Santa Ana Unified claims records of text allegation a teacher showed students a lewd photo don't exist
'I've been warning [redacted] about him,' the employee texted. 'She even knows he showed a d--k pic to a room full of middle schoolers on accident cause he wasn't teaching.'
The brief exchange appeared in batch of evidence the district turned over to attorneys for Jewish advocacy groups during a lawsuit that alleged district officials developed 'antisemitic' ethnic studies courses in secret.
Supt. Jerry Almendarez, who is set to retire on July 31, did not respond to a TimesOC request for comment about whether the alleged lewd photo incident happened, led to an investigation, what the outcome of a probe was or if the teacher remains employed by the district, as implied by the text message exchange.
Not subject to a protective court order at the time, attorneys involved in the lawsuit over the ethnic studies courses voluntarily 'redacted the names and personally identifiable information of SAUSD employees' anyway before filing all documents obtained as evidence.
In December 2023, the copious records were refiled without redaction at a judge's request, but under seal, as the district wished 'to keep confidential the names of individuals.'
TimesOC sent the district a request for the unredacted records on Sept. 6, 2024, asking for text messages concerning ethnic studies from September 2023 alone.
Months passed without any official follow up from the district, save for a same day request to refine search terms for the information technology department.
A district spokesman claimed in a phone conversation that an IT department swamped with records requests was to blame for the delay but at no time did the district communicate a need for a 14-day extension under the California Public Records Act.
The district also didn't provide a response until 152 days after TimesOC sent an email asking for text messages to be disclosed.
'Please accept our apologies for the delay in responding to your public records request,' wrote Wanda Cherif, an administrative secretary in the district's communications office. 'After reviewing all emails by our IT department, it was determined that we do not have any responsive records relating to your request.'
When reminded that the request asked for text messages — not emails — Cherif explained that no such records existed, either.
In court documents, no fewer than 88 text messages across three separate conversations appear from September 2023 alone.
But the district turned none of those documents over to TimesOC and did not respond to screenshots shared of the specific Sept. 17, 2023 text message conversation about the allegation. Jerry Almendarez, set to retire as Santa Ana Unified's superintendent this summer, dodged questions about the text messages.
'If the district had the records and clearly delivered them in discovery, then they can't claim they don't have them,' said David Loy, executive director of the First Amendment Coalition. 'They would have to either turn them over, possibly redact them or claim that there's an applicable exemption.'
Pending litigation would not have been grounds for exemption, as it only covers documents prepared for use in a lawsuit, not existing records that are introduced as evidence in a case.
In fact, the presence of a litigation hold in the case is another reason documents should have been identified and turned over, Loy further argued.
'It just further confirms that they really should have been in possessions of these records,' he said.
In February, the district settled the suit brought by the coalition of Jewish groups.
A month before the settlement, TimesOC asked the district for a copy of all record requests it had received since last September to asses how inundated it may be. More than 100 days passed before the district turned over a spreadsheet in May.
Not counting TimesOC's own request, the district received 20 records requests in the five months between the beginning of September and the end of January.
Some inquiries — requests for proposals, a decade's worth of student suspension data, attendance data, documents between district officials and Jewish advocacy groups — were fulfilled in less than two months' time.
Only four of the 20 requests in that time frame remain open; a fifth request by a Los Angeles Times reporter was fulfilled in a timely manner after January. A list of IT staff asked for and provided by the district shows 28 people employed in the department with the majority of them earning six-figure salaries.
'It's egregious,' Loy said. 'What was originally asked for was a pretty defined request for a limited set of records in a limited time frame.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
13 hours ago
- Los Angeles Times
20 years after its landmark withdrawal from Gaza, Israel is mired there
TEL AVIV, Israel — Twenty years ago, Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip, dismantling 21 Jewish settlements and pulling out its forces. The Friday anniversary of the start of the landmark disengagement comes as Israel is mired in a nearly two-year war with Hamas that has devastated the Palestinian territory and means it is likely to keep troops there long into the future. Israel's disengagement, which also included removing four settlements in the Israeli-occupied West Bank, was then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's controversial attempt to jump-start negotiations with the Palestinians. But it bitterly divided Israeli society and led to the empowerment of Hamas, with implications that continue to reverberate today. The emotional images of Jews being ripped from their homes by Israeli soldiers galvanized Israel's far-right and settler movements. The anger helped them organize and increase their political influence, accounting in part for the rise of hard-line politicians like National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir and Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich. On Thursday, Smotrich boasted of a settlement expansion plan east of Jerusalem that will 'bury' the idea of a future Palestinian state. For Palestinians, even if they welcomed the disengagement, it didn't end Israel's control over their lives. Soon after, Hamas won elections in 2006, then drove out the Palestinian Authority in a violent takeover. Israel and Egypt imposed a closure on the territory, controlling entry and exit of goods and people. Though its intensity varied over the years, the closure helped impoverish the population and entrenched a painful separation from Palestinians in the West Bank. Israel captured the West Bank, east Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip in the 1967 Mideast war. The Palestinians claim all three territories for a future independent state. Israel couldn't justify the military or economic cost of maintaining the heavily fortified settlements in Gaza, explained Kobi Michael, a senior researcher at the Misgav Institute and the Institute for National Security Studies think tanks. There were around 8,000 Israeli settlers and 1.5 million Palestinians in Gaza in 2005. 'There was no chance for these settlements to exist or flourish or become meaningful enough to be a strategic anchor,' he said. By contrast, there are more than 500,000 Israeli settlers in the West Bank, most living in developed settlement blocs that have generally received more support from Israeli society, Michael said. Most of the world considers the settlements illegal under international law. Because Israel withdrew unilaterally, without any coordination with the Palestinian Authority, it enhanced Hamas' stature among Palestinians in Gaza. 'This contributed to Hamas' win in the elections in 2006, because they leveraged it and introduced it as a very significant achievement,' Michael said. 'They saw it as an achievement of the resistance and a justification for the continuation of the armed resistance.' Footage of the violence between Israeli settlers and Israeli soldiers also created an 'open wound' in Israeli society, Michael said. 'I don't think any government will be able to do something like that in the future,' he said. That limits any flexibility over settlements in the West Bank if negotiations over a two-state solution with the Palestinians ever resume. 'Disengagement will never happen again, this is a price we're paying as a society, and a price we're paying politically,' he said. Anita Tucker, now 79, was part of the first nine Jewish families that moved to the Gaza Strip in 1976. She and her husband and their three kids lived in an Israeli army outpost near what is today Deir al-Balah, while the settlement of Netzer Hazoni was constructed. Originally from Brooklyn, she started a farm growing vegetables in the harsh, tall sand dunes. At first relations were good with their Palestinian neighbors, she said, and they worked hard to build their home and a 'beautiful community.' She had two more children, and three chose to stay and raise their families in Netzer Hazoni. She can still recall the moment, 20 years ago, when 1,000 Israeli soldiers arrived at the gate to the settlement to remove the approximately 400 residents. Some of her neighbors lit their houses on fire in protest. 'Obviously it was a mistake to leave. The lives of the Arabs became much worse, and the lives of the Jews became much, much worse, with rockets and Oct. 7,' she said, referring to the decades of rockets fired from Gaza into Israel and the date in 2023 of the Hamas attack that launched the ongoing war. Despite the passage of time, her family still is 'yearning and longing for their home,' she said. Several of her 10 grandchildren, including some who spent their early childhood in the Gaza settlements, have served in the current war and were near her old house. 'It's hard to believe, because of all the terrible things that happened that we predicted, but we're willing to build there again,' said Tucker. After Israel's withdrawal 20 years ago, many Palestinians described Gaza as an 'open-air prison.' They had control on the inside – under a Hamas government that some supported but some saw as heavy-handed and brutal. But ultimately, Israel had a grip around the territory. Many Palestinians believe Sharon carried out the withdrawal so Israel could focus on cementing its control in the West Bank through settlement building. Now some believe more direct Israeli occupation is returning to Gaza. After 22 months of war, Israeli troops control more than 75% of Gaza, and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu speaks of maintaining security control long term after the war. 'Over the past 20 years we were relieved of occupation, shelling and seeing the Jews. Now we hear that they want to occupy here again after two years of war,' said Sabah Abu Audeh, a 67-year-old grandmother who was displaced to Gaza's Shati refugee camp. Aouni Timras, 55, from the Nuseirat refugee camp said he felt optimistic when Israel pulled out, thinking things would get better. 'We were hopeful but now the occupation returned for the second time,' Timras said. 'What can people do? This is what we live through. We hope that there will be a truce so that people can stand up again.' Amjad Shawa, the director of the Palestinian NGO Network, said he doesn't believe Netanyahu will repeat Sharon's full withdrawal. Instead, he expects the military to continue controlling large swaths of Gaza through 'buffer zones.' The aim, he said, is to keep Gaza 'unlivable in order to change the demographics,' referring to Netanyahu's plans to encourage Palestinians to leave the territory. Israel is 'is reoccupying the Gaza Strip' to prevent a Palestinian state, said Mostafa Ibrahim, an author based in Gaza City whose home was destroyed in the current war. Israeli former Maj. Gen. Dan Harel, who was head of the country's Southern Command during the disengagement, remembers the toll of protecting a few thousand settlers. There were an average of 10 attacks per day against Israeli settlers and soldiers, including rockets, roadside bombs big enough to destroy a tank, tunnels to attack Israeli soldiers and military positions, and frequent gunfire. 'Bringing a school bus of kids from one place to another required a military escort,' said Harel. 'There wasn't a future. People paint it as how wonderful it was there, but it wasn't wonderful.' Harel says the decision to evacuate Israeli settlements from the Gaza Strip was the right one, but that Israel missed crucial opportunities. Most egregious, he said, was a unilateral withdrawal without obtaining any concessions from the Palestinians in Gaza or the Palestinian Authority. He also sharply criticized Israel's policy of containment toward Hamas after disengagement. There were short but destructive conflicts over the years between the two sides, but otherwise the policy gave Hamas 'an opportunity to do whatever they wanted.' 'We had such a blind spot with Hamas, we didn't see them morph from a terror organization into an organized military, with battalions and commanders and infrastructure,' he said. The Oct. 7 attack, Israel's largest military intelligence failure to date, was not a result of the disengagement, said Harel. 'The main issue is what we did in the 18 years in between.' Lidman writes for the Associated Press. AP writers Fatma Khaled contributed from Cairo and Wafaa Shurafa from Deir al Balah, Gaza Strip.
Yahoo
15 hours ago
- Yahoo
20 years after its landmark withdrawal from Gaza, Israel is mired there
Israel Gaza Withdrawal Anniversary TEL AVIV, Israel (AP) — Twenty years ago, Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip, dismantling 21 Jewish settlements and pulling out its forces. The Friday anniversary of the start of the landmark disengagement comes as Israel is mired in a nearly two-year war with Hamas that has devastated the Palestinian territory and means it is likely to keep troops there long into the future. Israel's disengagement, which also included removing four settlements in the Israeli-occupied West Bank, was then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's controversial attempt to jump-start negotiations with the Palestinians. But it bitterly divided Israeli society and led to the empowerment of Hamas, with implications that continue to reverberate today. The emotional images of Jews being ripped from their homes by Israeli soldiers galvanized Israel's far-right and settler movements. The anger helped them organize and increase their political influence, accounting in part for the rise of hard-line politicians like National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir and Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich. On Thursday, Smotrich boasted of a settlement expansion plan east of Jerusalem that will 'bury' the idea of a future Palestinian state. For Palestinians, even if they welcomed the disengagement, it didn't end Israel's control over their lives. Soon after, Hamas won elections in 2006, then drove out the Palestinian Authority in a violent takeover. Israel and Egypt imposed a closure on the territory, controlling entry and exit of goods and people. Though its intensity varied over the years, the closure helped impoverish the population and entrenched a painful separation from Palestinians in the West Bank. Israel captured the West Bank, east Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip in the 1967 Mideast war. The Palestinians claim all three territories for a future independent state. A unilateral withdrawal enhanced Hamas' stature Israel couldn't justify the military or economic cost of maintaining the heavily fortified settlements in Gaza, explained Kobi Michael, a senior researcher at the Misgav Institute and the Institute for National Security Studies think tanks. There were around 8,000 Israeli settlers and 1.5 million Palestinians in Gaza in 2005. 'There was no chance for these settlements to exist or flourish or become meaningful enough to be a strategic anchor,' he said. By contrast, there are more than 500,000 Israeli settlers in the West Bank, most living in developed settlement blocs that have generally received more support from Israeli society, Michael said. Most of the world considers the settlements illegal under international law. Because Israel withdrew unilaterally, without any coordination with the Palestinian Authority, it enhanced Hamas' stature among Palestinians in Gaza. 'This contributed to Hamas' win in the elections in 2006, because they leveraged it and introduced it as a very significant achievement,' Michael said. 'They saw it as an achievement of the resistance and a justification for the continuation of the armed resistance.' Footage of the violence between Israeli settlers and Israeli soldiers also created an 'open wound' in Israeli society, Michael said. 'I don't think any government will be able to do something like that in the future,' he said. That limits any flexibility over settlements in the West Bank if negotiations over a two-state solution with the Palestinians ever resume. 'Disengagement will never happen again, this is a price we're paying as a society, and a price we're paying politically,' he said. An early settler longs to return Anita Tucker, now 79, was part of the first nine Jewish families that moved to the Gaza Strip in 1976. She and her husband and their three kids lived in an Israeli army outpost near what is today Deir al-Balah, while the settlement of Netzer Hazoni was constructed. Originally from Brooklyn, she started a farm growing vegetables in the harsh, tall sand dunes. At first relations were good with their Palestinian neighbors, she said, and they worked hard to build their home and a 'beautiful community.' She had two more children, and three chose to stay and raise their families in Netzer Hazoni. She can still recall the moment, 20 years ago, when 1,000 Israeli soldiers arrived at the gate to the settlement to remove the approximately 400 residents. Some of her neighbors lit their houses on fire in protest. 'Obviously it was a mistake to leave. The lives of the Arabs became much worse, and the lives of the Jews became much, much worse, with rockets and Oct. 7,' she said, referring to the decades of rockets fired from Gaza into Israel and the date in 2023 of the Hamas attack that launched the ongoing war. Despite the passage of time, her family still is 'yearning and longing for their home,' she said. Several of her 10 grandchildren, including some who spent their early childhood in the Gaza settlements, have served in the current war and were near her old house. 'It's hard to believe, because of all the terrible things that happened that we predicted, but we're willing to build there again,' said Tucker. Palestinians doubt Israel will ever fully withdraw from Gaza again After Israel's withdrawal 20 years ago, many Palestinians described Gaza as an 'open-air prison.' They had control on the inside – under a Hamas government that some supported but some saw as heavy-handed and brutal. But ultimately, Israel had a grip around the territory. Many Palestinians believe Sharon carried out the withdrawal so Israel could focus on cementing its control in the West Bank through settlement building. Now some believe more direct Israeli occupation is returning to Gaza. After 22 months of war, Israeli troops control more than 75% of Gaza, and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu speaks of maintaining security control long term after the war. 'Over the past 20 years we were relieved of occupation, shelling and seeing the Jews. Now we hear that they want to occupy here again after two years of war," said Sabah Abu Audeh, a 67-year-old grandmother who was displaced to Gaza's Shati refugee camp. Aouni Timras, 55, from the Nuseirat refugee camp said he felt optimistic when Israel pulled out, thinking things would get better. 'We were hopeful but now the occupation returned for the second time,' Timras said. "What can people do? This is what we live through. We hope that there will be a truce so that people can stand up again.' Amjad Shawa, the director of the Palestinian NGO Network, said he doesn't believe Netanyahu will repeat Sharon's full withdrawal. Instead, he expects the military to continue controlling large swaths of Gaza through 'buffer zones.' The aim, he said, is to keep Gaza 'unlivable in order to change the demographics,' referring to Netanyahu's plans to encourage Palestinians to leave the territory. Israel is 'is reoccupying the Gaza Strip' to prevent a Palestinian state, said Mostafa Ibrahim, an author based in Gaza City whose home was destroyed in the current war. Missed opportunities Israeli former Maj. Gen. Dan Harel, who was head of the country's Southern Command during the disengagement, remembers the toll of protecting a few thousand settlers. There were an average of 10 attacks per day against Israeli settlers and soldiers, including rockets, roadside bombs big enough to destroy a tank, tunnels to attack Israeli soldiers and military positions, and frequent gunfire. 'Bringing a school bus of kids from one place to another required a military escort,' said Harel. 'There wasn't a future. People paint it as how wonderful it was there, but it wasn't wonderful.' Harel says the decision to evacuate Israeli settlements from the Gaza Strip was the right one, but that Israel missed crucial opportunities. Most egregious, he said, was a unilateral withdrawal without obtaining any concessions from the Palestinians in Gaza or the Palestinian Authority. He also sharply criticized Israel's policy of containment toward Hamas after disengagement. There were short but destructive conflicts over the years between the two sides, but otherwise the policy gave Hamas 'an opportunity to do whatever they wanted.' 'We had such a blind spot with Hamas, we didn't see them morph from a terror organization into an organized military, with battalions and commanders and infrastructure,' he said. The Oct. 7 attack, Israel's largest military intelligence failure to date, was not a result of the disengagement, said Harel. 'The main issue is what we did in the 18 years in between.' ___ Associated Press writers Fatma Khaled contributed from Cairo and Wafaa Shurafa from Deir al Balah, Gaza Strip. Solve the daily Crossword
Newsweek
18 hours ago
- Newsweek
Want To Stop Mamdani? It's Time To Get Serious
As of right now, Zohran Mamdani is the overwhelming favorite to be elected mayor of New York. Beyond his appeal to many New Yorkers on a variety of issues—most notably his extremely left-leaning policies intended to deal with the issue of affordability—in a race where three other candidates are poised to split the anti-Mamdani vote, his victory is all but assured. Many major interest groups in New York believe a Mamdani victory would be disastrous. It is almost impossible to find a business leader who thinks Mamdani would not be highly destructive to the interests of the city. Similarly, many Jewish leaders think that a city with the biggest Jewish population outside of Tel Aviv shouldn't have a mayor who still cannot disassociate himself completely from slogans supporting a "global intifada," especially during a time of rising antisemitic incidents. Moreover, hardly anyone who has expertise in law enforcement and crime reduction believes Mamdani is the best candidate to protect public safety—and for a large proportion of New Yorkers, that issue is right up there with affordability as a top concern. Unfortunately, incumbent mayor Eric Adams and former governor Andrew Cuomo, Mamdani's two major opponents, are both very flawed candidates. Many New Yorkers believe that Eric Adams' federal indictment, which was subsequently dropped by the Trump Justice Department, is indicative of a corrupt administration. Indeed, given the circumstances under which it was dropped, many now view Adams as being in the pocket of President Donald Trump. Of course, New Yorkers being overwhelmingly Democratic, many believe Trump's policies are antithetical to the city's well-being, and the president himself is extremely unpopular in his native city. NEW YORK, NEW YORK - AUGUST 11: New York mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani speaks during a press conference at the 1199SEIU headquarters on August 11, 2025 in New York City. NEW YORK, NEW YORK - AUGUST 11: New York mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani speaks during a press conference at the 1199SEIU headquarters on August 11, 2025 in New York City. Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images Andrew Cuomo, having been forced to resign as governor amid a sexual harassment scandal, not to mention what many consider to be his very abrasive style, ran a horrendous primary campaign. I wrote a column recently suggesting Cuomo did not learn any lessons whatsoever from the failed Kamala Harris presidential campaign, making him absolutely guilty of political malpractice. While the Republican in the race, Curtis Sliwa, has virtually no chance of winning the election, based on previous mayoral elections it is clear a Republican candidate will syphon away 200,000-300,000 votes, which could make all the difference for anybody with a chance of challenging Mamdani. Under these circumstances, one might ask, how can Mamdani possibly lose? The answer is, under these circumstances he can't. So, if one believes that Mamdani's election would be an enormous setback for the city of New York, and many right-thinking people strongly believe that, why aren't these circumstances being changed? Underpinning the intensity of feeling that Mamdani would be a disastrous choice for the city is the impact of his election on national politics. There is no doubt that Trump and the Republican Party would point to Mamdani's election to make the case that an avowed socialist, far to the left of most Americans' political outlook, is what the Democratic Party fundamentally represents. Democrats would have a very difficult time distancing themselves from Mamdani as representative of what their party stands for. The recent fawning endorsement by Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) certainly makes it appear that the most progressive members of the Democratic Party believe they should stand behind Mamdani. It is also likely that Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and House minority leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) will in some form endorse Mamdani. In that case, it will be impossible for Democrats to meaningfully distance themselves from Mamdani's most radical positions and policies. That perception will be extremely politically detrimental to the Democratic Party nationally. So, bad for the nation's largest city, bad for the Democratic Party, and bad for the nation overall given the importance of the Democrats mustering the ability to take back the House next year to counter Trump. If New York's mayoral race does not fundamentally change by Labor Day—meaning the anti-Mamdani candidates consolidating behind a single horse—Mamdani will undoubtedly be the next mayor of New York. So how do these circumstances on the ground change? Answer: with great difficulty. Mayor Adams, as the incumbent, contends that it is hubris for Cuomo to suggest he drop out of the race. Cuomo argues, with substantial polling data to back him up, that he is the only candidate who can beat Mamdani in a one-on-one contest. The fact is that polling clearly suggests both Cuomo and Adams are weak candidates—over 60 percent of voters indicate they would never vote for either. However, the polls do suggest in a one-on-one race there is some chance Cuomo could beat Mamdani, and clearly also suggest Adams could not. Among "likely" voters, both Adams and Cuomo lose to Mamdani. However, when it comes to registered voters, which is a much larger group, polls have shown Cuomo to be within the margin of error. However, Cuomo would have to expand voter turnout well beyond typical mayoral elections to really have a shot. Cuomo would also have to demonstrate to the public how detrimental a Mamdani win would be to New York City and the Democratic Party, and deliver a higher level of intensity and passion in his messaging. Moreover, he would need city leaders of all sectors and ethnicities to join the battle cry to get a record voter turnout. So here is a modest proposal. It may sound radical, but a drastic situation calls for drastic measures. Mayor Adams should aim for a future that leverages his expertise and sets him up for a much better outcome than a career-ending loss in this race. He should announce that instead of pursuing public office again, he will set up a consulting firm to provide counseling to cities around the country on how to better provide for public safety. Crime rates in New York City have dropped dramatically in recent years so Adams has insights based on a credible track record to offer. Cuomo has a substantial monied interest behind him, including many donors who care about keeping New York safe. As a show of unity, they should commit resources—even as much as $10 million—to help Adams bring his experience to cities across the nation. I think Sliwa is an easier case to handle. Sliwa siphoning off votes in this race will only lead to the election of a mayor who will undermine all the public safety concerns he has fought for his entire life. That should not be his personal legacy. Cuomo should offer him a position as deputy mayor in his administration—a much better result and a goal to rally Republicans behind. Getting Adams and Sliwa out of the race will not be enough. Cuomo, in deep contrast to his primary performance, will have to campaign his heart out, drive a completely different social media presence, demonstrate incredible sensitivity on the affordability issue especially as it relates to housing, showcase the difference between his law enforcement views and Mamdani's, and continue to rally the Jewish community in opposition to Mamdani's anti-Israel, if not antisemitic, views. I recognize clearing the path for Cuomo to take on Mamdani on a one-on-one race is a tall order. However, the future of New York City and the Democratic Party's midterm election prospects rest on it. Let's get serious. Time is running out. To those Cuomo backers with the money to execute this plan: you need to get going. Tom Rogers is executive chairman of Claigrid, Inc. (the cloud AI grid company), an editor-at-large for Newsweek, the founder of CNBC and a CNBC contributor. He also established MSNBC, is the former CEO of TiVo, a member of Keep Our Republic (an organization dedicated to preserving the nation's democracy). He is also a member of the American Bar Association Task Force on Democracy. The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
