The post LA County Commits Millions to Combat Food Insecurity – Here’s How It Affects You appeared first on LA Cuisines.

The Roots of the Clash

The bad blood between Villanueva and Huntsman dates back to the former sheriff’s tumultuous four-year term from 2018 to 2022. Villanueva repeatedly butted heads with the Sheriff Civilian Oversight Commission over his refusal to testify about secret deputy gangs operating within his department.

After finally giving testimony in January 2023, the commission determined that Villanueva had violated county policies against discrimination and harassment. Their key evidence? Villanueva’s insistence on referring to Huntsman repeatedly by his full birth name “Max-Gustaf” instead of just “Max.”

The Defamation Claims

In a tort claim filed on May 15th, Villanueva alleges that the county damaged his reputation and employment prospects through a lack of due process and defamation. His attorney Carney R. Shegerian slammed the county’s “secretive legal proceedings, unabashedly devoid of any notice, due process, transparency.”

The claim states that Villanueva has been given “zero opportunity” to defend himself, question witnesses, provide testimony or evidence before being branded ineligible for rehire. It portrays his treatment as “unprecedented” compared to other former officials ensnared in scandals.

Villanueva also takes aim at the Los Angeles Times for a January 31st article that he believes falsely painted him as “a bigot”, just weeks before a pivotal election he ultimately lost against County Supervisor Janice Hahn. The article covered Huntsman’s accusation that using “Max-Gustaf” amounted to “dog-whistling to the extremists” Villanueva catered to.

Perhaps most explosively, the claim alleges that in an editorial board interview, Villanueva insinuated without evidence that Huntsman was a Holocaust denier – a searing charge for the Jewish inspector general.

The “Max-Gustaf” Debate

But Villanueva contends there was nothing discriminatory about using Huntsman’s full name, noting the inspector general publicly used it himself on office materials and his name appears that way in a public salary database.

He dismisses the notion that “Max-Gustaf” was meant to emphasize Huntsman’s foreign or ethnic background in a derogatory manner. The claim portrays it as a mere personal preference used by Huntsman himself.

The Broader Backdrop

The high-stakes defamation claim represents just the latest chapter in Villanueva’s combative tenure as sheriff. He frequently accused county overseers of attempting to strip him of jurisdictional authority and punish him for reform efforts.

Villanueva tried unsuccessfully to re-hire a former deputy fired for alleged domestic violence and harassment. He was also criticized for being slow to rout out suspected secret societies and misconduct among deputies.

Concurrently, the claim alleges the Office of Inspector General’s website continues to defame Villanueva by stating that under his leadership, “the Sheriff’s Department has gone to great lengths to keep its conduct secret.”

What’s at Stake?

More than just money and reputations are on the line. Villanueva portrays the $25 million claim as a matter of holding the county Board of Supervisors “accountable” for its use of taxpayer resources in his case.

The former sheriff hopes to clear his name through the legal process after what he calls a “lethal blow” to his storied public service career. He vows to reveal “hard facts” about alleged unfair treatment at the county’s hands.

The county counsel’s office defends the “do not rehire” recommendation as upholding transparency about officer misconduct. It says sustained violations prompted the harsh move against Villanueva.

A Costly Legal Battle Ahead

With neither side backing down, a major and costly legal battle is shaping up between the former top cop and the nation’s most populous county government. At the case’s core are debates about enforcing harassment policies, protecting reputations, ethnic insensitivities, and the systems for providing due process to public officials accused of misconduct.

Villanueva contends he is the victim of a political vendetta by a hostile board of supervisors and an over-zealous oversight operation run amok. The county argues it was properly enforcing accountability over an elected leader who abused his power and discriminated against an inspector trying to expose wrongdoing.

The sheriff’s $25 million claim puts a sky-high price tag on resolving the thorniest civilian oversight dispute LA County has faced in recent memory. Depending on how the legal process unfolds, the case could reshape the boundaries of independence for elected law enforcement leaders versus civilian overseers.

Brace for a high-stakes battle where tens of millions of dollars – and procedures for policing the police – hang in the balance. The confrontation has all the makings of an epic legal grudge match in the city where Dragnet, Serpico, and thousands of other cop dramas were born. I sincerely hope you find this “Former Sheriff Villanueva Demands $25 Million from LA County? What really Happened?” article helpful.

The post Former Sheriff Villanueva Demands $25 Million from LA County? What really Happened? appeared first on LA Cuisines.