The Yolo County District Attorney’s Office on Tuesday released a statement claiming that former Investigator Rick Gore, has resigned, apologized, and retracted a letter that was leaked to the Vanguard in March of 2008.
“In March 2008, The People’s Vanguard of Davis blog published Mr. Gore’s March 5, 2008 letter in which Mr. Gore made allegations of unethical legal practices and the creation of a hostile work environment for employees.”
On March 7, 2008, the Vanguard published the article “Senior Investigator For Yolo County District Attorney’s Office Accuses Reisig of Ethical Malfeasance And Much More.”
According to the District Attorney’s Office, on May 21, 2008, Yolo County publicly released a summary of findings of an independent legal investigation into this matter. The findings determined that all of the allegations in the letter were unsubstantiated.
Mr. Reisig said at the time:
“Every material allegation made by Rick Gore was not substantiated. It was not substantiated that Jeff Reisig was or is engaging in unethical practices. There is no indication that Rick Gore was subjected to a hostile work environment, that he was retaliated against for exercising his rights, and/or that he was discriminated against on the basis of a legally protected category.”
The newest letter purportedly comes after a settlement agreement between the county and Mr. Gore. Neither Mr. Gore nor his attorney was willing to speak to the Vanguard on the record on Tuesday specifically regarding the letter by District Attorney Reisig. However, Dan McNamara, a Sacramento-based attorney representing Mr. Gore told the Vanguard that they “reached agreement” and that “all the parties are happy with the arrangement.”
According to the release from the District Attorney, in his retraction letter Mr. Gore apologizes to
“Yolo County District Attorney Jeff Reisig, Deputy District Attorney Garrett Hamilton, District Attorney’s Lieutenant Investigator Bruce Naliboff and the entire staff of the Yolo County District Attorney’s Office for the misrepresentations concerning them contained in my letter dated 5 March 2008.”
Mr. Gore then lists, and ultimately retracts, substantive allegations from his March 5, 2008 letter which he now states were “unfounded.”
“I am pleased that Mr. Gore has retracted his unfounded accusations against this office and the dedicated people working here. I believe this retraction, along with the findings of the county’s independent investigation released last year, have vindicated those in the District Attorney’s Office affected by Mr. Gore’s allegations. These fine attorneys and investigators are committed to professionally and ethically serving the citizens of Yolo County.”
Mr. Reisig went on to state in his release:
“The Yolo County District Attorney’s Office maintains the highest standards of ethics and professionalism. The personal and professional integrity of the attorneys and investigators in the office is critical to the job we do protecting public safety. An effective and fair administration of the criminal justice system in Yolo County is of the upmost priority to the District Attorney’s Office.”
Vanguard Disputes Accuracy of this Retraction
It should be noted that this most recent letter by Gore is not signed under oath or under penalty of perjury. One of the key unanswered questions is why the District Attorney’s office is able to speak about this and put out a press release but not Mr. Gore. Nevertheless, the Vanguard can verify that Mr. Gore in fact does stand behind most of the key allegations and that these allegations have merit to them.
The DA’s press release claims the newest letter states, in part,
“I was never ordered by DA Jeff Reisig to sign an untrue affidavit in support of a gang injunction. The allegation is unfounded and I retract it.”
In his March letter Mr. Gore wrote:
“I was called in by DDA Linden a few days later, and was told [Reisig] had ordered me to sign this injunction and I had no choice. Knowing I could be fired for not following this order, I signed it after changing some of the language.”
In fact, last year at the Gang Injunction preliminary hearings, Mr. Gore testified under oath that he had been so ordered. So should we believe Mr. Gore’s retraction letter, again not signed under oath or the penalty of perjury or his on the record testimony? If the District Attorney’s Office believes that Mr. Gore testified falsely at the hearing last year, do you believe they would go on to charge him with perjury?
Mr. Reisig’s office recently received negative press when former investigator Randy Skaggs filed a lawsuit which alleged retaliation for whistle blowing in reference to failure to turn over exculpatory evidence in the Halloween Homicide case–a charge that is featured prominently in the letter by Mr. Gore.
Mr. Gore wrote at the time:
“One major disagreement you and I had was when you tried to hide and conceal discoverable evidence about a material witness and refused to discover evidence during an on-going murder trial.”
He continues:
“Bruce Naliboff told me, in front of you, to “put a muzzle” on Randy Skaggs for talking about this discovery issue. You and I had extensive email discussion about this. Lt. Skaggs was in the office when Dave Henderson had to order you to comply with the law and therefore discover the evidence. I am sure the date of the gun test and the date of discovery of the report will show the long delay in providing this evidence, shooting and gun test, to the defense.”
In his retraction letter, he writes:
“My allegation that DA Reisig tried to hide or conceal evidence during a murder trial was completely unfounded, and I retract it… My allegation that DA Reisig refused to discover evidence during the same trial until I pushed him to do so, and until ordered to do so by former DA Henderson, is completely unfounded and I retract it.”
The problem with that retraction is that we have Mr. Skaggs’ lawsuit against the District Attorney for what? In part for retaliation for Mr. Skaggs blowing the whistle on Mr. Reisig’s alleged failure to turn over exculpatory evidence.
Writes attorneys for Randy Skaggs:
“The Defendant have initiated retaliatory and frivolous administrative proceedings and actions against the Plaintiff, because he brought to the attention of the DA OFFICE, including the District Attorney, exculpatory evidence relating to other criminal investigations and prosecutions, and that thereafter the DA was forced to turn over evidence to defense counsel.”
According to the claim,
“Following these actions by the Plaintiff, the DA OFFICE began treating him selectively, placing him on administrative leave, proposing to terminate him from the department and initiating various administrative proceedings against him. These actions pretextual, wrongful and in violation of the public policies of the Untied States of America, and were in fact done to retaliate against Plaintiff, and in violation of his constitutional rights under 42 USC § 1983 II (Fourteenth Amendment) and other constitutional rights.”
These allegations corroborate Mr. Gore’s March 5, 2008 letter and conflict with this newest letter that was created as part of a settlement. Indeed, in my on the record conversations with Mr. Gore earlier this year, he told me that he stands by the March 5, 2008 letter, that he has offered to take a lie detector test, and that he plans to testify in court under oath to that effect. If Mr. Skaggs’ allegations are proven correct, Gore’s settlement letter will become little more than a PR move by Mr. Reisig to try to control his damaged public image.
While Mr. Gore will not go on the record at this time given the nature of this agreement, I think it is clear that this was a settlement agreement and the public should weigh that factor heavily when deciding at the time what is truth and what is a prevarication. The truth will ultimately come out in many of these matters as Mr. Gore will undoubtedly be asked to testify in the the Skaggs’ lawsuit in public and under oath and probably in the gang injunction case, again, in public and under oath. It is my belief based on previous conversations with Mr. Gore that he will testify that what he wrote in that letter on March 5, 2008 is accurate and he will stand by what he has said.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
[i]It is my belief based on previous conversations with Mr. Gore that he will testify that what he wrote in that letter on March 5, 2008 is accurate and he will stand by what he has said.[/i]
In other words, you think that Gore has betrayed Reisig with a toothless settlement agreement that will crumble under oath?
The other day you said that newspapers often present a biased picture by taking press releases at face value. That’s a fair point, in general, but it cuts both ways. Skaggs’ press release to you said that there is a “baseless” administrative and criminal investigation against him. Criminal investigation for what?
A good illustrator of Monday’s article is today’s Daily Democrat article. If I had not sent them a statement, this would have been a completely one-sided article.
[url]http://www.dailydemocrat.com/news/ci_13251898[/url]
Thanks for giving us “the rest of the story”. I hope people see that you give facts and critical evaluation of news and not just reprints.
Keep up the good work.
A PR move by the Reisig? How about the obvious PR move by Gore? Aren’t you at least a little bit annoyed that the Vanguard was used by Gore to gain an advantage in his battle to get a satisfactory settlement?
I just don’t care about office politics in the DA’s office anymore.
It is clear you have your mind made up. Despite no evidence, an independent investigation, and apology and retraction from the accuser, you still don’t care. It is not about anything else other than the fact you do not like Jeff and you wish Pat Lenzi had won. You would keep this going for another 10 independent investigations even if they came out the same way. All you have is an opinion, with no facts, no evidence, in fact you have evidence to contrary and you refuse to swallow it.
Maybe his settlement was that he got caught in a lie and agreed to retract so he would not be procsecuted? You are so one sided about the DA you make the Enterprise seem objective.
Your bias is beyond reason.
An independent investigation? The sum total of an independent investigation was that Reisig claimed one thing, Gore claimed something else and the investigator couldn’t substantiate the claims.
“Maybe his settlement was that he got caught in a lie and agreed to retract so he would not be procsecuted?”
And so he stood by it a few months ago but not now and he intends to testify to it at the Skaggs trial. It’s pretty clear he took the deal he could get and will tell the truth when on the stand.
“I just don’t care about office politics in the DA’s office anymore. “
How so? I mean when it creaps into policy matters, it is clearly not about office politics. Clearly David chose to focus on the public policy matters rather than internal stuff. David can’t win by you, when he does his own research, you whine just as much.
This is not about the 2006 DA’s election this is about a corrupt politician/ prosecutor imperilling the Yolo County judicial system and then retaliating against whistle blowers such as Gore and Skaggs amongst others.
He probably agreed to a ‘settlement’ which smears him instead of the DA’s office in order to preserve his eligibility for his pension, his ability to return to the workforce without letters of poor performance getting in his way, and to get this behind him. Sounds like the DA plays hardball.
Exactly correct.
The two words that come to mind for me is shameful and pathetic. It’s shameful to me that Mr. Gore had to choose his family and future employability over his ethics and integrity to justice. And, it’s pathetic to me that Reisig’s desperation to sustain his reputation, forced Gore to retract what he knew to be the truth. Unless Mr. Skaggs has a secure future and trust in a Higher Power greater then himself, I’m sure we will see another form letter retraction.
Compare the Enterprise article just out to the Daily Democrat article. Daily Democrat quotes from Greenwald which gives the story balance. The Enterprise does not and thus has a completely one-sided story from the DA’s perspective. Yes folks the DE has sunk below the DD.
The Enterprise is so biased that David looks biased the other way by comparison. I read the article in the Enterprise online and it only had the DA’s point of view. Even the Democrat was better. David gave the DA’s side and then his own view–what’s wrong with that?
Nice try to make Reisig look good. A civil settlement does not deal away criminal charges. Another Reisig goon trying to cloud the issue to protect Reisig and his power.
[quote]The Yolo County District Attorney’s Office on Tuesday released a statement [u]claiming[/u] that former Investigator Rick Gore, has resigned, apologized, and retracted a letter that was leaked to the Vanguard in March of 2008.[/quote] Claiming? That’s not only the wrong word, it is (intentionally) misleading. Rick Gore signed his retraction as a sworn affidavit of the truth. If reporting what actually happened is your intent, you need to replace “claiming” with “announcing.” The statement is not Mr. Reisig’s, it is Mr. Gore’s. [quote]Mr. Gore, who was the chief investigator for the gang injunction in West Sacramento, accused Mr. Reisig of failure to disclosure potentially exculpatory evidence, forcing false signatures in support of the West Sacramento Gang Injunction, attempts to mislead the court by noticing a single individual on the Gang Injunction, and improper invasion of privacy into District Attorney Candidate Pat Lenzi’s desk in the District Attorney’s office.
[/quote]Mr. Gore has subsequently said, with this retraction, that his earlier charges were falsehoods. It’s possible he is lying now. However, one way or the other, it is impossible not to judge Mr. Gore as a liar in this case.
These are Mr. Gore’s exact words: [i]”1. I was never ordered by DA Jeff Reisig to sign an untrue affidavit in support of a gang injunction. This allegation was unfounded and I retract it.”[/i]
He also says he was lying about Bruce Naliboff:
[i]”2. My allegation that Lt. Bruce Naliboff searched DDA Lenzi’s locked desk during the 2006 election period was unfounded and I retract it. I had no direct knowledge of why Lt. Naliboff was present in Ms. Lenzi’s office when I saw him there, whether or not he was looking for a file in the course of his duties, or whether or not Ms. Lenzi’s desk was locked at the time.”[/i]
He lied about Greg Marusin, as well:
[i]”3. My allegation that DA Reisig transferred Greg Marusin to the Welfare Fraud unit because Marusin refused to support him in the election was unfounded and I retract it.”[/i]
He lied about concealing evidence. He says his charge was “completely unfounded”:
[i]”4. My allegation that DA Reisig tried to hid or conceal evidence during a murder trial was completely unfounded, and I retract it.”[/i]
Equally, his charge about discovery was untrue:
[i]”5. My allegation that DA Reisig refused to discover evidence during the same trial until I pushed him to do so, and until ordered to do so by former DA Henderson, is completely unfounded, and I retract it.”[/i]
David Greenwald’s [i]bête noire[/i], The Broderick Boys’ injunction, was the subject of another of Mr. Gore’s lies, according to Mr. Gore:
[i]”6. My allegation that DA Reisig ‘misled’ the appeals court in litigation over the Broderick Boys gang injunction is unfounded, and I retract it.”[/i]
[b]Note: There appears to be no No. 7 among his falsehoods.”[/b]
Gore now says he lied twice about deputy DA Hamilton, as well:
[i]”8. My allegation that DDA Hamilton settled a case on unfavorable terms to the People because DA Reisig did not want it discovered that Deputy DAs were involved in making arrests was completely unfounded, and I retract it.”[/i]
[i]”9. My allegation that DDA Hamilton failed to discover a supplemental arrest report to the defense in the same case is unfounded, and I retract it.”[/i]
Gore retracts his lie about the DA’s “trends”:
[i]”10. My allegation that DA Reisig engaged in a ‘constant trend … of hiding and redirecting the concealment of evidence’ was unfounded, and I retract it.”[/i]
He lied again about Naliboff:
[i]”11. My allegation that DA Reisig dispatched Lt. Naliboff to intervene in Woodland PD investigations at the request of friends was unfounded, and I retract it.”[/i]
In his final retraction, unless it was a typo, Gore says his allegation was “founded,” but he retracts it anyhow:
[i]”12. My allegation that DA Reisig delayed and planned to deny me a pay increase in retaliation for protected activities was founded, and I retract it.”[/i] [quote]How accurate is the letter and retraction or can we simply attribute it to an agreement between an employee and his employer settling a dispute? Notwithstanding the most recent letter, many of these allegations have been at least partially independently corroborated by work done by the Vanguard in conjunction with an investigation into the gang injunction, in court records, and in the newest lawsuit filed by Randy Skaggs.[/quote] I have no idea if what the Vanguard says is true or not. However, it is impossible to read Mr. Gore’s words and find him credible at this point. If one thinks he was truthful formerly and is now lying, he’s still a liar. If one accepts his retractions as true, then obviously he was lying up to this point. My sense is that the Vanguard is in the former camp largely because it fits the Vanguard’s ideological position, opposing Mr. Reisig.
“Rick Gore signed his retraction as a sworn affidavit of the truth.”
According everyone involved this is not an accurate statement. It is not a sworn statement, it was not done under penalty of perjury, and it was not done under any sort of oath.
Nice piece, the letter does not say that it was prepared by gore,it does not say that he lied in his first letter, it does not say his first letter was untrue, it does not say it was written by gore, it was not signed under oath, it does not say it was made freely without incentive, it does not say it was done as part of any agreement, it was not sworn to be true and accurate. In fact it looks like a form letter with a signature and date. I think what the letter does not say speaks louder than what it says. Why didn’t Reisig say this letter was obtained in a settlement/agreement, why was this fact not mentioned in Reisig’s press release, why isn’t gore or his attorney talking, why isn’t the county releasing a press release stating no deal was cut and gore got no money….lots of whys, but you seem to want to live and die by this letter. Do you have something vested in this?
Wonder why this is. Why has Gregg M not done a press release saying he was not reassigned as Gore said? Has anyone talked to him? I have never seen anything from him. I work in the DA office and he is the only Lt. that gets to take him county car home out of county, makes you wonder why?
In the middle of the report from the independent investigation, there is a little bit of comedy:
Stated Complaint: Jeff Reisig was not supportive of the 3@50 retirement plan.
Finding: It is not substantiated that Jeff Reisig was not supportive of the 3%@50 retirement plan.
What a relief. If Reisig didn’t support 3@50, that would be really heartless!
I’m also not sure he has any say over that matter.
BTW, be careful using the “at” symbol, the software thinks it’s an email address and sometimes goes bonkers.
The democrat is protecting Reisig again. It appears they have pulled his press release since it now shows that he tried to cover up the deal and pass the letter off as clearing him. Now that the horse is out of the barn, Reisig’s narrow and misleading press release (along with the 150 mostly neg comments on Reisig) is now removed from the Democrat site.
I hope you have a copy of Reisig Press release where he tried to pull a fast one on the people of the county?
I smell a rat and some collusion between Reisig and the Democrat…
This means he was not fired – which is what Reisig most likely tried to do. Remember- it was quite public knowledge that Gore was placed on “administrative leave” pending an investigation and never went back in the office to work. That attempt to fire him perpetrated by the County and DA did not stick it would seem. My guess – Gore must have gotten something out of the deal. This smacks of “settlement” to me. I would quit too if they tried to fire me and it did not stick and got my job back after a publicly disclosed “private personnel matter” and they offered me money to not come back. I hope he made out!
I agree ,take the money and run with it. Nice try jeff, you’ll still need to get yourself out office ,the people still dont trust you and wont ever,just leave woodland we dont want you here,you need to relocate your klan to the southern states.
Read this carefully. Mr. Gore did not say his letter was untrue or not accurate, it said “unfounded”. That means he could prove it. This is double talk. Mr. Gore agreed to take a polygraph on his first letter? Did not see this on the new letter. Funny how Mr. Gore just won his job back and now, almost two years later, after hearings, suddenly this letter appears and Mr. Gore resigns. How much money did the tax payers pay for this letter?
What about all the other stuff leveled at the DA?
Just because Gore decided he didn’t want to deal with it does not wipe away all the tyranny and bad management, possible prosecutorial misconduct, etc. going on in the DA’s office under the leadership of Mr. Reisig. Me thinks Mr. Reisig must be voted out of office for the good of Yolo County and the integrity of the Office of the District Attorney of Yolo County. The public must have confidence that the DA’s office is above board and fair when it comes to accusing people and sending them off to prison. In my mind, Reisig remains an egomaniac in spite of whether or not Gore retracted what was probably a legitimate and well deserved accusation against Reisig.
Gore does his letter is fired, fights for his job, wins his job back and then does this letter and does not say the letter was false or that he lied but uses words like “unfounded” and “retract”, sounds like lawyer language. Why did Mr. Gore get his job back? Why did Mr. Gore win his job and then resign? Was he paid anything not to come back to work? Did the tax payers pay for this letter?
Reisig still smells and there is a lot of scandal that always seem to surround him.
This is an example of the power Reisig has. He gets to fire career civil servants, they win their job back and then he does so much backdoor and unethical stuff that people get tired of fighting him and just take a pay-off and leave. Why didn’t this article say why Mr. Gore resigned or why he did the retraction? Was this voluntary or part of a deal?
Reisig thinks people are too unintelligent to figure this out. I wish the Democrat would ask some questions and not just print Reisig’s propaganda.
How many settlements have been given for Reisig? The county has to know these numbers and figures, why can’t they report them to the public? I know of at least three and how many more were there. Tax payers will never know since the county makes or gets confidentiality agreements.
I think the Board of Supervisors know but they are not talking. Maybe they are scared of Reisig too.
[quote]It is not a sworn statement, it was not done under penalty of perjury, and it was not done under any sort of oath.[/quote] Rick Gore’s signature is on the statement. Are you suggesting that someone was holding a gun to his head (figuratively or otherwise) when he signed his statement of retractions? That rings totally false.
Also, this idea that Gore has retracted his earlier claims in order to further his career pursuits — [i]”He probably agreed to a ‘settlement’ which smears him instead of the DA’s office in order to preserve his eligibility for his pension, his ability [u]to return to the workforce[/u] without letters of poor performance getting in his way, and to get this behind him”[/i] — is even harder to swallow. It seems plain to me that his retraction is a declaration that Gore lied about his boss in a very serious and damaging way. (Either that or his retraction, which he signed his name to, itself is a lie.) Does branding himself a liar make him more employable?
I don’t know what motivated Gore in the first place to make his charges; I don’t know what motivated Gore to retract them and sign his name to that retraction. However, on the face of it, it appears that yes, “Reisig was playing hardball,” that he threatened to sue Mr. Gore for libel (or slander) and that Mr. Gore, regardless of what he really believes, felt he was going to lose that lawsuit and be ruined by it. So he cut his losses and now says his earlier statements were uniformly unfounded or untrue. None of this puts Mr. Gore in a good light. However, his signed retraction (unless you are predisposed to endlessly find fault with Jeff Reisig) makes the DA and the other people Gore lied about look quite good in comparison. They vehemently denied his charges; and now he is vehemently retracting them.
Where is the so called “independent legal investigation”. Who asked for it, who conducted it, and where is it published?
Rick Gore is a stand up guy and will testify truthfully in any hearing for Mr. Skaggs or any hearing. I have talked to them both and they know the truth, know what is going on and will testify truthfully in any court. Don’t believe everything you read, especially if comes from Mr. Reisig.
How can a guy that was fired by Reisig over a year ago suddenly resign? Sounds like Reisig could not fire him so he made it worth his while to resign.
People are right when they say Gore won. He got a settlement and got the hell out of Yolo County. Do you blame him? He didn’t abandon Skaggs; he is setting it up for him to win, too.
Go get Reisig, guys!!!! I’m proud of you!!!
Gore’s letter and the results of the independent investigation is published on the Daily Democrat website (pdf).
Go to http://www.dailydemocrat.com/ci_13251898