On Thursday night, District Attorney Jeff Reisig, after first standing by his man, pulled his endorsement of his own employee.
He sent an email to the Davis Enterprise stating: “Having considered all the facts and circumstances surrounding judicial candidate Clint Parish’s attack mail piece, including recent explanations from his campaign, I have decided to retract my endorsement of his candidacy.”
Clearly, Mr. Reisig sees the handwriting on the wall here, after the Sacramento Bee issued forth a scathing editorial arguing “Parish shows he’s unfit to be a judge.”
“On Wednesday, Parish continued to defend his lowdown hit piece, although he did back off, somewhat, from an allegation that as a private attorney, Maguire somehow was involved in a case involving a bribe,” the Bee writes. “Lamely, Parish told The Bee that the connection wasn’t as close as he had been led to believe. The allegation is, in fact, false. Parish should have said so.”
The Bee added, “Parish didn’t apologize for making the mistake. Instead, he sought to shift blame, telling The Bee that the campaign worker who gave him the information no longer works for the campaign. He didn’t identify the individual.”
The Bee continued: “California’s judiciary has been insulated from the sort of partisan politics that afflicts many other states. For the most part, California’s trial and appellate courts are populated with professionals who follow the law and dispense justice fairly.
“Parish could have run on his own merits and explained why he is qualified to serve as a Superior Court judge. Instead, he stooped to cheap and unfounded partisan assaults on his well-qualified opponent.”
The Bee‘s scrutiny landed on Mr. Parish’s boss Jeff Reisig, too, as they wrote: “District Attorney Jeff Reisig criticized the mailer but unfortunately stuck by his endorsement of Parish. By continuing to lend his support to Parish, Reisig displays a lack of insight into how such a mailer can politicize the judiciary. Yolo County voters should consider Reisig’s embrace of Parish if Reisig appears on the ballot again.”
The Bee admonishment probably was enough to make Jeff Reisig realize that this was not worth the battle. There was no chance that Mr. Parish was going to survive this, and his chances of winning were relatively bleak.
If things go true to form, we would not be surprised to see Mr. Parish seeking other employment before the end of this calendar year. Back in 2008, James Walker challenged Judge Fall and lost 70-30. Now Mr. Walker works as a defense attorney in Sacramento.
The truth is that Mr. Parish is not an anomaly within Jeff Reisig’s organization and Mr. Reisig cannot merely run from it, as his hands are all over it.
In fact, Mr. Reisig should not be surprised at all that Mr. Parish would get caught making false accusations of his opponent in this race.
The Vanguard learned from a former employee at the District Attorney’s office that Mr. Parish was removed from his position as Major Narcotic Vendor Prosecutor (MNVP) for falsifying reports.
And yet Mr. Reisig had apparently no initial problem with supporting Mr. Parish for Judge.
The Vanguard learned and confirmed from former employees at the District Attorney’s office, who asked that their names not be disclosed, that Mr. Reisig became angry at Judge Maguire when he ruled against Mr. Reisig’s office’s attempts to deny former employee Rick Gore his retired peace officer card.
Judge Maguire, who recognized the case, was unable to comment, due to it being an ongoing matter that may return to him after appeal.
Rick Gore, in a story that the Vanguard broke back in 2008, resigned angrily from the DA’s office with a strongly worded letter accusing the DA of a number of improprieties.
The real question is, why Clinton Parish?
Mr. Parish is a strong advocate for victims’ rights. Nadine Pinkerton wrote a strong letter of support. “We met at a difficult time, when my family was the victim of a crime that occurred nearly five years ago. Since he was the prosecutor for this case, I came to know him well and can attest to his great personal integrity, intelligence, and sense of fairness: qualities essential for a judge.”
The problem is that Mr. Parish, while a strong advocate for victim’s rights, does not have a strong sense of fairness. He’s an advocate. A judge needs to be dispassionate and look at both sides and render a fair judgment within the law.
What Ms. Pinkerton does not mention is that while Mr. Parish in her case rightly went after the daughter, who drove the car and failed to take responsibility for the accident, he also pursued the father who had nothing to do with the accident as an aider and abettor. The problem is the facts just were not there to support those charges, and twice the jury failed to convict, and eventually Mr. Parish had to drop the charges.
In 2010, he launched forward one of the most infamous cases that we have been involved in, in which he tried to get a life conviction for a man accused of stealing shredded cheese.
Robert Ferguson, a career criminal, faced life in prison for stealing a $3.99 package of cheese – a case that drew national attention.
Mr. Parish played a crucial role in arguing for life in prison.
He argued that, given Mr. Ferguson’s long history of being in prison for a total of 22 years, he has not learned from his mistakes.
Mr. Parish told the court, “The people gave him another shot, yet here we are again… Simply put, this defendant is a career criminal.”
Mr. Parish pursued the matter, even in face of strong opposition from both the probation department and doctors, who had concluded that Mr. Ferguson was bipolar and had trouble controlling impulses to steal during manic phases.
While Mr. Ferguson had a long criminal history, many of his convictions were in the distant past, and the nature of his crimes were not violent in any way. No weapons or injuries were involved.
His only violent encounter was when he threw a coke bottle at his brother and received a misdemeanor assault conviction for it.
Eventually, Judge Warriner accepted the probation department’s recommendation to disregard the prior strikes, and he sentenced Mr. Ferguson to the longest term for petty theft with priors.
As a result, he received 7 years and 8 months in prison, for the crime of stealing a package of cheese.
Mr. Parish told the Enterprise yesterday, “While I am not a great politician, I am a very good lawyer with significant criminal law experience and will make a very good judge.”
The fact is, most of the people who have had to work with him over the years see him in a very different light. They see him as arrogant and volatile. Characteristics that came out this week in the mailer, the mailer that he apparently failed to vet.
The irony is that as a Deputy DA, that is his job – to vet accusations and determine their accuracy. Moreover, as a judge, he must weigh competing positions and apply the law to them fairly and equitably.
If he cannot be trusted to vet his own campaign material, how can he be trusted to perform his duties as Deputy District Attorney, let alone a judge?
And as the Bee put it yesterday, what does that say about District Attorney Jeff Reisig, who knew of Mr. Parish’s propensity to falsify reports even before he falsified these attacks against Judge Maguire?
—David M. Greenwald reporting
The Bee spanked Reisig hard.
The use of unnamed former employees and unverified stories regarding the District Attorney sound strikingly familiar. These tactics are what Parish employed in his now widely-criticized publication. The “guilt by association” is also well evidenced, again.
“The problem is that Mr. Parish while a strong advocate for victim’s rights, does not have a strong sense of fairness. He’s an advocate. A judge needs to be dispassionate and look at both sides and render a fair judgment within the law.”
This comment is so very true. This site is also heavily populated with persons who are advocates. Nothing wrong with that, until they also assign themselves as judge. Advocates do not feel the need for the same degree of fairness a judge needs, including validating allegations. That is what needs to be remembered in the ongoing attacks of Jeff Reisig.
Phil: I don’t believe the stories to be unverified. I got corroboration for both claims involving unnamed former employees. More importantly that is not what Clinton Parish did.
I know because Kirby Wells before he ceased communications walked me through his thinking and how he found it. They looked stuff up on the internet, drew vague accounts together and threw Mr. Maguire onto charges without figuring out if he was actually involved.
In the case of the Denver law firm, the mere fact that Mr. Maguire worked there 15 years ago doesn’t mean anything when it is a huge firm. The fact that the firm was exonerated was either never pursued or ignored entirely.
One must feel sorrow for the loss of the Santos family, but Mr. Maguire was not even there when that decision was made.
That is very different from reporting on a well-known fact that Mr. Parish was removed from MNVP. It is also very different from the fact that Mr. Reisig was angry at Judge Maguire for his ruling on the Gore matter. It not take much work to find several sources, including a current source in the current DA’s to corroborate that.
“…His Fingerprints Are All Over This One”
“?.Mr. Reisig cannot merely run from it, as his hands are all over it.”
And, yet you’ve offered not a single claim of anything that Reisig has done to tie him into this mailer at all (let alone being “all over this one”). I know you disapprove of Reisig, but “commentary” should at least try to provide some evidence that there’s a basis for the commentary’s major assertion. Instead, you’ve rehashed all of the growing number of stories about why (justifiably) we shouldn’t vote for Parish.
If Reisig is at all complicit in this episode–or even somehow deeply involved, as you contend–do you have the evidence to back up the “hands all over it” statement? Let’s get a look at those fingerprints.
“The problem is that Mr. Parish while a strong advocate for victim’s rights, does not have a strong sense of fairness.”
Thereby, putting him in some interesting company.
*punt*
Phil Coleman
“This comment is so very true. This site is also heavily populated with persons who are advocates. Nothing wrong with that, until they also assign themselves as judge. Advocates do not feel the need for the same degree of fairness a judge needs, including validating allegations. That is what needs to be remembered in the ongoing attacks of Jeff Reisig.”
I agree in general with everything that you have said. However, in this case, I think one has to look no further than Jeff Reisig’s own very public actions to reach a conclusiont. The fact that he initially continued his support for Mr.Parish in spite of the obvious very dirty tone of this campaign flier and the apparent lack of judgement and sense of fairness of anyone who would approve it , to me speaks very clearly about his own lack of judgement.
J’S: fingerprints weren’t intended to suggest his involvement in the mailer but I can see why you came to that belief. The point was that he knew or should have known this was a risk and that he backed Parish knowingly
David – do you really believe for one minute that Reisig did not review and approve of that mailer before it went out? NOTHING happens in the DA’s office without Reisig’s approval, and that mailer is right out of his playbook. Maguire ruled against him in the matter of Rick Gore’s retired peace officer’s card, where Reisig was continuing his vendetta against a good man who had dared call into question Reisig’s ethics (or lack thereof). This whole campaign was to send a message.
Time for Reisig to can clinton parish, who has completely destroyed any semblance of credibility that the DA’s office had in the unknowing public’s eye. Reisig, what’s it going to take for you to exercise good judgment? You only pulled your endorsement after the media flamed you. By clinton parish’s own admission, he is still refusing to apologize!!!
“David – do you really believe for one minute that Reisig did not review and approve of that mailer before it went out? “
I don’t doubt it, I just don’t have any evidence to prove it.
David, Good coverage on this sleazy politician and wannabe judge.
I mentioned it when you first wrote about this issue and I will mention it again: This appears to be DA Jeff Reisig’s MO. He sent out a mailer full of lies about his opponent for DA when he first ran. I remember reading that his opponent had a serious accident, went through physical therapy, and recovered while experiencing some memory challenges while going through therapy. Then wannabe DA Jeff Reisig sent out a sleazy mail piece saying that his opponent was unfit to be DA because of prior memory loss, however, he worded it in such a nasty and demeaning way.
I think if Mr. Parish did not get such negative backlash from his lies then DA Reisig would still be supporting him.
This bully style of politics and the people who send these hit pieces out need to go. Mr. Reisig and Mr. Parish this includes you.
Anne
Perhaps this dirty little incident will prove enough for someone qualified and ethical to challenge Mr. Reisig in the future.
One can always hope.
[quote]The Vanguard learned from a former employee at the District Attorney’s office that Mr. Parish was removed from his position as Major Narcotic Vendor Prosecutor (MNVP) for falsifying reports.
And yet Mr. Reisig had apparently no initial problem with supporting Mr. Parish for Judge.
The Vanguard learned and confirmed from former employees at the District Attorney’s office, who asked that their names not be disclosed, that Mr. Reisig became angry at Judge Maguire when he ruled against Mr. Reisig’s office’s attempts to deny former employee Rick Gore his retired peace officer card.[/quote]
Who are these “former employees”? How credible are they? As I said before, the Vanguard itself may have serious credibility problems when it cites “unnamed sources”, as is evidenced by reader comments and its own admissions, to wit:
[quote]Phil Coleman
05/18/12 – 07:40 AM
…
The use of unnamed former employees and unverified stories regarding the District Attorney sound strikingly familiar. These tactics are what Parish employed in his now widely-criticized publication. The “guilt by association” is also well evidenced, again. [/quote]
[quote]”…His Fingerprints Are All Over This One”
“?.Mr. Reisig cannot merely run from it, as his hands are all over it.”
And, yet you’ve offered not a single claim of anything that Reisig has done to tie him into this mailer at all (let alone being “all over this one”). I know you disapprove of Reisig, but “commentary” should at least try to provide some evidence that there’s a basis for the commentary’s major assertion. Instead, you’ve rehashed all of the growing number of stories about why (justifiably) we shouldn’t vote for Parish.
If Reisig is at all complicit in this episode–or even somehow deeply involved, as you contend–do you have the evidence to back up the “hands all over it” statement? Let’s get a look at those fingerprints. [/quote]
[quote]David M. Greenwald
05/18/12 – 08:44 AM
…
“David – do you really believe for one minute that Reisig did not review and approve of that mailer before it went out? ”
I don’t doubt it, I just don’t have any evidence to prove it.[/quote]
[quote]I agree in general with everything that you have said. However, in this case, I think one has to look no further than Jeff Reisig’s own very public actions to reach a conclusiont. The fact that he initially continued his support for Mr.Parish in spite of the obvious very dirty tone of this campaign flier and the apparent lack of judgement and sense of fairness of anyone who would approve it , to me speaks very clearly about his own lack of judgement.[/quote]
Or it speaks to a politician/public servant who is reluctant to admit he made a mistake in supporting someone from his own office – tricky position to be in…
I’ve seen district attorneys’ offices in several counties in several circumstances over a time-frame of 40 years. It being an elective office, politics is a guiding feature in every one of them. Dissection within the ranks is commonplace. Prosecutors, after all, are combative by their very nature and job description. They all revel in a good verbal fight, in or out of a courtroom.
Conflict takes on political overtones often in a DA’s Office. Deputy DA’s will leave an office for political reasons, professional reasons, and personal reasons. They may leave on their own volition, or be asked to leave. They get mad at judges and judges get mad at them. But they share a drink later at a county bar association function.
District Attorney offices are characterized more for their turnover than for their personnel stability. The judgment and opinion of an ex-employee, whose identify is concealed, must always be regarded with suspicion and distrust until independent corroboration can be established.
Why is it that such unidentified sources are so often presumed to be the souls of virtue, and free of any judgment bias, unlike the rest of the world’s population? Could it be it’s because we want to believe what is said, thus revealing and confirming our own prejudices?
It’s OK to fault Reisig for his prosecution priorities, funding priorities, or personnel assignments. After all, it’s so easy to do another guy’s job when you have no responsibility or accountability, and no budget or legal constraints. The ease is enhanced by being anonymous yourself and possessing a vast reservoir of blissful ignorance on the day-to-day administering of a public office.
Elaine
I appreciate your empathy for Reisig’s position. However, I cannot condone continuing to support Parish in the face of such blatant and egregious dirty dealings.
Medwoman,
Good luck finding someone who will put himself up against Reisig and his hitmen. As I pointed out in a post yesterday, Reisig has done an excellent job of insulating himself from direct criticism.
One way that he has insulated himself has been to have others act in his stead, through his Chief Deputy DA’s or lower level cronies like Jim Walker or clinton parish. Unhappy with decisions by both Judge Fall and Judge Maguire, Reisig has one of his inner circle run a negative campaign against the judge, filled with innuendo, fear-mongering, and outright lies. Reisig then gets to sit back and disclaim any culpability, harumphing publicly that he doesn’t condone negative politics. The message is clear – don’t mess with me or I will come after you.
Another way that he has shielded himself has been to attempt to destroy the reputations and careers of those who whom he sees as a threat, those who refused to give their complete and unquestioned loyalty or who dared to question his ethics, such as the numerous DDAs and criminal investigators that he’s run out of the office since being elected. One example is Rick Gore, one of the finest law enforcement officers to have served in Yolo County. When Rick brought to light Reisig’s attempts to hide exculpatory evidence in the Holloween Homiced trial, evidence that Reisig was ethically requried to hand over to the defnse and which District Attorney Dave Henderson had ordered him to turn over (which Reisig disobeyed), Reisig ran him out of the office. Years later, Reisig continues his vendetta against Rick.
We can only hope that a viable candidate will step forward, and that, as the Bee put it, the voters in our county will”consider Reisig’s embrace of [p]arish if Reisig appears on the ballot again.”
It’s satisfying to see that clinton parish is through as a candidate (and probably a DA), but he served his purpose.
what about those guiding principles again? Accuracy, accountability, transparancy?
yet the vanguard’s source of charges against reisig is accusations from unnamed former employees?
what was it that the vanguard did in criticizing the mailer against sue greenwald? get upset because those issuing the charges against her tried to hide behind the cloak of anonymity?
if your going to make a charge the da has fingerprints on a mailer, you’re going to have to back it up.
91 Octane – anything critical of Reisig that comes from an unnamed former employee has to be read and considered with some reservation. I think everyone accepts that. The Reisig haters will treat it as gospel, the Reisig lovers will disregard it as the ramblings of the DA’s political enemies (and he’s made quite a few), and the rest of us in the middle will read it and take it in for what it is worth. There is, however, a difference between quoting unnamed sources in a news story (a tradition that goes back a long ways in the print media), and quoting unnamed sources in a political hit piece that includes outright lies.
91 Octane
No comment about Reisig’s initial continued support of Parish even after he was aware of the contents of the mailer ?
“The problem is that Mr. Parish, while a strong advocate for victim’s rights, does not have a strong sense of fairness. He’s an advocate. A judge needs to be dispassionate and look at both sides and render a fair judgment within the law.”
Voting for Dan Mcguire is a no brainer but the notion that because someone working as a prosecutor cannot transition to impartiality as a judge is absurd. It happens all the time. I have no doubt that the only reason Parish would not be able to make that change is the low probability that he will ever be appointed judge.
“There is, however, a difference between quoting unnamed sources in a news story (a tradition that goes back a long ways in the print media), and quoting unnamed sources in a political hit piece that includes outright lies.”
two wrongs don’t make a right. nor do they excuse long time unethical journalistic practices. If you make accusations, back them up or shut up.
medwoman: “No comment about Reisig’s initial continued support of Parish even after he was aware of the contents of the mailer?”
no comment because that doesn’t link reisig to the mailer. And if everyone dropped their support of a politician immediately when they find something wrong, washington DC would be a ghost town.
I mean John Kerry still got votes after making accusations at unnamed veterans after returning from vietnam.
Mr. Toad – you are correct that the notion that because someone working as a prosecutor cannot transition to impartiality as a judge is absurd. However, I couldn’t disagree more with your statement that “the only reason Parish would not be able to make that change is the low probability that he will ever be appointed judge.” The real reasons why clinton parish would never be able to make the transition to imparitality is his complete lack of judicial temperment. His experience as an advocate aside, he is wholly lacking in all traits that are the makings of a good judge: intelligence, honesty, humility, fairness, and honor.
All I can say is this: we should be thankful that he won’t have the oportunity to show everyone just how horrible he would be!
(Oh, wait, he just did…)
[quote]I appreciate your empathy for Reisig’s position. However, I cannot condone continuing to support Parish in the face of such blatant and egregious dirty dealings.[/quote]
Ah, but he didn’t continue supporting Parish…
The dilemma Reisig was faced with is that he supported Parish, someone from his own office. It would be very difficult to withdraw endorsement from one of your own, no? How do you think that is going to look politically? I can understand Reisig’s reluctance to do an about face – the same issue Ed Prieto had to wrestle with. But both did the right thing in the ultimate end, no?
And I agree with Mr. Anderson’s comment on unnamed sources. In the two cites, I was able to independently confirm both claims. There a few are pieces I got that I could not confirm and thus did not report.
[quote]
91 Octane
05/18/12 – 11:21 AM
…
if your going to make a charge the da has fingerprints on a mailer, you’re going to have to back it up.[/quote]
You seem to have ignored the clarification that the fingerprints reference was to Parishs candidacy, as was the endorsement, not the mailer
“Ah, but he didn’t continue supporting Parish…”
She’s referencing the two day delay between the first comment and the pulled endorsement
“Ah, but he didn’t continue supporting Parish…”
Reisig didn’t drop his support for his cronie until after he was flamed by the Sacramento Bee and Davis Enterprise. Most folks expect criticism of Reisig and his cronies (almost all deserved) from the Davis Vanguard, but when the “mainstream media” begin questioning his political viability (see the quote from yesterday’s Bee regarding Reisg’s support of parish), everyone sits up and takes note. (NO offense, David.)
The Bee and Enterprise offered direct and blunt citicism of Reisig’s continued support, and it was only when it became clear that clinton parish had become a severe political liability that Reisig withdrew his endorsement. Compare that to Ed Prieto’s reaction – an immediate condemnation and swift withdraw of his support, without foreknowledge of how it would play out. Ed showed character: Reisig didn’t.
This is better than any soap opera I have ever seen. I wonder who else will jump? Parish has no integrity, fairness or common sense about him especially in the court room.
[quote]erm: “Ah, but he didn’t continue supporting Parish…”
dmg: She’s referencing the two day delay between the first comment and the pulled endorsement[/quote]
Two days in an entire campaign isn’t very long…
E. Roberts Musser said: “Two days in an entire campaign isn’t very long…”
Well, it was just long enough for a political animal like Reisig to sense that the winds of public opinion had shifted against him and that they weren’t coming back. I wouldn’t exactly call his performance a profile in political courage – just the opposite, actually.
Kudos to Prieto.
Elaine,
How long do you think I should wait to stop supporting my staff if I know that one of the doctor’s under my supervision is unethically treating patient’s ( say for example performing contraindicated surgeries, or molesting them)? Two more days in the office if politically expedient ? I doubt it. From my point of view, once you are aware of the transgression is the time to do the right thing. And yes, I do think in this case “the right thing” was clear. Prieto had no difficulty seeing it.
i have an idea for the perfect Yolo Fundraiser, Clinton Parish vs Jon Li in a mud wrestling exposition. We could possibly raise enough money to fund the schools.
A judge is supposed to officiate a proceeding and defer to the proper application of the legal process. They are not to participate in the proceeding or advocate their own preferences. A judge is supposed to remain independent and impartial. That is the basis of judicial temperament. Yolo’s judges have failed on all counts. They have chosen sides in this election and advocated their preference, rather than defer to the electoral process. They think they know better than the people and better than the process, arrogance!. That is the antithesis of proper judicial temperament.
I read the above comment submitted by clinton parish….er, I mean, “anonymous pundit,” and I am struck by one thought: they must have been hiding under a rock this last week.
In brief counterpoint, the judges in Yolo COunty did their job. They recognized clinton parish for what he was, a Trojan horse of a candidate that would have brought the same shame and dishonor to the bench that clinton parish brought to the DAs office. The only arrogance we’ve seen in this campaign is from clinton parish and his supporters.
As the incumbent, Mr. Maguire should have nothing to fear. So, why is he raising such a fuss? Because he is a political animal, and that’s the driving force in his actions on and off the bench. A governor hired him, and appointed him as a judge. He struck a deal to secure the political support of the other judges, and it appears he has hired Jim Burchill (of all people) to run his campaign. He has campaign signs illegally posted all around the County, yet his supporters insist he is ethical. One of them is so dogmatic he refuses to properly capitalize Mr. Parish’s name. I think Mr. Maguire “protests too much.”
Mr. Anderson, I’m no supporter of Clinton Parish, and I don’t respect anyone who would continue the corrupt practices of the District Attorney’s office. Those practices would be a worthwhile discussion, and one to which Mr. Parish and Mr. Reisig should answer. However, I would put little stock in information offered by someone who won’t properly capitalize another person’s name.
Anonymous Pundit,
When endorsing a particular candidate for judge, the Yolo judges are not acting as judges in a courtroom, so forget the fiction that they should remain impartial robots in all contexts of their lives. They walk their dogs, they go grocery shopping and they vote, just like us. In the context of their endorsements, they are, like the rest of us in this whole affair, political actors engaging in political speech. Since most of us don’t know what judges really do in their jobs apart from what we might see on television, it is actually informative to me as a voter to know what the sitting judges think are the necessary qualities of a good judge. If our DA and our public defender and our dog catcher can tell us who would make a good judge, I see no good reason why our actual judges should not be able to do the same.
As someone before me noted, this is completely within the rules of ethics for judges. If you don’t like the rules of ethics, I’m pretty sure your argument is with the legislature or maybe the grand poobah council of judges or whoever makes up the rules of ethics. It is not with our 10 or 11 sitting Yolo judges.
I might add that the events of the last 4 days have shown in abundance that the Yolo judges were pretty wise in their endorsement. Are you somehow suggesting that the sitting judges have unjustly swung the vote to the less qualified, less deserving candidate? As we sit here today, that is beyond laughable.
Ron Lee
Davis
Anonymous Pundit,
You won’t give your own name and yet you question the credibility of someone on the grounds that they fail to [i]capitalize[/i] Clinton Parish?
To add irony on top of irony, we are talking about a 40-something candidate who by all accounts changed his name from Clinton to Clint just before announcing his candidacy. Without knowing more, the only conclusion I can draw is that he was trying to evoke the image of Dirty Harry himself.
Image isn’t everything. Perhaps you are focusing on the wrong things in this election.
Ron Lee (my real name)
Anonymous Pundit
An alternative explanation to “fear” might be that he simply objects to having a smear campaign run against him. I doubt that many would let these kinds of accusations go unanswered.
Ron,
Maybe clinton parish…oh crud, there I go again…I mean “Anonymous Pundit” just doesn’t know exactly WHAT to focus on. You make it sound like you believe that clinton parish and Reisig are corrupt, and that we should talk about it, but that you won’t “put stock” in my opinions because I won’t capitalize clinton parish’s name?
I recall once a couple of years ago in court, a court reporter asked clinton if his name was “clint.” He replied rudely: “What? Are you stupid? Can’t you read? It’s clinton! C-L-I-N-T-O-N!” That was a typical interaction with those he considered lesser than him.
No, Anonymous Pundit, I’m not dogmatic. I just have very little regard for someone such as clinton parish who is wholly lacking in honor, honesty, and virtue.
Anonymous Pundit said: “As the incumbent, Mr. Maguire should have nothing to fear. So, why is he raising such a fuss? Because he is a political animal, and that’s the driving force in his actions on and off the bench. A governor hired him, and appointed him as a judge. He struck a deal to secure the political support of the other judges, and it appears he has hired Jim Burchill (of all people) to run his campaign. He has campaign signs illegally posted all around the County, yet his supporters insist he is ethical. One of them is so dogmatic he refuses to properly capitalize Mr. Parish’s name. I think Mr. Maguire “protests too much.”.”
Anonymous Pundit,
Is this a game? Guess the identity of Anonymous Pundit? OK, I’ll play.
Let’s see, you call Maguire a “political animal” yet Maguire has never sought elected office and is only campaigning here because Parish is challenging him. He didn’t know the Governor before being offered the chance to serve in his administration and he had always been in private practice before that. So the term “political animal” as applied to Maguire is inaccurate and shows a reckless disregard for the truth.
Then, you re-hash the Jim Burchill thing yet Maguire has gone on record as saying he doesn’t even know Burchill. This was on a Davis Vanguard blog discussion a day or two ago that you took part of, so you knew that to be the case. You were spreading deliberate and calculated falsehoods.
Then there is the matter of signgate. Are you referring to the improperly placed signs that Maguire promptly removed and public apologized for? Let me repeat that: Publicly Apologized For? Apology. Sorry. Do those words have any meaning to you?
So let’s recap. Reckless disregard for the truth. Deliberate, calculated falsehoods. Don’t know the words “apologize” or “sorry”. Don’t tell me, it will come to me. I know that manner of speech from somewhere! Let me think about it some more. Can you give me a hint?
(pssst – Ron – “Anonymous Pundit” is really clinton parish! Don’t tell anyone…)
My focus is on the integrity of the legal system (not siding with a particular candidate). Does anyone honestly think that a person questioning the integrity of the legal system will fare well before the courts? Yet Mr. Lee, you question the importance of anonymity? That’s laughable. Participants in court are entitled to an impartial proceeding. In their fraternal allegiance to Mr. Maguire, the Yolo judges have damaged the pretense of that impartiality. Let Mr. Maguire and Mr. Parish speak for themselves, that’s the political process. The judges should stay out of it.
If the events of the past four days have clarified the decision for voters, then the political process is working, and the judges did not have to compromise the integrity of the legal system to bring that about. If what you report of Mr. Maguire is true, (taking down the illegally posted signs, apologizing, and not being associated with Mr. Burchill’s antics) kudos to him. That speaks far more to his character and provides a stronger recommendation to office than the persistent attacks on Mr. Parish.
“and it appears he has hired Jim Burchill (of all people) to run his campaign.”
This I can categorically say is not true.
Anonymous Pundit
“In their fraternal allegiance to Mr. Maguire, the Yolo judges have damaged the pretense of that impartiality. Let Mr. Maguire and Mr. Parish speak for themselves, that’s the political process. The judges should stay out of it. “
As someone with no in depth knowledge of the rules ( either actual laws, or just unwritten conventions ) governing the behavior of judges I am not at all challenging your assertion.
I would simply like to know the basis for this statement. Is there some rule that judges should stay out of the political process, or is this just your statement of your preference for how judges should act ?
Judge’s are precluded from political activities [b][u]except[/u][/b]for Judge Elections.
David
How far up the judicial chain does that apply ? it would seem that some of our Supreme Court justices are quite active politically.
I think it applies throughout, the difference is that the higher up you go, the more difficult it is to remove a judge (and that’s probably a good thing).
[quote]ow long do you think I should wait to stop supporting my staff if I know that one of the doctor’s under my supervision is unethically treating patient’s ( say for example performing contraindicated surgeries, or molesting them)? Two more days in the office if politically expedient ? I doubt it. From my point of view, once you are aware of the transgression is the time to do the right thing. And yes, I do think in this case “the right thing” was clear. Prieto had no difficulty seeing it.[/quote]
How busy were you when you neglected to discover the doctor’s lapse? Would you want any time to think about it before you pulled the plug in support of the doctor working under you before rushing to judgment?
Secondly, Clinton Parish was not working for Ed Prieto…
Elaine
We are not talking about something that was speculation or needed more investigation. Reisig said he disapproved of the mailer but was still supporting Parish. To me this would be analogous to me knowing for fact of the doctor’s misconduct ( say by opening the door and catching him im the act ) and then saying I disapprove of his behavior, but still support him. Absolutely unacceptable from my point of view.
With regard to your second point, I feel it is an even greater breech of responsibility to continue supporting the clearly unethical behavior of someone who reports to you . I will give you an example of an actual case that happened a number of years ago.
A resident physician lied during a sign out report saying that he had seen a patient on rounds and she was stable. The facts were that the woman had died during the night. It took all of about ten minutes to confirm that there had been no confusion about which patient was being discussed and that he had just plain lied about not having done his job. To say he had not seen her because he forgot, or because he was late would be totally acceptable. Lying about something of this significance Is a clear breach of ethics which in my opinion disqualified this individual from our program and my withdrawal of support was immediate once the facts were clear. I think the facts here were clear and known to Mr. Reisig.
I’m going to be really sad when this is all over, and by the looks of things that will happen probably sooner than later. It’s too bad clinton parish won’t “soldier on” until election day. We’ve all been given a rare look into what clinton parish is really like, outside of the public face that he wants us all to see: arrogant, dishonest, and dishonorable. The citizens of this county (and surrounding counties!) deserve to see more of what we can expect from clinton parish, especially the unfounded and misleading attack ads filled with lies and innuendo, but alas, all good things must come to an end.
I am glad to see that Jeff Reisig and Sheriff Prieto did the right thing and pulled their endorsement. The fact that Parish made these accusations publicly without checking to see if they were accurate is not only a problem for a judicial candidate, but also for a Deputy District Attorney.
This type of careless investigation and public accusations in the court room by a prosecutor could cost someone to be convicted unjustly. People tend to believe that prosecutors investigate accusations.
I hope that Jeff Reisig uses this example to curtail Parish’s responsibilities as a Deputy District Attorney in the courtroom.
“This type of careless investigation and public accusations in the court room by a prosecutor could cost someone to be convicted unjustly. People tend to believe that prosecutors investigate accusations.
I hope that Jeff Reisig uses this example to curtail Parish’s responsibilities as a Deputy District Attorney in the courtroom.”
The only reason that Reisig will get rid of clinton parish is becasue he is now a political liability. Riesig is smart enough to use others to do his dirty work, and ruthless enough to dump them once they have served their purpose.
[quote]Lying about something of this significance Is a clear breach of ethics which in my opinion disqualified this individual from our program and my withdrawal of support was immediate once the facts were clear. I think the facts here were clear and known to Mr. Reisig. [/quote]
Ah, but when were the facts known to Mr. Reisig? Reisig is a very busy man…
Elaine
Well he clearly knew them at the time he stated that he disapproved of the mailer, but still supported Parish. He was clearly not too bust to make that statement. If he was truly that busy, I don’t believe he should have been taking time to make any judgement or statement about it at all.
Regardless of how busy one maybe, one should have enough judgement to get all the facts before making a statement.