Disclaimer: Note to the reader, these are my opinions based on all the facts, evidence and the history. These are observations of the many connections that cannot be denied.
The Political Trial
What unfolded during the trial of former Councilmember Anthony Becker often felt less like a straightforward criminal prosecution and more like a process tightly controlled at every stage — a proceeding where the defense repeatedly collided with barriers while politically damaging narratives flowed freely outside the courtroom. Those who attended the trial watched Becker’s defense get stonewalled on issue after issue, from evidentiary disputes to expert testimony that appeared to receive unequal treatment. At times, even basic factual questions became tangled in endless objections. One example involved claims surrounding an iPhone that an expert insisted Becker possessed, despite testimony and records suggesting otherwise. To many observers, the trial carried a constant undertone that the outcome was narrowing long before jurors ever reached deliberations.
From the initial investigation through the conclusion of trial, there remained a lingering perception that California Penal Code 933 had been transformed from a statute intended to preserve grand jury confidentiality into a political weapon. The law appeared to function selectively: confidential when it protected powerful interests, but porous when leaks could shape public opinion against a political target. Information seemed to surface publicly precisely when it carried maximum political impact — what many viewed as an “October surprise” environment where confidentiality rules did not apply equally to everyone involved. Hanging over the proceedings was the reality that the misdemeanor charge itself carried devastating consequences, effectively ending an elected official’s political future regardless of how the larger questions surrounding the case were resolved. There was a sense throughout the proceedings that Becker was fighting uphill against forces much larger than the courtroom itself. Some disadvantages were subtle. Others impossible to ignore.
One of the clearest examples involved optics. Becker could never fully shake the appearance of having a powerful, expensive legal machine behind him. Jurors repeatedly heard references to the number of lawyers seated at the defense table, despite the reality that the case fundamentally remained a public defender matter supplemented by outside counsel. Prosecutors themselves referenced Becker’s legal team size when jurors raised questions related to representation, reinforcing the image of a politically connected defendant with elite lawyers rather than someone relying primarily on public defense resources.
The same dynamic played out around campaign support by the 49ers in 2020 and 2022. Prosecutors alluded to Becker receiving “millions” in backing, despite much of the money discussed involved independent expenditures rather than direct campaign donations. The distinction mattered legally but often appeared lost inside the courtroom. Long stretches of testimony about campaign finance law, independent expenditures, and the Citizens United decision became so technical and repetitive that jurors visibly struggled to remain engaged. Some appeared confused by the difference between independent political spending and direct donations. Others looked exhausted. At times jurors appeared bored, watched the clock, or nodded off during the dense financial testimony. That exhaustion inside the courtroom would later become deeply significant.
The outside law firm assisting Becker’s public defender and defense, Goodwin Procter, became a political issue in itself. The Gillmor machine repeatedly questioned why the firm was involved at all. Figures such as Tom Shanks and Kirk Vartan publicly and privately raised suspicions over whether Goodwin Procter was truly assisting a public defender’s office or whether the firm’s prior relationship with the San Francisco 49ers meant its real role was protecting the organization’s interests. That question fed broader speculation. One theory I had come to was, the firm was partially there to monitor fallout surrounding the 49ers and help contain damage tied to the scandal. Making sure Becker kept quiet and didn’t testify. Another theory became harder to ignore when District Attorney Jeff Rosen released a 2026 campaign mailer featuring an endorsement quote from Drew Lloyd the President of BAYMEC, who had served on Becker’s legal team during trial. To those already suspicious of overlapping political alliances, the mailer intensified lingering questions about loyalties, coordination, and whether Becker had ultimately become the person selected to absorb the fallout — the patsy necessary to protect broader networks of influence like Gillmor, the 49ers, the POA and ultimately the district attorney’s office and civil grand jury for allowing such rubbish and lies to be published in the first place.
Inside the courtroom, Becker’s attorneys frequently found themselves boxed in procedurally. Defense questioning was repeatedly cut short through objections from prosecutors, often sustained by the judge. One of the starkest examples occurred during testimony from civil grand juror Karen Enzensperger. Objections flooded in not only from the District Attorney’s office but also from attorneys representing the Civil Grand Jury itself. Entire lines of questioning were shut down before answers could even be given. Jurors never heard whether members of the Civil Grand Jury communicated with Mayor Lisa Gillmor or with political allies close to her, including Teresa O’Neill, who reportedly lived across the street from juror Shirley Modric. For observers already concerned about political coordination behind the scenes, the unanswered questions became as important as the testimony itself.
Perhaps no moment better captured the contradictions of the trial than the removal of a sitting juror during proceedings. The trial itself had become so dense and tedious with technical testimony surrounding campaign finance law, leaked reports, procedural disputes, and independent expenditures that the courtroom often appeared mentally exhausted. Jurors visibly struggled at times to stay engaged. Some looked confused. Others stared at the clock during lengthy testimony. There were even moments where Judge Alcala appeared to briefly nod off during proceedings. Yet it was one juror — not the court itself — who ultimately became the focus of intense scrutiny. The juror had reportedly nodded off once and occasionally looked at the clock often during testimony. When questioned further, she disclosed that she had schizophrenia and took medication for the condition. Despite concerns raised by the court, she still appeared capable of following the proceedings and answering questions coherently. But the discussion quickly shifted away from whether she understood the evidence and toward whether her medical condition and prescribed medication made her fundamentally unfit to continue serving. Both the judge and prosecutors reportedly expressed concern over her medication use, even raising broader questions about whether prospective jurors should disclose prescription medication use during jury selection questionnaires. Becker’s defense team objected strongly, arguing the inquiry crossed deeply personal medical boundaries and HIPAA laws and dangerously implied that individuals taking mental health medication could not fairly serve on juries. To the defense, it felt as though the courtroom had suddenly placed a juror’s private health history itself on trial . Ultimately, Judge Alcala ruled that the juror’s mental health condition prevented her from continuing service and ordered her removed. What happened next only intensified the perception among courtroom observers that political proximity lingered over the proceedings in unsettling ways. The alternate juror rotated into her place and worked as an office manager in a building owned by Mayor Gillmor. Standing alone, the replacement of the juror may have been a coincidence. But within the broader context of a trial already saturated with accusations of political influence, alliances, leaked information, restricted testimony, and unanswered questions surrounding powerful local figures, the sequence became impossible for many observers to ignore. Too many connections to ignore.
For Becker’s defense team, the moment appeared to crystallize the frustration that had defined much of the trial from the beginning: rules often seemed flexible for some, rigid for others, and fairness itself appeared to shift depending on who was being scrutinized. By the end of proceedings, one unresolved question continued hovering over the courtroom and among those closely following the case: was Anthony Becker a whistleblower, a witness, or simply the patsy chosen to take the fall? That question never fully disappeared. In many ways, it became the defining undercurrent of the entire trial especially when everything was pigeonholed.
Untouchable, Unquestionable, Unexplainable
It is a close-knit network of political allies, former officials, attorneys, activists, judges, consultants, and insiders — many of whom have crossed paths professionally, politically, or personally for years. I have previously referred to this as the “Gillmor Network,” a previous opinion letter to the editor I submitted, a web of interconnected relationships that repeatedly appears at the center of Santa Clara’s political power struggles. The pattern is difficult to ignore: the same names, the same alliances, the same grudges, and often the same coordinated political outcomes.
The deeper one looks into the Becker investigation, the 2022 Civil Grand Jury report, and ultimately Becker’s conviction just before Christmas 2024, the more intertwined these relationships become. What outwardly appeared to be an independent process increasingly resembled a small circle of politically aligned figures operating within overlapping legal, political, and civic institutions. Becker himself pointed directly at this concern in a 2022 press release by poking the bear:
“In this nation you are innocent until proven guilty, but their verdict is guilty without even an actual investigation. It is even more troubling that there are lawyers on that grand jury, and I am sure they would never go to court with the case they presented here. It begs the question of how much contact did Mayor Gillmor have with the Civil Grand Jury and how much evidence did she or her allies supply.”
Becker’s comments were aimed in part at the whole grand jury but singled out specific Civil Grand Jurors Karyn Sinunu-Towery, a former Santa Clara County prosecutor, and former Los Gatos Mayor Barbara Spector — two attorneys whose professional and political histories reveal just how interconnected many of the players in this saga actually were. Barbara Spector began her legal career at the firm Morgan, Morgan, Towery, Morgan & Spector, where she worked alongside Judge James Towery, the husband of fellow grand juror Karyn Sinunu-Towery. Decades later, Spector was again tied into another critical piece of Santa Clara politics when she worked as an attorney at Hodge Fenton from 2009 to 2010. During that same period, Hodge Fenton represented Cedar Fair in its lawsuit against the City of Santa Clara, the City Council, and the 49ers over the land that would ultimately become Levi’s Stadium. Cedar Fair lost the lawsuit, but the legal and political battle over the stadium would continue to shape Santa Clara politics for years afterward.
Barbara Spector later testified that as a civil grand juror she personally witnessed Anthony Becker being sworn under oath during the grand jury proceedings that ultimately led to his indictment. During Becker’s criminal trial in 2024, however, Spector’s declining health prevented her from continuing as part of the process and she was replaced by another grand juror, Karen Enzensperger, the one not allowed to answer questions by Becker’s defense. Spector later died from cancer in November 2025. Ironically, her obituary described her as a longtime 49ers season ticket holder, despite her role on a grand jury that aggressively targeted both the 49ers and Councilmembers accused of being too close to the organization in the consequential 2022 Civil Grand Jury report. The contradiction mirrors other anti-49ers political figures in Santa Clara politics — such as Kathy Watanabe and others who publicly crusaded against the team while simultaneously attending games or holding season tickets themselves, all while accusing others of being “in the 49ers’ pocket.”
On the other hand, Civil Grand Juror Karyn Sinunu-Towery was something of a legal and political institution within Santa Clara County. Her husband, retired Judge James Towery, remains a well-known figure in local legal circles through his divorce arbitration work, while Karyn herself spent decades as a prosecutor before retiring in 2013. Her stature inside the District Attorney’s Office was so significant that the office later named an award after her honoring individuals who demonstrated “exceptional bravery in pursuit of justice.” Karyn Sinunu-Towery also served as a prosecutor during the same era Javier Alcala worked in the District Attorney’s Office before Alcala was appointed to the bench by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2010. In a remarkable overlap of relationships, Alcala would later become the judge presiding over Anthony Becker’s 2024 criminal trial — the very case involving allegations that Becker lied under oath before a grand jury that included Karyn Sinunu-Towery herself. The interconnections deepen further. Judge James Towery was also a shareholder and attorney at Hoge Fenton in 2010, the same firm where Barbara Spector worked during the Cedar Fair litigation. Both Karyn Sinunu-Towery and Judge Towery publicly endorsed District Attorney Jeff Rosen’s campaigns, and Judge Towery reportedly served as Rosen’s attorney in 2010 regarding campaign statement matters.
Taken individually, each of these relationships could be dismissed as coincidence. Collectively, however, they paint the picture of a remarkably small and interconnected political and legal ecosystem — one where the same names repeatedly surface around the grand jury, the District Attorney’s Office, judicial appointments, political endorsements, city lawsuits, and the long-running political wars surrounding the 49ers and Santa Clara City Hall. That reality naturally raises difficult questions. Could Judge Alcala have been protecting the credibility of a process involving former colleagues and respected figures within the county legal establishment? Could members of the grand jury, including Karyn Sinunu-Towery and others, have provided testimony or conclusions that were incomplete, misleading, or politically motivated in their pursuit of Becker, the council majority and even the 49ers?
And while discussing judges and prosecutors, another figure impossible to ignore is Judge Quentin Kopp. Becker has pointed to letters Kopp allegedly sent him warning: “We are coming at you for violating the Brown Act—wait until the U.S. Attorney files his criminal action.” Whether viewed as political rhetoric, personal animosity, or something more coordinated, the statement only adds to the growing perception that powerful legal and political figures had aligned themselves against Becker long before the crime prosecutors say he committed, the indictment and ultimately the criminal conviction. Why wasn’t Kopp questioned?
Even District Attorney Jeff Rosen himself was not entirely removed from the political orbit surrounding these events. In 2022, before Rosen’s office ultimately indicted Becker in 2023, Becker publicly supported Rosen’s challengers for District Attorney — prosecutor Daniel Chung and public defender Sajid Khan — effectively backing anyone but the incumbent district attorney. At the same time, Rosen himself was politically connected to several of the very figures and factions intertwined throughout the Becker saga. Rosen endorsed Gillmor-backed candidate Satish Chandra in the 2024 election to replace outgoing Councilmember Kathy Watanabe, and previously endorsed Police Chief Pat Nikolai in 2020. Nikolai, notably, was the same police chief who authored the letter requesting an investigation into Becker and the rest of the City Council following the release of the 2022 Civil Grand Jury report. Becker, while recently appearing at City Council meetings, mentioned that on Jeff Rosen’s campaign reelection website Rosen has been using blogger Robert Haugh as a news source surrounding Santa Clara politics and Becker’s conviction. Rosen additionally references Becker in his 2026 reelection ballot statement with “We convicted corrupt politicians for perjury” while ignoring the corrupt Gillmor Machine. Jeff Rosen is giving legitimacy to Mayor Gillmor’s political blogger. Whether coincidental or not, these overlapping narratives have continued to shape perceptions of influence, sourcing, and timing in local political coverage. Even Rosen himself was never seriously questioned regarding his own political relationships or loyalties that could have conflicted his office out where there are increasingly blurred lines between political alliances and prosecutorial decisions in Santa Clara. Rosen dismissed the case that claimed Gillmor was not transparent on her financial statements and was lenient with former Council candidate in San Jose Jenny Higgins Brandini who killed a man under the influence of prescriptions where her charges were reduced from felony to misdemeanor manslaughter. Worth noting Brandini also used a private judge James Towery in her divorce proceedings. Rosen’s objectivity has faced scrutiny before; most recently, his office was removed from prosecuting the Stanford vandalism case due to a conflict of interest — the second time his office has been conflicted out of a major matter. Broader concerns about information handling and leaks have also surfaced in prior contexts, including matters involving the Sheriff Laurie Smith case, where Becker’s defense team’s motions raised questions about alleged leaks and the flow of information during active investigations. Further leaks concerns of the District Attorney’s office came when in April 2023, blogger Robert Haugh published an “April Fools” post joking that the entire City Council—minus Gillmor and Watanabe—had been indicted by Jeff Rosen. Fourteen days later, Becker was in fact indicted. While clearly presented as satire, the timing has since been pointed to defense attorneys and other pundits as an unusual coincidence when viewed alongside earlier concerns raised in other cases about leaks within overlapping political and legal networks. Even beyond endorsements, Rosen’s own political history further illustrates how interconnected Santa Clara politics had become. In prior campaigns, Jeff Rosen accepted political donations connected to the San Francisco 49ers — the same organization his office later sharply criticized and scrutinized during Becker’s prosecution and the broader political wars surrounding Santa Clara City Hall. Taken together, the overlapping endorsements, political alliances, investigations, and prosecutions only deepen the perception that the lines between law enforcement, politics, and personal relationships in Santa Clara and Santa Clara County had become increasingly blurred. Rosen’s ballot statement further claims he will “work each day determined to serve you,” promote “safety and justice for all,” and that he “helped thousands of crime victims recover,” yet many question whether those promises truly apply to everyone or only to Rosen and his allies — especially when it comes to the fallout from the Gillmor lies and alleged grand jury misconduct.
Jude Barry remained untouched. Jeremy Schmidt — both a police officer and president of the Police Officers Association — remained untouched, despite testimony, political involvement, and text messages that raised questions about motive and prior knowledge. Even former Police Chief Pat Nikolai was never meaningfully scrutinized, despite the fact that it was his police union that first possessed the confidential Civil Grand Jury report and used it to help create an election-timed political website before Nikolai himself formally requested District Attorney Jeff Rosen investigate Becker and the council majority. Nikolai was never publicly questioned under oath regarding what he knew, when he knew it, or whether he had any knowledge of how the report spread politically before its release. The same can be said for former City Clerk Hossam Haggag, another figure closely tied to Gillmor’s political network. Neither Nikolai nor Haggag faced meaningful scrutiny, and both quietly exited city government in 2024 as Becker’s trial concluded. Yet even after leaving office, Nikolai resurfaced on the Charter Review Committee advocating for structural changes that politically benefit Gillmor and her allies.
More of whom escaped scrutiny entirely. Civil Grand Jurors such as Karyn Sinunu-Towery and Shirley Modric were never seriously examined despite their relationships, political proximity, and roles in the process. Modric reportedly lives across the street from Gillmor ally and former Councilmember Teresa O’Neill, who has since become closely aligned with Kevin Park’s estranged wife and has even attended Park’s divorce proceedings. Similar questions of proximity and alignment extend to other grand jurors as well. Paul Ranieri, a member of the 2022 Civil Grand Jury, later displayed Teresa O’Neill campaign yard signs in his front yard during the 2024 election cycle. Likewise, Lauren Diamond, who served on the 2024 Civil Grand Jury that released election-timed reports, later placed a campaign sign supporting David Kertes after that report targeted incumbent Councilmember Suds Jain. Lauren Diamond is now on the Charter Review committee with former Chief Pat Nikolai and Burt Field. None ever questioned or allowed to be questioned like civil grand juror Karen Enzenberger. Nor were judges themselves questioned for their connections. Questions surrounding Judge Javier Alcala and Civil Grand Jury supervising Judge Beth McGowan were never seriously explored. Becker’s defense was largely prevented from presenting evidence arguing that the Civil Grand Jury reports were politically motivated or materially false. The judges who oversaw those proceedings remained beyond scrutiny while the reports themselves were largely treated as unquestionable fact and some sort of biblical text.
Other institutions walked away largely unharmed as well. The Police Officers Association emerged politically intact. The San Francisco 49ers suffered embarrassment due to their past political support for Becker through independent expenditures and the surrounding public controversy, but little beyond reputational damage — damage that can be muted by on-field success, including playoff runs, a Super Bowl win can quickly shift public attention. Ironically, that political fallout also benefited both Mayor Lisa Gillmor and District Attorney Jeff Rosen, who had long positioned themselves against the perceived “49ers influence” at City Hall.
Other individuals who helped shape and fuel the climate around Becker operated without real scrutiny. James Rowen, described as a longtime ally of Mayor Lisa Gillmor with ties going back to high school, is cited as an example. During the summer of 2022, Rowen publicly encouraged residents to submit false Civil Grand Jury complaints targeting Becker, Suds Jain, and Kevin Park. Posting on Robert Haugh’s blog, he suggested that “6 complaints” would be needed for the grand jury to take the matter seriously—language that points to as evidence of coordination or inside understanding of how the process worked. Rowen also drew attention for later comments during the November 2022 period, when Councilmembers were testifying in response to the grand jury report leak investigation. At that time, Rowen wrote that “Act 2 begins,” which interprets the situation as a staged sequence—first the civil grand jury report based on false complaints and false facts, then a second phase aimed at dismantling the council majority and removing one or more. In this framing, Rowen’s comments are viewed not as isolated online remarks, but as part of the broader political environment—an environment many can argue was actively shaped by the Gillmor Machine.
And ultimately, perhaps the most politically untouchable figure throughout all of this remained Mayor Lisa Gillmor herself. Despite the extensive political overlap connecting allies, former staff, police union figures, activists, attorneys, judges, and grand jurors, Gillmor remained insulated from meaningful scrutiny. She was named in testimony by former Interim City Attorney Steve Ngo, Councilmembers Suds Jain and Kevin Park, and even Becker himself in connection with the handling and leak of the confidential grand jury report and other city business. Prior testimony and records also referenced her emailing of the report to her personal account, later explanations regarding her handling of it, and related communications and digital activity that raised additional questions already detailed in earlier sections of this record. Yet none of these issues resulted in formal investigative focus comparable to what others faced. So too did former Councilmember and now School Board Trustee Kathy Watanabe remain untouched, despite publicly acknowledging that she shared the confidential report with her husband — a direct violation of her duty to maintain confidentiality. Yet Watanabe was never prosecuted, charged, or seriously investigated by Jeff Rosen’s office. Kathy Watanabe is now the frontrunner to be Mayor of Santa Clara in November. Does it make sense now?
Lastly, journalist Lance Williams of the San Francisco Chronicle came under no criticism for his handling of information related to the leaked grand jury report, including deleted messages with Mayor Gillmor, though these issues were largely dismissed publicly. Similar concerns have been raised regarding coverage by the Chronicle and Robert Haugh, both of whom are in the Gillmor-aligned political networks, despite questions surrounding access to leaked material tied to the grand jury process. Williams has previously faced legal controversy in his career, including a contempt case in connection with protecting sources on leaked grand jury testimony during the Barry Bonds steroid investigation. Robert Haugh has also been the subject of past allegations charged by District Attorney Jeff Rosen but was later dropped. Despite these controversies, neither figure received the same level of public scrutiny that the Gillmor Machine and the District Attorney directed at outlets such as San Jose Spotlight and Silicon Valley Voice, which published reporting critical of the grand jury findings and lies. Those outlets, along with individuals including Miles Barber, Carolyn Schuk, Angie Tolliver, and Ramona Gerwagis all who are mortal enemies of the Gillmor Machine. Yet I guess that is what explains on Jeff Rosen’s re-election campaign website he sources the San Francisco Chronicle and Robert Haugh.
For all the investigations, indictments, headlines, and political fallout surrounding Anthony Becker, one reality stands out above all others: many of the individuals surrounding the controversy were never seriously questioned, some were never placed under oath, some allegedly lied under oath, and others were never meaningfully investigated at all — yet ultimately emerged untouched. Despite repeated public claims of accountability, transparency, and justice surrounding the Becker investigation, trial, and conviction, the pattern critics describe is not one of equal scrutiny. Instead, they point to a system where Becker and those aligned with him faced investigations, indictments, and criminal exposure, while an interconnected network of political allies, insiders, and institutions avoided the same level of examination or consequence. Simply put, the controversy exposed an “untouchables” dynamic: individuals and institutions who, regardless of their role in escalating or sustaining the conflict, remained beyond meaningful scrutiny. Councilmember Suds Jain has also publicly raised concerns about disparities in how accountability is applied, stating that “poor people go to jail,” while others — by implication — remain outside the reach of similar scrutiny. Most of this, with time, will likely be forgotten — unquestioned and unexplained.
An Inside Job
Taken together, these events are often viewed as part of a cumulative pattern rather than isolated incidents. From this perspective, each development appears to involve actors who had strong disagreements with Becker, and in some cases, clear political or personal friction with him. The early removal of City Manager Deanna Santana and City Attorney Brian Doyle under a new council majority that included Becker marked the start of a prolonged period of legal disputes and political tension that did not fully subside after their departures. Within that broader context, other episodes are frequently cited as reinforcing signals. These include Becker’s 2021 vote to censure former Councilmember Kathy Watanabe after the Stop Asian Hate Rally incident involving Councilmember Kevin Park’s denied opportunity to speak, as well as later controversies involving Burt Field’s activities tied to Stand Up for Santa Clara and Teresa O’Neill’s recall efforts in the post–civil grand jury period. Additional motives include Field’s removal from the Parks and Recreation Commission following Becker’s allegation of threats against elected officials by Burt Field during the 2022 mayoral election, and Becker’s assertion that a civil grand juror was seated near him intentionally by Debbie Tryfosos at the Classy Bag Affaire event. Public commentary from figures such as Kirk Vartan and Tom Shanks, along with ethics discussions and reliance on the grand jury report like gospel, further intensified an already polarized environment. These overlapping conflicts contributed to a sustained atmosphere of political hostility rather than isolated disagreements, reinforcing the belief that Becker was a central target in an extended and deeply adversarial political struggle and this perspective holds that these individuals—through lawsuits, public commentary, advisory roles, political organizing, and formal complaints—formed a broader coalition of opposition aimed at Becker throughout his time on the council.
This is all examples of blurred proximity between civic actors and the investigative process. None of these individual moments alone prove coordination, but in combination they are cited as “seeds” that, when viewed through the earlier described network of overlapping political, legal, and civic relationships, contribute to the perception of a structured environment in which opposition to Becker was continuously reinforced across multiple channels. From that perspective, what emerges is not a single overt conspiracy, but a tightly interconnected system of actions and relationships that consistently produced the same political outcome. Mayor Lisa Gillmor saw her influence decline as a new council majority formed, and therefore relied more on these allies and outside channels to push back against Becker and the council members aligned with him. Gillmor’s power dwindled at nearly every Council meeting with Becker and a new majority on the dais. He was her greatest threat, a threat that she felt had to be wiped off the board.
Gillmor: No to Becker, Yes to Arno
Becker is shaping up to be the new Jim Arno—the crime-riddled councilmember Lisa Gillmor defended to the bitter end. Arno hid campaign contributions from Mission Trails, a group tied closely to Gillmor, where Gillmor herself faced no real consequences. Becker, meanwhile, is convicted of perjury and leaking a document—a document which is clear Gillmor had an influence in creating, and Gillmor’s side demanded severe punishment for Becker after once arguing for leniency for Jim Arno. Back then, Gillmor opposed even censuring Arno, questioned the recall Jim Arno efforts, and accused Mayor Nadler of pushing a political agenda. She went so far as to say the council owed Arno an apology for damaging his reputation, calling the proceedings a “kangaroo court.” Fast forward to 2022 and today—same playbook, different target–coincidentally Rahul Chandhok called the civil grand jury a “kangaroo court” upon the release of the grand jury report Unsportsmanlike Conduct. In 1998, embattled Councilmember Jim Arno avoided trial on misdemeanor charges, claiming he couldn’t afford it, and Gillmor echoed that defense. Despite everything, he still sought reelection, with allies like Gillmor publicly backing him, something Becker himself did in 2024 with the Gillmor Machine calling it out. Many considered Arno getting away with it for financial improprieties. Many in the community believed Arno took the fall and was the patsy for others including Gillmor herself who then took a back seat to politics after 2000 when she left office the first time. After that, her hand was puppeteering Jamie Matthews, Dominic Caserta and Kevin Moore on the city council. So the pattern is clear: Gillmor tolerated dishonesty when it suited her, but condemned it when it didn’t. That’s not ethics—it’s selective accountability. Does it make no sense that crimes committed with money are treated with a slap on the wrist while Becker was treated as a devious criminal? The bottom line is Gillmor is ok with someone lying to the public about their campaign donations but not ok for leaking a report she helped influence and create. She is a liar herself; we all have seen it during a council meeting or two or three. This is Gillmor being ethical, this is how she applies her ethics in determining who is good and who is bad. Councilmember Karen Hardy, who is doing questionable votes as of late, said at council meetings, “You are either ethical or you are not, you can’t teach it”.
The Aftermath
In the end, what remains is a political landscape where people are either pushed aside, publicly sacrificed, or permanently kept in the crosshairs depending on their place within the power structure. Once someone is consumed by the “Gillmor Machine,” they become part of it — whether as an ally, an obstacle, or a warning to others. One thing became increasingly clear: the more Becker spoke, the larger the target on his back grew. Whether by choice or consequence, his detailed public disclosures only intensified an already volatile political environment. And with every additional accusation, contradiction, and alleged revelation raised at council meetings, Becker ensured that the story would not quietly disappear. Had he remained silent about the alleged misconduct and inconsistencies he claims to have witnessed, the narrative may have already been sealed, simplified, and filed away. Instead, it continues to echo — and so does the scrutiny surrounding him.
At its core, this is a story of bad blood and competing narratives—far from a simple tale of right and wrong. Far from the Hatfields and McCoys. Some see it as rich versus poor, establishment versus newcomer, seasoned political operators versus a political rookie who walked into a system far more entrenched than it must have first appeared. A tale as old as time. In that framing, Becker becomes less a central architect of events and more collateral damage in a larger war over influence and control in Santa Clara politics. Gillmor vs. 49ers.
Becker’s departure from the City Council proved pivotal, as the long-delayed vote on the Related Companies project was postponed until after he left office. A vocal critic of the project’s handling — and of what he viewed as inconsistent scrutiny compared to the 49ers and others — Becker’s exit reshaped the balance of power. The timing was notable: the vote scheduled for fall 2024 did not reach Council until after the 2024 election, when new members Kelly Cox and Albert Gonzalez had been sworn in. Cox, who replaced Becker and was backed by Mayor Gillmor and the Related Company independent expenditures, joined Albert Gonzalez and the Mayor in supporting the project amendments when they finally came forward in summer 2025. Councilmember Karen Hardy also sided with the changes, selling out and breaking from Councilmembers Suds Jain, Kevin Park, and Raj Chahal. The political realignment effectively ensured the outcome that might have been different with Becker still in place — particularly given his consistent opposition to the project. His absence, combined with shifting alliances and campaign support dynamics, has fueled ongoing questions about timing, influence, and political alignment in the city’s development decisions. It was clear that Gillmor Machine and its disciples, No one wanted Becker as Mayor or Councilmember.
Was there a deeper intent behind all the sequence of events of these years, or are we witnessing layers of interpretation built on top of a straightforward legal case? Yes. When websites, narratives, and political messaging appear almost in sync with unfolding events, it becomes harder for some to believe it is all coincidence. When you’re at this as long as I’ve been, you stop believing in coincidence. Becker, in that sense, is a fool, or a genius, a tragic figure in Santa Clara politics—arriving with force as a “nobody”, leaving under conviction with the mark of a felon only to continue to frame his role as part whistleblower, part witness, and part scapegoat in a much larger political conflict where the final chapter has not yet been written. Even now, years later, the timelines remain unresolved in the public mind. Some officials like Mayor Gillmor and Kathy Watanabe in the broader controversy have faced no charges, while others like Councilmembers Suds Jain or Kevin Park remain the focus of ongoing scrutiny. Whether that reflects justice applied evenly, or justice applied selectively, is ultimately the question that continues to define how this entire chapter in Santa Clara history is remembered.
The harder question that continues to linger: in a system where competing claims, public statements, and closed-door processes all collide, who ultimately decides what is truth—and what is simply the version that survives? Santa Clara is left with the same unresolved tension and reality it started with: who is lying, whose lie becomes accepted truth, and whose truth is written off as a lie? And yet because the contradictions are impossible for many to ignore after all this, don’t it all seem incestual?
Because from one angle, what looks like accountability looks very different from another—it looks selective. It looks coordinated. It looks like timing. And in that environment, accusations multiply: about Evan Low, about Tom Shanks, about the city manager and what he said about leak investigations, what was known, and what was acted on and what was not. It is all about who benefited, who was protected, and who was left exposed.
And still the machinery moves. The Gillmor Machine lives on. It continues to pollute this poor city. A cloud of pollution that hangs over this city and even the valley. It profited from the grand jury reports and its political websites, the district attorney’s office selective negligence and. Compare it to the opposite, who profited or made gains off of any of this legal and ethical ordeal? No one. Not Becker, Not Councilmembers Suds Jain, Raj Chahal, Kevin Park and Karen Hardy. Not even the 49ers. Solely Gillmor.
So what is this, really? Accountability—or choreography?
What is Anthony Becker really trying to achieve now, with his repeated appearances and demands for answers in a system that, from his perspective, refuses to engage with him at all? Sounds like beating his head against the wall to a system that is innately corrupt to the core. The City Council will do nothing for what Becker is asking for, it is business as usual and the city staff will find a reason to sideline his efforts. These Councilmembers did nothing about the multiple false grand jury reports about them and other Gillmor Machine tactics. The votes to hear Becker’s item probably won’t be there with Karen Hardy and Raj Chahal wanting to run for Mayor. No one deserves to be Mayor if no one can hold someone they know has done wrong accountable. Gillmor runs the city.
Yet in his ongoing public statements, Becker frames himself as pursuing justice within a system he believes is structurally imbalanced. In a political environment this charged, and with his own hubris arguably reinforcing the very controversy he seeks to expose, it raises a sharper irony: just how central Becker has become to a long and deeply contested struggle over governance, oversight, and accountability in Santa Clara County politics. Against that backdrop, it would be bitterly ironic if he were ever considered for recognition tied to bravery in the pursuit of justice itself — such as a nomination for the Santa Clara County District Attorney’s Office Karyn Sinunu-Towery Courage Award, which honors individuals who demonstrate exceptional courage in that very pursuit.
Meanwhile, time continues to pass. The clock ticks, the months fall off the calendar, seasons change and the years begin to blend into one another.
So the closing questions write themselves: If this is justice, why does it feel so unevenly distributed? And what is the price when justice turns a blind eye?
It has been **1,276 days—3 years and 5 months—** and counting since former Councilmember Kathy Watanabe now Santa Clara Unified School Board Trustee admitted to sharing a confidential grand jury report with her husband, a direct violation of her elected duty. To this day, she has not been charged or prosecuted by District Attorney Jeff Rosen and is going to run for Mayor of Santa Clara.
It has been **1,276 days—3 years and 5 months—** and counting since Mayor Lisa Gillmor’s own admissions regarding handling of the grand jury report, sending it to her personal email, printing it, deleting evidence, search histories for committing a crime and surrounding digital activity that has been widely debated in public forums. To this day, she has not been charged or prosecuted by District Attorney Jeff Rosen.
Finally, was all of this really the best use of public resources? How much did all of this vendetta cost the taxpayers? Should taxpayer-funded prosecutorial and judicial energy be concentrated here—on a politically saturated, deeply contested case where even the definition of truth is disputed—when other crimes with clear, immediate victims exist in abundance? Gang violence. Human trafficking. Drug trafficking. Real, tangible harm. What exactly is the system prioritizing when it chooses what to pursue with limited public resources? Resources Jeff Rosen says he needs more money for. And how should residents interpret the scale and focus of enforcement when other crises—those with clear, immediate victims—exist alongside these long-running political and legal battles?
Or is this exactly what it appears to some to be: not simply justice pursued, but justice selectively applied—filtered through power, timing, and politics? Is this an Anarcho-tyranny form of government? But I guess “That’s Santa Clara and the County for you.” And in that sentence, depending on who is reading it, lies either acceptance—or indictment.
The way they all lied, those days have to be over. We the people, the newspapers, have to be the check on all these folks’ power. If we don’t hold them accountable, who will?
-Roger Kint