School investigator Ed Saucerman

S an Diego Education
Report Blog

SITE MAP

HOME

....

San Diego Education Report

SDER

San Diego
Education Report

SDER

Ed Saucer Man
Flies Again
June 5, 2012
by Jan Tucker
The Detective's Diary

I’m shocked, shocked at
the latest revelations
about Private Dick Ed
Saucerman. Well, not
really. Nothing he could
do would shock me these
days. For background on
why, check out:

http://janbtucker.
com/blog/2012/03/14/pitiful-practice-
in-pasadena-usd/

http://janbtucker.
com/blog/2012/02/26/opening-the-
skeletons-closet/

What is actually
shocking is that people
continue to hire him,
apparently without first
simply “Googling” his
name, which ought to be a
pre-requisite for hiring a
Private Investigator, an
attorney, a doctor, or a
contractor…….Not doing
so can lead to many
headaches. One such
headache could have
been averted by the
Claremont Unified School
District (CUSD) and it’s
attorneys if they’d
bothered to check
Saucerman out before
utilizing his services:

https://www.claremont-courier.
com/articles/news/t3048-
claremont-sumner-principal-
dismissed

So, let’s review what a
school district or an
attorney would have found
out by conducting even a
cursory search of the
publicly available sources
of knowledge on the
internet about Ed
Saucerman before hiring
him:

* Saucerman fabricated
a testimonial letter
purportedly written by a
Deputy Attorney General
and posted it on his
website; the letter falsely
claimed that he’d been
hired by the California
Department of Justice for
an investigation

* Saucerman fabricated a
testimonial letter from
another private
investigator and falsely
attributed its contents to
the wrong investigator
because he’d had a falling
out with the real
investigator who hired him
on the case

* Saucerman falsely
claimed that he would not
renew his membership in
the California Association
of Licensed Investigators
(CALI) and then renewed
that membership after his
disastrous showing in the
election for President of
CALI’s rival, PICA
(Professional Investigators
of California)

* Saucerman was sued
for arresting and causing
the incarceration of a
student at Fontana High
School on graduation day
for suspicion of knowing
who might have painted
graffiti on school property

* Saucerman has
repeatedly made
deceptive statements to
other investigators and the
public about his law
enforcement experience in
an attempt to lead people
to believe he’d spent 16-
17 years in the Los
Angeles Police
Department when in fact
he didn’t even make it past
probation

* Saucerman was ordered
off of the Fontana High
School campus due to
staff complaints

Now, even if Saucerman
was the “Titan” of the
investigative profession
that he imagines himself to
be, it would be extremely
unwise for a school district,
an attorney or any other
client to hire Saucerman
knowing this to be his
record.

If he ever had to testify in
court or any administrative
hearing, he’d get beaten up
with his reputation for
dishonesty at the very least.
If Saucerman had been an
employee rather than an
independent contractor for
the CUSD, he might very
likely have gotten the district
into a negligent hiring lawsuit,
79% of which are lost by
employers according to a
2001 Public Personnel
Management report (http:
//www.iso.com/Research-and-
Analyses/ISO-
Review/Negligent-Hiring-
Employer-Risk.html).

If I was a taxpayer in the
CUSD, I’d sure be thinking
about filing a lawsuit
pursuant to Section 526a
of the California Code of
Civil Procedure to insure
that the district would
never again squander
public money by hiring
either Ed Saucerman or
the law firm that
recommended him, Fagen
Friedman & Fulfrost LLP,
again. Section 526a CCP
provides that:

An action to obtain a
judgment, restraining and
preventing
any illegal expenditure of,
waste of, or injury to, the
estate,
funds, or other property of
a county, town, city or city
and county
of the state, may be
maintained against any
officer thereof, or any
agent, or other person,
acting in its behalf, either
by a citizen
resident therein, or by a
corporation, who is
assessed for and is
liable to pay, or, within one
year before the
commencement of the
action, has paid, a tax
therein. This section does
not affect any
right of action in favor of a
county, city, town, or city
and county,
or any public officer;
provided, that no
injunction shall be granted
restraining the offering for
sale, sale, or issuance of
any municipal bonds for
public improvements or
public utilities.

An action brought
pursuant to this section to
enjoin a public
improvement project shall
take special precedence
over all civil
matters on the calendar of
the court except those
matters to which
equal precedence on the
calendar is granted by law.

The approximately
$20,000.00 spent on
Saucerman’s services
according to the
Claremont Courier was a
waste of money.
Claremont taxpayers
should do something
about it.

School investigator Ed Saucerman

Change of fate for D'Emilio
brings questions about
investigation
Kathryn Dunn
Claremont Courier
May 31, 2012

After months of investigation and
community uproar, Frank D’Emilio has
been reinstated as a teacher for the
fall.

As many residents grapple with what proved to
be an emotional narrative, lingering questions
about the investigation remain unanswered.

Assistant Superintendent of Human Resources
Kevin Ward said that CUSD enlisted Workforce
Investigations on the recommendation of the
district’s legal counsel to investigate allegations
Mr. D’Emilio had failed to report suspected child
abuse. This is the first time CUSD has utilized
the services of Workforce Investigations
or its lead investigator, Edward
Saucerman.

The use of a private investigator,
according to Mr. Ward, was recommended
because the district’s legal counsel felt the
best practice was to hire an outside,
impartial party to look into the matter.
Brian Bock of Fagen, Friedman and
Fulfrost, who has worked with Mr.
Saucerman for 10 years, made the
recommendation.

“When an organization anticipates that a matter
might become emotionally charged, conducting
an internal investigation can unintentionally
create a situation where people are accused of
dredging up bias and blame,” Mr. Bock said.

CUSD paid $125 per hour for Mr. Saucerman’s
services with the total cost for the investigation,
including meetings, interviews, analysis, drafting
and transcription, coming in at just under
$20,000.

“From the onset, the district’s goal with this
investigation was expressly to gather essential
facts so the [district] could make an informed
decision,” Mr. Bock said. “That is simply what Mr.
Saucerman did in this matter.”

Mr. Bock asserts Mr. Saucerman was selected
because he worked with other school districts in
similar investigations for nearly a decade.

“Given his reputation for reliably providing a
thorough, thoughtful and honest work product, it
was determined that he would be the right
person to handle this matter for the district,” Mr.
Bock said.

But lack of information about Mr.
Saucerman’s experience, his
relationship with the law firm that
recommended him, and conflicting
reports on what was said and how
some interviews were conducted, has
given pause to some community
members as to whether the
investigation was truly impartial.

It’s clear Mr. Bock and Mr. Saucerman
had a business and personal
friendship based on photographs of
Mr. Saucerman, Mr. Bock and law
partners Peter Fagen and Howard
Friedman—attorneys from Fagen,
Friedman and Fulfrost—at an Angels
baseball game that were posted to
Facebook on April 6, during the time
of the investigation.

A Thursday morning call to Interim CUSD
Superintendent Gloria Johnston as to
whether she considered this off-the-job
association appropriate had not been
answered as of that afternoon.

As part of the investigation, Mr.
Saucerman interviewed and collected
written documentation from Sumner
School staff, with Claremont Teachers’
Association President Joe Tonan
sitting in on at least one interview.

Mr. Tonan contends the interview
included leading and hypothetical
questions, and the teacher was told
that she could be fired depending
upon the answers given.

“The teacher was in a tough bind,” Mr. Tonan
said.

Mr. Saucerman denies the claim.

“I was very shocked when I was reading [in the
newspaper] that I had threatened someone, a
teacher or a party. I didn’t threaten anyone,” Mr.
Saucerman said. “That’s a fabrication. I treat
everyone with respect.”

Lita Abella, a current board member of the
California Association of Licensed
Investigators—a professional association of
private investigators—has known Mr. Saucerman
for many years. She also owns her own
investigation firm and spent 20 years with the
Los Angeles Police Department.

“If you’re a good investigator, you don’t need
threaten anybody. That’s not what a professional
does in any industry,” Ms. Abella said.

Mr. Saucerman’s LinkedIn page states he
completed the LAPD police academy in
1989 and, beginning in 1997, acted as a
field-training officer with the Pasadena
Unified School District for 8 years.
Although not noted on his LinkedIn
page, Mr. Saucerman also worked as
a school police officer with Fontana
Unified School District beginning in
1994 and ending with his resignation
in May 1998, according to Riverside
Press-Enterprise article. Dates of
employment with LAPD and the Pasadena
Unified School District Police could not
be verified.

“What I can speak to is, first of all, I’ve
been doing this for 23 years. I’m a retired
police officer of 16 years,” Mr. Saucerman
said. “I retired from the Pasadena Unified
School District police department. I’ve
taught police officers and I’ve trained
officers on interview techniques and
investigative techniques.”

A request for Mr. Saucerman’s formal
resume from Fagen, Friedman and
Fulfrost was not fulfilled.

The report and the Sumner staff

The use of a private investigator in what
was considered a personnel matter
exacerbated an already-tentative situation
among Sumner staff. The report itself
raised concerns with Mr. Tonan, who felt
some of the responses to questions
were not accurately reflected in the
report. Additionally, terms like
“founded,” “unfounded” or
“sustained” were used liberally
throughout the report to establish
credibility or to discredit those who
were interviewed, according to Mr.
Tonan.

At one point, Mr. Saucerman’s report
expressed the following conclusion about
Mr. D’Emilio.

“This investigator did not find Mr. D’
Emilio credible during the
investigation…Although he admitted to
being dishonest with [redacted], this
investigator must question the overall
integrity of Mr. D’Emilio.”

Mr. Bock explained that Mr. Saucerman
applied “the legal standard of the
preponderance of evidence” to make a
determination about the credibility of Mr. D’
Emilio and other parties involved.

“This preponderance standard is dictated
by California courts and in layman’s terms
means that it is ‘more likely than not’ that
something occurred or did not occur,” Mr.
Bock said.

Jan B. Tucker, a private investigator
out of Torrance and 7-term chairman
of CALI, noted that this kind of legal
terminology would be used more
appropriately in police disciplinary
actions, not in personnel
investigations.

“The use of terms like ‘sustained’ makes
me think that Saucerman is running it like
an internal affairs investigation at a police
department,” Mr. Tucker said. “It’s a little
like a kid playing dress-up. It is
ridiculous for investigators to use
terms like that. We are not judges.”

Mr. Tucker, who has been a full-time,
licensed private investigator in California
since 1979, added that investigators
are typically hired to conduct
investigations and collect data
through interviews, but not to draw
conclusions.

However, Mr. Saucerman contends that a
private investigator’s task goes beyond
just fact-finding, as investigators are paid
to collect information and make a
recommendation to the client based on
what is gleaned.

“We’re hired to do an investigation and
make a determination,” he said.
“Collecting evidence is part of the
investigation, but it’s not all of it. An
investigation is to make a determination
on whether or not something occurred.”

Mr. Bock stands by the report and
investigation, stating, “It is a standard and
proven practice to hire an outside,
impartial investigator to thoroughly
examine the situation, gather and report
the facts.”

Through community support and
reconsideration by the board, Mr. D’Emilio
will begin to put the ordeal behind him and
return to the classroom. The methods
used in the investigation, by CUSD and
the board of education have undoubtedly
impacted the community, but the lasting
effect this has on future personnel matters
remains to be seen.

O.C. Detectives' Conduct in Canada Questioned
Probe: Murder suspect's lawyers cite sheriff's internal report to attack
investigators' credibility.
August 23, 2001
JACK LEONARD
Los Angeles TIMES STAFF WRITER

Two Orange County sheriff's detectives working in Canada on a murder case
have stirred up an international flap, with accusations that they partied at a club
under surveillance by the local constabulary, fell asleep while serving a search
warrant and violated the terms of a U.S. treaty with Canada.

A preliminary Sheriff's Department report on the allegations is being used by
defense lawyers to attack the credibility of the detectives in a case against two
men charged with the 1998 slaying of a Lake Forest jewelry store owner.

In questioning the investigators' behavior, defense attorneys have found an
unexpected ally in a Canadian prosecutor who worked with investigators Mark
Simon and Ken Hoffman and later expressed dismay at their conduct.

Senior Crown Counsel Teresa Mitchell Banks told sheriff's officials that she
harbored serious concerns about the competence of the investigators and was
offended by their repeated statements that the suspects were "going to fry."

"They were like cowboys," she told sheriff's officials, according to court records
obtained this week. "It was a very macho, beating the [pecs], high testosterone,
high excitement kind of event in here."

The Sheriff's Department on Wednesday declined to comment on the case or to
say whether its probe of the allegations was completed. But the preliminary report
on its internal probe stated that:

* Hoffman and Simon were unprofessional in dealing with Banks, who accused
the two of being unprepared as they sought her help in drafting search warrants
crucial to the case.

* The two investigators actively participated in the search of two homes, despite
being told by police in Vancouver, British Columbia, and prosecutors that they
could only observe the search under the terms of a treaty between the United
States and Canada. Hoffman and Simon also displayed "unsafe and
unprofessional" conduct by falling asleep on a couch while searching the home of
a suspect's sister.

* While off duty, the investigators used poor judgment by celebrating arrests in
the case at a karaoke club that police had under surveillance for suspected
prostitution and organized crime links.

* Simon displayed poor judgment while off duty in associating with a woman he
allegedly knew had an arrest record.

Hoffman and Simon's work in Canada eventually led to the arrests of James
Jordan Priel and David Valladares on suspicion of fatally shooting a jewelry store
owner during a botched robbery in July 1998.

Sheriff's officials concluded that the case against the two men was not affected
by the investigators' conduct, the report said.

Hoffman and Simon declined to comment through a department spokesman. But
officials with the Assn. of Orange County Sheriff's Deputies defended the
investigators. They said the internal report was preliminary, written before the
investigators were interviewed and the probe completed.

Bob MacLeod, the association's general manager, said the probe was begun
after an investigation in Canada of a Vancouver detective who was assigned to
help Hoffman and Simon chase leads. The Canadian detective was scrutinized
for allegedly fabricating information for a search warrant as well as other
allegations, but prosecutors in Vancouver never charged him with a crime.

MacLeod said the Orange County detectives were tainted simply because of their
association with the Canadian detective.

"This whole thing was a big nothing," MacLeod said, adding that neither
investigator has been disciplined over their work in Canada.

MacLeod said that many of the witnesses interviewed during the internal sheriff's
investigation told officials they believed the Orange County investigators had
acted professionally. He also criticized defense attorneys for trying to focus
attention on the investigators and away from the two men charged with the killing.

"We shouldn't lose sight of the fact that the motive . . . is to get a murderer off,"
he said.

A Sheriff's Department spokesman said he could not release any information
about the case because of strict privacy laws involving internal affairs probes.

Attorneys for the murder suspect, however, claim in court filings that the internal
report and other evidence show the investigators were "sloppy" and did a
"shameful job" in Canada.

The result, the attorneys argue, was that investigators mistakenly focused on
Valladares instead of a roommate who allegedly better matched a description of
one of the suspects.

The case stems from the slaying of Nancy Sleiman, who with her husband owned
Jewel Gardens on El Toro Road. She was killed after buzzing two men through
the family store's security doors. As the men robbed the store, they also shot
Sleiman's husband in the head, seriously wounding him.

Within days, Vancouver police received an anonymous tip identifying Priel, a
Canadian national, as a possible suspect. Simon and Hoffman flew to Vancouver
on Aug. 12, 1998.

2013 FFF attorneys at
CUSD (Bock and Foster).
CTA Attorneys (Lindquist
and Kohn.)