BREAKING: Expungement Was Valid, I Did Not Receive Proper Legal Advice, I Did Not Commit Perjury

On August 23, 2022, I was summarily disqualified from applying for the vacant Torrance City Council seat.

According to Torrance city attorney Patrick Sullivan, I had committed perjury because I had answered "No" on the city council application for the question "Have you ever been convicted of a crime?"

The initial concerns regarding this matter came to my attention on August 19th, 2022 when Councilman Asam Sheikh interviewed me for the position.

I explained to Councilman Sheikh that my record had been expunged, and furthermore the firm which obtained my expungement, Expunge America, explained to me that there were no conditions or situations in which I would still be required to declare the prior conviction.

I even shared the following email with the Torrance City Council, the City Attorney, and the City Clerk:

                       

I sent the above message to every concerned party over the weekend.

The law firm which obtained the expungement for me even told me that I did not have to disclose this conviction if I sought appointment to public office or if I wanted to obtain a concealed carry weapons permit. That is exactly what they told me!

Some people shared with the me the pertinent statute relating to this matter after the fact.

The full statute is quite revealing (and something else which I was not informed about when I first obtained the expungement):

The probationer may make the application and change of plea in person or by attorney, or by the probation officer authorized in writing. However, in any subsequent prosecution of the defendant for any other offense, the prior conviction may be pleaded and proved and shall have the same effect as if probation had not been granted or the accusation or information dismissed. The order shall state, and the probationer shall be informed, that the order does not relieve them of the obligation to disclose the conviction in response to any direct question contained in any questionnaire or application for public office, for licensure by any state or local agency, or for contracting with the California State Lottery Commission.

I want to focus on a key portion of this statute:

The probationer shall be informed, that the order does not relieve them of the obligation to disclose the conviction in response to any direct questions contained in any questionnaire or application for public office, for licensure by any state or local agency, or for contracting with the California State Lottery Commission.

As the probationer in question, I was NOT informed regarding the three exceptions listed above by the law firm or by the judge who granted the expungement.

The law firm which assisted me in obtaining my expungement NEVER informed me of those three exceptions. Furthermore, the statute explicitly declares that "the probationer shall be informed ..."

My lack of knowledge of this matter was not my fault, nor was it my responsibility to be so informed. I am not a lawyer, nor is there any outrageous standard which requires individuals to have a full knowledge of a legal matter ahead of time on their own. To repeat, I had hired a law firm to attain this expungement for me in the first place.

Further to the point, staffers at Expunge America affirmatively informed  me that I would never have to disclose. I asked if I had to disclose the conviction if I applied for city council. I asked if I had to disclose if I wanted to apply for a CCW. I was told in both instances "No."

Once again, I received bad legal advice. That is not my fault.

Yet the problems persist. On August 20, 2022, I informed the entire city council, the city clerk, and the city attorney that I had received the instructions above, i.e. that there was no circumstance in which I would have to disclose the conviction, regardless of the expungement. Again, I told the city council as whole my standing on this matter.

And yet the city attorney still accused me of perjury. I do not understand. Perjury, like any crime, requires an element of mens rea, the knowledge that one is committing a crime. I have an affirmative defense to this matter. Besides, when I had applied for the vacant city council seat last year, following Tim Goodrich's decision to resign his seat early, I did disclose the convinction on my record. (For the record, that conviction was a political fraud which should have never been perpetrated against me to begin with, and that was the statement from one of the deputy district attorneys supervising my case post-conviction).

For the record, I had no qualms sharing my conviction when I applied for the vacant city council seat in 2021. Why would the city attorney or anyone else think that I went to any length to deceive anyone it? It makes no sense.

For now, this is my full statement on the matter. I am at peace with the result, no matter how unfair it may be. So many people told me after the fact: "Arthur, you dodged a bullet. I don't think you would have been very happy as a city councilmember." True to point, when I considered that day how much time and effort goes into committees, meetings, conferences, and conventions, in addition to the city council meetings and the massive amounts of reading and research that goes into preparing for the meetings, it started dawning on me that maybe a city council seat would not be the best use of my time.

At any rate, this verse stands true for me now more than ever:

"And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose." (Romans 8:28)