On June 30, 2005, the Court of Appeal reversed the Superior Court’s order granting the preliminary injunction. The South Central Farmers Feeding Families have 40 days from June 30 to petition the California Supreme Court to review the Court of Appeal’s ruling. If the Supreme Court declines to hear the case, the urban garden will be demolished in about three months. Concerned supporters our community is devastated by this result and we need your support. In the same manner that the Zapatista in Chiapas are being attack so will we.

The Los Angeles Regional Food Bank has already begun to dismantle our leadership through low intensity cointel-pro strategies.

We need you all to call and write letters to the following people we have attached.....

_______________________________

Since 1992, the 14 acres of property located at 41st and Alameda Streets in Los Angeles have been used as a community garden or farm. The land has been divided into 360 plots and is believed to be one of the largest urban gardens in the country.

The City of Los Angeles acquired the 14-acre property by eminent domain in the late 1980s, taking it from nine private landowners. The largest of these owners, Alameda-Barbara Investment Company (“Alameda”), owned approximately 80 percent of the site. The partners of Alameda were Ralph Horowitz and Jacob Libaw. The City originally intended to use the property for a trash incinerator, but abandoned that plan in the face of public protest organized by Juanita Tate and the Concerned Citizens of South Central Los Angeles.

As part of the eminent domain proceedings, the City granted Alameda a right of first refusal if, within 10 years, the City determined that the parcel formerly owned by Alameda was no longer required for public use. Following the uprising in 1992, the City set aside the 14-acre site for use as a community garden. In 1994, the City transferred title to the property by ordinance to its Harbor Department. When it received title to the property, the Harbor Department contracted with the Los Angeles Regional Foodbank to operate the property as a community garden; the Foodbank has been operating it as such since then.

In 1995, the City began negotiating with Libaw-Horowitz Investment Company (“LHIC”), the successor company to Alameda, to sell it the entire 14-acre property. The City’s negotiators sent LHIC a purchase agreement, and LHIC executed the agreement and returned it to the City in October 1996. The terms of the agreement expressly made it contingent on City Council approval. The City Council never approved the agreement, and the sale was not completed. The proposed agreement fixed the sale amount at $5,227,200.

In 2002, LHIC filed suit against the City for not executing the purchase agreement. The City successfully demurred three times to LHIC’s complaint, but then agreed to sell the 14-acre property to Ralph Horowitz and his business partners for $5,050,000. On August 13, 2003, the City Council discussed and approved the terms of the settlement in closed session, and then passed a motion to approve the settlement.

On September 23, 2003, the City sent the Foodbank a letter notifying it of the sale. The Foodbank, in turn, distributed the letter to the approximately 350 families that were using plots at the garden to grow their own food. The families using the plots are low income and depend heavily upon the food they grow to feed themselves. In addition to growing food for themselves, the people involved with the community garden hold Farmers' Markets, festivals and other cultural events for the public at large. After receiving the notice from the City informing them that the garden property was being sold to a private developer, the farmers formed an organization—South Central Farmers Feeding Families—and began organizing to retain their right to use the property. South Central Farmers Feeding Families appealed to the City Council to prevent the sale from going through. On December 11, 2003, however, the City transferred title to the property to Ralph Horowitz and the Horowitz Family Trust, The Libaw Family LP, Timothy M. Ison and Shaghan Securities, LLC.

On January 8, 2004, Ralph Horowitz issued a notice setting February 29, 2004, as the termination date for the community garden. In the meantime before February 29, members of the South Central Farmers Feeding Families obtained legal counsel (Hadsell & Stormer, Inc., and Kaye, Mclane & Bednarski LLP) and filed a lawsuit seeking to invalidate the sale of the property. The Los Angeles County Superior Court issued a temporary restraining order and later a preliminary injunction halting development of the property during the pendency of the lawsuit. Both the City and the Horowitz defendants appealed the Superior Court’s order granting the preliminary injunction.

On June 30, 2005, the Court of Appeal reversed the Superior Court’s order granting the preliminary injunction. The South Central Farmers Feeding Families have 40 days from June 30 to petition the California Supreme Court to review the Court of Appeal’s ruling. If the Supreme Court declines to hear the case, the urban garden will be demolished in about three months. The Court of Appeal ignored the law and sound public policy in overturning the injunction that was in place on the property. The Los Angeles City Charter allows the City to sell real property it determines that it no longer needs. Before selling property it no longer needs, the City must comply with various procedures designed to ensure that the City does not squander resources by selling property it needs. The intent of the Charter is that the City sell only property it no longer needs. The City’s sale of the garden property to the Horowitz interests did not comply with the procedures required for sale of property no longer needed by the City. The Court of Appeal held, nevertheless, that the City did not have to comply with these provisions because it had not determined that it no longer needed the garden property.

In other words, the Court of Appeal ruled that the City can avoid its own charter’s procedure for selling property simply by stopping short of determining whether the property it intends to sell is no longer needed by the City. By keeping the property it intends to sell designated as property it needs, the City can go ahead and sell it without having to comply with the charter provision for the sale of real property. The new procedure being approved by the Court of Appeal defeats the very purpose of the charter provision applying to the sale of real property. It encourages the type of abuse the charter provision applying to the sale of real property was meant to curtail.

Accomplishments by the South Central Farmers

1. When Michael flood and the food bank turned their backs on the poor people of South Central. It was the South Central Farmers that protested, marched, and attended city council meetings. In this process they were able to keep the garden open and challenge the city on the sale of the property. The food bank had an opportunity to place its expensive lawyers on the issue but they chose instead to fight against them and they continue to fight us.

2. The South Central Farmers began a process of eliminating the corruption and self-serving attitudes that the agents of the food bank had fostered for over 11 years. This included cronism, nepetism, and extornsion. In direct violation of the permit given by the city the agents of the food bank and the food bank allowed the sale of plots to poor families. The prices began from 250 all the way up to 1000 dollars per plot. This was hurrendous. The SCFs have been attempting to remove these elements from the community garden.

3. In Feb 15, 2004, the SCF had a general assembly where two leaders were chosen democratically. The rules for governing the community garden were discussed and the type of democracy was also decided, Majority rule. From then on the leadership was given certain executives privileges always governed by the consensus of the community.

4. From that time on the community garden and its rules have been governed by the participatory membership of the South Central farmers. They chose which rules they wanted to be governed by and how transgressions should be dealt with.

5. SCFs have developed community leaders from the community garden. Some of our members have become members of the local neighborhood councils. Some our farmers have also been encouraged to become Master Gardeners. Some of our Farmers have developed their own economic development. One farmer currently rents 6 acres elsewhere and has developed his own distribution system.

6. SCFs have developed opportunities for community members. We have developed the monthly farmers market.

7. The SCFs have addressed the needs of the women membership by providing them the space to have their own cooperative space where only women work.

8. We have sustained City Council attendance, twice a week, only matched by the anti-war movement of the sixties.

9. We have developed the spiritual needs of the community by providing a monthly catholic service and a monthly Christian service. This helps to address the needs of the community.

10. We provide an avenue for up and coming bands during our yearly anniversary celebration. We have had two of them and have showcases many up and coming community bands.

11. SCFs maintain an abundant and resilient seed stock that is grown in the community garden.

12. The SCFs have brought traditional aztec dancers and ceremonies that resonate the cultural traditions of the people who grow food.

13. The SCF have made the community garden available to its memberships to have a family space for fiestas. The SCfs have also made the community space available for cultural exchange programs. Native traditional rural teachers from all over Mexico have used the space to do cultural exchange.

14. The SCFs continue to educate their members on the democratic process and how it applies to their local government.



Send letter of support to the following individuals:

Antonio Villaraigoza

Honorable Mayor of Los Angeles

200 North Spring Street, Room 303

Los Angeles, CA 90012

mayor@lacity.org

Ed Reyes

200 N. Spring Street, Rm 410

Los Angeles, CA 90012

reyes@council.lacity.org

Wendy Greuel

200 N. Spring Street, Rm475

Los Angeles, CA 90012

greuel@council.lacity.org

Dennis P. Zine

200 N. Spring Street, Rm 450

Los Angeles, CA 90012

zine@council.lacity.org

Tom LaBonge

200 N. Spring Street, Rm 480

Los Angeles, CA 90012

labonge@council.lacity.com

Jack Weiss

200 N. Spring Street, Rm 440

Los Angeles, CA 90012

weiss@council.lacity.com

Tony Cardenas

200 N. Spring Street, Rm 455

Los Angeles, CA 90012

cardenas@council.lacity.org

Alex Padilla

200 N. Spring Street, Rm 465

Los Angeles, CA 90012

Padilla@council.lacity.org

Bernard Parks

200 N. Spring Street, Rm 460

Los Angeles, CA 90012

parks@council.lacity.org

Jan Perry

200 N. Spring Street, Rm 420

Los Angeles, CA 90012

perry@council.lacity.org

Bill Rosendahl

200 N. Spring Street, Rm 415

Los Angeles, CA 90012

rosendahl@council.lacity.org

Greig Smith

200 N. Spring Street, Rm 405

Los Angeles, CA 90012

smith@council.lacity.org

Eric Garcetti

200 N. Spring Street, Rm 470

Los Angeles, CA 90012

garcetti@council.lacity.org

Janice Hahn

200 N. Spring Street, Rm 435

Los Angeles, CA 90012

hahn@council.lacity.org

Fabian Nunez

State Capitol

P.O. Box 942849

Sacramento, CA 94249-0046

Assemblymember.Nunez@assembly.ca.gov

Senator Cedillo

State Capitol, Room 5100

Sacramento CA 95814

gil.cedillo@assembly.ca.gov

Supervisor Gloria Molina

856 KHHA

500 West Temple St.

Los Angeles, CA 90012

Molina@bos.co.la.ca.us

Supervisor Ivonne Burke

KHHA

500 West Temple St.

Los Angeles, CA 90012

seconddistrict@lacbos.org

Congresswoman MaxineWaters

10124 S. Broadway Suite 1

Los Angeles, CA 90003

Michael Flood

1734 E. 41st St.

Los Angeles, CA 90058-1502

email: mflood@lafoodbank.org

Phone: (323) 234-3030

Richard S. Wolf

Sotheby’s

9665 Wilshire Blvd.

Beverly Hills, CA 90212

Telephone: (310) 274 0340

Fax: (310) 274 0899

CORPORATE SECRETARY

Karl E. Block

Greenberg, Glusker, Fields, Claman, Machtinger & Kinsella LLP

1900 Avenue Of The Stars

21st Floor

Los Angeles, CA 90067

Karl J. Schulze

Schulze Haynes & Co.

Figueroa Tower

660 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 1280

Los Angeles, CA 90017

Dennis A. Winston

Moskowitz, Brestoff, Winston & Blinderman LLP

1880 Century Park East, Suite 300

Los Angeles, California 90067

Telephone: 310-785-0550

Fax: 310-785-0880

mbwblawfirm.com

Nishat Ahmed

Hopkins Michael Inc

9025 Wilshire Blvd

Beverly Hills, CA 90211

(310) 276-1028

Roy Allen

8109 1/2 S Broadway

Los Angeles, CA 90003

Darya Allen-Attar

City National Bank

741 ILiff

Pacific Palisades CA 90210

(310)888-6233

darya.allen-attar@cnb.com

Laurie Bolt

Nestlé USA

800 N Brand Blvd

Glendale, CA 91203

(818) 549-6000

Donald Goodman

Don Lee Farms

200 E. BEACH AVENUE

INGLEWOOD, CA 90302

(310) 674-3180

Maria Hayes-Bautista

UCLA School of Medicine

Center for the Study of Latino Health and Culture

924 Westwood Blvd. Suite 730

Los Angeles, CA 90024

Doug Levinson

Strategy That Rocks

12400 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 1500

Los Angeles, CA 90025

doug@strategythatrocks.com doug@strategythatrocks.com

Bonnie Lewis

Albertsons

17202 NORWALK BLVD.

CERRITOS CA, 90703

Rosey T. Miller

Cushman & Wakefield of California, Inc.,

10250 Constellation Blvd., Suite 2200

Los Angeles, CA 90067

Kenneth A. Pickar, Ph.D.

California Institute of Technology

Entrepreneurial Fellowship Program

1200 East California Blvd.

MC 136-93

Pasadena, CA 91125

pickar@caltech.edu <pickar@caltech.edu>

Maita Prout

Holland & Knight LLP

633 West Fifth Street

21st Floor

Los Angeles, CA, 90071

Nick P. Saggese

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP

300 South Grand Avenue

Los Angeles, CA 90071

Phone: (213) 687-5000

Edgar R. Taylor

Taylor and Associates

433 N Camden Dr

Beverly Hills, CA 90210

(310) 285-1559

Timothy Lappen

Jeffer, Mangels, Butler & Marmaro LLP

1900 Avenue of the Stars

Los Angeles, CA 90067

(310) 203-8080

Here are a few pix from the South Central Farmers Gardens. You can see more, along with more about their plight, at http://www.saveourgarden.com. But if you haven’t seen the rolling acres of food and labor in the heart of LA, drop by before it’s gone—it’s magical. Like the Ballona Wetlands, that it’s there gives me some hope for all of us who are dwelling in the most concreted and least green city in the world. And if you appreciate these small treasures--the Wetlands, Venice Beach, and the Farmers’ Gardens--in our megalopolis, drop an email to the people on Tezozomoc’s list.

Here are some corrected addresses from the list provided in the article:

Gil Cedillo Senator.Cedillo@sen.ca.gov

Bill Rosendahl councilman.rosendahl@lacity.org

Jack Weiss weiss@council.lacity.org

Tom LaBonge Labonge@council.lacity.org

Here's a cut-and-paste list of the corrected addresses in the press release.

mayor@lacity.org, reyes@council.lacity.org, greuel@council.lacity.org, zine@council.lacity.org, labonge@council.lacity.org, weiss@council.lacity.org, cardenas@council.lacity.org, Padilla@council.lacity.org, parks@council.lacity.org, perry@council.lacity.org, councilman.rosendahl@lacity.org, smith@council.lacity.org, garcetti@council.lacity.org, hahn@council.lacity.org, Assemblymember.Nunez@assembly.ca.gov, Senator.Cedillo@sen.ca.gov, Molina@bos.co.la.ca.us, seconddistrict@lacbos.org, mflood@lafoodbank.org, darya.allen-attar@cnb.com, doug@strategythatrocks.com, pickar@caltech.edu

I like millions of Americans grow a garden in my backyard and have not needed to take land that does not belong to me to do so. The author of this article tries to portray this as some sort of land strugle for the rights of the poor. He even uses the Zapatistas as some sort of paralel. Why because Mexicans farm this land. Why dont these poor disposesed Mexicans pool their resources and buy some farm land. Farm land in Mexico is really cheap...

http://terraserver.microsoft.com/image.aspx?T=4&S=10&Z=11&X=1926&Y=18818&W=1&qs=%7clos+angeles%7cca%7c

I agree with Freedom. If you do not have a clear deed and title to the property, then stop the de facto attempt to steal it from someone who does. You should have been saving and pooling your money, to buy the land or land someplace else -- Mexico is favorable.

The site would make a great factory or commercial property and provide a few businesses and many job opportunities.

> We have developed the spiritual needs of the

> community by providing a monthly catholic service

> and a monthly Christian service. This helps to

> address the needs of the community.

What makes the author think that Catholics aren't Christians? Hopefully that's just a mistake and isn't an ideal held by the author.

OK, let's give up a collective farm in the inner city because the city sold it out from under the farmers who were using it to feed their families. And while we're at it, let's sell off the public beaches, which are doing far less good--in fact, they're giving many of us skin cancer. And the city would get a lot more money for them. Or how about Griffen Park? There's some real estate ripe for development! And while we're at it, let's sell off the libraries, since only a few ivory tower scholars, school children, and poor people hang out there.

No, Freedom and No to Mexicans aren't going to give up their beaches, parks, or libraries. They want Los Angeles to fill up its treasury with a few acres used by People Who Don't Look Like Them, even though the beaches, parks, and libraries have a much higher net worth on the open market. But that would be depriving white people, and that option never even flitted across Freedom or No to Mexicans' minds. They just want to run more Mexican-Americans off the land, a small scrap once mincingly allotted back to them for food from the original Anahuac, now greedily grabbed back.

Fred, I think the "Christians/Catholics" thing comes from the US Southeast, although I hear it frequently in CA too. It's a colloquialism for "Protestant-Catholic." I don't think it's intended to suggest that Catholics aren't christian, but that may be it's origin. You'll see it on Catholic and Protestant sites if you google "Catholic and Christian."

The two knee-jerk property-rights advocates aren't even reading the article. They genuflect before the almightly property deed, but don't really understand that property rights aren't sacred or a law of nature -- they are a social agreement between the state and the people.

it looks like there are three parties involved here.

First, there's the people (meaning the farmers).

Second, there's the City, who, in a democracy, are supposed to represent the interests of the people. Not just the farmers, but everyone, of course.

Third, there's the property owners. In this case, it's the newest owner, who received title to it in 2003.

This was some 11 years after the property was acquired by eminent domain. (I'm not sure what the purpose of the ED was, but, the time period is somewhat coincidental.)

Basically, the property belonged to the City for a decade, and was intended for some public project, which didn't happen. In its stead, the community garden was established, and seems to have done very well. I'd say that the public good has probably exceeded the $5 million dollar value of the property. They have promoted civic participation, local business skills development, fresh vegetables, and green space.

In effect, the community garden helped the City make good on it's responsibility to acquire property for the public good. It wasn't really the City's labor, but, it was their permission that allowed it to happen.

I guess the big issue is whether the City did the right thing in selling this property.

It's a gray area. Will the sale of this land to a private developer help all the people more than this current use helps all the people?

Will the *potential* tax revenues and *potential* public projects funded by this *potential* money be worth more than the *proven* track record of the existing use?

Can the farm project *potentially* increase its value to the community, now that it has organized and engaged in the process of civic involvement?

History

The Homestead Act was repealed in the 1970s. I don't know it that well, but, it basically said that if a family takes unimproved Federal land, builds a well and other improvements on it, and occupies it for something like five years... then the title for the land goes to the occupant.

If we're to use that law as some kind of reference today, I think that we could argue that the SCF has come claim to property rights. It wouldn't be case law, but, the spirit of the Homestead Act lives on in their efforts today.

"The two knee-jerk property-rights advocates aren't even reading the article."

I read the article. Just because someone disagrees with you dosent mean that they are stupid or lazy.

"They genuflect before the almightly property deed, but don't really understand that property rights aren't sacred or a law of nature -- they are a social agreement between the state and the people. "

This is amusing, you mention my Genuflecting before a property deed (contract) then talk about a social contract. So mob rule trumps law.



"Basically, the property belonged to the City for a decade, and was intended for some public project, which didn't happen. In its stead, the community garden was established, and seems to have done very well."

Wrong. I thought you read the article. The city took ownership by ED in 1992. The city decided not to use the property for the reason it used ED, held on to it for a bit then sold it back to the original owner. In the interm people grew vegetables and flowers on it.

What these people want is largely not relevant at this point as its private property. If the property was public then they would have a point, but its not.

"The Homestead Act was repealed in the 1970s... blah blah"

Not Relevant.



The only reason why this gets any play on this site is because of the ethnicity of the people farming. Dancing around in Aztec costumes, crying about the Zapatista movement and somehow exporting its communist victimology does not give you the right to take other peoples property in the USA. Again, these people could pool their money and buy land and farm it (I suggest Mexico). Why is the government supposed to subsidize subsistance farmers?

By the way. I grow tomatoes, squash, beans, corn, tomatillos, okra, peppers, garlic, onions, cilantro, lemon grass, parsley, basil, oregano, tobacco, cucumbers, chard, cabbage, carrots, sunflowers in my backyard... without stealing property. so spare me the BS.

"Wrong. I thought you read the article. The city took ownership by ED in 1992. The city decided not to use the property for the reason it used ED, held on to it for a bit then sold it back to the original owner. In the interm people grew vegetables and flowers on it."

Nope... read it again. Title was not transferred back to Alameda or its successor company Libaw-Horowitz:

>>> As part of the eminent domain proceedings, the City granted Alameda a right of first refusal if, within 10 years, the City determined that the parcel formerly owned by Alameda was no longer required for public use. Following the uprising in 1992, the City set aside the 14-acre site for use as a community garden. In 1994, the City transferred title to the property by ordinance to its Harbor Department. When it received title to the property, the Harbor Department contracted with the Los Angeles Regional Foodbank to operate the property as a community garden; the Foodbank has been operating it as such since then.

>>>In 1995, the City began negotiating with Libaw-Horowitz Investment Company (“LHIC”), the successor company to Alameda, to sell it the entire 14-acre property. The City’s negotiators sent LHIC a purchase agreement, and LHIC executed the agreement and returned it to the City in October 1996. The terms of the agreement expressly made it contingent on City Council approval. The City Council never approved the agreement, and the sale was not completed. The proposed agreement fixed the sale amount at $5,227,200.

In short: the City tried to sell it back. The company needed the CC's OK, but didn't get it, and the sale was not effected.

You say:

"What these people want is largely not relevant at this point as its private property. If the property was public then they would have a point, but its not."

Sorry. You're wrong. That's why this thing is unresolved.

"The only reason why this gets any play on this site is because of the ethnicity of the people farming..... [rant deleted]"

The reason it gets on here is because it's posted here, and fits the general tone of the site. These articles are not written by IMC.

JohnK Said:

"Nope... read it again. Title was not transferred back to Alameda or its successor company Libaw-Horowitz: "

But the article its self says:

"On December 11, 2003, however, the City transferred title to the property to Ralph Horowitz and the Horowitz Family Trust, The Libaw Family LP, Timothy M. Ison and Shaghan Securities, LLC. "



Do you understand that? Do you read and comprehend English? That means they sold it and gave them the title. Technicaly they settled litigation through transfer of money from the current owners (LHIC etc.). The article also left out that LHIC donated 2.5 acres to LA Parks and Rec...

This injunction was to prevent the owner from tearing down the gardens and preventing access to the "Farmers" until the city Complied with portions of the charter.

In effect the judge was trying to force the city to take the property back by preventing the owner from using his property and leaving him no option but to work with the city.

It was over turned by superior court which found that the sale was legit and didnt violate the city charter because it was part of a litigation setlement. In otherwords LHIC owns the land and the courts can not prevent him from clearing its land to convert it to other uses.

Here is the original document the original poster probably cut up:

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/nonpub/B175065.DOC

So seriously you don't have a clue what you are talking about, and my original point is that this is being handled by the courts through established law. What is disturbing is that the original post interjected Ethnicity as some sort of relevant factor for throwing our legal system out the window. It also made a sort of "threat" of violence by bringing up the Zapatista movement in Chipas.

If you look at the History of the Zapatista "struggle" the indians would have been served well by a court system that protected their property rights in the 1600's so that their land was not taken by the Hacienda owners.

Just gotta go back and make a few comments here in regards to the "Beaches" post



"OK, let's give up a collective farm in the inner city because the city sold it out from under the farmers who were using it to feed their families. "



This is not a "Collective Farm" and there was never ever any indication that this would be a permament community garden. Take a look at the history of this.



"And while we're at it, let's sell off the public beaches, which are doing far less good--in fact, they're giving many of us skin cancer. And the city would get a lot more money for them. Or how about Griffen Park? There's some real estate ripe for development! "

They arent going to sell those things because they are public parks. This is not a public park, its Private Property.



"And while we're at it, let's sell off the libraries, since only a few ivory tower scholars, school children, and poor people hang out there. "

I go to the library and this isnt really relevant.



"No, Freedom and No to Mexicans aren't going to give up their beaches, parks, or libraries. They want Los Angeles to fill up its treasury with a few acres used by People Who Don't Look Like Them, "

You dont know what I look like. By the way calling/implying someone a racist is like calling someone a witch in the 1600s. Id feel the same way if a group of Swedes decided to co-op on Antonio Villaraigosa's property.

"even though the beaches, parks, and libraries have a much higher net worth on the open market. But that would be depriving white people, and that option never even flitted across Freedom or No to Mexicans' minds."

Ummm I see plenty of Mexicans at the beach, lets just stick to the facts anyways since you arent a mind reader.



"They just want to run more Mexican-Americans off the land, a small scrap once mincingly allotted back to them for food from the original Anahuac, now greedily grabbed back. "

Wait who is trying to run who off the land? One person has the title that he paid for the land. The others dont. All of these people are actualy eligible to purchase title to property anywhere in the USA, even if they are Illegals. But again your comments go back to my original point that there is an undercurrent of BS on this site that some people are more entitled because of their ethnicity then others.

I mean this guy Horowitz, I really could care less about him personaly since I dont know him, but what did he do that was so injurious to the Indians of Central Mexico that his land should be exporpiated today. But on the other hand a person could be a full blooded Spanish Decendant and still be called "Mexican-American" and be entitled to a big heaping slice of the Victim Pie.