Dipshidiot of the day: Dumbass who beat and now suing Uber driver

Could the man who beat Uber driver win $5M legal claim?

Benjamin Golden, the former Taco Bell executive caught on dashcam videobeating an Uber driver, may think he has a legal case in suing the very man he assaulted for $5 million, but in the court of public opinion he has already lost.

Following release of court documents last week that revealed Golden is countersuing the driver, Edward Caban, people took to social media to show their disapproval of Golden’s tactics.

Here’s one example from Twitter:

Hey Ex TacoBell Exec; #BenjaminGolden. Your OBVIOUSLY STILL DRUNK!, Filing a 5million dollar lawsuit against Uber Driver YOU attacked. uJOKE

— Robert (@Job4meRobert) January 18, 2016

Said one user on Facebook in response to a CBS News story about Golden’s lawsuit: “[I]t seems to me that a business owner should be allowed to have a camera in his place of business to use to identify and prosecute criminals when he is victimized.

Another Facebook user added that “the video says it all, this lawsuit needs to be rejected, and he needs to pay the Uber driver a $10 million dollar for assaulting him.”

Golden’s lawsuit, filed in early December but only disclosed to the media last week, claims not only that Caban was unhurt in the October incident, but also that any damages were caused by Caban himself or “other third parties.”

Further, the suit says that because of “overwhelming media coverage” of the dashcam video, which been viewed well over 2 million times on YouTube, Golden “has suffered severe emotional distress, humiliation, anxiety, fear, pain and suffering and the loss of his job.”

Golden apologized for the attack several days after the Oct. 30 incident, saying that he was drunk when he got into the car, but admitting that his behavior was inexcusable and out of character. For his part, Caban is suing for $25,000 for assault and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Caban has since left Uber.

CBS Legal Analyst Rikki Klieman said Golden’s case is laughable, noting that it relies on an unlikely interpretation of California’s two-party consent law, which prohibits illegal eavesdropping by requiring that all parties involved in a private conversation be made aware if it is being recorded.

“The real operative words are these: private and confidential,” Klieman told “CBS This Morning.” “I say if you are in a car, a cab, a bus, an Uber, that ultimately you are in a public setting. People can observe you.”

In such a setting, Klieman added, it’s not possible to have an intimate, confidential conversation as defined by the California statute.

Golden’s ultimate motive in bringing the suit may be to suppress the video during the criminal trial, Klieman said. But even if that legal maneuver should work, Goldman may still lose “because you have the observations of the driver.”

Or as one Facebook user said of Golden, if “he should win this ludicrous lawsuit I hope the jury only awards him a dollar or, even better, one cent. And awards the driver punitive damages in the millions.”

Sarah Palin’s son Track charged with domestic violence


Track Palin, the son of former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, was arrested Monday and charged with with domestic violence and other counts, according to the Wasilla, Alaska, police department.

Police said in a statement released Tuesday that officers were called to a residence in Wasilla for a disturbance report at about 10 p.m. Monday, where they encountered Track Palin.

“An investigation revealed Track Palin had committed a domestic violence assault on a female, interfered with her ability to report a crime of domestic violence, and possessed a firearm while intoxicated,” police said in the statement.

He faces three misdemeanor counts for assault, misconduct with a weapon — in this case for allegedly possessing the gun while intoxicated — and interfering with a report of domestic violence.

Palin was held without bail until arraignment.

The 26-year-old is scheduled to be arraigned today, according to police.

Dawgs Blog response to the DOJ refusal to investigate criminal activity in Local Government

In December I had posted a complaint I drafted To the California DOJ Read here

As expected I received a crap response that did not address my issues Read here

Here is my response below to their non-willingness to investigate criminal activity

Kimberly McCrickard

Public Inquiry Unit

California Department of justice

RE: Stanislaus County District attorney’s office Misconduct

Dear Kimberly,

Thank you for your response. As any lay person knows the District Attorney’s office can file or not file charges as they see fit, but that was not the biggest and main issue raised in my letter and it appears someone just glossed over the facts I presented as there was no response to the confidential information that was being provided to a groupie who was trying to get the favors of investigators.

I will repeat the information in my original letter:

In the first report dated 6-11-2007, 2 pages’ worth, she was in contact with a “friend” at the DA’s office in regards to bail bond companies who are bailing out illegal immigrants and was advised by the DA’s office to check out AJ Bail bonds for these issues. The report goes on to say she discovered that AJ’s Bail Bonds is closely connected to the DA’s office with relatives of employees. And also said there were some “whistleblowers” that were former employees.

She also said there were drug parties and one statement said that there were sexual favors and there was a room upstairs that was used as a “drug party room” and a safe that contained illegal weapons.

Question: Why was she directed towards AJ bail bonds by the district attorney’s office? Her own admission in the FBI report says she was conducting an investigation; was she being directed to specific targets by the Investigators? Was this to collect information they could not legally do?

Looking at page 3 of the FBI reports, it is a second interview dated 1-29-2008, it states she has spent about 3 ½ months on this and had some information about several bail bond companies, but again at the bottom of the page she again starts to go into more detail concerning AJ bail Bonds and appears that was where she was directed.

On 5-7-2008 she was again interviewed by the FBI, according to the report page 6 on the above link, and had in her possession a search warrant affidavit for a drug lab that was discovered at a storage unit at a house in Riverbank.

Where would a lay person get an affidavit for a search warrant?

Some more outrageous claims were make about leaks in law enforcement but refused to provide information on the source of the information.

It appears she had been given confidential information by someone in Law Enforcement in regards to the search warrant affidavit.

Why was she given this information and by who?

The report goes on to say, on page 7, that she was working with a DA investigator by the name of Jacobson, which later became to be known as Steve Jacobson. She also said she had contact with several other FBI agents, in addition the report writer stated he felt she other Law Enforcement contacts but was not willing to reveal who they were.

The report goes on to say she wanted to “be active” in searching witness’s or victims but she was advised not to.

I will repeat my concerns again:

Why was she given so much credibility with all the outrageous claims made?

Especially since she never had set foot in a bail bond business personally and especially AJ’s bail bonds

Who was aiding her investigation in law enforcement? She admitted she was getting information from a friend at the DA’s office.

How much information was she fed and by who?

Where did she get the search warrant that she showed the agents? Isn’t that classified information?

Was she using tactics and means that Law Enforcement could not use to supply them with information?

Why wouldn’t she reveal her sources if there was nothing to hide?

Despite all the wild claims that were made by her, re: guns, drugs, illegal weapons, etc. no charges of that type were ever filed. So obviously there was no evidence to substantiate those claims.

Linda Taylor is a self-described activist who has no organizational ties. She is in my opinion a “Cop groupie” looking for attention from a gun and a badge. How long has this person been used to gather information doing an end around the justice system and it law enforcement requirements as to proper evidence gathering.

It must be noted also the outrageous claims she made in the reports were mostly just talk as there were never charges filed against the many people named by her and AJ Bail Bonds in particular faced only a fraction of charges that she was led to make against him, which led to numerous search warrants at AJ’s business and home. And all warrants were served by high dynamic entries, and a large amount of property damaged in those entries, based on her information. And all searches were basically nonproductive.

Please respond to the issues raised as they were neglected in your previous response.


Marty Carlson

Dawgs Blog