Dixon vs Glenn is Heard in Court Tomorrow

Tomorrow at 9:00 AM (Tuesday, December 19, 2017) in Department H2, Judge Delaney will be hearing the Dixon vs Glenn case at the Newport Harbor Justice Center.  For a backstory here, check out these links:



The judge has read the arguments and intends to question both sides in open court.  If I am successful, this will be a landmark case to be referenced throughout California for many years to come.

The fact that it was unable to be dismissed despite multiple attempts by Dixon and the City including the use of taxpayer money to hire outside legal counsel and instead of simply apologizing– the only thing I have ever asked for– have decided to go to battle with a small business owner with zero experience in law tells you how lopsided this case actually is.

Further, the California State Constitution reads “The people of this State do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created.” (Chapter 9, 54950). The notion that “full legislative immunity” allows for a city councilperson to espouse untruths about a citizen, publish videos of those untruths on Public TV, the internet, and then file those same untruths into public email records flies directly in the face of the California State Constitution, as this notion would indeed yield sovereignty to elected officials, elevating them to a level of “beyond reproach” generally reserved for royalty and dictators.

Will the judge give “full legislative immunity” to a position of councilperson in Small Claims Court?  The city itself argued that judges in small claims don’t have that privilege.

Furthermore, when Dixon stated “the truth is the best defense”—then why is Dixon attempting to defend herself using “legislative immunity” which is—by her own definition—a worse defense?

Dixon also says that I am somehow “wasting taxpayer dollars” but by filing in small claims– where no lawyers are allowed to represent anyone– there is no taxpayer money being wasted at all.  That is, unless, Dixon is predicting a victory for me.

However, if Dixon is concerned about taxpayer dollars, I can address that: It is a gross miscarriage of justice for Dixon to use our taxpayer dollars to target, investigate, research, and shame an activist so that she can force a cost-inefficient bus system that virtually nobody outside of even wanted—according to her own polls.  It is even moreso a miscarriage of justice for her to use additional taxpayer dollars to hire unnecessary outside council to defend her actions that she dragged into court instead of simply issuing the appropriate apology and retraction which I asked for over a dozen times.  But it is said that we all wear our character on our sleeves, and I am proud to represent myself against Dixon and whoever else she tries to drag into this, including the entire city and any outside legal counsel who thinks this is a reasonable case to take against a citizen.  Hopefully, her abuse of taxpayers and our taxpayer dollars will be re-examined after this ruling.

The crux of this case, though, lies in whether or not someone can even owe money for Public Document Requests that are not picked up from the city.  According to the city’s own “Notices of Determination” that they send out to alert people of what the fees would be, the papers are delivered upon receipt of payment– so that appears to be a “No.”

Additionally, the Public Document Request Act allows any citizen to inspect any non-restricted document in-person free of cost, so long as those documents are not removed from the premises for inspection.  I have inspected these documents in-person, and they were never removed from the premises.

So even if I had asked for physical copies to be provided to me (I didn’t), then inspecting those documents in-person still is without a charge.

Finally, the documents that were printed contain tons of emails as well, which is in direct violation of the California Public Records Act, as digital copies are required to be delivered electronically– and free of cost.  So even if I had requested these (I didn’t) and even if I wanted to pay for them (I didn’t), then the charges would actually be against the law because they are not allowed to print electronic documents and charge people for them when they are already existing in electronic form and can be delivered without a charge.

But, at the end of the day, while this case focuses on the slander done by Dixon to silence an activist, the core of the problem (which is not addressed in court) is that Dixon had the ability to address this in off-topic discussion if she truly believed what she said and wanted to do it publicly.  That would have maintained order in the meeting.  However, according to her own voicemail, she wanted to ambush me with accusations so that she could push her “trolley” agenda, which ultimately killed a local business in the area.

Tuesday at 9am in the Harbor Justice Center in Newport Beach should be interesting.

I hope to see you all in room H-2.  The media will most assuredly be there, as this is a bit of a landmark case, and will surely be cited for many years to come.



About Mike Glenn

Mike is the founder and publisher of Save Newport and Chair of Government Relations for the Elks Lodge. He writes, shoots photos, and edits, but much of the time, he's just "the IT guy". He can be reached at: Google+, Facebook, or via email, at michael.glenn@devion.com