. Stalling Javier’s Burial, Polanco and McCarthy Devise an Ambush The same day as the Starbucks meeting, November 25, Lopez signed and emailed Hamilton the Interment

Authorization

Form

that

Teran

had

confirmed

was

“
the

only

signature

[needed]

from
him in order for the burial to take place .” Nonetheless, Lopez also signed and returned the three documents Hamilton had emailed Clark on November 18. As directed, Lopez backdated his signatures to November 15, 2024. At no time did Hamilton or anyone else at LVMP inform Lopez

that

his

signature

was

missing

any

documentation.

With the December 2 hearing approaching, Polanco stalled her promise to formalize the quid pro quo

deal

reached

Starbucks.

Likewise,

LVMP

stalled

its

obligations

Clark,

ensuring

Javier’s

burial

would

not

happen

before

Clark

left

town

for

her

daughter’s

high-risk

pregnancy

back

east.

At 11:58 a.m., on November 26, 2024,
10 Polanco texted Eddy directly, stating: Thank you for making the time to meet with us. I also hope we can build a better long

term

relationship,

especially

since

started

little

rocky.

need

the

name

and

address

who

and

where

should

the

letter

to.

Addressing

everything

spoke

about

yesterday.

Eddy immediately replied, and provided the email addresses for Joey Brikho (“Joey”) and himself.

Four

hours

later,

4:33

p.m.

that

same

day,

November

26,

Polanco

used

the

group

text
created by Clark to request additional information from Eddy 11 : “ I also need the following please for the agreement we spoke about yesterday: May I have your full name and the business address 11 Clark

remained

silent

the

group

thread

from

November

26 through

December

her

first

appears

December

2024.

10 Polanco,

McCarthy,

and

their

attorneys

later

alleged

that

Eddy

had

attempted

influence

them

with

“
offers
”

without

offering

any

evidence,

while

withholding

this

two-person

message

showing

the

opposite.

9 Community Benefits Agreements

are

private,

legally

enforceable

contracts

between

developers

and

community

groups

which

the

developer

agrees

provide

specified

community

benefits

(e.g.,

affordable

housing,

living

wage

jobs,

environmental

enhancements)

exchange

for

public

support

the

project.

8 Flatley v. Mauro (2006) 39 Cal.4th 299, 327–330 (demanding payment in exchange for not publicizing allegations held

extortion

matter

law;

litigation

privilege

did

not

apply);
Mendoza v. Hamzeh (2013) 215
Cal.App.4th

799

(threats

expose

alleged

tax

fraud

order

collect

money

constituted

extortion).

16 Page 17 of 74
Clark v. City of National City, et al. Gov. Code § 910 Claim dated August 26, 2025 Page 17 of 73 and or business name to whom to address the agreement to ?” Eddy replied at 5:33 p.m., providing

the

additional

information.

The following morning, Wednesday, November 27, 2024, at 10:28 a.m., Polanco acknowledged Eddy’s reply, “ Thank you! ” That same day, Polanco and McCarthy wrote a letter to the City, making their opposition to the Zakar project clear: We understand the grieving process of our families who have lost their loved ones.

have

responsibility

and

duty

our

families

bring

these

issues

your

attention

because

they

are

detrimental

the

families

that

serve

and

our

community.

Our

main

concerns

are

for

environmental

issues,

proper

signage,

lighting

and

traffic

control

for

Vista

Memorial

Park

and

surrounding

areas.

crucial

for

our

families

avoid

traffic

problems

involved

traffic

accident

due

the

overflow

caused

this

new

proposed

development.

Later that evening, November 27, at 5:25 p.m., Hamilton sent Clark another email entitled “ disposition of cremated remains ,” attached a copy of the Disposition Declaration signed only by Clark, and wrote, “ Hello Josie, I need his signature on this one form below yours. You will see an x

the

date.
”

Hamilton

sent

this

despite

having

already

received

Lopez’s

signed

Disposition

Authorization

two

days

earlier,

November

25,

2024.

his

email,

Hamilton

said

nothing

Clark

about

the

Affidavit,

the

Cremation

Authorization

that

had

failed

attach

his

dated

November

18,

2024,

any

other

document

that

LVMP

was

insisting

that

Lopez

sign.

Two days later, Friday, November 29, 2024, having received nothing from Polanco to formalize the deal, Eddy used the group text to follow up with Polanco, writing, “ Happy Thanksgiving I wanted to follow up I thought you were going to send a letter over what we discussed the other day.

have

not

received

anything
.”

The

following

evening,

Saturday,

November

30,

2024,
Polanco replied to Eddy’s text—also addressing Clark: Eddie and Josie, I have not finalized the letter in regards to what we spoke about when

met

Monday

over

25th.

has

been

the

worst

time

this

especially

with

all

the

Holidays.

I'll

get

back

you

Monday

[December

2].

have

had

time

especially

with

the

City

Planning

meeting

soon

Dec

2 at

6:00

need

see

can

move

the

meeting

forward

because

have

had

time

read

what

was

proposed

the

City

National

City

the

County

SD.

The following afternoon, Sunday, December 1, 2024, Polanco again addressed “ Eddy and Josie ,” in a text message that began with a list of excuses for her delayed reply. Although Polanco would later deny it, even accusing Eddy Brikho of attempting to bribe her, Polanco’s text message listed out

the

quid

pro

quo

exchange

she

was

demanding

return

for

not

opposing

the

Project.

17 Page 18 of 74
Clark v. City of National City, et al. Gov. Code § 910 Claim dated August 26, 2025 Page 18 of 73 Polanco sent Eddy the following text message, which confirmed her ongoing attempted extortion,

which

would

later

revealed

the

source

“
many

sleepless

nights
12 ”:

The following morning, Monday, December 2, 2024, at 8:55 a.m., Eddy replied, confirming he would comply with Polanco’s demands, stating, “ Everything is correct 1-Signage yes…. 2- Yes we

will

work

with

you

get

you

discounted

diesel

from

our

street

Price.

Yes

will

give

you

alchole

our

Cost….
”

Later,

Eddy

followed

up,

clarifying

his

understanding

Polanco’s

demands,

writing,

“
I

agree

with

all

your

requests

long

you

are

today's

meeting

and

council

meeting

full

support

our

project

talked

about
.”
13 Continuing

with

her

flagrant

efforts

make

look

Clark

was

part

the

deal,

while

confirming

her

fear

that
Zakar would use the Project to compete with her mortuary business, Polanco replied, adding a term: “ Eddie and Josie I forgot the no competition clause and I wanted to have the agreement in writing
”:

13 With his texts, Eddy reaffirmed—in writing—the oral contract reached at Starbucks. While an agreement produced

through

extortion

cannot

enforced

the

extorting

party

(Polanco),

such

contracts

are

not

automatically

void;

they

are

voidable

the

election

the

coerced

party

(Zakar

family).

See
,

Civ.

Code

§§
1567, 1569. Thus,
Polanco

and

McCarthy

could

not

enforce

their

demands,

but

the

Zakara

family—who

engaged

unlawful

conduct—could

potentially

assert

breach

contract.

See
,
Flatley
,

Id.

327–330.

12 At the February 4, 2025 Council meeting, Polanco attempted a brazen reversal—casting her own extortion scheme onto

Eddy

Brikho—through a calculated display of gaslighting: “ [A]fter many sleepless nights studying this project …

was

told

meet

with

the

developer

oppose

the

project.

were

offered

gas,

liquor

discounts,

sign,

traffic

light,

cetera,

cetera.

turned

the

offer

down

…

after

…

learning

about

the

project

….”

Page 19 of 74 ends

Clark v. City of National City, et al. Gov. Code § 910 Claim dated August 26, 2025 Page 19 of 73 Polanco ended her text with yet another attempt to implicate Clark in her own extortion: “ Can you

and

Josie

both

this

text

can

assured

this

will

done

please

before

our

meeting.
”

However,

Joey

joined

the

conversation,

adding

tone

transparency

that

may

have

sparked

Polanco’s

future

revolt.

Joey

made

the

mistake

telling

Polanco

that

his

family

was

not
going to violate any rules, writing, “ We will do our best to cooperate with an all City guidelines so that we can make sure we are always in compliance and accommodate your request. ” Meanwhile, LVMP continued to stall Javier’s burial. At 10:15 a.m. (December 2), Hamilton sent Clark an email with the subject line, “ FRONT OF AUTHORIZATION ” (All caps in original), and attached the Cremation Authorization that LVMP and Clark had executed seventeen days earlier, on November 15, 2024. Hamilton pressured Clark to obtain Lopez’s signature, writing, “ HI JOSIE,

NEED

HIM

SIGN

THE

FRONT

THE

AUTHORIZATION

TOO.

PUT

BOTH

SPOTS

NAME

ADDRESS

JUST

YOU

SIGNED

IT.

NEED

CREMATE

SOON
”

(all-caps

original).

Hamilton

said

nothing

about

his

failure

attach

the

front

page

when

emailed

Clark

November

18,

2024.

Clark was on her way to the airport, leaving for the East Coast to be with her daughter, when she saw

Hamilton’s

email.

She

was

already

feeling

overwhelmed

the

sudden

and

dramatic

change

Polanco’s

tone

and

treatment

toward

her

ever

since

November

18,

2024,

when

Polanco

confronted

Clark

about

the

Zakar

project.

Clark

called

Polanco

and

mentioned

Hamilton’s

demanding

Lopez’s

signature

documentation

that

was

not

needed

when

the

November

15 documents

were

executed.

Polanco

snapped,

“
We

need

what

need!

Scott

knows

what

doing

and

you

need

give

Scott

what

asking

for.
”

When

Clark

responded,

“
Okay,

thank

you,

please

let

know

when

can

lay

son

rest

with

sister
,”

Polanco

ended

the

call

saying,

“
Okay.

Bye
.”

11:44

a.m.,

realizing

that

Polanco

and

McCarthy

had

been

stringing

him

along

and

that

would

walking

into

ambush

the

City

Planning

few

hours

away,

Eddy
confronted them both, replying:
19

Page 20 of 74 ends

Clark v. City of National City, et al. Gov. Code § 910 Claim dated August 26, 2025 Page 20 of 73 Hi Mica And Luisa Are you saying your not gonna be there to speak in support of my

project.

was

under

the

impression

that

you

would

both

there

speak

support

project.

I'm

very

confused.

Please

let

know

what

your

intentions

are.

At 1:28 p.m., Polanco replied with more excuses, still trying to concoct evidence that Clark was an active participant in the quid pro quo scheme: I am very confused … don't know what all is being proposed … have not had time

…

will

the

meeting

and

your

conditional

support

but

will

asking

for

time

…

need

hear

the

concerns

all

our

families

and
neighbors … Josie can you please respond to this text and let me know that you agree with what Eddie just wrote us on what we agreed upon.

6. Polanco and McCarthy Ambush the Zakar Family (and Clark) The City Planning meeting commenced at 6:00 p.m. that evening, December 2, 2024, to discuss whether

recommend

the

Project’s

approval

the

City

Council,

with

the

last

opportunity

being

December

10,

2024,

the

Council

would

not

convene

again

until

January

21,

2025.

The

Commission

met

consider

recommendation

the

Planning

Staff

approve

the

Project,
which was detailed in a 26 page document entitled, “Planning Commission Staff Report” (“Staff Report”). Like every Commission meeting, the one held on December 2 corresponded to a document entitled “Planning Commission Meeting Complete Packet,” which anyone can access through the Commission’s web page. Polanco and McCarthy brought in five of their LVMP employees 14 to appear and voice “ public comment[s] in opposition of ” the Project. However, according to the Speaker’s Slips 15 (obtained by PRA Request 25-559) that they submitted prior to the Commission meeting, Polanco and McCarthy represented that their own comments would be “ neutral .” 16 In addition, other persons
who

would

soon

reveal

locked-step

alignment

with

Polanco’s

and

McCarthy’s

attorney-directed

scripts,

appeared

avoid

opposition,

such

Sandra

Scheller,

Doyle

and

Alisha

Morrison,

and

their

daughter

Ashley

Morrison.

16 On March 3, 2025, Polanco and McCarthy would appear at the first Commission meeting after December 2, demanding

changes

the

December

2 Minutes

regarding

their

positions

the

Project.

Despite

their

Speaker

Slips

—McCarthy crossed out “ In Opposition ” and marked “ Neutral ” with an “ x ,” and Polanco marked “ Neutral ” in both English

and

Spanish—they

each

misled

the

Commission

with

claims

that

they

had

strongly

opposed

the

Project.

the

following

Commission

meeting,

April

21,

2025,

Polanco

again

pressed

for

changes.

With

galling

hypocrisy,

Polanco

said,

“I’m not trying to blame anybody. I’m trying to attack the problem, and not the people .”

15 To make a public comment at a City meeting for an “ Item ” on the agenda, a person must submit a “Speaker Slip ”

and

check

box

indicating

whether

their

comment

that

Item

will

“
In

Favor
,”

“
In

Opposition
,”

“
Neutral
.”

14 See , Speaker Slips for: Teran, Hernandez, Magana, Marin, and Bermudez. 20 Page 21 of 74
Clark v. City of National City, et al. Gov. Code § 910 Claim dated August 26, 2025 Page 21 of 73 During their comments, neither Polanco nor McCarthy acknowledged their extortion attempt, repeatedly

confirmed

text

messages.

Eddy

did,

however,

telling

the

Planning

Committee:

I met with the owners of La Vista … I thought we came to a good agreement and they

had

some

concerns

and

did

everything

power

address

them.

even

went

above

and

beyond.

They

were

worried

about

their

visibility,

that

one

knows

where

the

funeral

home

is.

offered

put

monument

sign

property

showing

where

Vista

is.

explained

them

that

have

current

traffic

study,

and

explained

them

that

were

putting

current

traffic

light.

top

that,

they

needed

discount

fuel.

offered

that

them.

Whatever

they

wanted.

Whatever

they

wanted,

offered

them.

The Commission did not follow the “ Staff recommendation ” to “ Approve ” the Project. In a 4 to 2 vote,

the

Commission’s

recommendation

“
to

deny
”

would

accurately

reflected

the

Minutes,

later

prepared

and

posted

online.

The

Minutes

did

not,

however,

accurately

reflect

the

Commissioners’

reasoning

for

the

denial.

According

the

Minutes,

they

denied

“
the

project

due

staff

findings

public

safety,

air

pollution

from

the

gas

station,

and

public

nuisance
.”

(emphasis

added).

The

30-page

“
Staff

Report
”

did

not

include

“
finding

…

nuisance
.”

The

word

“
nuisance
”

only

appeared

twice,

page

“
According

the

Noise

and

Nuisance

Element

the

City’s

General

Plan
”

(staff

recommended

restrictions

the

car

wash

hours

operation),

and

page

16,

“
No

Nuisance
”

(emphasis

original).

The Commission’s purported “ finding ” that the Project constituted a “ nuisance ” would become a grossly

exaggerated

talking

point,

repeated

Polanco,

McCarthy,

their

attorneys,

and

their

supporters

the

weeks

come.

Eventually,

they

began

referring

“
the

nuisance

project
,”

were

established

legal

conclusion

rather

than

procedural

term

used

single

meeting.

Those

scripted

public

comments

followed

sham

lawsuit

Polanco

filed

January

24,

2025—discussed

detail

below—in

which

she

alleged

that

Clark

Morrison

had

been

improperly

influenced

the

Zakar

family

return

for

“
financial

favors
”

and

had

“
engaged

communications

with

National

City

Planning

staff

regarding

the

Project’s

approval
.”

As for the so-called “ findings ” of a nuisance, the City’s website hosts the full three-and-a-half-hour video of the December 2 meeting, and the record speaks for itself. The following seven-minute clip from the end of that meeting shows all that needs to be seen:
21 Page 22 of 74
Clark v. City of National City, et al. Gov. Code § 910 Claim dated August 26, 2025 Page 22 of 73 In short, thirteen minutes before the 3 ½ hour Commission meeting ended, a motion to continue was

seconded

permit

the

Zakar

family

consider

changes

the

Project

that

would

address

the

public’s

concerns.

With

the

motion

continue

seconds

from

passing,

Commissioner

Beryl

Forman
17 (“Forman”),

announced,

“
I

guess

I'm

concerned

with

the

word

continue
,”

moving

deny

the

Project

outright.

Before

the

motion

deny

had

been

seconded,

however,

deputy

city

attorney

interjected,

telling

the

Chair,

“
So,

making

motion

deny

the

project

will

have

based

findings.
”

The

attorney

turned

the

Planning

Division,

asking,

“
Staff,

did

you

have

any

findings

that

discussed

earlier?
”

The

Planning

Division’s

made

clear

that

the

answer

was

“No”—the

staff

had

made

such

findings
18 :

Um, as far as meeting with the applicant and redesigning or denying, uh, I think it would

helpful

little

more,

uh,

specific

about

what

your

impact

concerns

might

be.

You

know,

the

findings

for

denial

could

specific

over

noise,

traffic,

air

quality.

You

know,

you’re

talking

about

residents

over

gas

station,

that

air

quality

concern?

Are

looking

nuisance?

…

[T]here

are

several

findings

that

could

potentially

vetted

the

Commission.

(emphasis

added)
The Planning Division staff member clarified for the Commission that the Zakar family could “
appeal
”
19 to

the

City

Council

its

meeting

scheduled

for

December

10,

2024,

which

was

the

reason

the

Commission

felt

obliged

state

some

sort

“finding”

for

its

denial,

but

such

finding

was

made

prior

the

Commission’s

vote

deny.

anything,

the

staff

that

was

purportedly

influenced

the

Mayor

Clark

recommend

the

Project,

steered

the

Commission

toward

denial.

Regardless

their

bogus

charges,

Polanco

and

McCarthy

had

won

significant

battle,

although

the

Commission

would

not

confirm

the

denial

for

another

week.

19 Technically,

was

not

“
appeal
,”

the

Commission’s

“
denial
”

was

only

recommendation

the

Council.

18 This

black-and-white

(Staff

Report

and

transcript

meeting)

was

later

confirmed

the

Council

meeting

April

2025,

when

Martin

Reeder,

the

Asst.

Dir.

Community

Development,

said,

“
So

with

the

findings

for

this,

came

with

findings

for

approval.

didn't

actually

end

writing

any

findings

for

denial
.”

17 After her incoherent tirade on June 8, Commissioner Forman resigned having posed for TV cameras, handed documents

the

media

during

session, and echoed Team Aguirre’s many rants, e.g., saying she “ distrusted ” the Commission

because

its

Minutes

did

not

reflect

public

comments

(despite

verbatim

video

and

transcripts

the
City’s website). When asked if she wanted to “ make a motion to amend the minutes to reflect what you would like them

reflect
,”

Forman

replied,

“
I

don't

wanna

that

because

have

such

distrust.
”

Page 23 of 74 ends

Clark v. City of National City, et al. Gov. Code § 910 Claim dated August 26, 2025 Page 23 of 73 I. Polanco and McCarthy Press On v. Clark, Morrison, and the Zakar Family The next morning, December 3, 2024, at 8:01 a.m., Clark used the group text with Polanco, McCarthy, and Eddy, to refute Polanco’s attempts to drag her into the quid pro quo deal. 20 Although

had

angered

Polanco

when

she

said

something

similar,

Clark

repeated

that

she

could

not

get

involved

the

group

discussions

over

the

Project:

Hi Eddy and Mica … I facilitated [the November 25] meeting as a request from Mica.

City

Employee

and

project

that

going

through

the

process,

cannot

side

with

one

the

other.

This

situation

that

you

both

need

either

compromise

not.

wish

you

both

nothing

but

the

best.

Two hours later, at 10:05 a.m., Hamilton emailed Clark, subject line, “ affidavit ,” in which he addresses Lopez: “ Daniel please fill out this document I am providing and return it, as soon as possible.

Please

drop

local

notary

office

and

have

notarized

front

them.

You

will

sign
it, in their presence. ” A few hours later, at 3:18 p.m., Polanco sent an email to Clark’s Hispanic Chamber of Commerce address, subject line, “Fwd: Declaration for disposition of cremation…,” attaching

document

entitled,

“
Mica's

declaration

for

disposition

cremated.pdf
.”

the

November

15 cemetery

contracts

never

existed,

Polanco

wrote,

“
When

met

November

18th,

2024,

with

you

and

Scott,

was

clear

about

getting

all

the

signatures

from

your

nephew’s

son

(Daniel

Gary

Henry

Lopez),

protect

all

parties

(including

you

and

Vista

Memorial

Park

and

Mortuary)
.”

Polanco

ended

the

with

renewed

demand

for

notarized

release

agreement

before

moving

forward

with

Javier’s

burial:

“
We

have

not

yet

received

the

Notarized

Affidavit

…

Please

have

Daniel

Gary

Henry

Lopez

e-mail

the

Notarized

affidavit

enable

finalize

the

funeral

arrangements.
”

Polanco’s

attached

Hamilton’s

that

had

failed

include

the

Cremation

Form.

A few minutes later, at 3:25 p.m. (December 3), Polanco sent another email to Clark’s Chamber of Commerce address, forwarding Hamilton’s November 18 email (and his attachments, which still

did

not

include

the

form

was

demanding

Lopez

sign).

then,

two

different

LVMP

employees

had

contradicted

Hamilton’s

November

18 demand,

advising

Clark

that

only

single

document

was

required

and

making

mention

notarization.

reality,

Lopez

had

legal

right

disposition

and

was

never

required

sign

notarize

any

such

document.

eventually

did

only

because

Clark,

under

pressure

from

LVMP,

asked

him

comply.

Polanco’s

December

3 email,

therefore,

relied

earlier

demand

that

had

already

been

undermined

LVMP

itself.

Polanco,

underlined,

bolded,

enlarged-font

message

that

conveyed

her

fury,

wrote:

20 This was Clark’s first reply to any of Polanco’s group text messages, following her silence from November 26 through

December

2. 23 Page 24 of 74
Clark v. City of National City, et al. Gov. Code § 910 Claim dated August 26, 2025 Page 24 of 73

A few hours later, at 6:00 p.m., Polanco, McCarthy, their employees, and friends appeared at the City

Council

meeting

continue

opposing

the

Project—which,

that

point,

had

all

but

died.

Polanco’s

public

comments

made

clear

that

she

was

still

angry

Clark

for

not

informing

her

the

Project,

stating:

“
I

was

quite

upset

because

thought

was

friend

[the

Mayor’s]

and

friend

Josie’s.

But

was

blindsided

the

fact

that

neither

one

them

told

me
.”

Additional comments from Sandra Scheller echoed Polanco’s December 2 text regarding the “
competition

clause
”

that

she

wanted

the

“
agreement

writing
”

confirm

the

quid

pro

quo

extortion

attempt.

Recalling

Zakar’s

comments

the

Planning

Commission

the

night

before,

Scheller

stated:

And one of the things that scared me the most when we were listening to Robert Zakar

was

that

wanted

what

was

called

competition.

used

the

word

competition.

And

you

listen

that,

um,

yesterday's

hearing,

don't

think

National

City

about

competition

…

And,

and

what

I'd

say

Robert

Zakar,

you

want

competition,

pick

somebody

your

own

size,

after

Mike

Tyson.

But

please

don't

after

this

amazing

community.

That same evening, Mayor Morrison presided over the Council’s public censure of Councilmember

Rodriguez

for

misuse

public

funds,

including

campaign-related

“
turkey

giveaway
”

financed

with

taxpayer

money.

Humiliated

the

censure,

Rodriguez

appeared

eager

redirect

public

attention

toward

controversy

that

did

not

involve

him—or

turkeys.

Hearing

the

accusations

leveled

Morrison

and

Clark,

Rodriguez

sensed

opportunity

and

perhaps

political

alliance:

enemy-of-his-enemy

Mica

Polanco.

J. Polanco and McCarthy Press On v. Clark, Morrison, and the Zakar Family With Rodriguez now joining their cause, Polanco and McCarthy escalated their attacks—spinning

fictionalized

misconduct

discredit

the

City,

defame

Clark,

and

destabilize

Morrison—all

while

Polanco

quietly

eyed

the

Project

Property

for

herself.

Even

Clark

focused

Page 25 of 74 ends

Clark v. City of National City, et al. Gov. Code § 910 Claim dated August 26, 2025 Page 25 of 73 on the ongoing mishandling of Javier’s remains, Polanco shifted the fight to a new front: a sprawling,

unfocused

public

records

request

designed

set

sham

lawsuit.

1. Polanco’s Garbled PRA Request 24-679 (That Set Up a Sham PRA Lawsuit) On December 4, 2024, the morning after the last Council meeting, Polanco submitted a request for public records to the City (“Request 24-679”) pursuant to the California Public Records Act (Gov. Code, § 6250 et seq.) (“PRA”). Polanco made no effort to craft a reasonable request. Her list

people

and

entities

for

“
communications

between
”

included

“
all

National

City

officials,

all

San

Diego

County

officials,

and

anyone

representing

the

City

National

City

San

Diego

County,

Caltrans

Engineering

Department

….
”

She

did

not

narrow

her

request

subject

matter

timeframe.

Quite

literally,

Polanco’s

Request

24-679

sought

“
communications

between
”

thousands

unidentified

people

about

anything—and,

the

case

National

City,

dating

back

its

incorporation

1887.

Her

list

also

included

the

APCD,

Clark,

Morrison,

the

Brikhos,

and

Zakar:

On December 9, 2024, the City Clerk asked for clarification, emailing Polanco, “ Your request is overly broad [and] missing important information required to pull records such as a date range, who

the

communications

are

between,

subject

matter

applicable

etc.”

Later

that

afternoon,
Polanco replied that she had previously sent another list of names, presumably adding onto the list already contained in Request 24-679, but in neither email did Polanco provide the requested clarifications.

2. From Deceit to Strategy: Polanco Finds A Lawyer to Refine the Lie By the time Polanco provided the request clarifications for Request 24-679—which would become

the

basis

for

lawsuit

filed

six

weeks

later—she

and

McCarthy

had

already

retained

“
legendary
”
21 attorney,

Michael

Aguirre,

Aguirre

Severson,

LLP

(“Aguirre”),

who

had

21 Luisa McCarthy, City Council meeting, February 4, 2025. 25

Page 26 of 74 ends

Clark v. City of National City, et al. Gov. Code § 910 Claim dated August 26, 2025 Page 26 of 73 served as San Diego City Attorney from 2004 to 2008. Aguirre’s initial strategy—which evolved over

time—was

target

Clark

her

most

vulnerable

moment,

fabricate

claim

that

the

City

was

violating

the

Public

Records

Act

(“PRA”),

and

then

file

so-called

PRA

lawsuit,

proceeding

which

the

petitioner

asks

the

court

compel

public

agency—in

this

case,

the

City—to

produce

records

allegedly

withheld.
22 For

clarity

this

Claim,

that

case

will

referred

the

“First

Lawsuit,”

even

though,

this

point

the

timeline,

had

not

yet

been

filed.

Aguirre knew the First Lawsuit would give him the ability to take—and threaten to take—depositions

City

employees

(or

anyone

else,

for

that

matter),

issue

subpoenas,

and

shield

his

clients,

his

firm,

himself,

and

their

allies

(“Team

Aguirre”)

from

legal

liability

(e.g.,

defamation)

for

the

allegations

made

the

lawsuit,

regardless

their

truth.

importantly,

Aguirre

understood

that

the

media

could

freely

report

anything

filed

court—or

said

Council

meetings—under

the

protection

privilege.
23 As it turned out, however, reporters with integrity quickly recognized that Team Aguirre’s “
evidence
”

was

either

empty

affirmatively

contradicted

their

claims.

mid-February

2025,

the

tactics

Team

Aguirre

were

already

drawing

public

pushback.

What

had

begun

calculated

campaign

provocation

and

misinformation

was

starting

recognized

for

what

was.

did

not

take

long

for

Mayor

Morrison

confront

Team

Aguirre’s

campaign

directly.

the

February

18,

2025,

Council

meeting,

summed

Polanco

and

McCarthy’s

then-nascent

campaign:

“
[A]

couple

individuals

…

are

doing

their

best

just

try

cause

much

havoc

possible

…

making

all

kinds

crazy

claims

…

bunch

lies

…

without

shred

evidence
.”

The

following

two-minute

clip

sets

the

stage

for

what

comes

this

Claim.

Before Aguirre could file the First Lawsuit, however, he knew an enforceable PRA request had to

submitted

the

City.

The

ulterior

purpose

Polanco's

First

Lawsuit

would

have

nothing

with

any

failure

the

City’s

part

comply,

and

such

all

Aguirre

needed

was

plausible

allegation

coupled

with

confusing

narrative.

Polanco

had

already

submitted

Request

23 A fuller discussion of Team Aguirre’s strategy and misuse of the Civ. Code § 47

privilege

follows.

22 Gov. Code § 6258 states, “ any person may institute proceedings for injunctive or declaratory relief, or for a writ of

mandate,

enforce

the

right

inspect

receive

copy

public

records
.”

Page 27 of 74 ends

Clark v. City of National City, et al. Gov. Code § 910 Claim dated August 26, 2025 Page 27 of 73 24-679,
24 but its incoherence gutted any possible—much less plausible—argument that it provided

legitimate

basis

for

the

First

Lawsuit.

such,

December

2024,
25 at

5:02

p.m.,
Aguirre submitted an entirely new request for public records (“Request 24-688”) that contained the exact language that the yet-to-be-filed First Lawsuit would allege were “requested clarifications ” to Request 24-679 supposedly provided “ on December 10, 2024. ” 26 3. Aguirre Terrorizes a Grieving Mother and Her Husband On December 10, 2024, at 12:54 p.m., Aguirre placed a harassing call to Clark’s personal cell phone,

identifying

himself

counsel

for

Polanco

and

McCarthy.

the

time,

Clark

was

Virginia

supporting

her

daughter,

who

was

labor.

During

the

call,

Aguirre

warned

that

Clark

could

“
in

lot

trouble
,”

and

extended

the

same

threat

her

husband,

County

District

Attorney’s

Office

investigator.

offered

clarification

legal

basis

for

his

statements

and

ended

the

call

without

explanation.

In another clear attempt to manufacture evidence of wrongdoing by Clark, Polanco sent an email to

Clark’s

official

City

address

3:34

p.m.

EST

that

same

afternoon.

Having

already

confirmed

that

Aguirre

was

representing

her,

Polanco

proceeded

commit

calculated

and

unambiguous

act

deceit—apparently

designed

fabricate

paper

trail

suggesting

Clark

was

attempting

extort

her.

Polanco

wrote:

I am confirming the conversation you had earlier today with my attorney, Michael Aguirre

…,

that

will

unable

pay

any

sums

you

connection

with

the

funeral

and

cemetery

services

for

Javier

Francisco

Escarsega

II.

The phrasing and formality of the message—uncharacteristic of Polanco’s prior communications—strongly

suggest

was

drafted

someone

else,

likely

her

attorney.

Polanco’s

then

escalated

into

malicious

and

manipulative

attempt

pressure

Clark,

falsely

26 The same day Clark authorized Zakar to pick up Javier’s body

from

LVMP.

25 The same day Lopez returned the notarized “ Affidavit ”

LVMP.

24 On August 12, 2025, the City issued a statement, saying, “ Since January 2025, the City has received more than 27 individual

records

requests

from

Ms.

Micaela

Polanco

and

her

legal

team
,”

resulting

“
the

release

than

1,000

pages

responsive

materials.
”

That’s

understatement.

Team

Aguirre’s

PRA

binge

began

December

2024,

with

Request

No.

24-679.

alone

resulted

the

release

than

1,000

pages.

See
,
Screen Recording.
27

Page 28 of 74 ends

Clark v. City of National City, et al. Gov. Code § 910 Claim dated August 26, 2025 Page 28 of 73 implying that Javier’s burial was in jeopardy unless she arranged for his cremation by the end of the

day:

I propose that we proceed ahead with the cremation on Monday December 16, 2024

and

the

cremated

remains

Javier

Francisco

Escarsega

will

available

for

you

our

office

after

December

17,

2024.

Please

confirm

your

approval

return

today

December

10,

2024.

Terrified by the escalating pressure and deception, Clark called Robert Zakar for guidance. After she

explained

the

events

that

had

unfolded

since

the

execution

the

November

15 documents,
Zakar offered to take over the arrangements. Clark then executed an Authorization for Release, formally authorizing “ the release and removal of the remains to ” ECMI. As she had done on November

15,

2024,

when

entering

into

cemetery

contracts

with

LVMP,

Clark

confirmed

her

authority

control

the

disposition

Javier’s

remains,

affirming:

“
I

represent

that

the

legal

kin,

acting

authorized

agent

for

the

legal

kin.
”

4. With the Project’s File Closed, Aguirre Begins a New Script On December 10, 2024, Joey emailed the City’s Planning Department, formally withdrawing the Project

application.

“
We

will

place

hold

for

now,”

wrote,

“to

revise

the

project

and

come

back

meet

with

the

City

staff

see

how

can

find

project

that

will

work

for

that

intersection.
”

Before

public

comments

began,

Mayor

Morrison

announced:

“
The

Sweetwater

Road

gasoline

station

project—that

project

has

been

withdrawn.

They

have

withdrawn

the

application,

that

project

longer

exists

and

will

not

tonight's

agenda.
”

Polanco, McCarthy, and their friends had nonetheless shown up at the Council meeting to speak in

opposition

the

Project.

Polanco

chose

not

make

comment.

McCarthy

spoke,

but

not

about

the

Project—at

least

not

directly.

Instead,

she

took

personal

aim

Mayor

Morrison,

stating:

“
On

personal

note,

this

year

has

been

brutal

for

personally

…

I’ve

had

lot

loss,

and

I’ve

had

lot

betrayal.

I’m

now

mourning

friendship

that

once

had

with

Mayor

Ron

Morrison.
”

Likewise, McCarthy’s friend Alisha Morrison used her time to recite a parable about “ two wolves
”

fighting—one

good,

the

other

evil—and

concluded

that

the

wolf

who

wins

“the

one

you

feed.”

Another

McCarthy’s

friends,

Sandra

Scheller,

also

spoke,

describing

what

she

and

others

would

have

done

“
the

applicant—who

would’ve

had

his

property

…

boycotting,

and…

and

not

letting

him

thrive

business
.”

28 Page 29 of 74
Clark v. City of National City, et al. Gov. Code § 910 Claim dated August 26, 2025 Page 29 of 73 Councilmember Rodriguez, listening intently, recognized a new ally in McCarthy 27 and her
cohorts’

increasingly

vitriolic

campaign

against

Mayor

Morrison.

Rodriguez

observed

that,

for

some

reason,

McCarthy,

Polanco,

and

their

circle

were

targeting

common

enemy:

the

Mayor—the

same

figure

Rodriguez

blamed

for

his

own

public

censure

just

week

earlier.

Notably,

three

City

employees

soon

involved

McCarthy

and

Polanco’s

escalating

campaign

were

Delgado,

Castaneda,

and

Apalategui—three-quarters

“The

Clique.”

Although

the

City

Council

would

not

meet

again

until

January

21,

2025,

forces

were

already

aligning

and

battle

lines

were

being

drawn.

5. Unbridled Betrayal: Polanco’s Escalated Abuse of a Former Friend and Grieving Mother The following day, December 11, 2024, ECMI took possession of Javier’s body without LVMP voicing

any

concerns

about

Clark’s

right

disposition.

That

evening,

Clark

received

text

from
Zakar asking if the cremation could occur the following day, December 12. Clark responded, “ Yes, he’s finally going to rest! ” Clark’s moment of relief was short-lived. Questioning Polanco’s November

15 representations

that

the

County

would

not

allow

Javier’s

remains

buried

unless

first

cremated,

Clark

asked

Zakar,

“
Please

reassure

that

have

choice

but

cremate

him.
”

When

Zakar

expressed

confusion,

Clark

explained,

“
La

Vista

told

had

choice

because

the

body

condition

and

the

health

department

only

permitted

cremation
.”
Zakar’s reply felt like a punch to her gut:

Clark was standing near her daughter who was in labor when she received Zakar’s text message.

Clark

left

the

hospital

room

and

braced

for

what

she

was

about

hear.

When

Zakar

informed

Clark

that

she

was

not

required

cremate

Javier’s

body,

she

fell

her

knees

and

wept

the
hospital hallway. Around the same time of her call with Zaker, Clark received an email from Teran regarding a rendering for Javier’s headstone, asking for Cark’s “ signature approval to place the order. ” After Clark approved the rendering, at 3:34 p.m., Teran emailed her, promising to “ keep in touch for the rest of the process. ” The next day, December 12, 2024, Javier’s body was

cremated.

Over the next several days, Clark repeatedly asked for an update on the headstone order and plans

bury

Javier’s

remains

Yolanda’s

plot.

LVMP

ignored

Clark’s

inquiries,

except

for

27 According to Garcia, “ Molina stated that she believed that Rodriguez began communicating with McCarthy in December

when

they

worked

city

development

project

together
.”

Page 30 of 74 ends

Clark v. City of National City, et al. Gov. Code § 910 Claim dated August 26, 2025 Page 30 of 73 message from Teran, on December 17, 2024, promising to send Clark proof of the headstone rendering that she had previously approved. The following day, December 18, 2024, Clark received a flurry of emails and letter from LVMP “ cancelling ” Cemetery Contract No. 25773 (which LVMP had already breached) and Backdated Cemetery Contract No. 25784, “ per advice of

our

Counsel.
”

One

the

December

18 emails

Clark

demonstrated

LVMP’s

continuing

performance

Headstone

Contract

No.

25774,

with

Teran

writing,

“
Regarding

the

Contract

#25774,

Please

confirm

you

want

complete

the

marker

with

color

cameo
.”
Overwhelmed by shock, terror, and grief, the next day, December 19, 2024, Clark begged LVMP to

reconsider,

emailing

Hamilton,

“
I

would

move

forward

with

the

burial

services

for

son

previously

discussed,

scheduled

for

Sunday,

January

12,

2025.

would

also

confirm

that

his

ashes

will

interred

top

his

mother’s

grave,

was

agreed

upon
.”

Clark

also

replied

Teran

about

Headstone

Contract

No.

25774,

“
Do

you

have

estimated

date

how

long

will

take

receive

the

headstone

and

replace

with

the

existing

one?

look

forward

seeing

the

proof.
”

Neither

Hamilton

nor

Teran

replied.

December

23,

2024,

Clark

emailed
Hamilton again, writing: I wanted to reach out to you again before the holidays. Please let me know about the

status

the

burial

Son

planned

January

12th.

have

family

members

making

travel

arrangements

and

need

make

final

plans

for

the

services

that

can

interned

with

his

family

members

that

have

gone

before

him.

look

forward

hearing

from

you

soon

possible.

Please

acknowledge

receipt

this

email.

Hamilton did not respond until December 26, 2024, when he emailed Clark, “ We are in receipt of your email. We will get back to you by the end of the week, after we review everything with our legal counsel. ” Four days later, on December 30, 2024, LVMP emailed a letter addressed to “Ms. Flores-Clark” demanding even more documentation than it had begun demanding on November 18,

2024,

when

Polanco

confronted

Clark

over

her

refusal

violate

Policy

119.

When

Clark

returned

San

Diego

January

2025,

she

picked

the

urn

containing

Javier’s

remains

from

ECMI

and

brought

them

home.

Javier’s

urn

has

remained

there

ever

since.

K. January 16–24: PRA Setup, Secret Commissioner Dinner, and $2.25M Offer Polanco’s First Lawsuit was never about obtaining public records—it was a calculated legal maneuver

weaponize

litigation

privilege,

conceal

damaging

facts,

and

escalate

coordinated

campaign

against

Clark

and

the

City.

According

Polanco’s

First

Lawsuit,

“
on

January

16,

2025,

counsel

for

Petitioner

sent

the

following

[the

City]

…

aid

your

production

are

pinpointing

the

writings

are

asking

you

provide

within

14 days
”—by

January

30,

2025.

This

demand

laid

the

groundwork

for

sham

failure-to-comply

narrative,

one

that

could

weaponized

litigation

regardless

the

Project’s

already

“
dead
”

status.

Even

she

railed

30 Page 31 of 74
Clark v. City of National City, et al. Gov. Code § 910 Claim dated August 26, 2025 Page 31 of 73 against imagined improprieties, Polanco was quietly engaging in her own: on January 17, she privately

hosted

two

Planning

Commissioners

for

dinner,

concealing

from

them

that

the

Project

was

still

her

mind—an

invitation

neither

Commissioner

would

have

accepted

had

they

known

her

true

intentions.

The following day, January 18, 2025, through her realtor, Sharon Smith (“Smith”), Polanco 28 privately

offered

purchase

the

Project

property

from

the

Muraoka

family

for

$2,250,000

cash

(“
no

loan

contingency
”)

with

“
Close

Escrow

(COE)

…

60 Days

after

Acceptance,
”

meaning

that

soon

the

Muraoka

family

could

get

the

property

free

and

clear

encumbrance

such

the

long-term

lease

with

the

Zakar

family,

Polanco

would

purchase

for

$2.25

million

all-cash

transaction—i.e.,

immediate

payment

wire

certified

funds,

with

loan

contingency

(the

“$2.25M

Offer”).

Polanco and McCarthy would hide the $2.25M Offer from Clark, the City Council, the Planning Commission,

everyone

Clark’s

circle,

their

own

employees,

and

even

members

the

public

their

team,

they

continued

their

ruse

public

meetings

(and

camera).

Polanco’s

secret

would

not

revealed

until

nearly

five

months

later,

June

17,

2025,

under

the

truly

bizarre

circumstances

described

later

this

brief.

At the time, however, Polanco was still publicly portraying herself as a disinterested, benevolent member

the

public

who

cared

for

the

well-being

the

“citizens

National

City,”

particularly

their

lungs.

January

21,

2025,

the

Council’s

first

meeting

since

December

10,

2024,

Polanco

and

McCarthy

appeared

give

public

comments.

Polanco

spoke

about

National

City’s

air

pollution

problem—without

acknowledging

her

crematory’s

egregious

history

“
particulate

matter
”

pollution—while

McCarthy

offered

insincere

compliments

Councilmember

Yamane

before

pivoting

disparaging

remark

about

Clark’s

recent

promotion.

28 Polanco executed the “ Vacant Land Purchase Agreement and Joint Escrow Instructions ” (and “ Residential Units Purchase

Addendum
”)

“
Micaela

Polanco

Villalobos
”

behalf

“
Villalobos

Investment

Co.
”

Page 32 of 74 ends

Clark v. City of National City, et al. Gov. Code § 910 Claim dated August 26, 2025 Page 32 of 73 Their performances were notable for what they omitted: neither mentioned the Project, the upcoming

January

30 production

deadline

date

Aguirre

himself

set

his

January

16 demand),

nor

Polanco’s

secret

$2.25M

Offer

three

days

earlier.

They

also

failed

disclose

the

January

17 dinner

with

the

two

Planning

Commissioners—an

event

that,

judged

the

very

standard

Polanco

had

been

applying

others,

would

have

been

improper.

On January 24, 2025—six days before the City’s deadline to produce records—Aguirre filed a lawsuit

against

the

City,

ostensibly

compel

production

public

records

the
withdrawn Project (the “First Lawsuit”). Polanco’s complaint made no practical sense: the Project had been withdrawn, the Planning Commission had rejected it, and no appeal was pending.

The

urgency

for

public

records

was

manufactured.

Polanco

had

genuinely

wanted

those

records,

she

could

have

waited

four

days

until

the

January

30 deadline—or,

turned

out,

only

until

January

29,

2025,

when

the

City

produced

thousands
29 of

pages

response

Request

24-679.

Several

weeks

later,

City

Attorney

Barry

Schultz

addressed

the

Council

and

public

cut

through

the

confusion,

making

clear

that

the

First

Lawsuit

was

filed

early,

that

documents

were

produced

before

the

deadline,

and

that

despite

this,

Team

Aguirre

insists

the

City

did

not

produce

everything:

L. “Neighborhood United” Joins Team Aguirre
On January 27, 2025—just three days after Polanco filed her First Lawsuit and after her $2.25M Offer

the

Muraokas

was

rejected—McCarthy

and

Polanco’s

allies

were

already

laying

the

groundwork

for

parallel

campaign.

That

evening,

group

calling

itself

“
Neighborhood

United
”

met

the

Lincoln

Acres

Community

Center

unveil

“
big

dreams
”

for

the

.68-acre

parcel

Orange

Street

and

Sweetwater

Road.

The

project

site,

long

zoned

for

mixed-use

development,

had

recently

been

the

subject

the

Zakar

family’s

proposed

car

wash,

gas

station,

and

apartments.

But

with

that

plan

rejected

December,

McCarthy

and

her

neighbors

moved

quickly

commission

architect

draw

“
community-driven
”

alternative.

The

conceptual

29 The City’s website shows that 258 “ documents ” were produced on January 29, 2025, with more to follow. A video recorded

August

2025, demonstrates what anyone with a computer can verify: many of the 258 documents contained

multiple

pages—some

numbering

the

hundreds.

Now

imagine

the

City

had

been

forced

comply

with

Request

24-679

exactly

Polanco

drafted

December

when

her

request

literally

sought

“
communications
”

between

thousands

people

dating

back

138

years.

Page 33 of 74 ends

Clark v. City of National City, et al. Gov. Code § 910 Claim dated August 26, 2025 Page 33 of 73 plan was revealed on January 27 and reported in the press the following day. (Voice of San Diego, “ Big Dreams for Little Corner,” page 5).

The message was carefully tailored. McCarthy and her group disavowed liquor stores, gas stations, and vapes—echoing Polanco’s public remarks just six days earlier, on January 21, when she urged Council to start the new year with a “ healthier National City ” by approving “ fewer alcohol

stores,

fewer

gas

stations,

fewer

vape

stores,

fewer

pollution-generating

businesses,

and

less

fast

food
”

while

promoting

“
organic

food,

grocery

stores,

healthier

restaurants,

[and]

farm-to-table

options.
”

The

rhetorical

symmetry

was

striking:

what

Polanco

presented

from

the

dais

the

voice

“
our

families
”

was

soon

echoed

Neighborhood

United’s

architect-drawn

vision

for

the

very

parcel

she

herself

had

just

tried

buy.

By February, the messaging took on an even more coordinated form. A flyer circulated in Lincoln Acres announced a February 20 community meeting to discuss development of the disputed parcel. The flyer directed attendees to contact Alicia Morrison—identified in Sharon Smith’s

March

21 email

the

face

“
campaign
”

against

commercial

use.

Just

days

later,

Smith

(Polanco’s

realtor)

sent

the

Muraokas’

agents

referencing

the

flyer

and

portraying

Neighborhood

United

independent

opposition

group.

Yet

Smith

simultaneously

warned

that

the

“
campaign
”

continued,

“
the

value

[would]

start

dropping
.”

The

intent

was

clear:

frighten

the

Muraokas

into

reconsidering

Polanco’s

offer

staging

community-driven

resistance

movement

while

concealing

the

fact

that

the

movement’s

leaders

were

the

very

same

people

behind

Polanco’s

bid.

The sleight of hand only deepened as Aguirre entered the chorus. On May 6, he invoked Aristotle’s

theory

persuasion

justify

their

campaign,

announcing:

“
We

are

the

tools

persuasion

…

and

when

persuasion

doesn’t

work

California,

have

the

right

recall
.”

and

his

clients

had

already

learned

exploit

Civil

Code

47’s

litigation

privilege

shield

for

their

false

and

defamatory

statements,

strategically

using

the

Council

podium

their

bully

pulpit.

What

was

presented

civic

engagement

was

fact

coordinated

pressure—using

lawsuit

one

track

and

faux

community

group

another,

both

aimed

coercing

the

property

owners

into

cheaper

sale.

Aguirre’s appeal to Aristotle was itself a distortion. 30 Neighborhood United’s effort—masked as
“
community

engagement
”—was

not

persuasion

all,

but

intimidation

and

falsehood,

calculated

manufacture

leverage

and

conceal

Polanco’s

true

business

interests.

30 Aristotle described persuasion as resting on three pillars: ethos (credibility), pathos (emotional appeal), and logos (logic

grounded

truth).

cautioned

that

“
all

that

one

gains

falsehood

not

believed

when

speaks

the

truth.
”

Aguirre’s

invocation

Aristotle

justify

intimidation

tactics

and

recalls

was

distortion:

rather

than

persuading

truth,

Team

Aguirre

relied

falsehoods

and

manufactured

crises.

33 Page 34 of 74
Clark v. City of National City, et al. Gov. Code § 910 Claim dated August 26, 2025 Page 34 of 73

M. “The Louder He Talked of His Honor, the Faster We Counted Our Spoons” 31 On February 4, 2025, Aguirre sent the Council an “ Interim Report ,” declaring, “ [W]e find there to

compelling

reason

determine

how

and

why

the

National

City

Planning

Staff

came

recommend

Project

the

City’s

Planning

Commission

determined

was

materially

defective.
”

But

his

proclamation

only

raised

obvious

question:

What,

exactly,

was

“
compelling
”

about

system

checks

and

balances

that

had

done

exactly

what

was

designed

do?

What

public

interest

was

served

performing

post-mortem

project

already

dead

and

buried?

When

Aguirre

addressed

the

Council

that

same

evening,

struggled

articulate

anything

concrete:

And when you have a situation, uh, where we're seeking public records related to a specific

project,

you

have

always

balance:

does

the

interest

concealment

outweigh

the

interest

disclosure?

And

the

reason

that

we've

given

you

these

reports

about

this

particular

project

try

make

the

case

you

that

the

interest

public

disclosure,

clean,

100%

disclosure

about

how

particular

project

came

the

Planning

Commission

that

was

irregular

that

was

rejected

the

Planning

Commission

based

finding

that

was

nuisance.

As detailed in Section H, nothing in the Planning Commission’s December 2 record or in the 26-page

Staff

Report

contained

any

factual

finding—or

even

substantive

discussion—that

the

project

constituted

“
nuisance
.”

Nevertheless,

Polanco’s

First

Lawsuit

and

Aguirre’s

“
Interim

Report
”

eleven

days

later

presented

the

opposite

impression.

The

actual

record

from

December

2 shows

that

Commissioner

Forman—prompted

the

final

minutes

the

meeting—moved

deny

the

project,

citing

only

need

for

“
complete

redesign
”

(based

her

previously

stated

opposition

“
autocentric
”

designs)

her

stated

reason.

commissioner

articulated,

discussed,

adopted

any

“
nuisance
”

finding.

The

staff

report

contained

such

determination,

and

the

only

mention

the

word

“
nuisance
”

during

the

meeting

was

Planning

Division

staffer’s

off-hand

list

possible

findings

the

Commission

could

consider

wished—not

findings

the

Commission

ever

adopted.

National City’s own conditional use permits do not contain any definition of “ nuisance ” that could

support

the

sweeping

claims

Aguirre

wanted

make.

That

limitation

appears

have

sent

him

searching

elsewhere

for

stronger

language.

The

definition

ultimately

used

matches

almost

verbatim

boilerplate

from

out-of-jurisdiction

CUP

guidelines—material

could

only

have

found

deliberately

looking

beyond

National

City’s

records.

broad

Google

such

“definition

nuisance

conditional

use

permit

California”

“nuisance

injurious

31 The Conduct of Life : By Ralph Waldo Emerson

34 Page 35 of 74
Clark v. City of National City, et al. Gov. Code § 910 Claim dated August 26, 2025 Page 35 of 73 detrimental public interest CUP” quickly produces the Woodland and Santa Rosa planning documents

containing

his

chosen

phrasing.
32 This misrepresentation was central to Aguirre’s broader campaign of deceit. While the First Lawsuit

itself

was

styled

PRA

case,

the

fabricated

“
nuisance
”

finding

supplied

false

evidentiary

hook

for

his

and

Polanco’s

public

rhetoric.

importing

that

language

into

the

First

Lawsuit,

followed

the

February

4 meeting

(with

his

“
Interim

Report
”),

both

expressly

attributing

“
finding
”

“
nuisance
”

the

Planning

Commission,

Aguirre

was

not

“summarizing”

the

record—he

was

manufacturing

it.

Put

simply,

the

“nuisance”

claim

was

legally

unnecessary

PRA

action,

but

strategically

useful

fuel

their

smear

campaign

and

give

reporters

soundbite.

That same afternoon, Voice of San Diego published an article repeating allegations from the First Lawsuit that the Project “ may have been the subject of improper influence ” and that Clark had received

“
financial

favors
.”

Aguirre

himself

had

fed

the

paper

those

quotes,

using

the

platform

to
imply criminal conduct while cloaking his statements in the qualified privilege of Civil Code § 47(d)(1). The article also carried Polanco’s promise to provide “ details about allegations in the lawsuit ” at an upcoming Council meeting—signaling the prearranged nature of what was to come.

Polanco took the microphone next, revealing her lack of understanding of the planning process by

stating

she

had

spent

“
many

sleepless

nights

studying

this

project

and

trying

figure

out

how

got

far

the

Planning

Commission

without

anyone

putting

brake

it
.”

She

did

not

grasp

that

the

Planning

Commission

itself

was

the

brake—the

first

stop

process

designed

evaluate,

question,

and,

necessary,

halt

problematic

projects.

Polanco’s

comments

reflected

misunderstanding

that

process,

not

evidence

misconduct.

The

City’s

Assistant

Director

Community

Development

would

later

explain

that

the

Planning

Division’s

administrative

role

distinct

from

the

Commission’s

discretion

and

the

Council’s

ultimate

authority:

[O]ur job is to protect the public through the general plan and the policies and goals primarily,

but

we're

also

beholden

applicant

that

files

fee

and

wants

pursue

project.

They're

our

client.

the

use

that

they're

asking

for

permitted

the

code,

either

conditionally

otherwise,

have

take

application.

may

not

it.

may

think

it's

bad

idea.

[But]

have

present

much

neutral

way

possible

because

again,

we're

working

for

our

client.

Team Aguirre weaponized public comment—using the absolute privilege of Civil Code § 47(b) as

shield

from

accountability,

and

sword

deliver

accusations

they

could

not

substantiate

anywhere

else.

Over

time,

the

tactic

grew

sharper

and

brazen,

evolving

from

veiled

digs

open

insults

and

deliberate

insinuations

criminal

conduct.

What

they

framed

civic

oversight

32 Google search results.
35 Page 36 of 74
Clark v. City of National City, et al. Gov. Code § 910 Claim dated August 26, 2025 Page 36 of 73 was, in reality, a sustained smear campaign—calculated to inflict reputational harm on Clark and City

officials,

while

shielding

themselves

from

accountability

any

forum

where

their

claims

could

tested

evidence.

N. Escalation at the February 18, 2025 Council Meeting When Team Aguirre returned to City Hall on February 18, 2025, their script had shifted from procedural complaints to overt personal attacks. Aguirre opened by warmly referring to the Council as “ my dear friends ,” then slipped in a rhetorical device designed to imply guilt by contrast.

repeated

the

word

“
innocent
”

three

times

under

fifteen

seconds,

applying

only

the

rest

the

Council

while

omitting

Morrison

and

Clark.

civil

litigation,

one

found

“guilty”

“innocent”;

Aguirre’s

choice

language

was

calculated

plant

the

opposite

impression

the

public’s

mind.

This

insinuation

came

packaged

with

false

claim

that

the

City

had

hired

attorneys

represent

“
the

mayor

and

his

assistant
,”

when

fact

outside

counsel

had

been

retained

solely

represent

the

City—the

only

defendant

named

the

First

Lawsuit.

Polanco followed with a series of loaded rhetorical questions aimed at Clark, asking whether the City had “ investigated potential financial favors ” to her, reviewed “ all her cell phone records ” and

“
all

her

emails
,”

and

examined

“
the

mayor’s

phone

and

emails
”

for

“
any

financial

favors

all
”

connected

the

Project.

These

“questions”

echoed

the

same

“
financial

favors
”

theme

Aguirre

had

planted

the

Voice

San

Diego

article

two

weeks

earlier.

What

Polanco

did

not

disclose

was

that

her

own

November

2024

text

messages

Project

developer

Eddy

Brikho—already

detailed

earlier

this

Claim

part

her

extortion

campaign—showed

that

she

herself

had

offered

trade

support

for

the

Project

exchange

for

discounted

diesel

and

alcohol.

McCarthy closed the sequence with a calculated bait-and-switch: she began by warmly addressing “ everyone sitting in front of me ” and then, without missing a beat, referred to one of those

same

individuals—likely

City

Attorney

Barry

Schultz—as

“
lapdog
.”

Aguirre’s

“
dear

friend
”

remark

Morrison,

followed

minutes

later

his

pointed

“
not

innocent
”

contrast,

mirrored

the

same

rhetorical

maneuver:

false

veneer

collegiality

masking

targeted

insult.

By the close of the February 18 meeting, the shift in tone was complete. What had previously been

framed

dispute

over

public

records

now

took

personal

dimension.

Aguirre,

Polanco,

and

McCarthy’s

synchronized

rhetoric—layered

with

insinuation,

selective

omissions,

and

performative

civility

weapon—made

clear

the

campaign

was

longer

about

the

Project.

was

about

Clark

herself..

That

shift

focus

set

the

stage

for

what

came

the

sudden

and

explosive

introduction

sexual

harassment

allegation

February

27,

2025—an

accusation

that

would

leveraged

escalate

their

narrative

and

widen

their

coalition

critics.

36 Page 37 of 74

Page 38 of 74 ends

Page 39 of 74 ends

Page 40 of 74 ends

Page 41 of 74 ends

Page 42 of 74 ends

Page 43 of 74 ends

Page 44 of 74 ends

Page 45 of 74 ends

Clark v. City of National City, et al. Gov. Code § 910 Claim dated August 26, 2025 Page 45 of 73

4. Castaneda: the Puppetmaster In re Delgado v. Modesto (November 22, 2024) Just three months before her false allegations against Clark, Delgado accused someone else—a personal

acquaintence—of

sexual

harassment,

and

tried

but

failed

get

restraining

order.

with

her

claim

against

Clark,

Delgado

worked

coordination

with

Castaneda—from

the
initial 911 call until the case was rejected by the Court. The proceeding, Delgado v. Modesto (the “TRO”), bears substantial structural and factual similarities to the allegations Delgado later made against

Clark,

and

demonstrates

pattern

strategic

legal

manipulation

directed

Castaneda.

As part of the TRO package, Delgado executed and filed a declaration under penalty of perjury and

requested

temporary

restraining

order

against

Modesto

pursuant

Code

Civil

Procedure

527.6.

Delgado

alleged

that

Modesto

followed

her

vehicle

October

24,

2024,

and

had

previously

waited

for

her

the

City’s

MLK

Community

Center

parking

lot

three

separate

occasions.

According

Delgado,

once

told

her

was

“
falling

love
”

with

her

after

she

had

referred

him

City

job

opportunity.

Delgado

claimed

Modesto’s

conduct

caused

her

paranoia

and

distress

work.

Delgado

further

alleged

that

Modesto

engaged

patterned

stalking,

stating:

“
He

seems

have

pattern

waiting

Thursdays

between

2:00

and

4:00

pm.
”

This

allegation

was

made

effort

establish

the

statutory

requirement

“course

conduct”

under

CCP

527.6.

As with the later claim against Clark, the incident was not independently reported by Delgado but

was

engineered

and

managed

Castaneda,

who

was

present

the

vehicle

with

Delgado

during

the

alleged

encounter.

According

Delgado’s

declaration,

Castaneda

called

the

City’s

police

dispatch

(not

911);

Castaneda

exited

the

car

confront

Modesto;

Castaneda

told

him

not

speak

with

Delgado;

she

took

photo

Modesto’s

license

plate;

and

Castaneda

almost

certainly

attended

the

meeting

with

the

police

officer,

who

“
gave

[Delgado]

case

number”
:

Castaneda and Delgado were not the only Clique members involved in the plot against a landscaper.

Ron

Williams

sent

Delgado

text

message

that

she

labeled

“
Exhibit

3 .”

Williams

Page 46 of 74 ends

Clark v. City of National City, et al. Gov. Code § 910 Claim dated August 26, 2025 Page 46 of 73 attached a photo of Modesto’s truck and wrote, “ Isidro Modesto stalking you at MLK on 8/1/24 @

2:37pm
.”

The Court denied the TRO on its face, finding nothing actionable. The Court would not even issue

temporary

order

given

Delgado

hardly

needed

protection

(if

anything,

Modesto

did).

The

Court

rejected

Delgado

claims

with

stamp:

The Court’s sound rejection reflected a judicial determination that Delgado’s allegations failed to meet

the

minimum

threshold

for

temporary

protection.

Although

the

Court

offered

Delgado

opportunity

proceed

hearing

(without

temporary

restraining

order)where

both

parties

could

present

evidence—she

declined

and

abandoned

the

petition.

This pattern of filing a sworn declaration, relying on internal allies like Castaneda for support, and

then

withdrawing

the

claim

when

called

upon

present

actual

evidence

mirrored

the

tactics

used

both

Delgado

and

Castaneda

against

Clark.

Both

false

accusations,

three

months

apart,

were

scripted,

promoted,

and

executed

Castaneda

part

broader

pattern

retaliatory

maneuvering,

political

scheming,

habitual

self-soothing—some

sort

perverse

amusement.

The implications of Delgado and Castaneda’s accusations against Modesto cannot be overstated.

Delgado’s

sworn

claims

(submitted

under

penalty

perjury)

alleged

conduct

that,

believed,

would

have

constituted

criminal

stalking

under

Penal

Code

§ 646.9,
53 supporting

the

issuance

restraining

order

under

CCP

§ 527.6.
54 Castaneda

called

the

police,

implicated

Modesto

criminal

offense,

and

requested

Court

intervention

that,

granted,

would

have

required

Modesto

surrender

any

firearms,
55 barred

him

from

multiple

public

spaces,

and

subjected

him

immediate

arrest

upon

any

claimed

violation.
56 Restraining

order

filings

are

public

record;
57 the

57 Rules of Court, Rule 2.550(a)
;

restraining

order

filings

are

presumptively

public

unless

specifically

sealed.

56 Penal Code § 273.6(a)
:

“
Any

intentional

and

knowing

violation

protective

order...

misdemeanor
,”

punishable

arrest

without

warrant

under

Penal

Code

§ 836(c)(1).

55 Penal Code § 29825(a) (prohibiting firearm possession by persons subject to certain restraining orders) and CCP § 527.9

(court

order

relinquishment

firearms

upon

issuance

protective

order).

54 Code Civ. Proc. (“CCP”) § 527.6(b)(3)

defines

“
harassment
”

include

“
a

knowing

and

willful

course

conduct

directed

specific

person

that

seriously

alarms,

annoys,

harasses

the

person,

and

that

serves

legitimate

purpose
.”

53 Penal Code § 646.9(a): “ Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows or harasses another person and

who

makes

credible

threat...

guilty

the

crime

stalking.
”

Punishable

1 year

(misdemeanor)

5 years

(felony

with

prior

protective

order).

Page 47 of 74 ends

Clark v. City of National City, et al. Gov. Code § 910 Claim dated August 26, 2025 Page 47 of 73 reputational, professional, and legal consequences begin the moment the allegation is made, regardless

outcome.

Neither Delgado nor Castaneda gave thought to the consequences—consistent with their outrageous

treatment

Clark.

Castaneda’s

direction,

Delgado

targeted

man

whose

wife

she

knew,

whose

family

she

had

spent

time

with

trip

Guadalajara,

and

whom

she

had

once

recommended

for

City

position.

Despite

that

personal

history,

she

publicly

accused

him

stalking—an

allegation

that

could

have

destroyed

his

marriage,

reputation,

and

livelihood.

Their

indifference

the

potential

harm

Modesto

and

his

family

underscores

the

callous

recklessness

and

vindictiveness

that

marked

their

accusations

against

Clark.

That same willingness to fabricate and weaponize accusations surfaced again just months later in their

claims

against

Clark

arising

from

the

February

27 birthday

gathering.

But

before

those

allegations

could

formally

leveraged

inside

City

Hall,

the

Clique

and

their

allies

began

priming

the

public

narrative.

March

2025—the

first

Council

meeting

after

Mayor

Morrison’s

February

18 comments

dismissing

their

claims

manufactured—several

them

took

the

podium

chastise

him.

The

most

telling

remark

came

from

Polanco,

who

urged

the

Council

“
do

independent

investigation

and

put

the

mayor’s

partner

assistant

leave

until

all

the

unvarnished

truth

comes

out.
”

That

demand

was

off-the-cuff

suggestion;

mirrored

the

refrain

later

repeated

Clique

members

during

their

interviews

with

investigator

Mark

Garcia.

Two

weeks

later,

March

18,

Councilmember

Rodriguez

would

echo

the

same

theme—albeit

shifting

from

“
independent

investigation
”

“
ad

hoc
58 ”

investigation

the

Council

itself.

O. The Clique and Team Aguirre Seed Unfounded Rumors Into Clark’s Work-Life This section details how members of the Clique and Team Aguirre worked in concert to inject unfounded

allegations

into

both

Clark’s

professional

and

personal

life,

using

mix

staged

political

maneuvers

and

coordinated

public

commentary.

The

following

subsections

address,

turn:

the

March

18,

2025

political

stunt

Councilmember

Rodriguez

and

its

alignment

with

talking

points

captured

the

Garcia

investigative

report,

and

the

repetition

those

themes

public

remarks.

1. Rodriguez’s March 18 Stunt and Coordinated Narrative On March 18, 2025, Councilmember Jose Rodriguez used a City Council meeting to stage a political

stunt

that

served

legitimate

legislative

purpose.

Just

week

earlier,

had

slipped

last-minute

“
City

Council

Item

Request

Form
”

proposing

the

creation

“
ad

hoc

oversight

58 Ad hoc means “ for this purpose ” and describes a temporary, tailor-made action. Rodriguez’s so-called ad hoc investigation

was

genuine

inquiry—it

was

staged

proposal

meant

shot

down

public,

generating

headlines

rather

than

facts.

was

ridiculous

that

the

Council

did

not

even

vote

it.

47 Page 48 of 74
Clark v. City of National City, et al. Gov. Code § 910 Claim dated August 26, 2025 Page 48 of 73 committee ” to investigate vague allegations he repeatedly labeled as so-called “ perceived ” by the public.

The

move

was

procedurally

improper,

had

factual

basis,

and

directly

echoed

false

allegations

active

lawsuit

against

the

City,

aligning

both

Rodriguez

and

the

City

with

the

plaintiffs’

claims.

was

political

theater,

pure

and

simple:

the

request

received

second,

died

instantly

without

vote,

and

yet

succeeded

introducing

the

idea

“
investigation
59 ”

into

the

public

record.

Rodriguez

used

the

platform

deploy

loaded

terms

“alarming
”

and

vouch

for

the

lawsuit’s

plaintiffs

“
very

well-respected

community

members”
—rhetorical

moves

meant

lend

their

false

claims

credibility.

Councilmember Molina deemed Rodriguez’s stunt “ highly inappropriate ” and promptly filed her own motion to revise the City’s process to prevent further “ misuse ” of Council chambers as a political stage. Councilmember Yamane agreed, noting that “we do not have the authority ” to investigate

personnel

matters.

The

Director

confirmed,

“
the

only

person

that

has

the

authority

the

City

Manager
.”

Mayor

Morrison

was

even

blunt:

“
If

this

voted

tonight,

guarantee

you

there

will

interviews

with

stations

tomorrow.
”

also

dismantled

Rodriguez’s

false

claim—echoing

Team

Aguirre’s—that

the

December

10 Council

meeting

was

irregular,

calling

what

was:

“
Mr.

Rodriguez

made

the

claim

that

normally

takes

months

that.

He's

been

the

council

for

than

four

years.

knows

that's

lie
.”

City

Policy

No.

402

clear:

“
After

the

development

agreement

considered

the

Planning

Commission,

[it

shall

be]

placed

City

Council

agenda

have

considered

for

approval
.”

The

December

10 meeting

was

the

final

meeting

2024,

was

properly

placed

the

agenda

and

the

Commission’s

recommendation

approved.

Rodriguez’s most embarrassing moment, however, came under pointed questioning from Councilmember

Bush.

Attempting

defend

his

motion,

offered

incoherent

rationale:

“
It

not

normal…

have

respected

business

leaders

our

community,

which

have

been

your

friends

for

decades,

come

forward

and

press

lawsuit

against

the

city
.”

When

Bush

demanded

evidence,

Rodriguez

admitted

had

none.

tried

sidestep

the

“
details
,”

but

Bush

pinned

him

down

until

Rodriguez

could

longer

evade

the

truth—his

accusation

was

built

nothing

but

air:

59 Echoing Polanco’s exact demand two weeks earlier at the March 4 Council meeting. 48

Page 49 of 74 ends

Clark v. City of National City, et al. Gov. Code § 910 Claim dated August 26, 2025 Page 49 of 73

2. Rodriguez’s “Ad Hoc Investigation” — A Sham Disguised as Oversight Rodriguez’s proposal for an “ ad hoc investigation ” was never about uncovering the truth. He was posing

champion

transparency,

while

truth

was

the

last

thing

his

mind.

was

setting

barrel

wet

leaves

ablaze

make

your

neighbors

panic,

only

for

everyone

realize

there

was

fire

all—just

smoke.

That

was

Rodriguez’s

stunt:

empty

performance

designed

create

suspicion

where

none

existed.

This carnival-like sideshow is exactly why credible institutions separate investigations from the people

whose

conduct

question—because

otherwise

they

risk

becoming

part

the

cover-up
themselves. In 2018, after a series of high-profile workplace scandals, the California Legislature passed its Policy on Appropriate Workplace Conduct in June, and by February 2019, had established

truly

independent

Workplace

Conduct

Unit
60 staffed

with

trained

investigators.

In
October 2022, a racist comments scandal erupted in Los Angeles when a private 2021 meeting of councilmembers was leaked, prompting the California Attorney General to launch an investigation

into

the

city’s

redistricting

process—because

one

believed

the

council

could

credibly

investigate

itself.

And

New

York,

Governor

Cuomo’s

Moreland

Commission—touted

statewide

anti-corruption

effort—was

shut

down

March

2014,

less

than

year

after

its
July 2013 launch, just as it began uncovering politically damaging information. It was a textbook example of how insiders will end so-called independent probes once they threaten the powerful.

During the Sunroad scandal in 2006–2007, City Hall first relied on an insider-controlled review—promptly dismissed by local outlets as ‘the fox guarding the henhouse.’ Meanwhile, Michael

Aguirre

was

leading

his

own

parade

self-promotion,

holding

press

conferences

with
the flair of a carnival barker. A judge eventually barred him from prosecuting a related criminal case on ethical grounds, citing his inability to separate civil and criminal roles.

Rodriguez understood all of this. If a truly neutral investigator had been engaged on March 18, that

person

would

have

pulled

the

thread

the

very

coordination

and

political

theater

Rodriguez

and

Team

Aguirre

were

staging,

and

might

well

have

flagged

Rodriguez’s

“
ad

hoc
”

motion

itself

exercise

narrative

manipulation

rather

than

oversight.

chose

the

opposite:

procedurally

improper

motion

that

died

for

lack

second
61 —giving

him

the

performance

“calling

for

investigation”

and

the

talking

point

that

others

“shut

down,”

without

any

the

risk

that

comes

with

real,

independent

probe.

The

rest

the

Council

gave

Rodriguez’s

stunt

the

respect

deserved:

“died

for

the

lack

second”

meaning

that

all

that

time

and

energy

was

spent

for

motion

that

never

moved.

Whether

Rodriguez’s

political

career

will

enhanced

61 A

motion

“dies

for

lack

second”

when

second

member

even

agrees

discuss

it.

Seconds

are

almost

always

given

courtesy,

even

doomed

motions.

Failing

get

one

rare,

signaling

the

proposal

was

absurd.

60 Workplace Conduct Unit, 915 L St., Ste. 1260, Sacramento, CA 95814; 877.231.5956 49 Page 50 of 74
Clark v. City of National City, et al. Gov. Code § 910 Claim dated August 26, 2025 Page 50 of 73 by the Aguirre-like theater will remain unknown. However, what is clear is that any legitimate legislator

would

never

allow

this

happen,

nor

want

this

kind

video

his

resume:

The contrast with Garcia’s later “investigation” could not be starker—or more telling. Garcia’s work

exemplified

the

kind

controlled,

selective

inquiry

Rodriguez’s

stunt

implicitly

favored:

ignoring

facts

where

they

mattered,

exaggerating

where

helped,

and

staying

silent

when

the

record

cut

against

the

preferred

storyline.

That

the

only

sort

“investigation”

Rodriguez

would

have

tolerated—but

even

that

was

too

much

risk

for

March

18,

because

the

point

that

night

was

not

investigate.

The

point

was

plant

suspicion,

cast

doubt

City

leadership,

and

generate

cynicism

for

personal

gain

the

coming

mayoral

race.

The

City

paid

the

price

trust.

3. The Clique’s Coordinated Statements to Garcia About Clark Being Placed on Leave In assessing whether the public comments and councilmember statements on March 18, 2025 were

independent

reactions

the

product

coordinated

messaging,

both

the

Garcia

investigative

report

and

the

meeting

transcript

reveal

notable

thematic

and

linguistic

overlap.

Witnesses

interviewed

Garcia

the

weeks

after

the

meeting

used

identical

near-identical

language

heard

public

remarks,

especially

around

the

issue

placing

Clark

administrative

leave.

Several witnesses in Garcia’s report raised the idea of Clark being placed on administrative leave.

These

comments

were

framed

common-sense

management

actions

light

the

accusations

and

investigation,

with

language

suggesting

urgency

and

inevitability.

For

example,

according

the

Garcia

Report,

Castaneda

“
believes

that

Clark

should

have

been

placed

admin

leave

immediately,

that

has

been

the

case

with

others

who

have

committed,

her

opinion,

far

less

serious

infractions
.”

Her

fellow

Clique

member,

Williams

mentioned

other

City

employees

“
who

were

placed

admin

leave

immediately

for

less

serious

infractions

…

and

felt

that

anyone

should

have

been

put

admin

leave,

should

have

been

Flores

Clark
.”

According

Garcia,

“
Apalategui

was

concerned

because

cases

that

only

involved

verbal

accusations,

not

physical

ones,

resulted

employees

being

placed

leave

immediately
.”

Showing

the

extent

which

the

unfounded

rumors

had

spread

throughout

Clark’s

workplace,

according

Yamane,

who

held

“
open

house
”

March

25,

2025,

reported,

“
The

employees

Page 51 of 74 ends

Clark v. City of National City, et al. Gov. Code § 910 Claim dated August 26, 2025 Page 51 of 73 were concerned that special treatment was being shown to Flores Clark since, in a similar situation

the

past,

the

employee

was

put

leave

right

away
.”

4. March 2025 Meeting Comments About Leave (Rodriguez and Polanco) At the March 18 council meeting, similar language emerged. Rodriguez emphasized perceived double

standards,

stating,

“if

these

accusations

were

made

for

any

other

assistant

her

office,

the

response

would

different.”

Rodriguez

was

repeating

teammate’s

March

4 Council

comment,

when

Polanco

said,

“
Put

the

Mayor’s

partner

assistant

leave

until

all

the

unvarnished

truth

comes

out.
”

While

not

using

the

term

“
leave
”

explicitly,

his

framing

mirrored

the

Garcia

report’s

witness

statements

that

Clark

should

not

remain

her

position

during

the

investigation.

Other

speakers,

such

Polanco,

linked

Clark’s

role

broader

disruption,

referring

“havoc”

caused

and

insisting

accountability—language

that

supports

the

same

implication:

that

leadership

action

(including

leave)

was

necessary.

P. Team Aguirre’s In-Sync Pro-Labor Messaging to Rope In the Clique On March 18, several Team Aguirre speakers synchronized their remarks to appeal directly to the union-aligned

(MEA)

employees

the

chamber—particularly

Apalategui,

Castaneda,

and

Delgado—mirroring

their

talking

points

workplace

and

wage

issues

despite

having

shown

little

prior

interest

such

matters.

For

example,

Aguirre

said,

“If

you

hire

people

for

unnecessary

work

and

pay

them

hundreds

dollars

hour,

you've

taken

that

money

away

from

the

pockets

your

loyal

employees.

Immediately

following

public

comments

Castaneda
62 and

Delgado,
63 McCarthy

shared

her

new-found

concern

for

union

workers:

“
I

feel

that

money

spent

frivolous

outside

counsel

should

spent

the

hardworking

people

that

have

your

back,”

while

Polanco

stated

that

“this

money

wasted…

that

could

have

gone

the

labor

union

workers…

retirement,

pension,

those

things

that

are

important

for

the

labor

union.”

Although MEA President Apalategui did not speak during public comment at the March 18 meeting,

she

attended

alongside

Castaneda

and

Delgado—and

spoke

directly

with

McCarthy

that

evening.

March

18 was

also

the

closed

session

which

Bush

first

discussed

Delgado’s

accusations

against

Clark,

making

the

latest

possible

date

Rodriguez

could

claim

have

learned

them.

But

Apalategui

had

known

about

Castaneda’s

fabricated

allegations

almost

immediately,

learning

them

February

27—within

minutes

their

invention.

The

Garcia

Report

confirmed

the

March

18 interaction

between

Apalategui

and

McCarthy,

noting

that

“She

did

previously

meet

McCarthy
64 at

meeting

involving

many

different

unions

and

McCarthy

let

64 Despite

this

meeting

with

McCarthy,

Garcia

also

wrote,

“
Apalategui

denied

knowing

McCarthy.”

63 Just

before

McCarthy’s

comment,

Delgado

commented,

“
Times

are

tough,

but

hope

that

you

value

…

those

that

are

boots

the

ground

and

want

continue

serving

the

community

National

City
.”

62 Castaneda told the Council, “ [Y]our MEA employees are still working hard out there—through all the weather conditions

and

regardless

the

chaos

and

the

low

wages.
”

51 Page 52 of 74
Clark v. City of National City, et al. Gov. Code § 910 Claim dated August 26, 2025 Page 52 of 73 Apalategui know that she was very supportive of the employees and was supportive of their negotiations

for

stronger

contract.”

This

sequence

shows

that

both

women

had

early

access

information

about

the

allegations,

well

before

any

details

were

made

public.

Q. March 18 Leak Drives Smear into Public Arena That staged display of pro-labor solidarity was not the end of March 18—it was only the opening act.

the

hours

that

followed,

the

same

network

pivoted

from

orchestrated

public

messaging

covert

sabotage.

Their

target

shifted

from

shaping

perception

inside

the

council

chamber

exploiting

confidential

proceedings

the

closed

session

itself.

night’s

end,

allegations

shared

that

session

were

McCarthy’s

hands,

ready

repackaged

for

maximum

public

damage

and

deployed

public

forum

weeks

later.

The

transition

from

coordinated

speeches

back-channel

leaks

underscored

the

dual

nature

the

campaign:

one

arm

was

designed

win

public

sympathy,

the

other

weaponize

privileged

information.

The Garcia Report shows that the words McCarthy used on April 18 were identical to the language

Delgado’s

complaint,

match

that

could

only

have

come

from

someone

with

direct

access

that

document.

While

Apalategui

denied

knowing

how

McCarthy

obtained

the

information,

she

had

been

involved

from

the

outset

and

was

present

for

both

Delgado’s

and

Castaneda’s

interviews.

Her

role,

combined

with

the

matching

language,

raised

serious

questions

about

whether

she,

Rodriguez,

another

insider

leaked

the

details

from

the

closed

session,

and

about

how

quickly

those

details

were

weaponized.

Councilmember Bush would later confirm just how directly this information traveled from the closed

session

into

McCarthy’s

public

remarks.

April

22,

Bush

recounted

that

during

the

April

18 meeting,

McCarthy

repeated

the

very

details

had

shared

the

March

18 closed

session:

that

Delgado

alleged

Clark

touched

her

employee

birthday

lunch

February

27 and

made

comment

about

her

body.

Bush’s

statement

made

clear

that

the

leak

occurred

within

hours

the

meeting

and

that

the

information

was

not

vague

gossip,

but

precise,

verbatim

details

from

confidential

discussion.

The

breach

was

immediate,

deliberate,

and

intended

inflict

maximum

reputational

harm.

The leak was not a harmless breach of protocol—it was a direct act of workplace harm. By transmitting

confidential

and

false

allegations

into

the

public

sphere,

amplified

the

harassment

Clark

was

already

enduring

and

ensured

those

rumors

would

circulate

beyond

City

Hall.

Under

the

Fair

Employment

and

Housing

Act

(“FEHA”),

the

City

had

duty

take

“
all

reasonable

steps
”
65 to stop this kind of discrimination and harassment. For purposes of liability, Rodriguez, Castaneda,

Delgado,

Apalategui,

and

Williams

all

met

the

statutory

definition

“
supervisors
,”

making

the

City

strictly

liable

for

their

conduct.

The

City

also

bore

independent

liability

for

65 Gov. Code § 12926(j)(1)
52 Page 53 of 74
Clark v. City of National City, et al. Gov. Code § 910 Claim dated August 26, 2025 Page 53 of 73 failing to prevent the harassment once on notice. Instead of intervening to protect Clark, the City—through

another

supervisor—took

action

that

compounded

the

harm.

On March 20, 2025—just two days after the closed-session leak—HR Director Flores-Hernandez served

Clark

with

notice

fact-finding

investigate

“
complaints

may

[sic]

staff

against

you

concerning

potential

violations

the

City’s

rules

and

regulations

against

harassment
.”

This

notice

came

despite

the

availability

surveillance

footage

that

would

have

shown

the

allegation

baseless.

Had

Flores-Hernandez

reviewed

the

footage—or

acknowledged

doing

so—she

would

have

known

there

was

legitimate

basis

proceed.

moving

forward

regardless,

the

City

crossed

line:

Clark’s

harassment

was

longer

merely

tolerated;

was

institutionally

endorsed.

The escalation did not stop there. On April 1, 2025, the campaign against Clark spilled even further

into

the

public

arena.

That

evening,

during

City

Council

meeting,

Polanco

accused

Clark—still

mourning

the

sudden

death

her

nephew,

Javier—of

soliciting

$7,000

kickback.

“
The

mayor's

assistant

asked

along

with

the

scheme

giving

her

$7,000…

don't

appreciate

that
,”

Polanco

told

the

Council.

She

offered

evidence

for

the

claim,

and

any

attempt

justify

would

only

have

underscored

its

implausibility.

The

accusation

was

part

larger

pattern

calculated

public

smears,

designed

undermine

Clark’s

credibility

while

masking

the

motives

those

spreading

them.

At its core, Polanco’s statement was a recycled and distorted narrative: that on November 18, 2024,

when

Javier’s

employer

offered

cover

his

funeral

expenses,

was

Clark—not

Polanco—who

sought

profit

pressuring

Polanco

rewrite

cemetery

contracts,

backdate

them,

and

double

the

fees.

This

claim

was

not

only

absurd

but

cruelly

timed,

weaponizing

Clark’s

personal

tragedy

publicly

damage

her

reputation

and

shift

scrutiny

away

from

the

CFB.

The

attack

was

personal

was

political,

exploiting

grief

for

strategic

gain.

After months of silence, Clark finally broke down. At the podium, she held up her phone: “This phone

right

here,

this

son.

He's

not

nephew.

He's

son.

And

who

knows

better

than

that?

They

do.

They've

been

friends,

best

friends,

family

for

over

two

decades.

They

know

history.”

She

explained

that

her

sister

had

died

suicide

while

fleeing

abusive

relationship,

and

she

had

raised

Javier

her

own

son

ever

since.

She

accused

Polanco

and

McCarthy

exploiting

their

intimate

knowledge

her

life

and

grief

punish

her:

“They

held

son's

body

for

almost

month...

only

for

them

tell

they're

still

not

gonna

allow

bury

son

with

his

birth

mother,

with

sister.”

Her

raw

pain,

captured

video

archived

the

City’s

website,

laid

bare

the

human

cost

the

smear

campaign:

53 Page 54 of 74
Clark v. City of National City, et al. Gov. Code § 910 Claim dated August 26, 2025 Page 54 of 73

What began as hostility soon evolved into something far more vicious—undeterred by Clark’s grief,

truth,

decency.

Team

Aguirre

just

doubled

down,

recycling

the

same

cruel

narratives

with

rehearsed

precision.

Seeing

Clark’s

anguish

had

only

strengthened

their

resolve.

R. April 15, 2025: McCarthy Escalates with Greater Ferocity At the very next Council meeting, McCarthy escalated her attacks to a new level of intensity. She resurrected

allegations

Clark

had

already

publicly

refuted

April

making

clear

the

repetition

was

neither

accidental

nor

rooted

misunderstanding—it

was

intentional,

malicious,

and

designed

reopen

the

wound.

She

again

suggested

Clark

had

tried

profit

from

her

own

son’s

death,

echoing

almost

word-for-word

Polanco’s

outrageous

claim

from

two

weeks

earlier:

“
[N]ot

only

did

she

ask

for

free

funeral

and

cemetery

service,

but

she

also

asked

rewrite

the

contract

because

she

found

out

that

the

employer

her

nephew—not

her

son—was

going

pay

for

the

services.
”

reintroducing

the

accusation

after

Clark’s

emotional

rebuttal,

McCarthy

signaled

that

the

cruelty

was

part

strategy,

not

lapse

judgment.

McCarthy went beyond merely repeating the claim—she sought to bolster it with theatrics.

Waiving

document,

she

taunted

Clark:

“
Here

you

go.

Let

there

doubt.

And

our

attorney

has

far

paperwork
.”

The

gesture

was

calculated

project

confidence

and

legitimacy,

though

the

mere

existence

paper

proved

the

truth

her

words.

She

followed

accusing

Clark

attempting

falsify

Javier’s

death

certificate—a

charge

flatly

contradicted

the

birth

certificate

itself.

The

persistence

these

disproven

claims

underscored

the

deliberate

nature

the

smear.

The

aim

was

not

persuade,

but

saturate

the

public

record

with

the

lie

until

felt

impossible

erase.

At the same time, McCarthy worked to shield a political ally. She pivoted from attacking Clark’s character

defending

Rodriguez,

gaslighting

the

public

about

his

“turkey

giveaways”

and

framing

them

evidence

corruption

tied

the

Mayor:

“
The

Brikhos

your

friends

have

sent

have

spent

thousands

dollars

frozen

turkeys

and

hams

your

behest

...

are

told

you

are

getting

Brico

discounts.
”

These

were

not

vague

insinuations—they

were

scripted

attacks

meant

confuse

the

public,

muddy

the

narrative,

and

shift

attention

away

from

the

misconduct

McCarthy

and

her

allies

were

working

conceal.

Page 55 of 74 ends

Clark v. City of National City, et al. Gov. Code § 910 Claim dated August 26, 2025 Page 55 of 73 McCarthy’s April 15 performance was more than an isolated act of malice. It was a continuation of

the

March

18–April

1 pattern:

calculated

blend

personal

attack,

public

spectacle,

and

political

utility.

recycling

disproven

allegations

and

weaving

them

into

new,

unrelated

claims,

she

and

her

allies

kept

the

pressure

Clark

while

creating

steady

stream

controversy

for

political

exploitation.

was

the

clearest

signal

yet

that

the

campaign

against

Clark

was

not

spontaneous

reaction

events—it

was

organized

operation

with

staying

power.

S. April 18: Leak Weaponized and Garcia Looks Away Three days later, on April 18, 2025, the smear campaign shifted into its most aggressive phase.

That

day’s

City

Council

meeting

became

the

stage

for

direct

breach

closed-session

confidentiality—transforming

private

deliberations

from

March

18 into

public

weapon.

full

view

the

chamber,

the

same

network

that

had

synchronized

its

messaging

month

earlier

deployed

those

secrets

for

maximum

damage,

and

investigator

Mark

Garcia’s

later

handling

the

episode

revealed

just

how

determined

was

look

the

other

way.

The full extent of what transpired behind closed doors on March 18 would not be revealed until April 22, 2025, when Councilmember Bush publicly gave a detailed account of the April 18 breach:

At the Friday special meeting [on April 18] Luisa McCarthy publicly shared details

the

complaint

the

sexual

harassment

complaint

made

Elyana

Delgado

against

Josie

Flores-Clark.

The

details

shared

included

details

shared

…

during

the

March

18 special

closed
66 session

meeting.

Specifically,

described

the

facts

about

the

case

understood

(Josie

touched

Elyana

employee

birthday

lunch

2/27

and

made

comment

about

her

body).

The Garcia Report confirms that the words McCarthy used on April 18 were identical to language

Delgado’s

formal

complaint,

meaning

that

someone

with

access

that

confidential

document

had

provided

her.

While

Apalategui

denied

knowing

how

McCarthy

obtained

the

information,

she

had

been

involved

the

matter

from

the

outset

and

was

present

for

both

Delgado’s

and

Castaneda’s

interviews.

Her

role,

combined

with

the

matching

language,

raised

serious

questions

about

whether

she,

Rodriguez,

another

insider

had

leaked

the

details

from

the

closed

session.

T. Rodriguez Joins Team Aguirre’s April 18 Offensive The coordinated smear campaign peaked on April 18, 2025, during a City Council meeting where

Rodriguez

chose

not

take

his

seat

the

dais.

Instead,

crossed

the

line—literally

and

politically—by

joining

Team

Aguirre

“
member

the

public
,”

seated

shoulder

66 “A person may not disclose confidential information that has been acquired by being present in a closed session …

person

not

entitled

receive

it,

unless

the

legislative

body

authorizes

disclosure.”
Gov. Code § 54963(a).
55 Page 56 of 74
Clark v. City of National City, et al. Gov. Code § 910 Claim dated August 26, 2025 Page 56 of 73 with his allies: Polanco, McCarthy, Aguirre, Severson, Natalie Vilas Boas, Teran, Ashley Morrison,

Alisha

Morrison,

Doyle

Morrison,

Scheller,

and

Frank

Rivera.
67 The

alignment

was

not

subtle;

was

choreographed

and

unmistakable,

best

illustrated

still

images

now

preserved

the

City’s

public

archive:

April 18 was the moment Team Aguirre had been waiting for—chomping at the bit for the opportunity

leak

the

closed

session

information

they

had

been

holding

onto

for

over

month.

McCarthy

took

the

oar

and

steered

the

attack,

addressing

Mayor

Morrison

directly

with

question

that

unmistakably

breached

that

confidentiality:

“
Was

Ben

Martinez

trying

hold

your

assistant,

Josie

Flores

Clark,

accountable

…to

place

Josie

administrative

leave

investigate

her

for

slapping

the

buttocks

another

city

employee

here
?”

(emphasis

added).

Rodriguez was no mere bystander when McCarthy willfully shared Castaneda’s and Delgado’s fabricated

allegation

with

the

public;

that

point,

had

fully

aligned

himself

with

the

smear

campaign—even

tried

his

outrage

having

work

Friday.

his

April

22 email,

which

suggested

Rodriguez

had

likely

leaked

the

March

18 closed

session

information

McCarthy,

Councilmember

Bush

also

disclosed

Rodriguez’s

private

threat

Apalategui:

“
[Rodriguez]

said

that

she

doesn't

publicly

support

Brian,

she

and/or

MEA

can

forget

asking

him

for

any

help

support

'when

becomes

Mayor.
’”

During the same meeting, a member of the public with no clear affiliation to either side called Rodriguez

out

for

abandoning

all

pretense

neutrality—describing

how

the

sulking

67 Playing the role of Team Aguirre’s planning expert, Rivera’s involvement is remarkable only in its ambiguity—his actual

contribution

remains

seen.

Page 57 of 74 ends

Clark v. City of National City, et al. Gov. Code § 910 Claim dated August 26, 2025 Page 57 of 73 councilmember, no longer at the dais, deliberately fomented vitriol from the back of the room while

Council

was

session:

“
Here

have

Rodriguez

talking

...

he's

part

the

problem,

he's

creating

this

controversy

here.

He's

the

back,

stirring

people

up.
”

that

same

meeting,

Planning

Commissioner

confirmed

that

Rodriguez

planned

run

against

Morrison

the

City’s

mayoral

election.
68 Rodriguez also delivered two public comments that mirrored Team Aguirre’s talking points. In the

first,

chastised

the

Mayor

for

“
making

backroom

deals,

trying

silence

the

public…

[y]ou

all

should

embarrassed

and

ashamed
.”

the

second,

escalated

full-blown

hyperbole:

You're really hijacking our city… Ron will go to every length to cover his assistant.

There

are

multiple

investigations,

open

lawsuit

for

not

complying

with

Public

Records

Act

requests…

operating

secrets,

operating

darkness…

complicit

this

hijacking

the

city...

Please

stop

doing

that!

the

decorum…

Can

have

ten

seconds

back?

U. Escalation of the Campaign: April 18 – June 17, 2025 Following the April 18 Council meeting leak, Team Aguirre accelerated its coordinated efforts on

multiple

fronts—through

lawsuits,

public

comment

theatrics,

investigative

manipulation,

and

even

the

beginnings

recall

activity.

this

point,

any

sense

decency

had

long

since

been

abandoned,

and

over

the

two

months

their

boorishness

became

almost

routine—normalized

part

the

public

discourse.

These

efforts

did

not

unfold

sequentially,

but

overlapping

bursts

litigation,

leaks,

and

public

pressure.

The

following

sub-sections

trace

those

parallel

developments.

1. Clark’s Formal Complaint to the City Regarding the Leak (April 21, 2025) On April 21, 2025, Clark engaged in protected activity when she filed a “Formal Complaint” with the City, alleging, “ I have reason to believe that Councilmember Jose Rodriguez improperly disclosed

this

information

Ms.

McCarthy,

direct

violation

City

policies

and

potentially
the Brown Act .” Three days later, on April 24, Garcia interviewed her. Clark unequivocally denied the allegations that she had ever spanked Delgado, stating, “ Absolutely not .” She described

the

complaint

part

broader

campaign

retaliation

and

misinformation

orchestrated

her

former

friends,

Polanco

and

McCarthy,

and

politically

weaponized

Councilmember

Rodriguez.

According to Clark, “ Louisa McCarthy and Mika Polanco were fueling this narrative that I had touched

someone

inappropriately,

and

Rodriguez

used

push

hostile

environment

City

Hall.
”

She

referred

their

efforts

“
smear

campaign
”

driven

opposition

real

68 See , Rodriguez’s Candidate Intention Statement, dated July 30, 2025. 57 Page 58 of 74
Clark v. City of National City, et al. Gov. Code § 910 Claim dated August 26, 2025 Page 58 of 73 estate development project and personal resentment over her refusal to interfere in City processes.

“
They

expected

cross

line

wasn’t

willing

cross,”

she

said.

“This

whole

thing

has

been

manufactured
.”

Clark

described

her

workplace

environment

“
toxic
”

and

“
designed

break

[her]

down.
”

She

spoke

suffering

from

severe

emotional

distress,

including

insomnia

and

physical

fatigue,

and

said

that

the

manufactured

nature

the

complaint

made

all

the

difficult

endure.

“
I

don’t

sleep
,”

she

told

Garcia.

“
This

affecting

health.

They

know

what

they’re

doing

me
.”

2. Polanco Fake-Sues to Down-Zone Muraoka’s Property (May 1, 2025) On May 1, 2025, Aguirre filed another lawsuit for Polanco—this time a “Complaint for Declaratory Relief” (“Second Lawsuit”)—as part of her months-long campaign to pressure the Muraoka family into selling her the Project property. The cause of action itself underscored its frivolousness:

Polanco

was

literally

asking

Judge

“
determine
”

something

that

was

already

widely

known—certainly

the

City

knew—which

was

that

had

the

authority

rezone

the

Muraoka

property.

That

this

was

already

known

(and

therefore

that

the

City

did

not

need

Polanco

ask

the

Court

tell

them)

not

debatable.

Both

Polanco

and

McCarthy

admitted

during

public

comment

the

June

17 Council

meeting:

All right, well, as Luisa said, you do have the power to re-zone it. I don't think that

that's

the

question

being

proposed.

think

the

question

not,

you

know,

whether

these,

what,

whether

you

can

turn

back

residential

not,

you

know

you

can.

You

have

the

legislative

power

so.

For some reason other than the stated one, however, Polanco’s Second Lawsuit asked that precise question.

Moreover,

that

was

the

only

question

asked.

The

“
Prayer
”

her

Complaint

makes

that

clear:

This raised the same problem as her first lawsuit, filed January 24. That suit claimed to seek production

City

records,

but

was

filed

before

the

deadline

for

the

City

even

produce

them.

Just

the

First

Lawsuit

was

not

really

about

records,

the

Second

was

not

really

about

confirming

zoning

authority.

both

cases,

the

lawsuits

were

props.

Their

true

purpose

was

manipulate

the

Muraokas

creating

pressure

and

uncertainty,

while

simultaneously

generating

Page 59 of 74 ends

Clark v. City of National City, et al. Gov. Code § 910 Claim dated August 26, 2025 Page 59 of 73 documents Aguirre and Polanco could present to the public—especially the media—for an entirely

different

narrative.

short,

the

lawsuits

were

never

legal

disputes;

they

were

political

and

commercial

weapons.

The filing capped three months of steady pressure applied through her realtor, Sharon Smith. On February

15,

2025,

Smith

sent

the

Muraokas’

agent

two

bank

statements

showing

Polanco’s
accounts with a combined balance exceeding $4.6 million. In a March 21, 2025 email, she began floating the idea of a “ campaign ” for residential rezoning that would depress the property’s value:

“
the

neighbors
69 …

put

together

some

association

against

any

sort

commercial

building

that

area

…

this

group

challenges

the

annexation

this

property

could

become

only

residential
.”
70 She

even

pointed

media

reports

amplifying

Ms.

Morrison’s

“
controversy
”

(which,

Team

Aguirre’s

conduct,

had

caused

substantial

economic

harm

the

Zakar

family).

Although the Muraoka family’s realtor made it clear he was not interested in discussing the “ neighbors ,” Smith persisted. Her March 21 email pressed harder—asking rhetorically, “ wouldn’t the value start dropping? ”—a warning of further financial harm if the community opposition

continued.

She

invoked

Alisha

Morrison

name

underscore

the

threat.
71 The

message

was

unmistakable:

the

Muraokas

did

not

sell

Polanco,

coordinated

campaign

would

erode

the

value

their

property.

That pressure campaign was hardly a secret. Team Aguirre knew perfectly well that the City had the

authority

rezone

the

Muraoka

property

wanted

to—but

the

City

would

never

want

unless

the

Muraokas

themselves

requested

it.

Another

angle,

however,

was

confusion:

perhaps

the

Muraokas

could

made

believe

that

this

lawsuit

might

result

their

property

being

rezoned

against

their

wishes,

and

that

their

property

value

could

plummet.

fact,

the

Muraokas

were

concerned,

feeling

only

little

better

when

Martin

Reeder

assured

them

that

the

City

had

plans

downzone

the

Project

property.

It was never as though Team Aguirre went into these lawsuits with any coherent legal objective.

The

one

thing

they

did

know

was

that

filing

them

would

create

drama,

turmoil,

and

expense.

And

based

lifetime

operating

this

way,

they

also

knew

that

most

ordinary

people

eventually

get

tired

the

chaos

and

give

in.

The

gamble

was

simple:

drag

the

City

and

the

Muraokas

through

enough

legal

and

political

mayhem,

and

eventually

someone

might

throw

their

hands

and

say,

“life’s

too

short—just

give

them

what

they

want.”

71 March 21, 2025

from

Sharon

Smith

the

Muraokas’

agent,

warning

that

“
the

community

has

really

launched

campaign
”

against

commercial

use

the

property

and

suggesting

that

“
the

value

[would]

start

dropping
”

the

controversy

continued.

70 Alisha Morrison rallied the Lincoln Acres troops with a flyer for a meeting on February 20, 2025 .

69 Smith was referring to a “ group ” led by Alisha Morrison, who “ quit her job ” to “ campaign ” for rezoning. 59 Page 60 of 74
Clark v. City of National City, et al. Gov. Code § 910 Claim dated August 26, 2025 Page 60 of 73 But another possible outcome was just as foreseeable—and that is the one now playing out. The lawsuits

were

flagrantly

frivolous

and

transparently

tactical

that

they

prompted

not

fear,

but

eye-rolling.

Instead

pressuring

the

City

into

submission,

Team

Aguirre’s

antics

revealed

their

desperation.

May

and

June,

their

public

comments

devolved

into

little

than

bargaining:

“
drop

the

lawsuits

you

rezone

the

property
.”

These

were

not

the

moves

clever

tacticians.

They

were

the

flailing

tactics

people

who

conduct

themselves

through

disruption

matter

habit,

mistaking

mayhem

for

strategy.

What Team Aguirre failed to understand was that Clark, the Mayor, and the rest of the City’s leadership

were

not

the

type

cave

circus

acts.

They

were

not

going

reward

clowns

suits

demanding

ransom.

And

June

17,

the

spiral

had

tightened.

The

desperation

became

undeniable,

culminating

public

pleas

for

“off-ramp”

exchange

for

abandoning

their

meritless

lawsuits—an

arrangement

that

looked

less

negotiation

and

extortion.

Time and again, Team Aguirre openly revealed what their lawsuits were really about: not justice, not

law,

but

leverage

force

sale.

They

did

not

even

bother

disguise

Polanco’s

extortion

campaign

when

speaking

the

Council.

Over

and

over,

they

said

the

same

thing:

you

rezone,

we’ll

drop

the

lawsuits;

you

don’t,

we’ll

keep

going.

The

following

compilation

their

statements

makes

that

point

unmistakably

clear.

3. Garcia Ignores Contradictions in Witness Testimony (May 5–11, 2025) Meanwhile, Garcia’s investigation was gathering testimony that directly contradicted the Clique’s

narrative,

yet

failed

address

it.

May

9:30

a.m.,

just

hour

after

Castaneda

reaffirmed

her

March

26 statement

that

she

had

only

spoken

Delgado,

Apalategui,

and

McGhee,

Ron

Williams

told

Garcia

that

“
Juanita

Castaneda

came

his

office

the

Monday

following

the

incident

[March

2025]

tell

him

…

that

Delgado

was

touched

inappropriately

the

butt

Josie

Flores

Clark.
”

Six

days

later,

May

11,

Councilmember

Yamane

told

Garcia

that

Castaneda

had

approached

her

during

public

event

March

25—the

day

before

Castaneda’s

first

interview—and

discussed

both

the

allegations

and

the

status

the

investigation.

Garcia

summarized

himself:

“
Yamane

stated

that

she

had

conversation

with

Juanita

Castaneda

March

25,

2025,

during

which

Castaneda

discussed

the

allegations

and

Page 61 of 74 ends

Clark v. City of National City, et al. Gov. Code § 910 Claim dated August 26, 2025 Page 61 of 73 the status of the investigation. ” This was a direct contradiction of Castaneda’s account, yet Garcia’s

report

never

acknowledged

it.

Meanwhile, Rodriguez, who was present at the March 18 closed session where the leak originated,

failed

appear

for

his

scheduled

interview.

Garcia

excused

the

absence

without

explanation

and

never

followed

up.

His

failure

pursue

Rodriguez,

paired

with

his

dismissal

Castaneda’s

contradictions,

left

the

report

irreparably

compromised.

Not only had Williams contradicted Castaneda’s claim of limited disclosure, he also admitted to misconduct—viewing

the

surveillance

video

and

sharing

with

other

members

the

Clique.
72 Garcia

recorded

this

admission

but

failed

address

that

violated

policy,

confidentiality,

and

workplace

protocol.

His

own

summary

even

contains

self-contradictory

account

whether

Williams

viewed

the

video:

Hernandez requested a 4-hour snippet of video but Williams was not sure what it was

for

that

time.

Williams

stated

that

did

not

view

the

video,

but

rather

just

put

the

network

and

gave

Hernandez.

However,

Williams

did

view

the

portion

the

video

which

the

incident

occurred.

The existence of this contradictory evidence, combined with Garcia’s decision to omit it from his credibility

analysis,

undermines

the

reliability

his

entire

report—especially

his

claim

that

the

source

the

leak

could

not

determined.

His

failure

even

mention

Rodriguez’s

refusal

appear

makes

that

claim

even

less

credible.

4. Garcia Sustains the Allegations Against Clark Despite the Evidence Proving Them False Despite the contradictions in testimony and the surveillance footage that undercut Castaneda’s and

Delgado’s

claims,

Garcia

sustained

the

allegation.

The

video

showed

Delgado

initiating

hug

while

Clark

remained

seated.

During

the

brief,

one-armed

embrace,

Clark’s

right

arm

moved

slightly,

making

momentary

contact

with

Delgado’s

lower

back

near

the

buttocks.

The

motion

was

indistinct,

lacked

force,

and

appeared

incidental—neither

clearly

accidental

nor

intentional.

was

simply

hug

between

someone

seated

and

someone

standing.

To reach a “ sustained ” finding, Garcia had to alter the assignment he was given. 73 The March 20
Notice

Fact-Finding

stated

that

had

been

retained

“
investigate

these

allegations
.”

73 Clark alleges on information and belief that Garcia did not change his assignment without first getting the consent of

city

public

official,

likely

Flores-Hernandez.

doing

so,

Garcia

the

city's

agent,

and

Flores

Hernandez

city

public

official

took

“deliberate

acts”

violate

Clark's

civil

rights

violation

Regulation

04.16,

FEHA,

and

federal

law

(e.g.,
42 USC § 1983; Clouthier v. County of Contra Costa

(9th

Cir.

2010)

591

F.3d

1232).

72 Not only did Williams conduct his own unauthorized investigation, he violated Regulation 04.16, which requires “
privacy

and

confidentiality
”

any

harassment

investigations.

61 Page 62 of 74
Clark v. City of National City, et al. Gov. Code § 910 Claim dated August 26, 2025 Page 62 of 73 had done so, the only possible outcome was “unfounded.” 74 Delgado’s written complaint alleged
Clark

“
spanked

right

buttock
.”

Castaneda’s

alleged

Clark

spanked

Delgado

twice.

Later,

Delgado

added

claims

about

chest

grab.

The

inconsistencies

were

obvious,

and

the

video

evidence

disproved

all

them.

Garcia

knew

that

kept

his

assignment

tethered

those

allegations,

would

have

find

them

false.

But

Garcia

also

knew

which

side

his

bread

was

buttered

on.

Instead

rejecting

the

claims,

rewrote

them—restating

the

question

whether

Clark’s

hand

had

made

any

contact

with

Delgado’s

back

buttocks.

That

rephrasing

created

just

enough

space

for

him

“
sustain
”

what

could

not

otherwise

sustained.

His

report

illustrates

the

shift:

Although the video is from a distance and tiles at times, it does appear that Flores-Clark

pats

Delgado

the

buttocks

area

twice.

the

video

Flores-Clark’s

right

hand

cannot

clearly

seen,

Flores-Clark’s

right

arm

does

appear

move

back

and

forth

twice

when

releasing

from

the

hug.

the

video

her

hand

appears

strike

her

upper

buttocks

the

low

back

Delgado.

should

noted

that

1:26:45

the

video

Flores-Clark

hugs

unknown

man

and

the

end

her

hug,

pats

him

the

back

twice.

Garcia’s own language betrayed the problem. Delgado had accused Clark of a “ spank .” Garcia downgraded

that

“
pat
.”
75 Stripped

embellishment,

the

finding

amounted

this:

during

hug

initiated

Delgado,

Clark’s

hand

briefly

brushed

her

lower

back.

That

was

the

full

extent

the

alleged

“
sexual

assault
.”

The

only

thing

defense

attorney

would

need

exonerate

Clark

press

play.

Yet Garcia still produced a 27-page report, after interviewing ten witnesses (two of them twice), sustaining

allegation

sexual

misconduct

over

what

amounted

half-second

brush

hand.

Incredibly,

admitted

had

not

even

watched

the

second

angle

the

surveillance

footage,

writing

that

the

City

had

not

provided

him.
76 In

the

end,

Garcia

not

only

sustained

allegations

his

own

evidence

showed

false,

also

ignored

the

Regulation

04.16,

which

states:

“
Knowingly,

falsely

accusing

someone

of”

sexual

harassment

“grounds

for

disciplinary

conduct,

and

including

termination

employment
.”

Both

Castaneda

and

Delgado

had

made

knowingly

false

accusations.

Garcia

had

the

evidence

hand

prove

it.

But

rather

than

call

their

conduct

what

was—false

reporting—he

twisted

his

assignment

that

could

“
sustain
”

their

story

and

protect

the

City’s

chosen

narrative.

76 Garcia

wrote,

“I

was

advised

that

there

was

also

another

video

from

different

angle

that

showed

the

same

time

frame;

however,

that

video

was

not

provided

the

investigator.”

75 “Pat” suggests intentional conduct, but even then, Garcia never concluded—or even suggested—that Clark acted intentionally.

74 In workplace investigations, a finding of “ unfounded ” means the evidence shows the alleged conduct did not occur at

all.

This

distinct

from

“
not

sustained
,”

which

means

there

was

insufficient

proof

either

way.

62 Page 63 of 74
Clark v. City of National City, et al. Gov. Code § 910 Claim dated August 26, 2025 Page 63 of 73

5. Team Aguirre’s Recall Bush Push (May 8 to June 17, 2025) As Garcia began taking his final interviews and finalizing his report–Polanco’s second lawsuit having

just

been

filed

and

served,

Team

Aguirre

began

pivoting

toward

threats

of
recall
77 —against Councilmember Bush.
78 ( See , Team Aguirre’s Recall Bush Push).
79 Supporters circulated talking points echoing the same themes from April 18: Clark was corrupt, Morrison was

compromised,

and

the

only

“
solution
”

was

sweep

them

out

office.

These

recall

stirrings

were

not

spontaneous—they

were

the

logical

step

the

pressure

campaign,

designed

keep

political

heat

both

the

Mayor

and

Clark

while

simultaneously

amplifying

litigation

threats.

V. June 17: Team “ Junior High School ” Aguirre’s Melt Down By mid-June, the public campaign waged by Team Aguirre had devolved from political theater into

personal

vendetta.

With

its

narrative

unraveling

and

the

City’s

complicity

under

scrutiny,

their

tactics

grew

erratic—and

aggressive.

June

17,

2025,

the

twisted

motive

behind

Polanco’s

months-long

crusade

was

exposed.

But

then,

Aguirre

and

Severson

had

already

been

caught

camera

breaking

the

law. 1. Desperation Move: Partners (and Agents) Cross the Line For months, Team Aguirre had been extremely careful while performing a tightrope dance along the

Section

47 line—willfully

defaming

with

literal

immunity

anyone,

anytime,

saying

anything

they

wanted,

long

was

atop

their

soapboxes

resting

the

foot

City

Hall’s

mic’d

podium.

single

evening,

Team

Aguirre’s

campaign

appeared

unravel.

Severson

showed

for

the

June

17 Council

meeting

very

bad

mood.

Two

weeks

earlier,

Clark’s

recently

retained
lawyer emailed Aguirre asking for a short continuance of Clark’s deposition: “ I’m booked solid until June 19. Can we move to that date? ” The next day, Severson responded, denying the professional courtesy. Over the next two weeks, Severson sent several volatile emails with building frustration at Clark’s refusal to be bullied. Giving in, on June 16, 2025, Severson agreed to schedule Clark’s for June 19 as requested, but because that date was no longer available on her lawyer’s calendar, 79 After a two-month break, Polanco climbed back onto her soap box with pent-up vitriol she could no longer contain—embarrassing

herself,

and

some

extent,

humanity—with

rant

that

was

equal

parts
creepy, crazy, and
comical. In striking contrast to her April 21 remark about “attacking the problem, and not the people ,”

Polanco

raved

about

“
slapping

ass
,”

“
stinky
”

mayor,

his

“
balls,
”

his

“
lover
”

(

“
peacock
”),

her

“
rodeo
,”

and

even

“
God.
”

78 Team Aguirre had been calling for Mayor Morrison to resign since the April 18 meeting when McCarthy first leaked

the

false

sexual

harassment

charges

against

Clark.

For

example,

one

evening,

Team

Aguirre

made

these

public

comments

calling

for

Morrison

step

down:

April 18 Video compilation
.

77 Polanco and McCarthy were never National City residents 63 Page 64 of 74
Clark v. City of National City, et al. Gov. Code § 910 Claim dated August 26, 2025 Page 64 of 73 Aguirre and Severson had to book it for June 25, 2025. In a failed attempt to make lemonade, Polanco’s

attorneys

tried

twist

mundane

scheduling

issue

into

another

sign

that

Clark

was
trying to hide something. They sent the City a copy of Clark’s deposition notice as “Materials Received from Members of the Public.”

But Severson could not wait for the Council meeting to begin before venting her frustration. Spotting Clark with her daughter (and Lt. Omar Ramirez), the City’s surveillance cameras captured video of Severson angrily confronting Clark, saying: “ Are you going to show up to the deposition

this

time?

You

know

it’s

against

the

law

and

you

have

show
.”

When

Clark

replied,

“
You

can

talk

attorney
,”

Severson

repeated

her

accusation

that

Clark

was

breaking

the

law.
80 When Clark’s daughter told her to speak to her mother’s attorney, Severson stepped toward her, demanding,

“
Who

are

you?

What’s

your

name?
”

Clark

moved

block

Severson

from

her

daughter,

but

Severson

sidestepped

the

mother

bear

continue

her

advance:

As a licensed attorney, Severson was barred
81 from initiating any communication with Clark—let alone

confronting

and

bullying

her

and

her

daughter.

The

rule’s

application

here

was—and

always

has

been—unambiguous.

Severson

knowingly

violated

core

ethical

safeguard

designed

81 Rule of Professional Conduct 4.2 plainly states, “ [A] lawyer shall not communicate directly or indirectly about the subject

the

representation

with

person

the

lawyer

knows

represented

another

lawyer

the

matter.
”

80 See , Clark’s attorney’s letter, dated June 24, 2025. 64

Page 65 of 74 ends

Clark v. City of National City, et al. Gov. Code § 910 Claim dated August 26, 2025 Page 65 of 73 to preserve the integrity of the legal process. Rule 4.2 functions as a mandated shield against improper

attorney

contact,

especially

when

that

contact

coercive,

abusive,

manipulative—the

very

kind

misconduct

Severson

committed.

Due to Severson’s belligerence, Clark’s daughter asked Lt. Ramirez for an escort to her car when she

planned

leave

later

that

evening.

But

before

they

could

reach

the

lieutenant

waiting

for

her

downstairs,

Clark

and

her

daughter

were

accosted

again—this

time

Aguirre.

Sitting

alongside

members

the

public
82 outside

Chambers,

Aguirre

spotted

his

prey

passing

through.

Aguirre

grabbed

his

cell

phone,

sprang

his

feet

and

followed

Clark—with

his

young

associate
83 in

tow

about

witness

master

class

professional

misconduct.
84 As though Severson’s confrontation of Clark and her daughter were not enough, Aguirre’s own anger

caused

him

slip

during

public

comment,

inadvertently

revealing

his

knowledge

Severson's

own

misconduct

earlier

that

evening,

before

stumbling

mid-sentence

conceal

the

truth.

then,

unhinged

Aguirre

seized

remark

Clark

had

made

Severson

conversation

that

never

should

have

occurred—twisting

into

yet

another

pretext

attack

the

Mayor:

You have your assistant make a mockery out of the justice system. She doesn’t come to

her

depositions

for

six

different

deposition

times.

accommodated

her,

and

then

tonight

she

tells

...

someone

…

that

she

might

not

come

the

one,

just

her

whim

(emphasis

added).

84 Describing “ Prohibited Harassment,” CRPC Rule 8.4.1(a)(1)

states,

“
a

lawyer

shall

not:

(1)

unlawfully

harass

unlawfully

discriminate

against

persons

the

basis

any

protected

characteristic;”

Comment

[1]:

“Conduct

that

violates

this

rule

undermines

confidence

the

legal

profession

and

our

legal

system
.”

83 Barely six months into his licensure as a California attorney, Alexander Myers Gutterud's

supervisors

modeled

how

skirt

ethics

laws:

full

view

surveillance

cameras.

82 That same evening, Aguirre took unsolicited photographs of Clark, her daughter, and another attendee—prompting

the

scornful

citizen

to
photograph Aguirre back.

Page 66 of 74 ends

Clark v. City of National City, et al. Gov. Code § 910 Claim dated August 26, 2025 Page 66 of 73

Aguirre’s vague reference to “ um … someone ” revealed his knowledge of Severson’s illegal act.

His

decision

only

allude

Severson

was

effort

obscure

her

identity

while

still

using

the

episode

advance

his

argument.

invoking

the

incident

publicly,

Aguirre

ratified

Severson’s

misconduct

while

attempting

shield

his

firm

and

his

clients

from

her

liability.

2. AmBush: Aguirre Cracks Under Councilmember’s Cross, Polanco’s Secret Slips The June 17, 2025 City Council meeting was the culmination of the gaslighting, smear tactics, and

coordinated

mayhem

that

had

been

unfolding

since

November

18,

2024.

this

point,

the

circus

had

become

familiar.

But

that

evening

marked

turning

point—not

because

Team

Aguirre

escalated

their

attacks,

but

because

Councilmember

Marcus

Bush

pulled

off

cross-examination

that

exposed

their

true

motives

for

all

see.

performance

that

would

have

impressed

even

Lee

Bailey,¹

Bush

pressed

Aguirre

and

his

allies

with

simple,

direct

questions

that

cut

through

months

noise.

The

effect

was

surgical:

few

exchanges,

Bush

forced

into

the

open

what

Team

Aguirre

had

tried

desperately

conceal.

The exchange was devastating. After months of portraying themselves as crusaders for transparency

and

good

governance,

Team

Aguirre

was

revealed

self-interested

operators.

Under

Bush’s

questioning,

Aguirre

admitted

that

someone

(he

would

not

say

who)

had

secretly

offered

purchase

the

very

property

the

heart

the

litigation—the

Muraoka

property.

But

Aguirre’s

mug-shot

face

showed

was

busted—that

was

one

his

clients

who

made

the

offer.

What

had

been

dressed

grassroots

advocacy

was

unmasked

months-long

pressure

campaign

clear

the

path

for

Polanco’s

power-hungry

ambitions.

The

significance

Aguirre’s

AmBush

moment

best

conveyed

simply

watching

and

listening:

Page 67 of 74 ends

Clark v. City of National City, et al. Gov. Code § 910 Claim dated August 26, 2025 Page 67 of 73

3. Morrison Restores the Record
Mayor Morrison’s closing comments on June 17 put the entire six-month circus in perspective.

began

stressing

simple

principle:

neighbors

are

entitled

input,

but

they

cannot

dictate

what

happens

someone

else’s

land.

Rezoning

decisions

are

either

initiated

the

property

owner

undertaken

through

general

plan

process,

not

outsiders

with

ownership

stake.

dismissed

“
idiotic
”

the

suggestion

that

downzoning

commercial

property

residential

would

have

effect

value,

pointing

out

the

obvious

conflict

interest:

those

pushing

the

downzone

were

the

same

people

seeking

buy

the

land

discount.

From there, Morrison highlighted the absurdity of the political attacks: a handful of individuals with

ownership

interest,

and

some

cases

not

even

residents

National

City,

were

trying

dictate

policy

through

accusations,

threats,

and

even

recall

talk.

called

the

spectacle

“
a

circus
”—one

fueled

personal

attacks,

childish

antics,

and

campaign

that

had

long

since

lost

credibility.

concluded

the

Council

was

being

asked

downzone

parcel

people

who

did

not

own

and

had

legal

standing.

That,

said,

was

“
a

highly

unusual

circumstance
”

had

never

seen

such

thing

his

33 years

public

office.

4. “ It’s Extortion ”: Councilmember Bush Calls Out the “ Lies ” In AmBush II After Morrison’s steady dismantling of the downzoning charade, Councilmember Marcus Bush took

further.

first

turned

City

staff,

asking

the

obvious:

would

rezoning

the

property

from

commercial

residential

cause

loss

value?

The

answer

was

clear.

Staff

explained

that

rezoning

would

substantially

reduce

the

property’s

value,

confirming

that

what

Polanco

and

McCarthy

were

demanding

was

“
taking.
”
85 Bush then pivoted to the public accusations, addressing McCarthy and Polanco directly. He reminded

them

that

the

gas

station

project

was

already

dead,

and

that

they

knew

it.

Yet

they

continued

attack

staff,

spread

lies,

and

drag

the

City

through

meeting

after

meeting

for

political

spectacle.

Bush

called

their

campaign

“
inappropriate
”

and

“
unprofessional
,”

exposing

for

what

was:

not

community

advocacy,

but

sustained

effort

exhaust

staff,

weaponize

process,

and

extort

the

property

owner

into

cheaper

sale.

Bush ended with a blunt call for direction: “ Change your approach. Stop with the attacks, stop with

the

lawsuits,

stop

with

the

political

theater.

you

want

work

together

something

positive,

fine—but

this

has

gone

way

too

far
.”

85 A “ taking ” means the government has limited what someone can do with their property so much that it is almost the

same

taking

the

property

away.

those

situations,

the

government

may

have

pay

the

owner

for

the

loss

value

either

voluntarily

through

“inverse condemnation” lawsuit..
67 Page 68 of 74
Clark v. City of National City, et al. Gov. Code § 910 Claim dated August 26, 2025 Page 68 of 73

5. AmBush III: Rodriguez Stumbles Into His Own Trap If Aguirre’s cross-examination revealed the hidden motive, Councilmember Bush’s questioning of

Rodriguez

exposed

the

hypocrisy.

For

months,

Rodriguez

had

been

the

political

megaphone

for

Polanco

and

McCarthy,

even

violating

closed-session

confidentiality

March

18 to

give

them

ammunition.

Yet

June

17,

when

pressed

Bush,

Rodriguez

suddenly

denounced

the

very

practice

had

engaged

in—accusing

others

using

the

Council

dais

“
bully

pulpit
”

while

claiming

such

arguments

should

made

“
on

Facebook,

Instagram,

Twitter,

knocking

doors
,”

but

not

Council

chambers.

The exchange was as unruly as it was revealing. Both Rodriguez and Councilmember Ditas Yamane

repeatedly

interrupted

the

Mayor

while

was

speaking—open

violations

the

City

Council

Policy

Manual

(Section

VI(A)(4)),

which

explicitly

prohibits

councilmembers

from

interrupting,

disrupting,

disturbing

one

another

while

they

have

the

floor.

Rodriguez’s

interruptions

were

especially

persistent,

forcing

the

Mayor

issue

repeated

warnings

before

Bush

stepped

and

began

cross-examining

him

directly.

Bush refused to let him slide. Over and over, he asked Rodriguez for a substantive position: Did he

support

downzoning

the

property

not?

Rodriguez

squirmed,

dodging

the

question,

offering

only

vague

complaints

about

“
wasting

time
,”

and

trying

shift

blame

back

his

colleagues.

His

evasions

underscored

the

point:

Rodriguez

had

policy

solution,

substantive

proposal—just

political

theater.

At that moment, the Mayor stepped in to drive home the contrast. He reminded Rodriguez that mediation

over

land

use

does

not

happen

with

“
people

that

not

have

standing
,”

but

through

the

ordinary

planning

process—Planning

Commission,

staff,

and

Council—working

with

the

actual

applicant.

mocked

Rodriguez’s

shifting

accusations

(“
Ten

minutes

ago

you

said

was

putting

them

sleep,

now

you’re

saying

I’m

inciting

them
”)

and

turned

Rodriguez’s

“
bully

pulpit
”

line

against

him:

“
I’m

going

remember

those

statements

you

just

made

…

and

we’ll

remember

those

the

future.
”

The irony was glaring. Rodriguez condemned the use of Council chambers as a political stage while

simultaneously

using

them

for

his

own

political

purposes,

just

had

since

March

18. 68

Page 69 of 74 ends

Clark v. City of National City, et al. Gov. Code § 910 Claim dated August 26, 2025 Page 69 of 73 The Mayor and Bush together dismantled the façade: what had been cloaked as righteous advocacy

was

exposed

self-serving

grandstanding,

devoid

substance.

6. Councilmember Molina Shuts the Door
Councilmember Luz Molina delivered a prepared statement that shut the door on Team Aguirre’s scheme. Molina asked the obvious questions that had lingered all along: what was the real purpose

behind

the

rezoning

demand?

Did

Polanco,

McCarthy,

their

associates

have

any

financial

interest

the

parcel

ties

developer

waiting

the

wings?

Molina

noted

that

even

their

Memorial

Day

community

event

program

included

direct

appeal

her

and

Vice

Mayor

Bush

support

the

downzoning,

leaving

out

the

rest

the

Council—a

curious

choice

that

hinted

backchannel

lobbying.

Molina then laid out her reasoning. She warned that approving such a request would create a dangerous

precedent

and

expose

the

City

legal

liability.

She

flatly

opposed

taxing

staff

resources

any

further

dead

project.

the

same

time,

she

made

clear

the

proper

path:

the

actual

property

owner

came

forward

with

rezoning

petition

tied

their

development

goals,

that

would

merit

legitimate

discussion.

Until

then,

however,

Molina

would

not

support

what

amounted

outsiders

dictating

how

someone

else’s

land

should

treated.

W. Retaliation Continues: More Adverse Action and Ratification By the City The events that followed Clark’s complaint on April 21, 2025, about the closed-session leak, make

clear

that

the

City

did

not

merely

fail

protect

her

from

retaliation;

became

participant

it.

June

19,

private

attorney

Debra

Reilly

notified

Clark

that

she

had

been

retained

Page 70 of 74 ends

Clark v. City of National City, et al. Gov. Code § 910 Claim dated August 26, 2025 Page 70 of 73 investigate a complaint made against Clark
86 by Lydia Flores-Hernandez. That same evening, the HR

Director

abruptly

announced

her

early

retirement

and

departure,

leaving

Clark

face

the

investigation

without

consistent

oversight.

Then, on July 2, 2025, Flores-Hernandez served Clark with Suspension Notice, attaching the discredited

Garcia

Report.

The

City

failed

provide

the

underlying

evidence

that

the

Suspension

Notice

stated

was

attaching,

much

less

the

materials

required

Civil

Service

Rule
804. A July 9, 2025 letter from Clark’s counsel—which, like all subsequent letters, constituted protected activity—demanded compliance with Rule No. 804 (which required the Suspension Notice

accompanied

all

supporting

documents,

including

exhibits,

audio

recordings,

and

investigator

notes).

When the City ignored the July 9 letter, Clark’s counsel sent a July 14, follow-up letter, reiterating that the City’s failure to provide these materials deprived Clark of her due process rights

and

violated

mandatory

duties

under

Government

Code

815.6,

well

FEHA’s

requirements

for

fair

and

nondiscriminatory

procedures.

When

the

City

ignored

the

July

14 letter,
Clark’s attorney sent a third letter, on July 21, 2025, demonstrating the sexual harassment complaints were false and demanding again the City’s compliance with its mandatory duties. To date,

the

City

has

failed

comply,

except

that,

July

11,

Scott

Huth

gave

Clark

thumb

drive

with

single

video

(Camera

No.

1),

but

withheld

all

other

documents

that

the

Suspension

Notice

itself

claimed

were

provided.

The pattern is unmistakable. Clark engaged in protected activity when she reported the April 21 leak

confidential

closed-session

information.

Instead

conducting

prompt,

thorough,

and

fair

investigation

her

complaint,

the

City

ignored

it.

When

false

complaints

were

lodged

against

her,

the

City

again

failed

investigate.

When

those

complaints

were

discredited,

the

City

nonetheless

advanced

toward

suspension,

weaponizing

its

own

flawed

investigation

process

against

her.

Even members of the City Council acknowledged that the rezoning dispute was tainted by outside

influence.

Councilmember

Molina,

for

example,

pointed

“
reports
”

describing

community-driven

architectural

plan

for

the

disputed

site,

and

asked

whether

McCarthy

Polanco

were

connected

it.

Yet

while

such

conflicts

interest

were

left

unexamined,

Clark—who

sought

accountability

for

unlawful

leak—was

singled

out

for

discipline.

Taken together, these acts constitute classic retaliation and adverse employment action under FEHA:

Clark

engaged

protected

activity,

the

City

responded

with

adverse

employment

action,

and

there

clear

causal

link.

failing

investigate

her

complaint,

pursuing

86 On her own, Clark would later learn that Flores-Hernandez’s complaint—that she filed at the same time she announced

she

was

leaving

the

City’s

employment—also

named

several

other

City

employees

and

officials.

70 Page 71 of 74
Clark v. City of National City, et al. Gov. Code § 910 Claim dated August 26, 2025 Page 71 of 73 discipline based on false reports, and denying her procedural rights, the City not only violated its own

policies

but

also

demonstrated

discriminatory

and

retaliatory

intent.

proceeding

incomplete

and

misleading

record

while

ignoring

its

duties

investigate

Clark’s

own

April

21 complaint,

much

less

notify

her

any

findings,

the

City

aligned

itself

with

those

who

had

targeted

her.

This

course

conduct—initiating

suspension,

withholding

evidence,

and

disregarding

her

rights—constitutes

unlawful

retaliation

and

discrimination.

Rather

than

protecting

Clark

from

workplace

harassment,

the

City

and

its

officials

became

active

participants,

independently

and

through

ratification,
87 by

imposing

adverse

action

because

Clark

challenged

misconduct

and

civil

rights

violations,

e.g.,

gender-based

discrimination.

III. CAUSES OF ACTION FOR AN UNLIMITED JURISDICTION LAWSUIT As required by Gov. Code § 910, Clark states that a civil action will be filed in the unlimited jurisdiction

the

Superior

Court

for

amount

excess

$10,000.

Clark

seeks

general

and

special

damages

against

all

Respondents

and

Prospective

Defendants,

and

punitive

damages

against

the

Respondent

public

employees.

Clark

will

also

seek

penalties,

attorney’s

fees,

and

costs

pursuant

Labor

Code

§§

1102.5(f)(1)

and

(j),

and

Gov.

Code

12965(b)(6).

her

complaint,

Clark

will

allege

the

following

causes

action:

A. Public Entity Liability for Failure to Perform Mandatory Duty (Gov. Code § 815.6), by

failing

discharge

the

duties

imposed

enactments
88 ,

proven

trial,

including

but

not

limited

to:

California

Constitution,

Article

Section

(express

right

privacy
89 and

interpretive

common

law
90 );

U.S.

Constitution,

interpreted

for

provide

privacy

rights,

e.g.,

the

4th
91 and

14th
92 Amendments;

Gov.

Code

7921.000;

Gov.

Code

12940

(e.g.,

unlawful

harassment

based

gender,

retaliation,

duty

prevent

harassment

and

retaliation

by,

e.g.,

providing

training

and

conducting

“
prompt,

thorough,

and

neutral

investigations
”

followed

“
immediate

and

appropriate

corrective

action
”);

Labor

Code

1102.5;

Gov.

Code

825;

and

Policy

119;

Regulation

04.16);

B. Retaliation (Labor Code § 1102.5);
C. Defense and Indemnity (Gov. Code § 825);
92 Whalen v. Roe

(1977)

429

U.S.

589

91 City of Ontario v. Quon

(2010)

560

U.S.

746

90 Soroka v. Dayton Hudson Corp.

(1991)

1 Cal.App.4th

1039

89 California

Constitution,

Article

(“
All

people

are

nature

free

and

independent

and

have

inalienable

rights.

Among

these

are

enjoying

and

defending

life

and

liberty,

acquiring,

possessing,

and

protecting

property,

and

pursuing

and

obtaining

safety,

happiness,

and

privacy
”).

88 Gov. Code § 810.6
:

“

Enactment
”

means

“
a

constitutional

provision,

statute

…

ordinance

regulation
.”

87 By all defendants (Civil Code §§ 2307, 2310, 2311, 2339); by the City ( See , C.R. v. Tenet Healthcare Corporation (2009) 169 Cal.App. 4th 194); and by the City and public officials for “ deliberate acts ” (42 USC 1983; See
,
Clouthier v. County of Contra Costa (9th Cir. 2010) 591 F.3d 1232). 71 Page 72 of 74
Clark v. City of National City, et al. Gov. Code § 910 Claim dated August 26, 2025 Page 72 of 73 D. Respondeat Superior (Gov. Code § 815.2);
E. Liability of an Elected Official (Gov. Code § 815.3); F. Liability of Public Official (42 USC § 1983); G. Local Government Liability - Failure to Train (42 USC § 1983); H. Local Government Liability - Policy or Custom (42 USC § 1983); I. Ratification ;
J. Fraud Through Deceit ;
K. Fraud Through Concealment ;
L. Constructive Fraud ;
M. Breach of Contract (Oral or Written, Implied-In-Fact) ; N. Breach of the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing ; O. Inducing Breach of Contract ;
P. Intentional Interference With Contractual Relations ; Q. Intentional Interference With Prospective Economic Advantage ; R. Negligent Interference With Prospective Economic Advantage ; S. Defamation Per Se ;
T. False Light ; and
U. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress .

Sincerely,
Gilleon Law Firm, APC
Daniel M. Gilleon
72

Page 73 of 74 ends

Clark v. City of National City, et al. Gov. Code § 910 Claim dated August 26, 2025 Page 73 of 73 cc: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] 73 Page 74 of 74

National City City CouncilSeptember 2, 2025

National City City Council
September 2, 2025