ELECTION ‘12//ALCO SUPERVISOR DIST 2 | San Francisco District Attorney George Gascon reiterated Thursday morning his office had the goods on Assemblywoman Mary Hayashi following her then-felony shoplifting charge last year.
Appearing on KGO’s Ronn Owens radio program, Gascon said Hayashi showed intent to steal $2,450 worth of apparel from a Neiman Marcus at Union Square in San Francisco before she was nabbed Oct. 25, 2011 by police.
“We don’t take cases to court unless we believe we have evidence to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt,” Gascon told the caller inquiring about Hayashi’s infamous arrest. “In the case of Ms. Hayashi, we had plenty of evidence to prove the case to a reasonable doubt.” Hayashi later plead to a misdemeanor in early January.
When Gascon was asked by the caller whether his office would have prosecuted the case without evidence Hayashi had intended to steal the good, he said, “No, absolutely not.”
In the aftermath of her conviction and her current run for Alameda County Board of Supervisors this fall, Hayashi has apologized for the transgression, but has also characterized the incident as an “honest mistake.”
During her run to replace former Supervisor Nadia Lockyer, Hayashi has told The Citizen on numerous occasions she believes District 2 voters in the Hayward and Tri Cities areas are more interested in reviving the economy and funding local services than the shoplifting incident that has so bedeviled her political career. In fact, she referenced other politicians who have made comebacks from similarly self-inflicted wounds after a forum earlier this month in Union City.
State Sen. Leland Yee’s 1992 arrest for allegedly stealing a bottle of tanning oil from a store in Hawaii, said Hayashi, was eventually forgiven by voters and she believes voters will do the same.
Valle is a liar and thief of county tax dollars. Join the Mary club!
Two crooks in common.
1:28, LOL, you got that right, however I think I'll get a sudden cure on November 7th.
I'm not sure who will win, but I'm sick and tired of Mary getting away with her continued flat out lying regarding her intentional act.
In my book, she'd be much more ethical if she just said, I did it, and I don't know what drove me to do it, but I'm gonna get counseling for my problem.
Instead, she comes out day one, minutes out of the court room and begins with the lies and distortions.
You may be unaware of why she did that and why on January 9th she issued a carefully worded statment.
Here is what you don't know. Immediately after her arrest in late October, she took $14,100 from her campaign funds and paid David Binder Research to do extensive “polling and research” to see exactly how the public would respond to various excuses and statments she might issue in the future.
She did this to create the most favorable public picture she could, given her very damaging situation.
Yes, within days of her felony grand theft arrest she was having polling done, using the campaign funds. This is all documented at the California Secratary of States office.
Mary developed her talking point very early. She then took her plea deal at the very lowest news point in the year. The first Friday afternoon after the New Years holiday weekend. Tried to bury the story, but then everyone found out about the absurd brain tumor and she didn't expect that reaction of laughter.
So yes, I've been following Mary's “resurrection” plan since early on.
Started with her asking to speak to her top lawyer while she was still in the police car on the way to being booked for felony grand theft.
You see, from her arrest, to her final day in court, Mary Hayashi never answered one question from either the police or the prosecutor.
Her lawyer was the only one who spoke.
To this very day, Mary has never explained the details of the crime, including the troubling extra Neiman Marcus bag she had in her possession.
The next thing she did after getting a top attorney, is to hire a crisis PR manager, Sam Singer. On his own web site he calls himself “The Fixer”.. He really puts that on his site.
Next, within days, Mary hires David Binder Research to do the polling on how to sell this to the voters.
So what we see today is all part of Mary's plan to distort the truth and to continue to put forth the falsehood that she never “intended” to do the crime.
A lie, a flat out lie. Voters should be aware of her lie.
12:32 – what's your fixation on Mary Hayashi – you might need to seek treatment!
12:32 pm, There you go again.
What did you say this time?
#1.) “Hayashi took responsibility for it”
NO, stop right there, Mary Hayashi has yet to take responsibility for her criminal behavior.
Since leaving the court room January 6th, Mary has only said her act was without intent.
California law says that the crime included intent, so she should never have taken the plea deal if she didn't intend to do the crime.
Yet Mary goes about in the community, in her statements, in her press releases, and in her newpaper interviews insisting she never intended to do the crime and that it was all a honest mistake.,
In fact, Mary Hayashi compared her stealing $2,450 worth of goods to not watching her speedometer and driving a few miles over the speed limit.
Lets look at some of Mary's recent quotes
Sept. 15th at Ala. Co Demo meeting she called her crime a “honest mistake”… ? Honest?
July 21 interview with Josh Richmond, Oakland Trib.
“Hayashi said she had been distracted by a phone call when she left with the unpaid items. “Of course, I intended to pay for them,” she said”
January 9th, in her “Statement from Assemblymember Hayashi on Conclusion of Legal Proceedings”
— “The simple fact is I unintentionally walked out of a store with items I had not paid for.”
— “Of course, I intended to purchase what I had, but I didn’t”
— “the situation where I made this absentminded error”
Unintentional, absentminded, I intended, honest mistake, ……..
Of course I am leaving out her original excuse that her crime was caused by a “brain tumor”…
Since July she now says that excuse is no longer true. Despite her walking arm in arm out of the courtroom in January with her attorney telling the press about the brain tumor, saying
“There is NO other reason she would have taken the merchandise” (January 6th.)
So sir, I beg to differ with you about Mary Hayashi ever taking responsibility for her crime.
That is why, when asked specifically about Mary Hayashi's “intent”, District Attorney George Gascon told the radio audience that he had “plenty of evidence” to prove the case. A case which requires him to prove “intent”
So go ask Mary. Ask her today. She continues to spin out the story that she never intended to do the crime.
That is a lie. A flat out lie.
The strange thing here is why you continue to distort the picture with all the silly extraneous items.
Now, you want us to overlook Mary's intentional crime and to instead focus on why people shouldn't shop at Neiman Marcus because security there is too “creepy”..
In your world Mary is the victim and Neiman Marcus should ignore people like Mary, allowing them to easily steal thousands of dollars of goods.
You really do seem to be part of Mary's close inner circle to have such twisted ideas.
Gascon is a self-absorbed politician. If Hayashi was the serial shoplifter the media would like all of us to believe – without any evidence – then why has the California Retailers Association donated $2000 to her senate campaign this year? Seems like she would be the last candidate to fund for re-election, no?
Everybody is bashing our little ho, Mary. Got to stop! She make 'honest' mistake and get caught. She knows best and we will be lucky to have this shoplifting slut as our next supervisor. Just sayin'.
Let's all get aboard the HO-yashi band wagon, I mean paddy wagon. District 2 needs Mary, like a hole in the head! Mark Green all the way!!!!!!!
11:56 – You lay out a case like a prosecutor – you must be close to Gascon?
If you have been an avid reader of local blogs Tavares and Marga LaCabe's ( she posted the police report) then all of these items have been raised. After reading the police report – it seems like there are more questions about what has been told in the main press.
Hayashi took responsibility for it – I'm just questioning why if Gasccon had such great evidence – why such the simple fine? That's all.
The other thing about the police report that has nothing to do with the case is that Nieman Marcus has its staff spying on customers as they try on clothes – that's creepy as hell! Even if I could afford to shop there that would make me think twice. Don't need no peeping Tom at the boutique!
Ahh, 8:38, you seem very very very familiar with small details in the case.
Very odd obscure details that few know. You almost try to make it look like Mary was “set-up”. Throwing up doubt, allowing a voter to say, well, Mary may actually be innocent or at the very least a victim of a simple mistake.
Odd, very odd take on the crime. Given your degree of detail, it would seem you are close to Mary, either on staff or a long time friend.
Too your points.
1) “Gascon was a Republican”
So I guess he still harbors hate for Democrats and just goes after them for old times sakes?
Good match for being the SF District Attorney
2) “Gascon released video of Hayashi walking out of NM, why didn't he release the video of her walking in– did she have a NM bag with returns?”
Now, this quote of yours is most interesting.
You see, this point about the Neiman Marcus bag being in her possession prior to entering the store is not mentioned at all in this EB Citizen article.
Yet you bring it up? Why do you do that? You seem to have read the police report, wherein it describes Mary concealing the stolen goods into a Neiman Marcus bag she had in her possession.
Which as it turns out is the smoking gun in Mary false defense when she claims that she never intended to steal the goods.
You see, Mary has NO GOOD explanation as to why she would be walking into Neiman Marcus with a empty Neiman Marcus shopping bag that she would later use to steal the goods, by making it appear she had made a earlier purchase.
This is what George Gascon was talking about when he said, ” “In the case of Ms. Hayashi, we had plenty of evidence to prove the case to beyond a reasonable doubt.”.
Gascon knew Mary had brought the empty Neiman Marcus bag with her into that dressing room. She had made no prior purchases that day. She was not doing some “recycling thing” like you do at Trader Joes with bags.
She never claimed or tried to prove she had returned any items or was going to return any items.
So she was STUCK with a unexplained Neiman Marcus bag in her possession PRIOR to making any purchase in the store. That is the same Neiman Marcus bag in which the $2,450 worth of clothing was hidden.
She was seen by Neiman Marcus security concealing the good in that same bag.
Go read the police report, as it is spelled out.
So the real question here is why are you inventing and dreaming up a possible unsubstantiated theory of the case which has ZERO evidence to support it.
Kind of like OJ suggesting South American drug dealers “could” have been the real killers.
All the questions you ask are there to throw up doubt. If Mary wanted to remove doubt, she could answer a few simple questions which she has avoided doing for 11 months.
Question #1 for Mary— Why did you have a Neiman Marcus shopping bag in your possession prior to making any purchases that October day?
How simple is that to answer? If she was returning prior purchases, she would have HAD the ITEMS, and a RECEIPT for the return, but she had NEITHER, because she had NO reason to have that Neiman Marcus shopping bag, EXCEPT as her method of stealing the merchandise and trying to walk out making it look like just another purchase.
Without that simple question being answered, we can only assume that Mary not only did the crime, but also that she did it with full intent, and furthermore, she did it with careful planning.
She drove over from Hayward with that extra empty Neiman Marcus bag in her possession.
THAT is why George Gascon said he had more than enough evidence to prove her guilt, including her intention to committ the crime.
You get it, HE knew, and Mary knew he could prove her INTENT.
That is why she took the plea deal.
That is why she now is lying when she claims it was all a unintentional absentminded mistake.
Not to make any excuses for Hayashi, but Gascon was a Republican until he ran for District Attorney in SF. If the “evidence” was so great – he would have kept the original charge and set an example or would have made her pled “guilty” not “no contest” like he did with Mirkarimi. Huge difference!
Gascon released the video of Hayashi walking out of NM, why didn't he release video of her walking in – did she have a NM bag with returns? Why wasn't the dress gone missing the week before in the police report? Why not show release any video of Hayashi in the week before when the dress went missing? Was it not her? Has anyone ever seen Hayashi wearing a dress? SF Chronicle wrote she was stopped 100 feet from store but the police report stated 10 feet. Basically – outside the main doors.
The police report also stated she had the means to pay for the items with her. Hayashi may be telling the truth. There are a lot of questions about the evidence. Too bad it wasn't taken to the courts so the truth would be known. Gascon was up for election at the time – so I guess he had to look tough on crime – what an opportunity!
In regard to the “standards” of Mary Hayashi and whose husband is a judge.
I used to have a co-worker whose spouse was a lawyer. Let's refer to that spouse as A.
Anyway, A used to regularly host parties at their house at which at least most of the guests were lawyers and judges, and at which those lawyers and judges regularly got as drunk as could be.
(NOTE: Although lawyers and judges like to refer to themselves as the legal profession, however it is a actually much more of a club and a sleazy mafia than it is a legitimate profession. And while it is possible that at some time several decades ago it may have been much more of a legitimate profession than a sleazy mafia, however for at least over thirty years now it has been primarily a sleazy mafia rather than a legitimate profession, and furthermore every year now has been turning into still less of a legitimate profession and into still more of a sleazy mafia. And about thirty or thirty five years ago the legal profession, in other words that club of lawyers and judges, also became totally overrun by drug abuse, and including to heroin, cocaine, crack, meth, and just about everything else. In fact lawyers and judges, in other words the legal profession, have far and away the highest rates of alcoholism and drug addiction of any major profession.)
So therefore I find it impossible to believe that Mary Hayashi – and who very likely for years, and maybe even decades, was regularly exposed to such an environment of drunks, sleazeballs, scumbags, and egomaniac drug addicts with extreme delusions of grandeur – could have ever lied or done anything illegal or come to believe that the law did not apply to her.
Mary's got nerve. Wonder what she did with the green dress she barrowed the first time she visited Nieman Marcus ?lol Having a husband that's a judge helped. Mary didn't make a mistake, she used poor judgement and was caught. Watch her when she comes around. Make sure she doesn't barrow anything else. Might want to glue and nail everything down!
9:53, I don't blame Gascon. He did prosecute her. But he handled her case like any other first time offender (first time caught).
It is standard practice to offer such a person the chance, if they plead guilty, to lower the final charge from felony grand theft, to a misdemeaner.
That is what he did, that is what everyone expected would happen if Mary switched her plea from not-guilty to guilty.
She then agreed to be sentenced to 2 years and 6 months probation and to pay a small fine, and to not get within 50 feet of Neiman Marcus.
But make no mistake, the crime was a felony. Hence the initial charge of felony grand theft.
She is on probation and would serve her entire term of office as supervisor while on criminal probation.
9:53, If district attorneys did not make such deals, the already packed jails would be filled with extra hundreds of thousands of prisoners at $40,000 per year in cost each.
If he had plenty of evidence then why didn't he prosecute her? If it had been anyone else they would have prosecuted them. What a joke!
“State Sen. Leland Yee’s 1992 arrest for allegedly stealing a bottle of tanning oil from a store in Hawaii, said Hayashi, was eventually forgiven by voters and she believes voters will do the same.”
Oh sure Mary, picking up a $5.00 bottle of tanning oil is no different that concealing and stealing $2,450 worth of clothing. One a spur of the moment decision dating from 1992, versus Mary Hayashi's well thought out and planned crime less than 11 months ago.
Not forgetting that the reason Neiman Marcus security focused on Mary that day, was because a clerk recognized her as being the same person who was in the dress department the week before, when a valuable dress disappeared. Thus Neiman Marcus focused their cameras on Mary, and a security guard actually saw Mary conceal the $2,450 worth of goods in a bag she had purposely brought into the store.
She has repeatedly lied about her “intent” in the crime she was convicted of.
Clearly DA George Gascon refuted her assertion that it was all a “untentional” mistake. They had her nailed and were ready to release the video to the public, showing clearly that this was no “absentminded error” or “honest mistake”.
Sheesh, Mary, stop the lying.
Incompetence in charge. Therefore, that DA needs to be fired.