It’d be insincere to say that some pleasure does not get derived from watching a progressive gun-grabbing political hack have their life completely tossed. Afterall, policies that the pinkos push for and support, ruin lives every day, beyond just the subversion of civil liberties. Take for example disgraced San Diego County Supervisor, Nathan Fletcher, and recent headlines involving some serious allegations. Fletcher, an ardent supporter of so-called gun control and California’s gun violence restraining orders, aka “red flag” law, recently had a complaint filed against him – posted on CourtHouseNews.com – for: 1. Sexual Harassment [Gov. Code § 12940, et seq.], 2. Failure to Prevent Sexual Harassment and Retaliation [Gov. Code § 12940(k)], 3. Sexual Assault and Battery, 4. Whistleblower Retaliation [Labor Code § 1102.5]. Our friends over at San Diego County Gun Owners did him the liberty of having a gun violence restraining order filed against him, and requested that his CCW permit be revoked. Something he’d surely want done to others.
SDCGO, acting on behalf of their members, and of course on behalf of Fletcher’s ideology – that he strongly holds onto – penned a scathing letter to the law enforcement officials of Fletcher’s district checking in on the status of a GVRO being issued.
San Diego County District Attorney Summer Stephan
San Diego County Sheriff Kelly Martinez
San Diego City Attorney Mara Elliott
San Diego Police Chief David NisleitLaw Enforcement Leaders:
As you know, there are many current laws concerning firearms with which our organization disagrees and we continue to work to get them overturned. I believe we all agree, however, that special treatment of elected officials should never be tolerable.
Last week, a lawsuit against Supervisor Nathan Fletcher was filed, which includes accusations of sexual assault and battery, sexual harrassment, and other illegal behavior. It is not unusual for those accused of this level of illegal activity to have their concealed carry permit (CCW) revoked and a gun violence restraining order (GVRO) filed to remove all access to their firearms.
In addition to the lawsuit, Supervisor Fletcher released a statement stating that he is too mentally unstable to continue with his campaign for State Senate and that he is entering treatment for addiction.
The purpose of this letter is to ask for an update on the progress made to revoke Supervisor Fletcher’s CCW and to file a GVRO against him. He has been vocal about his support for GVROs and for heavily restricting CCW holders; especially when they are accused of violent Crimes.
I look forward to any progress update you can provide me.
Sincerely,
Michael A. Schwartz
San Diego County Gun Owners PAC
Whoa, talk about a bombshell. Fletcher’s office did in fact announce he intended to self-admit into a rehab program on March 26, 2023.
Supervisor Nathan Fletcher will check into a treatment center this week for post traumatic stress, trauma and alcohol abuse. He has also decided to forgo a run for State Senate to focus on his health. Supervisor Fletcher has released the following statement:
“For many years, I have been suffering from devastating post traumatic stress associated with combat piled on top of intense childhood trauma that has been exacerbated by alcohol abuse. While I have shared some of these challenges publicly, they run much deeper than I have acknowledged. Outwardly, I have projected calm and composure. Internally, I have been waging a struggle that only those closest to me have seen; the detrimental impact on my relationships, mood, and inability to sleep.
“I have to seek help. With the recommendation of my therapist and the insistence of my wife, this week I will be checking into an extended inpatient treatment center for post traumatic stress, trauma and alcohol abuse. I have no doubt I will not only make a full recovery, but will come back stronger, more connected and present. However, it is clear I need to focus on my health and my family and do not have the energy to simultaneously pursue a campaign for the State Senate.
“I am grateful to the full love and unconditional support of my wife, family and friends.”
While Supervisor Fletcher will be on medical leave from the County of San Diego. Our office will continue to serve the constituents of the Fourth Supervisorial District.
Not long after that announcement, on March 28, 2023, is when case number 37-2023-00012828-CU-OE-CTL was filed with the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego. The suit named Figueroa vs Fletcher involves plaintiff Grecia Figueroa, a 34-year-old woman who immigrated from Peru. Figueroa was formerly employed by the Metropolitan Transit System in San Diego, and was fired the same day Fletcher announced a run for California State Senate. The complaint alleges that Fletcher engaged in the following behaviors:
- Defendant Fletcher Begins to Stalk Ms. Figueroa Online
- Defendant Fletcher Surfaces on Ms. Figueroa’s Social Media Account
- Defendant Fletcher Reveals that He Wants Sex from Ms. Figueroa
- Defendant Fletcher Lures Ms. Figueroa to His Hotel
- Defendant Fletcher Sexually Assaults Ms. Figueroa on Multiple Occasions
- Ms. Figueroa Is Abruptly Terminated from MTS on the Same Day Fletcher Announces His Run for California State Senate
- Defendant Fletcher Tries to Silence Ms. Figueroa by Threatening to Destroy Her Reputation and Sue Her for Extortion if She Vindicates Her Rights
That’s a filet of what the complaint alleges Fletcher engaged in. The complaint further stated – and this is a graphic depiction of a sexual assault, so be forewarned – among many of the sexual assaults that Fletcher allegedly engaged in, one particular situation that allegedly occurred is very alarming:
On December 1, 2022, during an MTS Executive Committee meeting, Fletcher messaged Ms. Figueroa from his phone while he was conducting the meeting. In the message, Fletcher asked Ms. Figueroa to “come say hi” and to meet him in the adjacent conference room after the event.
When Ms. Figueroa arrived at the room, Fletcher asked her to close the door and then sexually assaulted her a second time – this time grabbing her breasts underneath her blouse, pulling off some of her clothes, exposing her breasts, and putting his mouth on her nipple, while forcefully shoving his hand back and forth over her vaginal area.
Ms. Figueroa was shocked, scared, and humiliated – not only from being sexually objectified, but from the reality that this was happening in an MTS conference room, immediately adjacent to the MTS Boardroom where a committee meeting had just concluded. This was simply not something Ms. Figueroa was comfortable doing. She (again) pushed Fletcher back, told him she was too nervous, and insisted that he stop or she would leave, at which point Fletcher allowed her to put her clothes back together.
Two days after the complaint was filed, Fletcher announced on Twitter his intention to step down from the San Diego County Board of Supervisors:
The strain on my wife and family over this past week has been immense and unbearable. A combination of my personal mistakes plus false accusations has created a burden that my family shouldn’t have to bear. I will be resigning from the Board of Supervisors, effective
— Nathan Fletcher (@nathanfletcher) March 30, 2023
The strain on my wife and family over this past week has been immense and unbearable. A combination of my personal mistakes plus false accusations has created a burden that my family shouldn’t have to bear. I will be resigning from the Board of Supervisors, effective at the end of my medical leave…
Would Fletcher qualify for a GVRO? Considering the complaint also includes allegations of threats against Figueroa, “These discussions were short-lived, however, because Fletcher soon resorted to threats of bullying, intimidation, and defamatory legal action against Ms. Figueroa if she ever brought her story to light,” Fletcher certainly could fit the bill of someone that should have a GVRO executed upon…in addition to the many allegations of violent sexual assaults and alleged stalker-like behavior.
The requirements, per California Code, Penal Code – PEN § 18175, to be fulfilled for a GVRO, a petitioner must prove the following:
(1) The subject of the petition, or a person subject to a temporary emergency gun violence restraining order or an ex parte gun violence restraining order, as applicable, poses a significant danger of causing personal injury to themselves or another by having in the subject’s or person’s custody or control, owning, purchasing, possessing, or receiving a firearm, ammunition, or magazine.
(2) A gun violence restraining order is necessary to prevent personal injury to the subject of the petition, or the person subject to an ex parte gun violence restraining order, as applicable, or another because less restrictive alternatives either have been tried and found to be ineffective, or are inadequate or inappropriate for the circumstances of the subject of the petition, or the person subject to an ex parte gun violence restraining order, as applicable.
The letter sent by Michael A. Schwartz, San Diego County Gun Owners PAC’s Political Director, does hit the high notes on Fletcher’s eligibility for having his permit to carry revoked, as well as having his firearms removed from his possession. Fletcher, being accused by someone that alleges they would be retaliated against if they spoke out, paired with his own self-described instability, could be considered a danger to the alleged victim and himself. Further, one of the requirements in order to get a California permit to carry, as illustrated on the San Diego County Sheriff’s webpage for permitting, is that “The applicant is of good moral character.”
Granted, all that we’re talking about concerning Fletcher are allegations, with no due process rendered yet. Unfortunately for him, that’s all that’s required for him to be red-flagged. We can assume that Fletcher has been a proponent of subjective criteria like “good moral character,” something that’s forbidden according to the NYSRPA v. Bruen decision, as well as Heller. But, this is the law and situation in California, and Fletcher, having shown his support for subverting the rights of San Diego County residents, must be held to the same exact standards of the rest of the peasants. What’s in the complaint – allegedly – does not make Fletcher, what a reasonable man would consider, to be of “good moral character.”
In the past, Fletcher has championed many different restrictions on the Second Amendment. Reading his statements, one can gather that he’s been fully indoctrinated in how to use the weasel words of gun-grabbers.
Fletcher was in support of banning so-called “ghost guns” in the county and forcing storage rules, and noted in 2022:
“Enacting stronger safety measures for gun storage and reducing the possibility for more unregulated firearms to be distributed in our neighborhoods is another important step toward fulfilling our obligation to help protect San Diegans from unnecessary gun violence,” said Chair Fletcher. “I want to thank Councilmember Marni von Wilpert who authored and passed “ghost gun” legislation in the city; and City Attorney Mara Elliott for her trailblazing “safe storage” policy, for inspiring the ordinance we passed today.”
Also in 2022, Fletcher specifically spoke about storage mandates imposed on the residents of San Diego:
“Safe firearm storage saves lives and prevents gun violence,” said Nathan Fletcher, Chair of the San Diego County Board of Supervisors. “Last year we introduced the measure. Earlier this year the rules were finalized, and now we’re delivering on our promise. The common-sense, safe storage guidelines that go into effect in our unincorporated areas will keep families safe, especially children.”
Fletcher spoke about his support in voting to be able to sue gun manufacturers, something that goes against the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act:
“We have added another tool to our fight against gun violence in San Diego County,” said Chair Fletcher. “Today we have put our County in a position to take action against multimillion-dollar companies that profit off of people buying deadly weapons, but historically have never had the responsibility of making sure the wrong people don’t purchase them. Our efforts today will help to create greater accountability.”
Nathan Fletcher is no friend to civil liberties. Cherry-picking examples of his disdain of the Second Amendment can go on and on. Given the very serious allegations that have surfaced against him, he probably should be divested of his right to keep and bear arms – according to laws and ideologies he supports. Naturally, and confidently speaking for Bearing Arms, we here believe in the right of due process. There are major issues with laws that Fletcher supports. But, he does support them and should have to live under the same exact standards of everyone else.
Where does this put the citizens of San Diego, or California at large? Nowhere. That’s where. Fletcher, a gun-grabbing political hack, is playing the victim and snuck away to rehab. Whether or not Fletcher has a substance abuse problem is really of no consequence. Fletcher will have to one day face his accuser, and will or won’t be held accountable. According to the allegations, it does appear a criminal case should also be opened. Will that happen? Who knows.
What is likely to happen to a hypocrite like Fletcher is that he’ll come out the other end of this one day and be back in politics in no time. We’re talking about California of course. All he’d have to do is relocate to San Francisco, and he’d be good to go. Let’s hope I’m wrong about that. At a minimum, Fletcher deserves a spoon full of his own medicine and the San Diego County Sheriff’s office, et.al. should act on revoking Fletcher’s carry permit, as well as confiscate his guns. Then we’ll see if some animals are more equal than others.
Nathan Fletcher, wishing you well as you navigate your road to recovery. Disgraced. And hopefully disarmed.
Tune into Schwartz discussing the situation HERE, or in the embed below: