|
| Sunday Commentary: Public Gets a Rare Glimpse into Real DA's Office |
| Written by David Greenwald |
| Sunday, 20 May 2012 07:07 |
|
Mr. Parish wants the voters to believe that he is a good attorney who exercised some indiscretions as a political candidate. The truth is that Mr. Parish is in fact the person that we saw this week. That is the view that everyone in the courthouse got, that is why Public Defender Tracie Olson, normally cautious, early on signaled that her office would simply not trust him to preside over their cases. Mr. Parish is dead as a judicial candidate and on life support in his current job. If he lasts through the end of the year, we will be stunned. The problem for District Attorney Jeff Reisig is what we saw was not the exception but rather a window into the operations of his office. You see, Mr. Parish is not the most vicious employee at the District Attorney's office; he's simply the most bombastic and transparent. Mr. Reisig's moves this week, and his words, show the conflict. At first his reaction was simply that he did not approve of the means or manner of attack, but he was not inclined to pull his endorsement. That was before he recognized that this was a potential liability on him. When the Bee's scrutiny landed on Mr. Reisig too, it was enough. The Bee editorial, entitled, "Parish Shows He's Unfit to Be a Judge," properly linked the employer to the conduct of the employee: "District Attorney Jeff Reisig criticized the mailer but unfortunately stuck by his endorsement of Parish. By continuing to lend his support to Parish, Reisig displays a lack of insight into how such a mailer can politicize the judiciary. Yolo County voters should consider Reisig's embrace of Parish if Reisig appears on the ballot again." That was enough for Mr. Reisig to pull his endorsement, realizing that the judgeship race was a lost cause and throwing Mr. Parish under the bus could save his proverbial skin. Later he would tell the Enterprise, "It's not only the type of piece, but what appears to be an absolute failure to confirm what was in the piece. I can't endorse that kind of candidate." He would add: "I endorsed (Parish) early on. He's a good lawyer, and I thought he'd make a good judge. But this mail piece was a major blunder politically. A candidacy that doesn't fact-check is counter to everything the DA stands for, and that's pursuing the truth." The problem for Mr. Reisig is that the mailer hits a lot closer to him than he's comfortable thinking. While he argues that fact-checking is everything the DA stands for in his "pursuit of truth," in point of fact this DA's office often shoots first and asks questions later, and they have made truth secondary to getting the win - everything that Mr. Parish did in approving this mailer. Mr. Reisig wants to distance himself now from Mr. Parish, but the Vanguard learned that week that he should not have been so surprised. Mr. Parish, with the approval of Jeff Reisig, was removed from his position as Major Narcotic Vendor Prosecutor (MNVP) for falsifying reports. Despite this indiscretion, Mr. Reisig thought that Mr. Parish would make a good judge? Of course, the worst part of this is the blatant hypocrisy of Mr. Reisig. At the end of a bitterly-fought campaign against then-colleague, Patricia Lenzi, Mr. Reisig unleashed a vicious attack mailer against his opponent. In that attack piece, he raised issues that a convicted child molester was attempting to use Ms. Lenzi to have his case overturned, alleging that her memory issues from a 1999 traffic accident made his opponent unfit for office. The attack piece was followed up by a seemingly confirmatory news story from the Daily Democrat in which every person interviewed except Ms. Lenzi herself was a supporter of Mr. Reisig. In response, Ms. Lenzi in a letter to the editor wrote, "The voters of this county are entitled to know whether I am physically and mentally up to the job. I am. Presumably, if this temporary disability had affected my job performance in any other way these past seven years there would be some evidence of it. There isn't." She added: "In 2001, I was promoted in Sacramento DA's office before choosing to come to work in Yolo County later that year. In 2003, Yolo County District Attorney David Henderson praised the quality of my work, calling me 'one of Yolo County's finest' in a letter, saying that I am 'quite effective in developing cutting edge expertise on legal issues....possess[ing] extraordinary determination.' " "It's hard for anyone to argue that I could have received that type of praise had I been unable to function at a very high level. My dedicated work and effectiveness in prosecuting child molesters and other predators in Yolo County speaks for itself." The truth is that Mr. Reisig was angry at Judge Maguire for ruling against him in their office and the county's attempts to deny former employee Rick Gore his retired peace officer card. It was Rick Gore's 2008 letter, first published in the Vanguard, that implicated the DA for, among other things, burying evidence in the 2005 Halloween Homicide case and also for the use of dirty campaign tricks against Ms. Lenzi. He wrote, "I did not agree with what I perceived as unethical campaign practices during your campaign." He refused to write a disparaging letter to the editor as some of his colleagues did, and was ostracized in an inappropriate manner by his colleagues. "On one occasion, in the middle of the workday, I caught [now Chief Investigator] Bruce Naliboff searching DDA Lenzi's locked desk during the election. He told me he was looking for a case file, but we investigators all know attorneys keep case files on their desk, as she did, not in her desk drawers," Mr. Gore wrote. "I thought all of these tactics were inappropriate and told you so." Mr. Gore eventually was terminated and has been involved in a lengthy battle against the county. As we noted earlier this week, Judge Maguire, following the law, ruled in Mr. Gore's favor and that seems to have set Mr. Reisig off as confirmed by a number of sources both in and out of that office. What the voters need to remember is that what we have seen from Clinton Parish in this campaign,is not just a reflection of a bad politician gone wrong, but rather the reflection of the entire mentality of the office in which he works. The only reason that Mr. Reisig abandoned Mr. Parish is that he proved to be a liability to him. The public got a rare window into the inner workings of the DA's office on a regular basis. ---David M. Greenwald reporting
Bookmark
Email this
Comments (37)
...
realizing that the Judge race was a lost cause and throwing Mr. Parish over the bus could save his proverbial skin David, no real need to bring DA Reisig's impressive fitness level into this piece by changing the metaphor from under to over. Okay, it's been a long week. Thanks for humoring me.
...
"That was enough for Mr. Reisig to pull his endorsement, realizing that the judgeship race was a lost cause and throwing Mr. Parish under the bus could save his proverbial skin."
...
"Public Gets a Rare View into Real DA's Office: The problem for District Attorney Jeff Reisig is what we saw was not the exception but rather a window in the operations of his office. You see, Mr. Parish is not the most vicious employee at the District Attorney's office, he's simply the most bombastic and transparent....What the voters need to remember is that what we have seen from Clinton Parish in this campaign, is not just a reflection of a bad politician gone wrong, but rather the reflection of the entire mentality of the office in which he works."
...
JustSaying
...
"A candidacy that doesn't fact-check is counter to everything the DA stands for, and that's pursuing the truth."
...
I agree that the DA has no fingerprints on the mailer but the Bee had him back pedaling so he threw Parish in front of the bus even though Parish had already froze like a deer in headlights.
...
1.) Yes, negatively, because it was bad form and not true. As I've mentioned before, we don't expect or want highly political campaigns for judges--I'd rather there were no campaigns--but this flier would reflect badly on a candidate for any office, judicial or not. "While I agree with you that this article is repetitive, so is your criticism of David's coverage of the DA's office."I feel David's irrational, repetitive rants about the district attorney work against his purpose in establishing the Vanguard. Every article that makes baseless charges further discredits the Vanguard and reduces its impact when legitimate findings are reported. Here we have David's deep-seated dislike of Reisig combined with yet-another assistant DA running for office and putting out a bad mailer. Without the slightest proof, he's convinced that the DA was somehow involved in these shenanigans. Instead of confirming his suspicions first, he just "reports" them--first in the "hands all over it" article, now in the "rare glimpse into the DA's office" story. Neither has any substance to back up the charges. I keep pointing out these instances when they happen because I want the Vanguard to be successful. Credibility and journalistic professionalism need to take front seat over the understandable desire to keep taking unsubstantiated pokes at the DA.
...
"You are inaccurate. We never wrote that Reisig was involved in the development of the mailer nor did we attempt to imply it." Thomas: "David - do you really believe for one minute that Reisig did not review and approve of that mailer before it went out? " Parse all you want,
...
...Parse all you want, I think it's clear that you believe what you told Thomas. I'm just saying I think this specific bias comes through in your writing about tying Parish's campaign and his bad mailer to Reisig.
...
JustSaying
...
"In previous articles some insiders gave some insight. Mr. Reisig it would appear is trying to send a message that anyone that crosses him will pay a price. The odd thing is, why Mr. Parish? Other than he was willing, it does seem like he was the best they could do."
...
Thomas, assuming that is your real name, what's your background? You seem to know a lot about what's going on inside the DA's office.
...
I think we will get a huge glimpse into Reisig's office when we see how Reisig handles Clinton Parish from this point on.
...
"... so that the next time a case comes before him that means something to Reisig, Judge Maguire will think twice before ruling against him."Regardless of from where your knowledge comes, this doesn't make sense. It's counter-intuitive, at least. One assumes (as David has pointed out) that Judge Maguire decides cases by "following the law." If he decides to forego his oath because Reisig makes "life very uncomfortable" for him by supporting the candidacy of an apparent doofus, why would the judge react by ruling favorably rather than "getting even" with the DA?
...
JustSaying - you are right, it doesn't make sense, and is indeed counter-intuitive. Understand, however, that we're talking about Riesig's subjective point of view here. Reisig's intent is to send a message to the bench that he "calls the shots" in this county.
...
Some people here seem totally naive -- of course the DA is sending a
...
Anyone believing that DA Reisig is not 100 percent involved in this Judgeship campaign is really fooling themselves. DA Reisig runs that office like any dictator, you either agree or you get fired, you either support him or you black-balled, he has 100 percent power in that office and used it to intimidate and control, to fire, to re-assign, to promote, to demote, you either do what he tells you are you reap the consequences.
...
People that always want to jump on the proof wagon know the lawyer game.
...
Making claims and making no effort to offer any proof can mean one of at least two things: 1.) It's true and, as you say, Reisig is so smart and deceptive that no amount of searching can turn it up, or, 2.) It's not true.
...
To Just Saying, I keep pointing out these instances when they happen because I want the Vanguard to be successful. Credibility and journalistic professionalism need to take front seat over the understandable desire to keep taking unsubstantiated pokes at the DA. The problem is that you assume that you and David share the same goal and I would argue that isn't the case at all.
...
"If it doesn't make sense, what makes you think it's true? That's my question. Do you have some special insight or actual experience here that makes the counter-intuitive a reasonable view?" |
Clinton Parish's candidacy for judge effectively ended the moment that he made unchecked and unsupportable charges against his opponent, Judge Dan Maguire. The fact that they were so quickly and easily brushed aside shows either a level of desperation or just plain amateurism by the candidate.
Latest from the People's Vanguard of Davis
- My View: Obama's Record on Civil Liberties Dismal and Disappointing
- Commentary: Headed for a Train Wreck
- Bright Future of Clean Energy Production and the Urgent Need to Address Climate Change
- UCD Student Protesters Lock Down Dutton Hall
- Most Elected Officials Avoiding the Krovoza-Wolk Fray For Now; Council Colleagues Concerned About Impact on Council
