LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL J.

LAMPE
108 West Center Avenue
Visalia, California 93291
Telephone 559.738.5975
Facsimile 559.738.5644
www.lampe-law.com

MICHAEL J. LAMPE
MICHAEL P. SMITH

VIA EMAIL

December 22, 2017

Heather N. Phillips
Goyette & Associates, Inc.
1330 L. Street, Suite G
Fresno, California 93721

Re: Wesley J. Hensley

Dear Ms. Phillips:

I am in receipt of your correspondence dated December 18. A redacted copy is enclosed

herewith, so that council members can be assured that I am not misrepresenting what you
have communicated to my office.

I would like to comment on three specific quotations contained in your correspondence that
raise serious issues as to (1) the continued violation of Chief Hensley’s due process rights,
and (2) the City’s potential liability in this matter as a result of the mayor’s comments and
your continued support of those comments.

Quote no. 1:

“Your most recent letter makes much of statements that you attribute to Mayor
Jones, via social media. However, even a cursory review of the posting that you
provided as an ‘exhibit’ to your letter, reveals that the statements were not made by
Mayor Jones. The statement was apparently made by an unnamed TPD officer in
response to an online article posted by the Valley Voice.”
December 22, 2017
Heather N. Phillips
Goyette & Associates, Inc.
Page 2
_____________________________________________________________________

Please review my December 14 correspondence carefully. Contrary to your representation,

I never attributed the actual statement to Mayor Jones. My concern was that the mayor,
in what has become a series of negative comments made by him in his weekly radio
address, had now elevated his attack by posting the libelous remark on his Facebook
page.

The Facebook page belongs to the mayor, and he is responsible for its content. The
posting of the statement was not made by a third party. The post clearly indicates that
“Carlton Jones” added two new photos, one being the cell phone “screen shot” of the
defamatory material, and the other being the advertisement for the Battle of the Badges
All-Star Game.

That fact that the libelous statement was authored by someone else (in this case
“Anonymous Officer” in the comments section of Valley Voice), is irrelevant. If a defendant
reprints or circulates a libelous writing, it has the same effect as the original publication.

The republication of the text by Mr. Jones is the problem. As articulated by the court in
Jackson v. Paramount Pictures Corp. (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 10, 26:

“The tort of defamation exists whenever a false and unprivileged statement

which has a natural tendency to injure or which causes special damage is
communicated to one or more persons who understand its defamatory
meaning and its application to the injured party. (Citation omitted.) Moreover,
when a party repeats a slanderous charge, he is equally guilty of defamation,
even though he states the source of the charge and indicates that he is
merely repeating a rumor.”

Mayor Jones neither stated the source of the defamatory rant, nor did he indicate that he
was merely repeating a rumor. Not that doing either of these would have afforded him a
defense, but the fact that he just threw it out there on his Facebook page goes to the issue
of malice.

The court in Jackson further explained the doctrine of republication as follows:

“‘If A says B is a thief, and C publishes the statement that A said B was a
thief, in a certain sense this would be the truth, but not in the sense that the
law means.... [I]t would be but a repetition by [C] of a slanderous charge. His
defense must consist in showing that in fact B is a thief.’ (Citing Gilman v.
McClatchy (1896) 111 Cal. 606, 612; and Ray v. Citizen-News Co. (1936) 14
Cal.App.2d 6, 8-9.) ‘A false statement is not less libelous because it is the
December 22, 2017
Heather N. Phillips
Goyette & Associates, Inc.
Page 3
_____________________________________________________________________

repetition of rumor or gossip or of statements or allegations that others have

made concerning the matter.’ (Citing Arditto v. Putnam (1963) 214
Cal.App.2d 633, 639, fn. 2.)”

Every Monday for the last several weeks Mr. Jones has appeared on KTIP radio and made
statements that violate Chief Hensley’s due process rights under both the Peace Officers
Bill of Rights and the City of Tulare’s personnel rules. We have pointed this out to you, in
writing, on more than one occasion. Each time you take it upon yourself to defend Mr.
Jones, rather than instruct him to stop talking about personnel issues. In so doing, we have
assumed that you are speaking for the entire City Council, and that the council has ratified
the mayor’s remarks. The council’s ratification of the mayor’s reckless behavior is sufficient
to make the City a defendant in future litigation.

I cannot for the life of me understand why you have allowed this to happen. It appears that
you are more interested in protecting the mayor than your own client, the City of Tulare.
I am frankly surprised that you have not put a great deal of distance between the mayor's
statements and the City's position on this matter.

Quote no. 2:

“As you may be aware, Council member Sigala requested an update to be placed on
the agenda for the December 19, 2017 meeting. I have declined said request and will
continue to decline to involve members of the Council in personnel matters in a
manner that could violate Mr. Hensley’s rights to confidentiality, jeopardize the
investigation, or violate the City’s personnel procedures.”

I barely know where to begin.

In his November 6 radio interview with KTIP, Mr. Jones boasted about getting his “first
update” on the Hensley matter, going so far as to say, that he “supports” the city manager’s
decision to put Chief Hensley on paid administrative leave. My office has twice provided
a certified copy of the transcript of his November 6 interview to you; I trust you do not need
a third copy.

Your response has been to defend the mayor’s remarks, and do nothing to silence him.
And now you take it upon yourself to decline a request by Council Member Sigala to get
an update? Under what authority, and why? Why does Mr. Jones, who you have gone to
great lengths to protect, continue to expose the City to liability while you keep the rest of
the City Council in the dark?
December 22, 2017
Heather N. Phillips
Goyette & Associates, Inc.
Page 4
_____________________________________________________________________

I can think of no good answers to these questions, other than you have simply lost sight
of who your client is.

We renew our request that the City Council, sans Mr. Jones, take control of this so-called
investigation under §16 of the City Charter. This is a decision to be made by the council,
without the participation of either you or Mr. Jones. I hope that the council does so, for the
good of the City of Tulare.

Quote no. 3:

“Since the time that Mr. Hensley was placed on leave, additional information has
continued to come to light that requires investigation. Additional information relating
to each and every one of the numerous allegations now being investigated will be
provided to Mr. Hensley, when appropriate and as required by law.”

Your letter to me is dated December 18. The following day, on December 19, you are
quoted in the Visalia Times Delta as having said, “an out-of-the-area investigator will be
hired to handle the investigation, but no one has been appointed.”

If there was no investigator appointed on December 19, how could you represent to me on
December 18 that there is “additional information [with] numerous allegations now being
investigated.” By whom, you and the mayor?

This process has become so damaged that you have basically made it impossible for the
chief to get a fair hearing. When the mayor goes on the airwaves and bashes the chief, you
come to the mayor’s defense. When the mayor posts a Facebook rant that exposes the
City to liability, you try to spin it like the mayor has no responsibility for his own post. When
you find out that Chief Hensley was investigating the mayor’s improper use of a credit card
at the direction of the city manager, you double down and tell me there are “new”
allegations that have surfaced that are “now being investigated,” while at the same time
admitting that no outside investigator has yet been hired.

The violations of Chief Hensley’s due process rights continue unabated, apparently with
your blessing as the City Attorney, who we must assume is speaking for the City Council.
If this is not the case, we hope that the council will meet in closed session before the end
of the year to get you and the mayor under control.
December 22, 2017
Heather N. Phillips
Goyette & Associates, Inc.
Page 5
_____________________________________________________________________

If you have any questions regarding the contents of this correspondence, please do not
hesitate to contact my office.

Sincerely,

MICHAEL J. LAMPE
MJL/ml
cc: Client
All City Council Members