Quick Take
Recently reelected Watsonville City Council member Jimmy Dutra says local media, including Lookout, sensationalized his civil trial in September that coincided with his reelection bid. He says some articles about him were misleading and inaccurate. In the trial, a civil jury found Dutra liable for $1.1 million in damages stemming from the sexual assault of a minor. Dutra has always insisted he is innocent. The trial, he writes, was a money grab and an attempt to destroy him politically. Here, he offers his version of events and defends himself against what he sees as misleading media coverage.
Have something to say? Lookout welcomes letters to the editor, within our policies, from readers. Guidelines here.
I would like to thank everyone who helped me in November 2024 to one of my largest election wins. I was reelected to the Watsonville City Council with an 11% victory.
During this next term, I will become Watsonville’s mayor pro-tem and mayor, positions I held in 2018 and 2021, respectively. I was Watsonville’s first openly gay mayor and only the second openly gay mayor in Santa Cruz County’s history. John Laird held this honor on the Santa Cruz City Council in the 1980s when he held this post for two non-consecutive years.
I am grateful to my community and district for electing me again and am honored so many believe in me and my leadership. I pledge to continue to be an effective and fair voice for all.
To say the past few years have been difficult would be an understatement.
My reputation and life has been under attack. My father’s girlfriend and her son-like figure collaborated in a $10 million sexual assault lawsuit against me. My opponents and political adversaries capitalized on this allegation with hate-filled campaigns and the media jockeyed as to who would “win” as the primary judge in the court of public opinion.
All these efforts were meant to destroy me.
Throughout this recent election, I did not speak to many in the media. Some media organizations thought they knew me and my community and presented an insincere and inaccurate version of me. They endorsed and supported my opponent and spread misinformation. Their articles and coverage became more and more sensationalized as the trial against me wore on. They twisted facts and truth to fit their narrative.
When I was asked why I wouldn’t respond to some news organizations, my reply was always the same. I couldn’t trust them to be fair, honest or not contort my words. So I refrained from speaking to many of them.
Now, I want to put some of the record straight, say what I couldn’t say during the litigation. I want to correct some of the false narrative the media, including Lookout, has painted of me.
I disagree with the civil court’s finding against me and plan to appeal the ruling. I will continue to fight to prove my innocence.
I feel somewhat vindicated after a Superior Court judge on Dec. 20 tossed out a motion asking me to pay $300,000 in legal fees to my opponent. I was in court because attorney Dana Scruggs and his client Stephen Siefke tried to claim my consistent and unwavering denial of his client’s allegations of sexual misconduct caused him several hundred thousand dollars to litigate. He referenced a law that mandates if a defendant knew they would lose and yet still pursued litigation, the plaintiff is entitled to 75% of their costs.
To my satisfaction, Judge Timothy Schmal rejected this argument. He stated I had several reasons to believe I could win at trial. Judge Schmal gave two of several arguments that could have been made based on the inconsistent and flawed testimonies presented at trial. The jury could have seen Siefke as lying because he only made such allegations out of fear of his parents, after he was repeatedly arrested for drug and alcohol use. Both he, his mother and a friend confirmed there was an extremely strict family dynamic.
Another reason the jury could have sided with me, the judge said, is because Siefke and his mom both stated she made a police report years later. However, Siefke supposedly refused to give a police statement, which could have led the jury to believe his accusation was a “fabrication.”
When asked during trial, neither Siefke nor his mother could produce a police report, a case number or anything to prove she had filed a report. Just their word. On the stand, Siefke’s mom had a difficult time giving the same responses as in her deposition. It came to a point where her reply to my attorney was to reference her deposition.
Lookout reported that the judge denied Scruggs the $300,000 in legal costs. However, in my opinion, there was an irrelevant and misleading part to the story. I feel my relationship with my colleague Casey Clark needs to be clarified as it was misrepresented. Clark and I both under oath stated we were never in a relationship or “romantic partners.” To say we were romantic partners, as Lookout did, is a gross distortion of our former friendship.
We were friends in the traditional way and strayed away from that conventional friendship once. At the end of our friendship, Clark befriended my dad’s partner, Susie McBride, with whom I was embroiled in a contentious legal battle. Clark has since confirmed she hated me. Something I already knew.
I was the trustee to my dad’s estate and she was demanding release of her assets from the estate. I wouldn’t release them because they were part of the estate that was under litigation. This caused her much anger and I believe she kicked her quest for revenge into high gear.
In the middle of the estate’s litigation, in 2020, I ran for Watsonville City Council. This was also during the new friendship between McBride and Clark. At that time, Clark filed a lawsuit over my 2020 ballot designation for Watsonville City Council. He ultimately lost in court. He was claiming I wasn’t a teacher and shouldn’t be able to use the professional title on the ballot as my designation.
However, my contract clearly stated I was a teacher. After that failed attempt to derail my campaign, they waited two more years until I ran for Santa Cruz County supervisor in order to try again to end my political aspirations. McBride teamed up with Siefke in a civil lawsuit against me.
The filing happened three days before people began to vote in 2022, at a time when I was the front-runner for South County’s Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors seat and just months after I settled my father’s estate litigation.
McBride claimed in Siefke’s filing that he confided in her while they were in Los Angeles in 2005. It’s a conversation Siefke doesn’t remember. Siefke claims he first shared such accusations to his mom years later after one of his arrests, not to McBride in 2005. This was another example of a conflicting story, which the plaintiff’s lawyer avoided talking about or bringing attention to in court.
McBride unexpectedly died in 2023. The trustee to her estate is her new friend, Casey Clark. He inherited most of her items, including my dad’s personal property which she inherited when he died. This includes my dad’s ring, which Clark has worn in front of me on at least two occasions.
As for the reporting on my relationship with Damacio Montoya, during my deposition I was blindsided with a letter claiming I groped my former city manager’s adult son in a bar. Clark and Montoya are friends. They both publicly and under oath talked about their friendship. In Montoya’s deposition, he admitted he didn’t write the letter, which was not signed or dated, accusing me of being inappropriate.
In fact, he states he met up with Clark at a bar and the idea of creating this letter was born during that meeting. When Clark was asked on the stand if he wrote the letter accusing me of being inappropriate with Montoya, his response was, “I do not recall.”
All the players involved around this litigation are connected with each other.
Some publicly attack me and are willing to show their face. Others hide in the shadows using this disgusting and untrue accusation to their advantage.
I completely understand how dirty politics can be.
There is good, but evil also exists. It is imperative we see through the deception. Some people will do anything for money and power.
On Dec. 20, Scruggs told Lookout, “The real issue is: Are we going to collect the $1.1 million?”
It should become real clear what this is all about.
I resolutely maintain my innocence. I feel humbled and proud so many in my community see me for who I am. I pledge to serve you and all of Watsonville with renewed vigor and a keener understanding of injustice.
Onward!
Jimmy Dutra is a newly reelected Watsonville City Councilmember.