However, the 3rd District Court of Appeals ruled that Reisig failed to properly notice individuals who would be served with lifetime bans on activities that ordinary people could partake in. In the decision, the court ruled the district attorney failed to “demonstrate that service on one gang member of unknown rank was reasonably calculated to achieve notice in this case” and therefore this was a violation of the federal due process standard.
District Attorney Reisig had reasoned that by telling one individual, word would spread to the rest of the gang. However the judge ruled, “Whether he would tell others was a matter of chance.”
The Sacramento News and Review is reporting that other district attorneys are now concerned that the ruling in this case will threaten their case. Last month, the California District Attorney’s Association attempted unsuccessfully to get the California State Supreme Court to “depublish” the opinion.
As a published case, the ruling binds all courts in the state until and unless it is “depublished” or another Applellate District Court has the same issue come before it and decides it differently. The latter becomes a “split in authority” that only the Supreme Court can settle. Depublishing removes its affect on anyone except the parties to the case.
The News and Review article cites Ventura County Special Assistant District Attorney Mike Schwartz. Unlike Reisig, Ventura County did their job adequately, noticing 65 alleged gang members and also printing notice of the injunction in the local newspaper, according to the News and Review.
Now it seems that despite their dutiful efforts at noticing alleged gang members, their policy is in jeopardy due to another error that Reisig made that was uncovered due in large part to his failure to properly notice alleged gang members.
In addition to the failure to notice, “the Yolo County DA goofed when it defined the gang as an “unincorporated association” under state law, according to the appellate ruling.”
The “unincorporated association” law in California allows for such status when two or more people associate for lawful purposes. The court ruled that since gangs serve no lawful purpose, that the unincorporated association law does not apply.
Many District Attorneys disagree with this ruling arguing that gangs do have lawful purposes such as hanging out or socializing. However it is unclear that those purposes are sufficient for this status. The primary purpose of gangs is for members to associate primarily for unlawful purposes.
According to the News and Review, prosecutors have increasingly relied upon the “unincorporated association” status as a means to enjoin gang members from activities. In fact, “32 gang injunctions against nearly 50 gangs around the state” have used this definition of “unincorporated association” as their principle means by which to gain injunction.
“Thus, by playing fast and loose with the notification process, the Yolo County DA may have exposed the vulnerability of the very foundation of gang injunctions.”
The consequence of this is that defense attorneys will use this ruling to attempt to strike down gang injunctions in other locations.
By attempting to short-circuit the notification process, Yolo County District Attorney Jeff Reisig may in fact bring down the entire gang injunction system in California and prosecutors everywhere may have to go back to the drawing board to design the next tool for fighting gangs. All of this happened primarily because Mr. Reisig had the temerity to attempt to notice only one individual. Had he not, the judge likely never would have looked at the “unincorporated association” clause.
—Doug Paul Davis reporting
I thought you were against gang injunctions. You should be happy and yet you are still upset.
If you look at everything in a negative way, I garauntee your life will be filled with negativety.
Try looking for the positive. It might change your perspective but then you would not have anything to write about.
I thought you were against gang injunctions. You should be happy and yet you are still upset.
If you look at everything in a negative way, I garauntee your life will be filled with negativety.
Try looking for the positive. It might change your perspective but then you would not have anything to write about.
I thought you were against gang injunctions. You should be happy and yet you are still upset.
If you look at everything in a negative way, I garauntee your life will be filled with negativety.
Try looking for the positive. It might change your perspective but then you would not have anything to write about.
I thought you were against gang injunctions. You should be happy and yet you are still upset.
If you look at everything in a negative way, I garauntee your life will be filled with negativety.
Try looking for the positive. It might change your perspective but then you would not have anything to write about.
I’m not certain that DPD has weighed in on his positions for gang injunctions in general. But, the bottom line is that Reisig screwed up royally and nothing in your comment changes that.
ACLU Supporter
I’m not certain that DPD has weighed in on his positions for gang injunctions in general. But, the bottom line is that Reisig screwed up royally and nothing in your comment changes that.
ACLU Supporter
I’m not certain that DPD has weighed in on his positions for gang injunctions in general. But, the bottom line is that Reisig screwed up royally and nothing in your comment changes that.
ACLU Supporter
I’m not certain that DPD has weighed in on his positions for gang injunctions in general. But, the bottom line is that Reisig screwed up royally and nothing in your comment changes that.
ACLU Supporter
I don’t get it, why did Reisig think he could get away with informing one person about the injunction?
I don’t get it, why did Reisig think he could get away with informing one person about the injunction?
I don’t get it, why did Reisig think he could get away with informing one person about the injunction?
I don’t get it, why did Reisig think he could get away with informing one person about the injunction?
Reisig tried to milk the current political climate when he referred to those whom he put under the Gang Injuction,as “street terrorists”. Like the Patriot Act, the Gang Injunction rests on very shakey grounds with respect to constitutionally guaranteed citizen rights and like the Patriot Act, the courts(and our politicians)are beginning to roll back the most agregious provisions.The majority of Davis voters chose Lenzi as the better choice for DA but the majority of Yolo voters thought differently…this is but one of multiple events that affirms the good judgement of Davis voters.
Reisig tried to milk the current political climate when he referred to those whom he put under the Gang Injuction,as “street terrorists”. Like the Patriot Act, the Gang Injunction rests on very shakey grounds with respect to constitutionally guaranteed citizen rights and like the Patriot Act, the courts(and our politicians)are beginning to roll back the most agregious provisions.The majority of Davis voters chose Lenzi as the better choice for DA but the majority of Yolo voters thought differently…this is but one of multiple events that affirms the good judgement of Davis voters.
Reisig tried to milk the current political climate when he referred to those whom he put under the Gang Injuction,as “street terrorists”. Like the Patriot Act, the Gang Injunction rests on very shakey grounds with respect to constitutionally guaranteed citizen rights and like the Patriot Act, the courts(and our politicians)are beginning to roll back the most agregious provisions.The majority of Davis voters chose Lenzi as the better choice for DA but the majority of Yolo voters thought differently…this is but one of multiple events that affirms the good judgement of Davis voters.
Reisig tried to milk the current political climate when he referred to those whom he put under the Gang Injuction,as “street terrorists”. Like the Patriot Act, the Gang Injunction rests on very shakey grounds with respect to constitutionally guaranteed citizen rights and like the Patriot Act, the courts(and our politicians)are beginning to roll back the most agregious provisions.The majority of Davis voters chose Lenzi as the better choice for DA but the majority of Yolo voters thought differently…this is but one of multiple events that affirms the good judgement of Davis voters.
this is but one of multiple events that affirms the good judgement of Davis voters.
LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL
this is but one of multiple events that affirms the good judgement of Davis voters.
LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL
this is but one of multiple events that affirms the good judgement of Davis voters.
LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL
this is but one of multiple events that affirms the good judgement of Davis voters.
LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL
A community member who works with kids at risk in West Sacramento told me that, although he disagreed vigoriously with the injunction due to the obvious problems, he had to admit that things have improved in West Sacramento. He thinks it was a sort of time-out on gang activity and the community could get ahead of the gang influence on their neighborhoods and their young people.
Reisig made no bones about his dedication to removing gang activity from Yolo County. He seems to have found another tool to use in this battle – direct filing of juveniles. If a juvenile gets into a fight, the DA’s office will direct file charges in adult criminal court, bypassing juvenile court for the teen. There is no hearing done to determine whether this is appropriate. The decision on whether to direct file is completely at the discretion of the DA. This tool was supposed to be used for teenagers who committed the most egregious crimes (drive by shootings, murder, rape, true gang crime, etc.) and demonstrate through a clear disregard for human life that they are beyond hope for rehabilitation through juvenile services. Sending these kids to prison for lengthy sentences, away from the community, is the goal. It needs to be investigated to see if this tool is being used appropriately in Yolo County with local youth.
This is yet another reason to keep Davis teens who are arrested in the local youth diversion program run by the Davis Police Department rather than sending their cases over to the DA’s office for consideration.
A community member who works with kids at risk in West Sacramento told me that, although he disagreed vigoriously with the injunction due to the obvious problems, he had to admit that things have improved in West Sacramento. He thinks it was a sort of time-out on gang activity and the community could get ahead of the gang influence on their neighborhoods and their young people.
Reisig made no bones about his dedication to removing gang activity from Yolo County. He seems to have found another tool to use in this battle – direct filing of juveniles. If a juvenile gets into a fight, the DA’s office will direct file charges in adult criminal court, bypassing juvenile court for the teen. There is no hearing done to determine whether this is appropriate. The decision on whether to direct file is completely at the discretion of the DA. This tool was supposed to be used for teenagers who committed the most egregious crimes (drive by shootings, murder, rape, true gang crime, etc.) and demonstrate through a clear disregard for human life that they are beyond hope for rehabilitation through juvenile services. Sending these kids to prison for lengthy sentences, away from the community, is the goal. It needs to be investigated to see if this tool is being used appropriately in Yolo County with local youth.
This is yet another reason to keep Davis teens who are arrested in the local youth diversion program run by the Davis Police Department rather than sending their cases over to the DA’s office for consideration.
A community member who works with kids at risk in West Sacramento told me that, although he disagreed vigoriously with the injunction due to the obvious problems, he had to admit that things have improved in West Sacramento. He thinks it was a sort of time-out on gang activity and the community could get ahead of the gang influence on their neighborhoods and their young people.
Reisig made no bones about his dedication to removing gang activity from Yolo County. He seems to have found another tool to use in this battle – direct filing of juveniles. If a juvenile gets into a fight, the DA’s office will direct file charges in adult criminal court, bypassing juvenile court for the teen. There is no hearing done to determine whether this is appropriate. The decision on whether to direct file is completely at the discretion of the DA. This tool was supposed to be used for teenagers who committed the most egregious crimes (drive by shootings, murder, rape, true gang crime, etc.) and demonstrate through a clear disregard for human life that they are beyond hope for rehabilitation through juvenile services. Sending these kids to prison for lengthy sentences, away from the community, is the goal. It needs to be investigated to see if this tool is being used appropriately in Yolo County with local youth.
This is yet another reason to keep Davis teens who are arrested in the local youth diversion program run by the Davis Police Department rather than sending their cases over to the DA’s office for consideration.
A community member who works with kids at risk in West Sacramento told me that, although he disagreed vigoriously with the injunction due to the obvious problems, he had to admit that things have improved in West Sacramento. He thinks it was a sort of time-out on gang activity and the community could get ahead of the gang influence on their neighborhoods and their young people.
Reisig made no bones about his dedication to removing gang activity from Yolo County. He seems to have found another tool to use in this battle – direct filing of juveniles. If a juvenile gets into a fight, the DA’s office will direct file charges in adult criminal court, bypassing juvenile court for the teen. There is no hearing done to determine whether this is appropriate. The decision on whether to direct file is completely at the discretion of the DA. This tool was supposed to be used for teenagers who committed the most egregious crimes (drive by shootings, murder, rape, true gang crime, etc.) and demonstrate through a clear disregard for human life that they are beyond hope for rehabilitation through juvenile services. Sending these kids to prison for lengthy sentences, away from the community, is the goal. It needs to be investigated to see if this tool is being used appropriately in Yolo County with local youth.
This is yet another reason to keep Davis teens who are arrested in the local youth diversion program run by the Davis Police Department rather than sending their cases over to the DA’s office for consideration.
Sharla… as you know, local “law and order” folks trumpet the relationship between their agenda and falling crime rates . Their “triumphs” almost always prove bogus when analyzed in relation to the general US rise and fall in criminal activity,with or without their more draconian activities.
Sharla… as you know, local “law and order” folks trumpet the relationship between their agenda and falling crime rates . Their “triumphs” almost always prove bogus when analyzed in relation to the general US rise and fall in criminal activity,with or without their more draconian activities.
Sharla… as you know, local “law and order” folks trumpet the relationship between their agenda and falling crime rates . Their “triumphs” almost always prove bogus when analyzed in relation to the general US rise and fall in criminal activity,with or without their more draconian activities.
Sharla… as you know, local “law and order” folks trumpet the relationship between their agenda and falling crime rates . Their “triumphs” almost always prove bogus when analyzed in relation to the general US rise and fall in criminal activity,with or without their more draconian activities.
“this is but one of multiple events that affirms the good judgement of Davis voters.
LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL”
Thanks for evidence of why the anonymous feature needs to go.
“this is but one of multiple events that affirms the good judgement of Davis voters.
LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL”
Thanks for evidence of why the anonymous feature needs to go.
“this is but one of multiple events that affirms the good judgement of Davis voters.
LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL”
Thanks for evidence of why the anonymous feature needs to go.
“this is but one of multiple events that affirms the good judgement of Davis voters.
LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL”
Thanks for evidence of why the anonymous feature needs to go.
I do not live where I am affected by gangs. I suppose gangs can be terrible, although I believe law enforcement uses gang fear to justify more funding/resources.
I agree with Davisite, the approach is very similar to Bush’s anti terrorism progam – fundamental rights are being trampled on in the cloud of fighting terrorists.
The main problem with the gang injunction was the non selective fish net approach of gathering “gang members”. There is no doubt in my mind that some percentage of those identified as gang members were in fact not gang members. I know from personal experience that Reisig makes mistakes and I am equally certain the gang “selection” process was flawed, at least to some extent. The injunction’s approach disregarded due process of the individuals involved. It was obviously not fair and frankly went down the road of what I would expect in a police state.
The “direct file charges” approach described by Sharla sounds nearly as bad as the gang injunction. I hope the Yolo County judges see what is going on and accept their responsibility to protect individual and minor rights. So far that does not seem to be happening.SAH
I do not live where I am affected by gangs. I suppose gangs can be terrible, although I believe law enforcement uses gang fear to justify more funding/resources.
I agree with Davisite, the approach is very similar to Bush’s anti terrorism progam – fundamental rights are being trampled on in the cloud of fighting terrorists.
The main problem with the gang injunction was the non selective fish net approach of gathering “gang members”. There is no doubt in my mind that some percentage of those identified as gang members were in fact not gang members. I know from personal experience that Reisig makes mistakes and I am equally certain the gang “selection” process was flawed, at least to some extent. The injunction’s approach disregarded due process of the individuals involved. It was obviously not fair and frankly went down the road of what I would expect in a police state.
The “direct file charges” approach described by Sharla sounds nearly as bad as the gang injunction. I hope the Yolo County judges see what is going on and accept their responsibility to protect individual and minor rights. So far that does not seem to be happening.SAH
I do not live where I am affected by gangs. I suppose gangs can be terrible, although I believe law enforcement uses gang fear to justify more funding/resources.
I agree with Davisite, the approach is very similar to Bush’s anti terrorism progam – fundamental rights are being trampled on in the cloud of fighting terrorists.
The main problem with the gang injunction was the non selective fish net approach of gathering “gang members”. There is no doubt in my mind that some percentage of those identified as gang members were in fact not gang members. I know from personal experience that Reisig makes mistakes and I am equally certain the gang “selection” process was flawed, at least to some extent. The injunction’s approach disregarded due process of the individuals involved. It was obviously not fair and frankly went down the road of what I would expect in a police state.
The “direct file charges” approach described by Sharla sounds nearly as bad as the gang injunction. I hope the Yolo County judges see what is going on and accept their responsibility to protect individual and minor rights. So far that does not seem to be happening.SAH
I do not live where I am affected by gangs. I suppose gangs can be terrible, although I believe law enforcement uses gang fear to justify more funding/resources.
I agree with Davisite, the approach is very similar to Bush’s anti terrorism progam – fundamental rights are being trampled on in the cloud of fighting terrorists.
The main problem with the gang injunction was the non selective fish net approach of gathering “gang members”. There is no doubt in my mind that some percentage of those identified as gang members were in fact not gang members. I know from personal experience that Reisig makes mistakes and I am equally certain the gang “selection” process was flawed, at least to some extent. The injunction’s approach disregarded due process of the individuals involved. It was obviously not fair and frankly went down the road of what I would expect in a police state.
The “direct file charges” approach described by Sharla sounds nearly as bad as the gang injunction. I hope the Yolo County judges see what is going on and accept their responsibility to protect individual and minor rights. So far that does not seem to be happening.SAH
good. arrest people for actually committing or actively abetting crimes, not for just associating with people who have committed crimes.
after all, it’s not like they ever use that sort of reasoning on white-collar criminals.
good. arrest people for actually committing or actively abetting crimes, not for just associating with people who have committed crimes.
after all, it’s not like they ever use that sort of reasoning on white-collar criminals.
good. arrest people for actually committing or actively abetting crimes, not for just associating with people who have committed crimes.
after all, it’s not like they ever use that sort of reasoning on white-collar criminals.
good. arrest people for actually committing or actively abetting crimes, not for just associating with people who have committed crimes.
after all, it’s not like they ever use that sort of reasoning on white-collar criminals.
I live in West Sac. Everyone I know is happy with the gang injunction. It has reduced crime and made our community much safer. I think it’s crazy for people who live in a rich town like Davis where I guess you don’t have gangs to tell us that it’s fine for gangs to terrorize our town. Before the gang injuntion, nothing was stopping the crime. Since that time, crime is cut in half. Somebody said “arrest people for actually committing or actively abetting crimes.” This is said by someone who has never lived in West Sac for sure. The police could not stop the gangs from frightening everyone into staying indoors, hiding from the intimidation. Once people were so frightened and stayed away, the gangbangers could get away with all sorts of crimes because there was no way the police could be everywhere at one time. But since the gang injunction, regular people of all races (I’m Hispanic, but it’s the same for whites, blacks, Russians, Asians, etc) are now no longer afraid to go outside, and because people are now outside, so many crimes cannot be committed because the regular people are able to keep watch.
I live in West Sac. Everyone I know is happy with the gang injunction. It has reduced crime and made our community much safer. I think it’s crazy for people who live in a rich town like Davis where I guess you don’t have gangs to tell us that it’s fine for gangs to terrorize our town. Before the gang injuntion, nothing was stopping the crime. Since that time, crime is cut in half. Somebody said “arrest people for actually committing or actively abetting crimes.” This is said by someone who has never lived in West Sac for sure. The police could not stop the gangs from frightening everyone into staying indoors, hiding from the intimidation. Once people were so frightened and stayed away, the gangbangers could get away with all sorts of crimes because there was no way the police could be everywhere at one time. But since the gang injunction, regular people of all races (I’m Hispanic, but it’s the same for whites, blacks, Russians, Asians, etc) are now no longer afraid to go outside, and because people are now outside, so many crimes cannot be committed because the regular people are able to keep watch.
I live in West Sac. Everyone I know is happy with the gang injunction. It has reduced crime and made our community much safer. I think it’s crazy for people who live in a rich town like Davis where I guess you don’t have gangs to tell us that it’s fine for gangs to terrorize our town. Before the gang injuntion, nothing was stopping the crime. Since that time, crime is cut in half. Somebody said “arrest people for actually committing or actively abetting crimes.” This is said by someone who has never lived in West Sac for sure. The police could not stop the gangs from frightening everyone into staying indoors, hiding from the intimidation. Once people were so frightened and stayed away, the gangbangers could get away with all sorts of crimes because there was no way the police could be everywhere at one time. But since the gang injunction, regular people of all races (I’m Hispanic, but it’s the same for whites, blacks, Russians, Asians, etc) are now no longer afraid to go outside, and because people are now outside, so many crimes cannot be committed because the regular people are able to keep watch.
I live in West Sac. Everyone I know is happy with the gang injunction. It has reduced crime and made our community much safer. I think it’s crazy for people who live in a rich town like Davis where I guess you don’t have gangs to tell us that it’s fine for gangs to terrorize our town. Before the gang injuntion, nothing was stopping the crime. Since that time, crime is cut in half. Somebody said “arrest people for actually committing or actively abetting crimes.” This is said by someone who has never lived in West Sac for sure. The police could not stop the gangs from frightening everyone into staying indoors, hiding from the intimidation. Once people were so frightened and stayed away, the gangbangers could get away with all sorts of crimes because there was no way the police could be everywhere at one time. But since the gang injunction, regular people of all races (I’m Hispanic, but it’s the same for whites, blacks, Russians, Asians, etc) are now no longer afraid to go outside, and because people are now outside, so many crimes cannot be committed because the regular people are able to keep watch.
Then West Sacramento Resident you should be ANGRY. Because the laziness on the part of JEFF REISIG cost you an effective law enforcement tool.
Then West Sacramento Resident you should be ANGRY. Because the laziness on the part of JEFF REISIG cost you an effective law enforcement tool.
Then West Sacramento Resident you should be ANGRY. Because the laziness on the part of JEFF REISIG cost you an effective law enforcement tool.
Then West Sacramento Resident you should be ANGRY. Because the laziness on the part of JEFF REISIG cost you an effective law enforcement tool.
Vincente said…
“This is but one of multiple events that affirms the good judgment of Davis voters.
LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL”
Thanks for evidence of why the anonymous feature needs to go.
7/27/07 9:53 AM
This Blog and you in particular have roundly complained about all elected officials of Yolo County and the City of Davis for just about everything there is to complain on. It is correct to note that all of those same officials were elected by the good judgment of Davis voters. If you really could not see the humor in that statement, for your own health please take a vacation and enjoy the sunset or something.
These are the facts. Please explain how the anonymous feature makes them any less factual.
Vincente said…
“This is but one of multiple events that affirms the good judgment of Davis voters.
LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL”
Thanks for evidence of why the anonymous feature needs to go.
7/27/07 9:53 AM
This Blog and you in particular have roundly complained about all elected officials of Yolo County and the City of Davis for just about everything there is to complain on. It is correct to note that all of those same officials were elected by the good judgment of Davis voters. If you really could not see the humor in that statement, for your own health please take a vacation and enjoy the sunset or something.
These are the facts. Please explain how the anonymous feature makes them any less factual.
Vincente said…
“This is but one of multiple events that affirms the good judgment of Davis voters.
LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL”
Thanks for evidence of why the anonymous feature needs to go.
7/27/07 9:53 AM
This Blog and you in particular have roundly complained about all elected officials of Yolo County and the City of Davis for just about everything there is to complain on. It is correct to note that all of those same officials were elected by the good judgment of Davis voters. If you really could not see the humor in that statement, for your own health please take a vacation and enjoy the sunset or something.
These are the facts. Please explain how the anonymous feature makes them any less factual.
Vincente said…
“This is but one of multiple events that affirms the good judgment of Davis voters.
LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL”
Thanks for evidence of why the anonymous feature needs to go.
7/27/07 9:53 AM
This Blog and you in particular have roundly complained about all elected officials of Yolo County and the City of Davis for just about everything there is to complain on. It is correct to note that all of those same officials were elected by the good judgment of Davis voters. If you really could not see the humor in that statement, for your own health please take a vacation and enjoy the sunset or something.
These are the facts. Please explain how the anonymous feature makes them any less factual.
“These are the facts. Please explain how the anonymous feature makes them any less factual.”
The anonymous feature makes it acceptable for your response to be: “lol” it was only when you were called on it that you actually articulated your position.
Frankly I do not understand your point. Jeff Reisig was not elected by Davis voters. He finished behind Pat Lenzi.
“These are the facts. Please explain how the anonymous feature makes them any less factual.”
The anonymous feature makes it acceptable for your response to be: “lol” it was only when you were called on it that you actually articulated your position.
Frankly I do not understand your point. Jeff Reisig was not elected by Davis voters. He finished behind Pat Lenzi.
“These are the facts. Please explain how the anonymous feature makes them any less factual.”
The anonymous feature makes it acceptable for your response to be: “lol” it was only when you were called on it that you actually articulated your position.
Frankly I do not understand your point. Jeff Reisig was not elected by Davis voters. He finished behind Pat Lenzi.
“These are the facts. Please explain how the anonymous feature makes them any less factual.”
The anonymous feature makes it acceptable for your response to be: “lol” it was only when you were called on it that you actually articulated your position.
Frankly I do not understand your point. Jeff Reisig was not elected by Davis voters. He finished behind Pat Lenzi.
Vincente said…
The anonymous feature makes it acceptable for your response to be: “lol” it was only when you were called on it that you actually articulated your position.
Frankly I do not understand your point. Jeff Reisig was not elected by Davis voters. He finished behind Pat Lenzi.
7/27/07 10:59 AM
My apologies. LOL, means laugh out loud. I am pretty sure everybody else thought it was a joke. No body else called me on it, because everybody else laughed.
Jeff Reisig did not receive the largest vote total in Davis for that elected office.
Please acknowledge that some people in Davis did however vote for him.
Vincente said…
The anonymous feature makes it acceptable for your response to be: “lol” it was only when you were called on it that you actually articulated your position.
Frankly I do not understand your point. Jeff Reisig was not elected by Davis voters. He finished behind Pat Lenzi.
7/27/07 10:59 AM
My apologies. LOL, means laugh out loud. I am pretty sure everybody else thought it was a joke. No body else called me on it, because everybody else laughed.
Jeff Reisig did not receive the largest vote total in Davis for that elected office.
Please acknowledge that some people in Davis did however vote for him.
Vincente said…
The anonymous feature makes it acceptable for your response to be: “lol” it was only when you were called on it that you actually articulated your position.
Frankly I do not understand your point. Jeff Reisig was not elected by Davis voters. He finished behind Pat Lenzi.
7/27/07 10:59 AM
My apologies. LOL, means laugh out loud. I am pretty sure everybody else thought it was a joke. No body else called me on it, because everybody else laughed.
Jeff Reisig did not receive the largest vote total in Davis for that elected office.
Please acknowledge that some people in Davis did however vote for him.
Vincente said…
The anonymous feature makes it acceptable for your response to be: “lol” it was only when you were called on it that you actually articulated your position.
Frankly I do not understand your point. Jeff Reisig was not elected by Davis voters. He finished behind Pat Lenzi.
7/27/07 10:59 AM
My apologies. LOL, means laugh out loud. I am pretty sure everybody else thought it was a joke. No body else called me on it, because everybody else laughed.
Jeff Reisig did not receive the largest vote total in Davis for that elected office.
Please acknowledge that some people in Davis did however vote for him.
“Frankly I do not understand your point. Jeff Reisig was not elected by Davis voters. He finished behind Pat Lenzi.”
Bloggers here have vocally criticized Helen Thomson, Mariko Yamada, Steven Souza, Don Saylor, Ruth Asmundson, and probably others. To claim you don’t understand anonymous 10:56’s point is completely transparent.
“Frankly I do not understand your point. Jeff Reisig was not elected by Davis voters. He finished behind Pat Lenzi.”
Bloggers here have vocally criticized Helen Thomson, Mariko Yamada, Steven Souza, Don Saylor, Ruth Asmundson, and probably others. To claim you don’t understand anonymous 10:56’s point is completely transparent.
“Frankly I do not understand your point. Jeff Reisig was not elected by Davis voters. He finished behind Pat Lenzi.”
Bloggers here have vocally criticized Helen Thomson, Mariko Yamada, Steven Souza, Don Saylor, Ruth Asmundson, and probably others. To claim you don’t understand anonymous 10:56’s point is completely transparent.
“Frankly I do not understand your point. Jeff Reisig was not elected by Davis voters. He finished behind Pat Lenzi.”
Bloggers here have vocally criticized Helen Thomson, Mariko Yamada, Steven Souza, Don Saylor, Ruth Asmundson, and probably others. To claim you don’t understand anonymous 10:56’s point is completely transparent.
Re: comment from West Sac resident
This was the good result of the gang injunction that I’ve heard about.
Davis does have gang activity. We also have freeway crime – people who come off the interstate to visit our town solely to commit crime. Davis appears safe because there are so many people out and about day & night – too many witnesses. There is definitely safety in numbers. Davis has no need for a youth curfew because youth are sufficiently supervised by the many people who are also out and about. Assistant Police Chief Steve Pierce told me that they had considered a youth curfew but decided that it would just push Davis youth into parties at private homes out of the public eye. It was decided that it was better to have free movement of kids so they could be out at night, attending late night movies, eating ice cream, attending all ages music events and be “supervised.” I can tell you that a 10:00 pm curfew for high school students would really change the feeling of the downtown.
This confidence in being safe out in public is the very best crime prevention. This is the strategy behind “take back the night” marches and events. And it seems to be working in West Sacramento, per the last post.
Now that West Sacramento has been given this break, it will be up to the community to continue to take back their neighborhoods and their streets. They need to give their youth cool places to be and things to do away from adults, but still under the watchful eye of the community.
Re: comment from West Sac resident
This was the good result of the gang injunction that I’ve heard about.
Davis does have gang activity. We also have freeway crime – people who come off the interstate to visit our town solely to commit crime. Davis appears safe because there are so many people out and about day & night – too many witnesses. There is definitely safety in numbers. Davis has no need for a youth curfew because youth are sufficiently supervised by the many people who are also out and about. Assistant Police Chief Steve Pierce told me that they had considered a youth curfew but decided that it would just push Davis youth into parties at private homes out of the public eye. It was decided that it was better to have free movement of kids so they could be out at night, attending late night movies, eating ice cream, attending all ages music events and be “supervised.” I can tell you that a 10:00 pm curfew for high school students would really change the feeling of the downtown.
This confidence in being safe out in public is the very best crime prevention. This is the strategy behind “take back the night” marches and events. And it seems to be working in West Sacramento, per the last post.
Now that West Sacramento has been given this break, it will be up to the community to continue to take back their neighborhoods and their streets. They need to give their youth cool places to be and things to do away from adults, but still under the watchful eye of the community.
Re: comment from West Sac resident
This was the good result of the gang injunction that I’ve heard about.
Davis does have gang activity. We also have freeway crime – people who come off the interstate to visit our town solely to commit crime. Davis appears safe because there are so many people out and about day & night – too many witnesses. There is definitely safety in numbers. Davis has no need for a youth curfew because youth are sufficiently supervised by the many people who are also out and about. Assistant Police Chief Steve Pierce told me that they had considered a youth curfew but decided that it would just push Davis youth into parties at private homes out of the public eye. It was decided that it was better to have free movement of kids so they could be out at night, attending late night movies, eating ice cream, attending all ages music events and be “supervised.” I can tell you that a 10:00 pm curfew for high school students would really change the feeling of the downtown.
This confidence in being safe out in public is the very best crime prevention. This is the strategy behind “take back the night” marches and events. And it seems to be working in West Sacramento, per the last post.
Now that West Sacramento has been given this break, it will be up to the community to continue to take back their neighborhoods and their streets. They need to give their youth cool places to be and things to do away from adults, but still under the watchful eye of the community.
Re: comment from West Sac resident
This was the good result of the gang injunction that I’ve heard about.
Davis does have gang activity. We also have freeway crime – people who come off the interstate to visit our town solely to commit crime. Davis appears safe because there are so many people out and about day & night – too many witnesses. There is definitely safety in numbers. Davis has no need for a youth curfew because youth are sufficiently supervised by the many people who are also out and about. Assistant Police Chief Steve Pierce told me that they had considered a youth curfew but decided that it would just push Davis youth into parties at private homes out of the public eye. It was decided that it was better to have free movement of kids so they could be out at night, attending late night movies, eating ice cream, attending all ages music events and be “supervised.” I can tell you that a 10:00 pm curfew for high school students would really change the feeling of the downtown.
This confidence in being safe out in public is the very best crime prevention. This is the strategy behind “take back the night” marches and events. And it seems to be working in West Sacramento, per the last post.
Now that West Sacramento has been given this break, it will be up to the community to continue to take back their neighborhoods and their streets. They need to give their youth cool places to be and things to do away from adults, but still under the watchful eye of the community.
It is good to laugh at ourselves once in a while.
But, you have to admit, Davis is the center of the universe, has no crime or poverty. A utopia by any definition.
It is good to laugh at ourselves once in a while.
But, you have to admit, Davis is the center of the universe, has no crime or poverty. A utopia by any definition.
It is good to laugh at ourselves once in a while.
But, you have to admit, Davis is the center of the universe, has no crime or poverty. A utopia by any definition.
It is good to laugh at ourselves once in a while.
But, you have to admit, Davis is the center of the universe, has no crime or poverty. A utopia by any definition.
“Jeff Reisig did not receive the largest vote total in Davis for that elected office.”
That is true, but it was very close in Davis:
Reisig 48.4%
Lenzi 51.6%
Elsewhere in the county, Reisig won comfortably:
Reisig 58.3%
Lenzi 41.7%
Insofar as this discussion is about the West Sacramento policies, it is notable that Reisig won the most votes there, too, but it was very close:
Reisig 51.4%
Lenzi 48.6%
Where Reising really dominated the election was in Woodland:
Reisig 62.8%
Lenzi 37.2%
I have no idea why Woodland was so much more in favor of Reisig than the rest of the county was. (Maybe Pat Lenzi has a theory on this?)
“My apologies. LOL, means laugh out loud. I am pretty sure everybody else thought it was a joke. No body else called me on it, because everybody else laughed.”
Did anyone else laugh? I know I didn’t.
“Jeff Reisig did not receive the largest vote total in Davis for that elected office. Please acknowledge that some people in Davis did however vote for him.”
Yeah and??? Some people voted for Bush to, that doesn’t mean that Davis a whole did. When someone says a city didn’t vote for a given person, that means that the person did not have the highest vote total.
“Bloggers here have vocally criticized Helen Thomson, Mariko Yamada, Steven Souza, Don Saylor, Ruth Asmundson, and probably others. To claim you don’t understand anonymous 10:56’s point is completely transparent.”
What do those people have to do with Reisig?
“Jeff Reisig did not receive the largest vote total in Davis for that elected office.”
That is true, but it was very close in Davis:
Reisig 48.4%
Lenzi 51.6%
Elsewhere in the county, Reisig won comfortably:
Reisig 58.3%
Lenzi 41.7%
Insofar as this discussion is about the West Sacramento policies, it is notable that Reisig won the most votes there, too, but it was very close:
Reisig 51.4%
Lenzi 48.6%
Where Reising really dominated the election was in Woodland:
Reisig 62.8%
Lenzi 37.2%
I have no idea why Woodland was so much more in favor of Reisig than the rest of the county was. (Maybe Pat Lenzi has a theory on this?)
“My apologies. LOL, means laugh out loud. I am pretty sure everybody else thought it was a joke. No body else called me on it, because everybody else laughed.”
Did anyone else laugh? I know I didn’t.
“Jeff Reisig did not receive the largest vote total in Davis for that elected office. Please acknowledge that some people in Davis did however vote for him.”
Yeah and??? Some people voted for Bush to, that doesn’t mean that Davis a whole did. When someone says a city didn’t vote for a given person, that means that the person did not have the highest vote total.
“Bloggers here have vocally criticized Helen Thomson, Mariko Yamada, Steven Souza, Don Saylor, Ruth Asmundson, and probably others. To claim you don’t understand anonymous 10:56’s point is completely transparent.”
What do those people have to do with Reisig?
“Jeff Reisig did not receive the largest vote total in Davis for that elected office.”
That is true, but it was very close in Davis:
Reisig 48.4%
Lenzi 51.6%
Elsewhere in the county, Reisig won comfortably:
Reisig 58.3%
Lenzi 41.7%
Insofar as this discussion is about the West Sacramento policies, it is notable that Reisig won the most votes there, too, but it was very close:
Reisig 51.4%
Lenzi 48.6%
Where Reising really dominated the election was in Woodland:
Reisig 62.8%
Lenzi 37.2%
I have no idea why Woodland was so much more in favor of Reisig than the rest of the county was. (Maybe Pat Lenzi has a theory on this?)
“My apologies. LOL, means laugh out loud. I am pretty sure everybody else thought it was a joke. No body else called me on it, because everybody else laughed.”
Did anyone else laugh? I know I didn’t.
“Jeff Reisig did not receive the largest vote total in Davis for that elected office. Please acknowledge that some people in Davis did however vote for him.”
Yeah and??? Some people voted for Bush to, that doesn’t mean that Davis a whole did. When someone says a city didn’t vote for a given person, that means that the person did not have the highest vote total.
“Bloggers here have vocally criticized Helen Thomson, Mariko Yamada, Steven Souza, Don Saylor, Ruth Asmundson, and probably others. To claim you don’t understand anonymous 10:56’s point is completely transparent.”
What do those people have to do with Reisig?
“Jeff Reisig did not receive the largest vote total in Davis for that elected office.”
That is true, but it was very close in Davis:
Reisig 48.4%
Lenzi 51.6%
Elsewhere in the county, Reisig won comfortably:
Reisig 58.3%
Lenzi 41.7%
Insofar as this discussion is about the West Sacramento policies, it is notable that Reisig won the most votes there, too, but it was very close:
Reisig 51.4%
Lenzi 48.6%
Where Reising really dominated the election was in Woodland:
Reisig 62.8%
Lenzi 37.2%
I have no idea why Woodland was so much more in favor of Reisig than the rest of the county was. (Maybe Pat Lenzi has a theory on this?)
“My apologies. LOL, means laugh out loud. I am pretty sure everybody else thought it was a joke. No body else called me on it, because everybody else laughed.”
Did anyone else laugh? I know I didn’t.
“Jeff Reisig did not receive the largest vote total in Davis for that elected office. Please acknowledge that some people in Davis did however vote for him.”
Yeah and??? Some people voted for Bush to, that doesn’t mean that Davis a whole did. When someone says a city didn’t vote for a given person, that means that the person did not have the highest vote total.
“Bloggers here have vocally criticized Helen Thomson, Mariko Yamada, Steven Souza, Don Saylor, Ruth Asmundson, and probably others. To claim you don’t understand anonymous 10:56’s point is completely transparent.”
What do those people have to do with Reisig?
“That is true, but it was very close in Davis:
Reisig 48.4%
Lenzi 51.6%”
Lenzi’s victory in Davis was even more significant as it was in the midst of the inflamatory political hyping of the Bazayan case by our Council majority and the Enterprise to help THEIR DA cadidate Reisig and “paint” Lenzi and her supporters as anti-police, anti- law enforcement.
“That is true, but it was very close in Davis:
Reisig 48.4%
Lenzi 51.6%”
Lenzi’s victory in Davis was even more significant as it was in the midst of the inflamatory political hyping of the Bazayan case by our Council majority and the Enterprise to help THEIR DA cadidate Reisig and “paint” Lenzi and her supporters as anti-police, anti- law enforcement.
“That is true, but it was very close in Davis:
Reisig 48.4%
Lenzi 51.6%”
Lenzi’s victory in Davis was even more significant as it was in the midst of the inflamatory political hyping of the Bazayan case by our Council majority and the Enterprise to help THEIR DA cadidate Reisig and “paint” Lenzi and her supporters as anti-police, anti- law enforcement.
“That is true, but it was very close in Davis:
Reisig 48.4%
Lenzi 51.6%”
Lenzi’s victory in Davis was even more significant as it was in the midst of the inflamatory political hyping of the Bazayan case by our Council majority and the Enterprise to help THEIR DA cadidate Reisig and “paint” Lenzi and her supporters as anti-police, anti- law enforcement.
“What do those people have to do with Reisig?”
It doesn’t, but that’s not the point. Anonymous 10:56 said,
“This Blog and you in particular have roundly complained about all elected officials of Yolo County and the City of Davis for just about everything there is to complain on. It is correct to note that all of those same officials were elected by the good judgment of Davis voters.”
Pay particular attention to the part about “elected officials of Yolo County and City of Davis”
Vincente then states he doesn’t understand the point being made. So in response to a general comment about Vanguardian criticism of many Yolo County/Davis elected officials, he chooses only one (Reisig) and then pretends he doesn’t understand the original charge. It’s equivalent to “dodging and weaving.” And that’s transparent.
“What do those people have to do with Reisig?”
It doesn’t, but that’s not the point. Anonymous 10:56 said,
“This Blog and you in particular have roundly complained about all elected officials of Yolo County and the City of Davis for just about everything there is to complain on. It is correct to note that all of those same officials were elected by the good judgment of Davis voters.”
Pay particular attention to the part about “elected officials of Yolo County and City of Davis”
Vincente then states he doesn’t understand the point being made. So in response to a general comment about Vanguardian criticism of many Yolo County/Davis elected officials, he chooses only one (Reisig) and then pretends he doesn’t understand the original charge. It’s equivalent to “dodging and weaving.” And that’s transparent.
“What do those people have to do with Reisig?”
It doesn’t, but that’s not the point. Anonymous 10:56 said,
“This Blog and you in particular have roundly complained about all elected officials of Yolo County and the City of Davis for just about everything there is to complain on. It is correct to note that all of those same officials were elected by the good judgment of Davis voters.”
Pay particular attention to the part about “elected officials of Yolo County and City of Davis”
Vincente then states he doesn’t understand the point being made. So in response to a general comment about Vanguardian criticism of many Yolo County/Davis elected officials, he chooses only one (Reisig) and then pretends he doesn’t understand the original charge. It’s equivalent to “dodging and weaving.” And that’s transparent.
“What do those people have to do with Reisig?”
It doesn’t, but that’s not the point. Anonymous 10:56 said,
“This Blog and you in particular have roundly complained about all elected officials of Yolo County and the City of Davis for just about everything there is to complain on. It is correct to note that all of those same officials were elected by the good judgment of Davis voters.”
Pay particular attention to the part about “elected officials of Yolo County and City of Davis”
Vincente then states he doesn’t understand the point being made. So in response to a general comment about Vanguardian criticism of many Yolo County/Davis elected officials, he chooses only one (Reisig) and then pretends he doesn’t understand the original charge. It’s equivalent to “dodging and weaving.” And that’s transparent.
Lenzi won in Davis despite not one of the City Councilmembers endorsed her except Sue Greenwald who only endorsed her in the last two weeks of the campaign.
Lenzi won in Davis despite not one of the City Councilmembers endorsed her except Sue Greenwald who only endorsed her in the last two weeks of the campaign.
Lenzi won in Davis despite not one of the City Councilmembers endorsed her except Sue Greenwald who only endorsed her in the last two weeks of the campaign.
Lenzi won in Davis despite not one of the City Councilmembers endorsed her except Sue Greenwald who only endorsed her in the last two weeks of the campaign.
Sir: the original comment was about Reisig, not about those other people.
Sir: the original comment was about Reisig, not about those other people.
Sir: the original comment was about Reisig, not about those other people.
Sir: the original comment was about Reisig, not about those other people.
I find it interesting that there is a lot of smoke and dirt flying here, but not one person has defended Jeff Reisig’s two fatal decisions.
Those of you who are supportive of the Gang injunction HAVE to understand that it is Reisig’s arrogance and laziness and decisions that ultimately cost you that law and may cost the entire state.
Someone please stand up there and defend that decision, that is what this article is about, not about whether Davis supported Reisig or whether people on this blog like to complain about elected officials when they don’t do what they want them to do.
here is a public official, who made a tremendous blunder. Stop obfuscated and start either defending or condemning.
I find it interesting that there is a lot of smoke and dirt flying here, but not one person has defended Jeff Reisig’s two fatal decisions.
Those of you who are supportive of the Gang injunction HAVE to understand that it is Reisig’s arrogance and laziness and decisions that ultimately cost you that law and may cost the entire state.
Someone please stand up there and defend that decision, that is what this article is about, not about whether Davis supported Reisig or whether people on this blog like to complain about elected officials when they don’t do what they want them to do.
here is a public official, who made a tremendous blunder. Stop obfuscated and start either defending or condemning.
I find it interesting that there is a lot of smoke and dirt flying here, but not one person has defended Jeff Reisig’s two fatal decisions.
Those of you who are supportive of the Gang injunction HAVE to understand that it is Reisig’s arrogance and laziness and decisions that ultimately cost you that law and may cost the entire state.
Someone please stand up there and defend that decision, that is what this article is about, not about whether Davis supported Reisig or whether people on this blog like to complain about elected officials when they don’t do what they want them to do.
here is a public official, who made a tremendous blunder. Stop obfuscated and start either defending or condemning.
I find it interesting that there is a lot of smoke and dirt flying here, but not one person has defended Jeff Reisig’s two fatal decisions.
Those of you who are supportive of the Gang injunction HAVE to understand that it is Reisig’s arrogance and laziness and decisions that ultimately cost you that law and may cost the entire state.
Someone please stand up there and defend that decision, that is what this article is about, not about whether Davis supported Reisig or whether people on this blog like to complain about elected officials when they don’t do what they want them to do.
here is a public official, who made a tremendous blunder. Stop obfuscated and start either defending or condemning.
“Sir: the original comment was about Reisig, not about those other people.”
Without conceding that point, regardless, for anyone here to state Davis voters have good judgement on a blog that is almost dedicated to criticizing so many of its elected officials represents the height of irony.
But maybe it’s just more of Davisites hyperbole (retraction pending upon exposure of frequently flawed logic).
“Sir: the original comment was about Reisig, not about those other people.”
Without conceding that point, regardless, for anyone here to state Davis voters have good judgement on a blog that is almost dedicated to criticizing so many of its elected officials represents the height of irony.
But maybe it’s just more of Davisites hyperbole (retraction pending upon exposure of frequently flawed logic).
“Sir: the original comment was about Reisig, not about those other people.”
Without conceding that point, regardless, for anyone here to state Davis voters have good judgement on a blog that is almost dedicated to criticizing so many of its elected officials represents the height of irony.
But maybe it’s just more of Davisites hyperbole (retraction pending upon exposure of frequently flawed logic).
“Sir: the original comment was about Reisig, not about those other people.”
Without conceding that point, regardless, for anyone here to state Davis voters have good judgement on a blog that is almost dedicated to criticizing so many of its elected officials represents the height of irony.
But maybe it’s just more of Davisites hyperbole (retraction pending upon exposure of frequently flawed logic).
Anonymous 11:56
“It is correct to note that all of those same officials were elected by the good judgment of Davis voters.”
It is important to note that Ruth Asmundson’s % of voter approval, when she ran on her public record for reelection, dropped percipitously. Lamar Heystek, a newcomer, missed taking the Mayor Pro Tem slot from her by only 100 votes. We will see an even more dramatic display of voter negative judgement when Souza and Saylor ask for another Council term in 2008.Both Thomson and Yamada never had any intention of ever placing their political futures solely in the hands of their Davis constituents. In answer to your above question, there is little that the Davis voter can do when they are betrayed by the candidates that they voted for… at least the for the first time around. Fool me once, it’s your fault, fool me twice and it is mine!
Anonymous 11:56
“It is correct to note that all of those same officials were elected by the good judgment of Davis voters.”
It is important to note that Ruth Asmundson’s % of voter approval, when she ran on her public record for reelection, dropped percipitously. Lamar Heystek, a newcomer, missed taking the Mayor Pro Tem slot from her by only 100 votes. We will see an even more dramatic display of voter negative judgement when Souza and Saylor ask for another Council term in 2008.Both Thomson and Yamada never had any intention of ever placing their political futures solely in the hands of their Davis constituents. In answer to your above question, there is little that the Davis voter can do when they are betrayed by the candidates that they voted for… at least the for the first time around. Fool me once, it’s your fault, fool me twice and it is mine!
Anonymous 11:56
“It is correct to note that all of those same officials were elected by the good judgment of Davis voters.”
It is important to note that Ruth Asmundson’s % of voter approval, when she ran on her public record for reelection, dropped percipitously. Lamar Heystek, a newcomer, missed taking the Mayor Pro Tem slot from her by only 100 votes. We will see an even more dramatic display of voter negative judgement when Souza and Saylor ask for another Council term in 2008.Both Thomson and Yamada never had any intention of ever placing their political futures solely in the hands of their Davis constituents. In answer to your above question, there is little that the Davis voter can do when they are betrayed by the candidates that they voted for… at least the for the first time around. Fool me once, it’s your fault, fool me twice and it is mine!
Anonymous 11:56
“It is correct to note that all of those same officials were elected by the good judgment of Davis voters.”
It is important to note that Ruth Asmundson’s % of voter approval, when she ran on her public record for reelection, dropped percipitously. Lamar Heystek, a newcomer, missed taking the Mayor Pro Tem slot from her by only 100 votes. We will see an even more dramatic display of voter negative judgement when Souza and Saylor ask for another Council term in 2008.Both Thomson and Yamada never had any intention of ever placing their political futures solely in the hands of their Davis constituents. In answer to your above question, there is little that the Davis voter can do when they are betrayed by the candidates that they voted for… at least the for the first time around. Fool me once, it’s your fault, fool me twice and it is mine!
ACLU Supporter said…
here is a public official, who made a tremendous blunder. Stop obfuscated and start either defending or condemning.
7/27/07 12:01 PM
Jeff Reisig is a public official, who made a tremendous blunder. However I don’t throw out the baby with the bath water. I want him to continue to fight the gang problem with every tool at his disposal until I see some other workable solution to the problems of gangs.
ACLU Supporter said…
here is a public official, who made a tremendous blunder. Stop obfuscated and start either defending or condemning.
7/27/07 12:01 PM
Jeff Reisig is a public official, who made a tremendous blunder. However I don’t throw out the baby with the bath water. I want him to continue to fight the gang problem with every tool at his disposal until I see some other workable solution to the problems of gangs.
ACLU Supporter said…
here is a public official, who made a tremendous blunder. Stop obfuscated and start either defending or condemning.
7/27/07 12:01 PM
Jeff Reisig is a public official, who made a tremendous blunder. However I don’t throw out the baby with the bath water. I want him to continue to fight the gang problem with every tool at his disposal until I see some other workable solution to the problems of gangs.
ACLU Supporter said…
here is a public official, who made a tremendous blunder. Stop obfuscated and start either defending or condemning.
7/27/07 12:01 PM
Jeff Reisig is a public official, who made a tremendous blunder. However I don’t throw out the baby with the bath water. I want him to continue to fight the gang problem with every tool at his disposal until I see some other workable solution to the problems of gangs.
Anonymous 12:01
“…with every tool at his disposal'”
I think that we all agree on this but the question is… what tools you are willing to sanction?
Anonymous 12:01
“…with every tool at his disposal'”
I think that we all agree on this but the question is… what tools you are willing to sanction?
Anonymous 12:01
“…with every tool at his disposal'”
I think that we all agree on this but the question is… what tools you are willing to sanction?
Anonymous 12:01
“…with every tool at his disposal'”
I think that we all agree on this but the question is… what tools you are willing to sanction?
And why do you trust him to get this right?
And why do you trust him to get this right?
And why do you trust him to get this right?
And why do you trust him to get this right?
ACLU Supporter said…
And why do you trust him to get this right?
7/27/07 1:05 PM
Trust is irrelevant. Like him, do not like him. Voted for him, did not vote for him.
The District Attorneys office is the highest law enforcement official in Yolo County. His job is to stop crime, Including Gangs. Jeff Reisig is currently that official
Anonymous said…
Anonymous 12:01
“…with every tool at his disposal'”
I think that we all agree on this but the question is… what tools you are willing to sanction?
7/27/07 1:00 PM
Jeff Reisig is a public official, who made a tremendous blunder in the application of the gang injunction. He is not the First or the last District Attorney to make a mistake. If we fire every public official who has ever made a mistake there would be no elected government.
He should try again with the same injunction and do the proper notification.
ACLU Supporter said…
And why do you trust him to get this right?
7/27/07 1:05 PM
Trust is irrelevant. Like him, do not like him. Voted for him, did not vote for him.
The District Attorneys office is the highest law enforcement official in Yolo County. His job is to stop crime, Including Gangs. Jeff Reisig is currently that official
Anonymous said…
Anonymous 12:01
“…with every tool at his disposal'”
I think that we all agree on this but the question is… what tools you are willing to sanction?
7/27/07 1:00 PM
Jeff Reisig is a public official, who made a tremendous blunder in the application of the gang injunction. He is not the First or the last District Attorney to make a mistake. If we fire every public official who has ever made a mistake there would be no elected government.
He should try again with the same injunction and do the proper notification.
ACLU Supporter said…
And why do you trust him to get this right?
7/27/07 1:05 PM
Trust is irrelevant. Like him, do not like him. Voted for him, did not vote for him.
The District Attorneys office is the highest law enforcement official in Yolo County. His job is to stop crime, Including Gangs. Jeff Reisig is currently that official
Anonymous said…
Anonymous 12:01
“…with every tool at his disposal'”
I think that we all agree on this but the question is… what tools you are willing to sanction?
7/27/07 1:00 PM
Jeff Reisig is a public official, who made a tremendous blunder in the application of the gang injunction. He is not the First or the last District Attorney to make a mistake. If we fire every public official who has ever made a mistake there would be no elected government.
He should try again with the same injunction and do the proper notification.
ACLU Supporter said…
And why do you trust him to get this right?
7/27/07 1:05 PM
Trust is irrelevant. Like him, do not like him. Voted for him, did not vote for him.
The District Attorneys office is the highest law enforcement official in Yolo County. His job is to stop crime, Including Gangs. Jeff Reisig is currently that official
Anonymous said…
Anonymous 12:01
“…with every tool at his disposal'”
I think that we all agree on this but the question is… what tools you are willing to sanction?
7/27/07 1:00 PM
Jeff Reisig is a public official, who made a tremendous blunder in the application of the gang injunction. He is not the First or the last District Attorney to make a mistake. If we fire every public official who has ever made a mistake there would be no elected government.
He should try again with the same injunction and do the proper notification.
The anonymous feature makes it acceptable for your response to be: “lol”
Vicente? You might as well be anonymous unless you print your last name and address.
The anonymous feature makes it acceptable for your response to be: “lol”
Vicente? You might as well be anonymous unless you print your last name and address.
The anonymous feature makes it acceptable for your response to be: “lol”
Vicente? You might as well be anonymous unless you print your last name and address.
The anonymous feature makes it acceptable for your response to be: “lol”
Vicente? You might as well be anonymous unless you print your last name and address.
“He should try again with the same injunction and do the proper notification. “
Well that’s part of the problem, he can’t now because his failure to notice led to an adverse ruling on the use of “unincorporated associations”
“He should try again with the same injunction and do the proper notification. “
Well that’s part of the problem, he can’t now because his failure to notice led to an adverse ruling on the use of “unincorporated associations”
“He should try again with the same injunction and do the proper notification. “
Well that’s part of the problem, he can’t now because his failure to notice led to an adverse ruling on the use of “unincorporated associations”
“He should try again with the same injunction and do the proper notification. “
Well that’s part of the problem, he can’t now because his failure to notice led to an adverse ruling on the use of “unincorporated associations”
when josh bettancourt and a couple of his friends beat andrew mockus with bottles and threw him into an oncoming train, the DPD did not go after anyone at the jr. high who knew or even hung out with bettancourt, they tried the people responsible for the crime (and even then went pretty damn easy on them, the benefit of having well-connected parents).
gang injunctions are collective punishment and unconstitutional; if west sac needs more police officers walking the beat, and better trust and relations with the neighborhoods in question to find out who is committing the crimes, then it ought to fund that, but just cordoning off whole neighborhoods as “gangs” is wrong. if the same rules were applied to affluent white neighborhoods when people from there committed crimes, my guess is that the supporters of the gang injunctions would see things differently.
one aspect to the reisig-lenzi race that struck me towards the end, was the flood of negative mailers from reisig’s camp stressing native american tribes’ ties to lenzi over and over again. the conway ranch brouhaha also saw a bit of this sort of “rich native americans are buying our county” stuff. dog whistles, if you ask me.
when josh bettancourt and a couple of his friends beat andrew mockus with bottles and threw him into an oncoming train, the DPD did not go after anyone at the jr. high who knew or even hung out with bettancourt, they tried the people responsible for the crime (and even then went pretty damn easy on them, the benefit of having well-connected parents).
gang injunctions are collective punishment and unconstitutional; if west sac needs more police officers walking the beat, and better trust and relations with the neighborhoods in question to find out who is committing the crimes, then it ought to fund that, but just cordoning off whole neighborhoods as “gangs” is wrong. if the same rules were applied to affluent white neighborhoods when people from there committed crimes, my guess is that the supporters of the gang injunctions would see things differently.
one aspect to the reisig-lenzi race that struck me towards the end, was the flood of negative mailers from reisig’s camp stressing native american tribes’ ties to lenzi over and over again. the conway ranch brouhaha also saw a bit of this sort of “rich native americans are buying our county” stuff. dog whistles, if you ask me.
when josh bettancourt and a couple of his friends beat andrew mockus with bottles and threw him into an oncoming train, the DPD did not go after anyone at the jr. high who knew or even hung out with bettancourt, they tried the people responsible for the crime (and even then went pretty damn easy on them, the benefit of having well-connected parents).
gang injunctions are collective punishment and unconstitutional; if west sac needs more police officers walking the beat, and better trust and relations with the neighborhoods in question to find out who is committing the crimes, then it ought to fund that, but just cordoning off whole neighborhoods as “gangs” is wrong. if the same rules were applied to affluent white neighborhoods when people from there committed crimes, my guess is that the supporters of the gang injunctions would see things differently.
one aspect to the reisig-lenzi race that struck me towards the end, was the flood of negative mailers from reisig’s camp stressing native american tribes’ ties to lenzi over and over again. the conway ranch brouhaha also saw a bit of this sort of “rich native americans are buying our county” stuff. dog whistles, if you ask me.
when josh bettancourt and a couple of his friends beat andrew mockus with bottles and threw him into an oncoming train, the DPD did not go after anyone at the jr. high who knew or even hung out with bettancourt, they tried the people responsible for the crime (and even then went pretty damn easy on them, the benefit of having well-connected parents).
gang injunctions are collective punishment and unconstitutional; if west sac needs more police officers walking the beat, and better trust and relations with the neighborhoods in question to find out who is committing the crimes, then it ought to fund that, but just cordoning off whole neighborhoods as “gangs” is wrong. if the same rules were applied to affluent white neighborhoods when people from there committed crimes, my guess is that the supporters of the gang injunctions would see things differently.
one aspect to the reisig-lenzi race that struck me towards the end, was the flood of negative mailers from reisig’s camp stressing native american tribes’ ties to lenzi over and over again. the conway ranch brouhaha also saw a bit of this sort of “rich native americans are buying our county” stuff. dog whistles, if you ask me.
Doug Paul Davis said…
“He should try again with the same injunction and do the proper notification. “
Well that’s part of the problem, he can’t now because of his failure to notice led to an adverse ruling on the use of “unincorporated associations”
7/27/07 2:11 PM
Well.. you make a point. Because I am not a legal scholar I can’t really argue a counter point. I do know this. One ruling does not a law make or break. I would say as a nation we have seen laws work on a Tuesday but not on the following Thursday. How many times in the last 10 years has the 9th Circuit Court been overturned by the US Supreme Court. I think you are premature to celebrate this one ruling as all inclusive to stop the use of the gang injunction.
Doug Paul Davis said…
“He should try again with the same injunction and do the proper notification. “
Well that’s part of the problem, he can’t now because of his failure to notice led to an adverse ruling on the use of “unincorporated associations”
7/27/07 2:11 PM
Well.. you make a point. Because I am not a legal scholar I can’t really argue a counter point. I do know this. One ruling does not a law make or break. I would say as a nation we have seen laws work on a Tuesday but not on the following Thursday. How many times in the last 10 years has the 9th Circuit Court been overturned by the US Supreme Court. I think you are premature to celebrate this one ruling as all inclusive to stop the use of the gang injunction.
Doug Paul Davis said…
“He should try again with the same injunction and do the proper notification. “
Well that’s part of the problem, he can’t now because of his failure to notice led to an adverse ruling on the use of “unincorporated associations”
7/27/07 2:11 PM
Well.. you make a point. Because I am not a legal scholar I can’t really argue a counter point. I do know this. One ruling does not a law make or break. I would say as a nation we have seen laws work on a Tuesday but not on the following Thursday. How many times in the last 10 years has the 9th Circuit Court been overturned by the US Supreme Court. I think you are premature to celebrate this one ruling as all inclusive to stop the use of the gang injunction.
Doug Paul Davis said…
“He should try again with the same injunction and do the proper notification. “
Well that’s part of the problem, he can’t now because of his failure to notice led to an adverse ruling on the use of “unincorporated associations”
7/27/07 2:11 PM
Well.. you make a point. Because I am not a legal scholar I can’t really argue a counter point. I do know this. One ruling does not a law make or break. I would say as a nation we have seen laws work on a Tuesday but not on the following Thursday. How many times in the last 10 years has the 9th Circuit Court been overturned by the US Supreme Court. I think you are premature to celebrate this one ruling as all inclusive to stop the use of the gang injunction.
Nobody should have to sacrafice their liberties the way they have to in West Sacramento. That price is way too high.
Nancy
Nobody should have to sacrafice their liberties the way they have to in West Sacramento. That price is way too high.
Nancy
Nobody should have to sacrafice their liberties the way they have to in West Sacramento. That price is way too high.
Nancy
Nobody should have to sacrafice their liberties the way they have to in West Sacramento. That price is way too high.
Nancy
“if the same rules were applied to affluent white neighborhoods when people from there committed crimes, my guess is that the supporters of the gang injunctions would see things differently.”
I live in Bryte. The injunction has made my neighborhood better. Everyone I know who is not in a gang thinks so. I think the real problem is that people who are rich and don’t live here don’t have any idea what they are saying. They have never lived with a gang like the Broderick boys. This is what is so wrong with Davis people telling us what is good for us.
“if the same rules were applied to affluent white neighborhoods when people from there committed crimes, my guess is that the supporters of the gang injunctions would see things differently.”
I live in Bryte. The injunction has made my neighborhood better. Everyone I know who is not in a gang thinks so. I think the real problem is that people who are rich and don’t live here don’t have any idea what they are saying. They have never lived with a gang like the Broderick boys. This is what is so wrong with Davis people telling us what is good for us.
“if the same rules were applied to affluent white neighborhoods when people from there committed crimes, my guess is that the supporters of the gang injunctions would see things differently.”
I live in Bryte. The injunction has made my neighborhood better. Everyone I know who is not in a gang thinks so. I think the real problem is that people who are rich and don’t live here don’t have any idea what they are saying. They have never lived with a gang like the Broderick boys. This is what is so wrong with Davis people telling us what is good for us.
“if the same rules were applied to affluent white neighborhoods when people from there committed crimes, my guess is that the supporters of the gang injunctions would see things differently.”
I live in Bryte. The injunction has made my neighborhood better. Everyone I know who is not in a gang thinks so. I think the real problem is that people who are rich and don’t live here don’t have any idea what they are saying. They have never lived with a gang like the Broderick boys. This is what is so wrong with Davis people telling us what is good for us.
Actually I think you are mistaken.
First of all, I wouldn’t jump to assumptions about what people have or have not lived near.
Second, it is not the people of Davis telling you anything it is the US Constitution and the 3rd District Court of Appeals.
Third, the mistake was Reisig’s. He gambled and you lost. If it were me, I’d be pretty mad about that.
Actually I think you are mistaken.
First of all, I wouldn’t jump to assumptions about what people have or have not lived near.
Second, it is not the people of Davis telling you anything it is the US Constitution and the 3rd District Court of Appeals.
Third, the mistake was Reisig’s. He gambled and you lost. If it were me, I’d be pretty mad about that.
Actually I think you are mistaken.
First of all, I wouldn’t jump to assumptions about what people have or have not lived near.
Second, it is not the people of Davis telling you anything it is the US Constitution and the 3rd District Court of Appeals.
Third, the mistake was Reisig’s. He gambled and you lost. If it were me, I’d be pretty mad about that.
Actually I think you are mistaken.
First of all, I wouldn’t jump to assumptions about what people have or have not lived near.
Second, it is not the people of Davis telling you anything it is the US Constitution and the 3rd District Court of Appeals.
Third, the mistake was Reisig’s. He gambled and you lost. If it were me, I’d be pretty mad about that.
The problem with the injunction was that people who were not in gangs were being restricted without a way to challenge the restriction. This is un-American.
I’m glad that Bryte is better, but is it better because of the enforcement of the injunction (arresting and removing criminals from the neighborhood) or is it better because people felt safer and started venturing out of their homes because of the perception of safety created by a court order?
It is sort of like a TRO. The court can issue an order for someone to stay away, but a criminal will not comply. Only the generally law-abiding will follow the court order. The person who gets a TRO has to be very careful not to think that they are now safe if they are dealing with a true criminal.
The problem with the injunction was that people who were not in gangs were being restricted without a way to challenge the restriction. This is un-American.
I’m glad that Bryte is better, but is it better because of the enforcement of the injunction (arresting and removing criminals from the neighborhood) or is it better because people felt safer and started venturing out of their homes because of the perception of safety created by a court order?
It is sort of like a TRO. The court can issue an order for someone to stay away, but a criminal will not comply. Only the generally law-abiding will follow the court order. The person who gets a TRO has to be very careful not to think that they are now safe if they are dealing with a true criminal.
The problem with the injunction was that people who were not in gangs were being restricted without a way to challenge the restriction. This is un-American.
I’m glad that Bryte is better, but is it better because of the enforcement of the injunction (arresting and removing criminals from the neighborhood) or is it better because people felt safer and started venturing out of their homes because of the perception of safety created by a court order?
It is sort of like a TRO. The court can issue an order for someone to stay away, but a criminal will not comply. Only the generally law-abiding will follow the court order. The person who gets a TRO has to be very careful not to think that they are now safe if they are dealing with a true criminal.
The problem with the injunction was that people who were not in gangs were being restricted without a way to challenge the restriction. This is un-American.
I’m glad that Bryte is better, but is it better because of the enforcement of the injunction (arresting and removing criminals from the neighborhood) or is it better because people felt safer and started venturing out of their homes because of the perception of safety created by a court order?
It is sort of like a TRO. The court can issue an order for someone to stay away, but a criminal will not comply. Only the generally law-abiding will follow the court order. The person who gets a TRO has to be very careful not to think that they are now safe if they are dealing with a true criminal.
To West Sacramento resident:
I just want to point out that the citizen’s of Davis did not challenge the injunction and win. Your neighbors in West Sacramento did.
To West Sacramento resident:
I just want to point out that the citizen’s of Davis did not challenge the injunction and win. Your neighbors in West Sacramento did.
To West Sacramento resident:
I just want to point out that the citizen’s of Davis did not challenge the injunction and win. Your neighbors in West Sacramento did.
To West Sacramento resident:
I just want to point out that the citizen’s of Davis did not challenge the injunction and win. Your neighbors in West Sacramento did.
ACLU Supporter said…
Third, the mistake was Reisig’s. He gambled and you lost. If it were me, I’d be pretty mad about that.
7/27/07 3:51 PM
ACLU Supporter, you seem to be arguing the wrong side of the street. It could be me, but I was not aware that the ACLU supported the use of the gang injunction. You seem to be more anti-Reisig than pro ACLU.
ACLU Supporter said…
Third, the mistake was Reisig’s. He gambled and you lost. If it were me, I’d be pretty mad about that.
7/27/07 3:51 PM
ACLU Supporter, you seem to be arguing the wrong side of the street. It could be me, but I was not aware that the ACLU supported the use of the gang injunction. You seem to be more anti-Reisig than pro ACLU.
ACLU Supporter said…
Third, the mistake was Reisig’s. He gambled and you lost. If it were me, I’d be pretty mad about that.
7/27/07 3:51 PM
ACLU Supporter, you seem to be arguing the wrong side of the street. It could be me, but I was not aware that the ACLU supported the use of the gang injunction. You seem to be more anti-Reisig than pro ACLU.
ACLU Supporter said…
Third, the mistake was Reisig’s. He gambled and you lost. If it were me, I’d be pretty mad about that.
7/27/07 3:51 PM
ACLU Supporter, you seem to be arguing the wrong side of the street. It could be me, but I was not aware that the ACLU supported the use of the gang injunction. You seem to be more anti-Reisig than pro ACLU.
You miss my point. The individual I was speaking to is in support the of the law. I’m saying that they may like the law, they may believe that the law works, but at the end of the day, the law was thrown out. It was thrown out because it was unconstitutional. So instead of using legal means, the DA, Mr. Reisig, used unconstitutional means. I support him using constitutional means and if he had done that, the law would not have been thrown out and the individual would have the protection that they are seeking.
Does that make sense–you have to follow the logic here. I support constitutional means to fight crime. Mr. Reisig supported unconstitutional means to fight crime.
Got it?
You miss my point. The individual I was speaking to is in support the of the law. I’m saying that they may like the law, they may believe that the law works, but at the end of the day, the law was thrown out. It was thrown out because it was unconstitutional. So instead of using legal means, the DA, Mr. Reisig, used unconstitutional means. I support him using constitutional means and if he had done that, the law would not have been thrown out and the individual would have the protection that they are seeking.
Does that make sense–you have to follow the logic here. I support constitutional means to fight crime. Mr. Reisig supported unconstitutional means to fight crime.
Got it?
You miss my point. The individual I was speaking to is in support the of the law. I’m saying that they may like the law, they may believe that the law works, but at the end of the day, the law was thrown out. It was thrown out because it was unconstitutional. So instead of using legal means, the DA, Mr. Reisig, used unconstitutional means. I support him using constitutional means and if he had done that, the law would not have been thrown out and the individual would have the protection that they are seeking.
Does that make sense–you have to follow the logic here. I support constitutional means to fight crime. Mr. Reisig supported unconstitutional means to fight crime.
Got it?
You miss my point. The individual I was speaking to is in support the of the law. I’m saying that they may like the law, they may believe that the law works, but at the end of the day, the law was thrown out. It was thrown out because it was unconstitutional. So instead of using legal means, the DA, Mr. Reisig, used unconstitutional means. I support him using constitutional means and if he had done that, the law would not have been thrown out and the individual would have the protection that they are seeking.
Does that make sense–you have to follow the logic here. I support constitutional means to fight crime. Mr. Reisig supported unconstitutional means to fight crime.
Got it?
“This is what is so wrong with Davis people telling us what is good for us”
Sorry but it is wrong to think that West Sac can follow a different set of laws than Davis or anywhere else. If you have a problem please deal with it under existing laws not something “creative” that chips away at due process.SAH
“This is what is so wrong with Davis people telling us what is good for us”
Sorry but it is wrong to think that West Sac can follow a different set of laws than Davis or anywhere else. If you have a problem please deal with it under existing laws not something “creative” that chips away at due process.SAH
“This is what is so wrong with Davis people telling us what is good for us”
Sorry but it is wrong to think that West Sac can follow a different set of laws than Davis or anywhere else. If you have a problem please deal with it under existing laws not something “creative” that chips away at due process.SAH
“This is what is so wrong with Davis people telling us what is good for us”
Sorry but it is wrong to think that West Sac can follow a different set of laws than Davis or anywhere else. If you have a problem please deal with it under existing laws not something “creative” that chips away at due process.SAH
ACLU Supporter said…
Got it?
7/27/07 4:50 PM
Got it. .
If the below is an accurate definition, it is hard to understand why it was thrown out. The Broderick Boys certainly fit all of those definitions.
The characteristics of an unincorporated association have emerged primarily from case law.
An unincorporated association:
• is not a legal entity,
• is an organization of persons or bodies (more than one) with an identifiable membership (possibly changing),
• has a membership who are bound together for a common purpose by an identifiable constitution or rules (which may be written or oral),
• is an organization where the form of association is not one which is recognized in law as being something else (for example, an incorporated body or a partnership),
• must have an existence distinct from those persons who would be regarded as its members,
• The tie between the persons need not be a legally enforceable contract.
Whether an organization is an unincorporated association is a question of fact and will depend upon a consideration of all the relevant circumstances. It cannot be determined by simply looking at what the organization calls itself or the form of its rules.
ACLU Supporter said…
Got it?
7/27/07 4:50 PM
Got it. .
If the below is an accurate definition, it is hard to understand why it was thrown out. The Broderick Boys certainly fit all of those definitions.
The characteristics of an unincorporated association have emerged primarily from case law.
An unincorporated association:
• is not a legal entity,
• is an organization of persons or bodies (more than one) with an identifiable membership (possibly changing),
• has a membership who are bound together for a common purpose by an identifiable constitution or rules (which may be written or oral),
• is an organization where the form of association is not one which is recognized in law as being something else (for example, an incorporated body or a partnership),
• must have an existence distinct from those persons who would be regarded as its members,
• The tie between the persons need not be a legally enforceable contract.
Whether an organization is an unincorporated association is a question of fact and will depend upon a consideration of all the relevant circumstances. It cannot be determined by simply looking at what the organization calls itself or the form of its rules.
ACLU Supporter said…
Got it?
7/27/07 4:50 PM
Got it. .
If the below is an accurate definition, it is hard to understand why it was thrown out. The Broderick Boys certainly fit all of those definitions.
The characteristics of an unincorporated association have emerged primarily from case law.
An unincorporated association:
• is not a legal entity,
• is an organization of persons or bodies (more than one) with an identifiable membership (possibly changing),
• has a membership who are bound together for a common purpose by an identifiable constitution or rules (which may be written or oral),
• is an organization where the form of association is not one which is recognized in law as being something else (for example, an incorporated body or a partnership),
• must have an existence distinct from those persons who would be regarded as its members,
• The tie between the persons need not be a legally enforceable contract.
Whether an organization is an unincorporated association is a question of fact and will depend upon a consideration of all the relevant circumstances. It cannot be determined by simply looking at what the organization calls itself or the form of its rules.
ACLU Supporter said…
Got it?
7/27/07 4:50 PM
Got it. .
If the below is an accurate definition, it is hard to understand why it was thrown out. The Broderick Boys certainly fit all of those definitions.
The characteristics of an unincorporated association have emerged primarily from case law.
An unincorporated association:
• is not a legal entity,
• is an organization of persons or bodies (more than one) with an identifiable membership (possibly changing),
• has a membership who are bound together for a common purpose by an identifiable constitution or rules (which may be written or oral),
• is an organization where the form of association is not one which is recognized in law as being something else (for example, an incorporated body or a partnership),
• must have an existence distinct from those persons who would be regarded as its members,
• The tie between the persons need not be a legally enforceable contract.
Whether an organization is an unincorporated association is a question of fact and will depend upon a consideration of all the relevant circumstances. It cannot be determined by simply looking at what the organization calls itself or the form of its rules.
But you missed a key provision which was the basis for the law being struck down the BSB being ruled not an “unincorporated association”
This is quoted directly from the judges ruling:
“In California, “‘Unincorporated association’ means an unincorporated group of two or more persons joined by mutual consent for a common lawful purpose, whether organized for profit or not.” (Corp. Code, § 18035, subd. (a), italics added.) The record does not show that The Broderick Boys—a criminal gang under the Penal Code, a “terrorist” group with “no social benefits”—was formed, at least in part, for a common lawful purpose.”
You will note even the ADA from Ventura County did not dispute that this was part of the definition. He simply claimed there was a legal purpose. The judge did not agree with that. Moreover, any attempt to find a lawful associative purpose would be attempting to pretty much cram this into the law where clearly that was not the intent.
But you missed a key provision which was the basis for the law being struck down the BSB being ruled not an “unincorporated association”
This is quoted directly from the judges ruling:
“In California, “‘Unincorporated association’ means an unincorporated group of two or more persons joined by mutual consent for a common lawful purpose, whether organized for profit or not.” (Corp. Code, § 18035, subd. (a), italics added.) The record does not show that The Broderick Boys—a criminal gang under the Penal Code, a “terrorist” group with “no social benefits”—was formed, at least in part, for a common lawful purpose.”
You will note even the ADA from Ventura County did not dispute that this was part of the definition. He simply claimed there was a legal purpose. The judge did not agree with that. Moreover, any attempt to find a lawful associative purpose would be attempting to pretty much cram this into the law where clearly that was not the intent.
But you missed a key provision which was the basis for the law being struck down the BSB being ruled not an “unincorporated association”
This is quoted directly from the judges ruling:
“In California, “‘Unincorporated association’ means an unincorporated group of two or more persons joined by mutual consent for a common lawful purpose, whether organized for profit or not.” (Corp. Code, § 18035, subd. (a), italics added.) The record does not show that The Broderick Boys—a criminal gang under the Penal Code, a “terrorist” group with “no social benefits”—was formed, at least in part, for a common lawful purpose.”
You will note even the ADA from Ventura County did not dispute that this was part of the definition. He simply claimed there was a legal purpose. The judge did not agree with that. Moreover, any attempt to find a lawful associative purpose would be attempting to pretty much cram this into the law where clearly that was not the intent.
But you missed a key provision which was the basis for the law being struck down the BSB being ruled not an “unincorporated association”
This is quoted directly from the judges ruling:
“In California, “‘Unincorporated association’ means an unincorporated group of two or more persons joined by mutual consent for a common lawful purpose, whether organized for profit or not.” (Corp. Code, § 18035, subd. (a), italics added.) The record does not show that The Broderick Boys—a criminal gang under the Penal Code, a “terrorist” group with “no social benefits”—was formed, at least in part, for a common lawful purpose.”
You will note even the ADA from Ventura County did not dispute that this was part of the definition. He simply claimed there was a legal purpose. The judge did not agree with that. Moreover, any attempt to find a lawful associative purpose would be attempting to pretty much cram this into the law where clearly that was not the intent.
A “facinating” argument.. first you want to issue a Gang Injunction because it is a criminal gang and then claim that it is an unincorporated association with a lawful purpose. Being lawyers.. they threw it up against the wall to see if it would stick.. the judge said-no dice.
I love this blog!
A “facinating” argument.. first you want to issue a Gang Injunction because it is a criminal gang and then claim that it is an unincorporated association with a lawful purpose. Being lawyers.. they threw it up against the wall to see if it would stick.. the judge said-no dice.
I love this blog!
A “facinating” argument.. first you want to issue a Gang Injunction because it is a criminal gang and then claim that it is an unincorporated association with a lawful purpose. Being lawyers.. they threw it up against the wall to see if it would stick.. the judge said-no dice.
I love this blog!
A “facinating” argument.. first you want to issue a Gang Injunction because it is a criminal gang and then claim that it is an unincorporated association with a lawful purpose. Being lawyers.. they threw it up against the wall to see if it would stick.. the judge said-no dice.
I love this blog!
Doug Paul Davis said…
Any attempt to find a lawful associative purpose would be attempting to pretty much cram this into the law where clearly that was not the intent.
7/27/07 5:42 PM
The California Corporations Code defines “unincorporated association” as “two or more persons joined by mutual consent for a common lawful purpose. The appellate court erred with the West Sac case because most criminal street gangs do gather for common-lawful purposes—like hanging out and socializing.
Even gang members socialize. It is hard to see what is being crammed here.
Doug Paul Davis said…
Any attempt to find a lawful associative purpose would be attempting to pretty much cram this into the law where clearly that was not the intent.
7/27/07 5:42 PM
The California Corporations Code defines “unincorporated association” as “two or more persons joined by mutual consent for a common lawful purpose. The appellate court erred with the West Sac case because most criminal street gangs do gather for common-lawful purposes—like hanging out and socializing.
Even gang members socialize. It is hard to see what is being crammed here.
Doug Paul Davis said…
Any attempt to find a lawful associative purpose would be attempting to pretty much cram this into the law where clearly that was not the intent.
7/27/07 5:42 PM
The California Corporations Code defines “unincorporated association” as “two or more persons joined by mutual consent for a common lawful purpose. The appellate court erred with the West Sac case because most criminal street gangs do gather for common-lawful purposes—like hanging out and socializing.
Even gang members socialize. It is hard to see what is being crammed here.
Doug Paul Davis said…
Any attempt to find a lawful associative purpose would be attempting to pretty much cram this into the law where clearly that was not the intent.
7/27/07 5:42 PM
The California Corporations Code defines “unincorporated association” as “two or more persons joined by mutual consent for a common lawful purpose. The appellate court erred with the West Sac case because most criminal street gangs do gather for common-lawful purposes—like hanging out and socializing.
Even gang members socialize. It is hard to see what is being crammed here.
But:
“Unincorporated association’ means an unincorporated group of two or more persons joined by mutual consent for a common lawful purpose”
They are not “joining” it for a “common lawful purpose.”
That’s the difference. Any lawful purpose is at best secondary and really not the purpose of the association.
But:
“Unincorporated association’ means an unincorporated group of two or more persons joined by mutual consent for a common lawful purpose”
They are not “joining” it for a “common lawful purpose.”
That’s the difference. Any lawful purpose is at best secondary and really not the purpose of the association.
But:
“Unincorporated association’ means an unincorporated group of two or more persons joined by mutual consent for a common lawful purpose”
They are not “joining” it for a “common lawful purpose.”
That’s the difference. Any lawful purpose is at best secondary and really not the purpose of the association.
But:
“Unincorporated association’ means an unincorporated group of two or more persons joined by mutual consent for a common lawful purpose”
They are not “joining” it for a “common lawful purpose.”
That’s the difference. Any lawful purpose is at best secondary and really not the purpose of the association.
I’m more afraid of the ability of the Uniformed Gangs, er, I mean police, to extort money from me and in general mess with my persuit of happiness than getting shot or robbed by any un-uniformed gangs.
Sounds like Reisig’s lazyness might have at least some good effects.
I’m more afraid of the ability of the Uniformed Gangs, er, I mean police, to extort money from me and in general mess with my persuit of happiness than getting shot or robbed by any un-uniformed gangs.
Sounds like Reisig’s lazyness might have at least some good effects.
I’m more afraid of the ability of the Uniformed Gangs, er, I mean police, to extort money from me and in general mess with my persuit of happiness than getting shot or robbed by any un-uniformed gangs.
Sounds like Reisig’s lazyness might have at least some good effects.
I’m more afraid of the ability of the Uniformed Gangs, er, I mean police, to extort money from me and in general mess with my persuit of happiness than getting shot or robbed by any un-uniformed gangs.
Sounds like Reisig’s lazyness might have at least some good effects.
Doug Paul Davis said…
“He should try again with the same injunction and do the proper notification. “
Well that’s part of the problem; he can’t now because his failure to notice led to an adverse ruling on the use of “unincorporated associations”
7/27/07 2:11 PM
That is strange. I thought you said he couldn’t do that. Yesterday Jeff Reisig refilled the gang injunction with an amended complaint.
Doug Paul Davis said…
“He should try again with the same injunction and do the proper notification. “
Well that’s part of the problem; he can’t now because his failure to notice led to an adverse ruling on the use of “unincorporated associations”
7/27/07 2:11 PM
That is strange. I thought you said he couldn’t do that. Yesterday Jeff Reisig refilled the gang injunction with an amended complaint.
Doug Paul Davis said…
“He should try again with the same injunction and do the proper notification. “
Well that’s part of the problem; he can’t now because his failure to notice led to an adverse ruling on the use of “unincorporated associations”
7/27/07 2:11 PM
That is strange. I thought you said he couldn’t do that. Yesterday Jeff Reisig refilled the gang injunction with an amended complaint.
Doug Paul Davis said…
“He should try again with the same injunction and do the proper notification. “
Well that’s part of the problem; he can’t now because his failure to notice led to an adverse ruling on the use of “unincorporated associations”
7/27/07 2:11 PM
That is strange. I thought you said he couldn’t do that. Yesterday Jeff Reisig refilled the gang injunction with an amended complaint.
“That is strange. I thought you said he couldn’t do that.”
By can, I of course meant, it wouldn’t stand in court, we shall see if it does. Having 400 unnamed gang members doesn’t seem constitutional to me.
“That is strange. I thought you said he couldn’t do that.”
By can, I of course meant, it wouldn’t stand in court, we shall see if it does. Having 400 unnamed gang members doesn’t seem constitutional to me.
“That is strange. I thought you said he couldn’t do that.”
By can, I of course meant, it wouldn’t stand in court, we shall see if it does. Having 400 unnamed gang members doesn’t seem constitutional to me.
“That is strange. I thought you said he couldn’t do that.”
By can, I of course meant, it wouldn’t stand in court, we shall see if it does. Having 400 unnamed gang members doesn’t seem constitutional to me.
Mr. Reisig was correct in his attempt to control gangs in West SAc. The people of the vanguard are as usual clueless about the magnitude of the gang problem. I hope Mr. Reisig gets the injunction and stops the norteno and sureno puto’s from terrorizing the public.
As usual the ACLU rings in after the fact with criticism and not a real solution. In addition anything published in the davis vanguard is almost always wrong or very biased attributed to their leadership.
Mr. Reisig was correct in his attempt to control gangs in West SAc. The people of the vanguard are as usual clueless about the magnitude of the gang problem. I hope Mr. Reisig gets the injunction and stops the norteno and sureno puto’s from terrorizing the public.
As usual the ACLU rings in after the fact with criticism and not a real solution. In addition anything published in the davis vanguard is almost always wrong or very biased attributed to their leadership.
Mr. Reisig was correct in his attempt to control gangs in West SAc. The people of the vanguard are as usual clueless about the magnitude of the gang problem. I hope Mr. Reisig gets the injunction and stops the norteno and sureno puto’s from terrorizing the public.
As usual the ACLU rings in after the fact with criticism and not a real solution. In addition anything published in the davis vanguard is almost always wrong or very biased attributed to their leadership.
Mr. Reisig was correct in his attempt to control gangs in West SAc. The people of the vanguard are as usual clueless about the magnitude of the gang problem. I hope Mr. Reisig gets the injunction and stops the norteno and sureno puto’s from terrorizing the public.
As usual the ACLU rings in after the fact with criticism and not a real solution. In addition anything published in the davis vanguard is almost always wrong or very biased attributed to their leadership.