Declined at Intake.(But Slow on Uptake.)

From the Herald article:

Zavaletta explained that he signed "a sworn victim/witness statement detailing how I came to be in possession of this information which at no time indicated that it was confidential or could not be disseminated to any third person."

While this may be true, there was an article published on 2/28, just two days after the Zavaletta campaign first ran the offending ad. In it:

District Attorney Armando Villalobos said the information contained in the advertisement is sent to Monica's House or Maggie's House. It is confidential and not subject for public viewing, he said, as the case files contain information about complainants and victims, which are protected by law.

Wasn't the DA's indication of the confidentiality of these names reason enough not to run them again?

Why did the Zavaletta campaign publish the SAME ad (both with full names of the individuals declined at intake and then with just their initials) OVER and OVER again?

Herald 2/26, A9 - original run of ad, with full names.
Herald 2/29, C3 - 2nd run of ad, with initials.
Herald 3/2, C5 - 3rd run of ad, with full names.
Herald 3/3, C3 - 4th run of ad, with full names.
Herald 3/4, C3 - 5th run of ad, with initials.

I struggled to comprehend how an attorney couldn't conceive of the confidentiality possibility before the first ad run. But then to run it multiple times again after he was effectively warned of the criminal (and not to mention civil) liability is just arrogant or asinine. Pick your poison.