One does not expect to see personal, let alone partisan, attacks in a race for judge. And yet that is precisely what has happened in Yolo County. The chances of Clinton Parish defeating an incumbent with strong support from his own bench and much of the Yolo County Bar were slim to start, but his effort to inject energy and controversy into the race may be backfiring on him.
The first fallout happened on Tuesday morning, when Sheriff Ed Prieto, touted on the flyer as a key support of Clinton Parish, pulled his endorsement.
“I don’t support that kind of campaigning,” Sheriff Prieto told the Davis Enterprise on Tuesday. “You have to run a campaign on your merit and your skills, not by tearing down your opponent. I do not want to be a part of that.”
One of the key charges dealt with the decision by Governor Schwarzenegger to commute the sentence of Esteban Nunez, son of former Speaker Fabian Nunez – a move that angered many and that the former Governor acknowledged was a favor to a friend.
The flier attacks Dan Maguire, who was said to be “part of Arnold’s inner circle, Dan Maguire was part of Arnold’s legal team that made decisions including commuting the sentence of convicted murderer Esteban Nunez…” Later in the flier it said, “Dan Maguire received a political appointment (never elected) and took the bench only three weeks before Arnold’s last-day Commutation of Esteban Nunez’ sentence.”
When the Vanguard inquired about substantiation of this charge, Kirby Wells, campaign communications for Clinton Parish, pointed toward this You Tube video of the Santos Family, the victim’s parents.
The problem is that it appears that Dan Maguire was appointed to the bench of Yolo County on October 18, 2010 while the commutation occurred at the last minute on January 2, 2011.
For his part, Dan Maguire says he had no involvement in the decision to commute Mr. Nunez’s sentence and learned about it on TV.
When we attempted to ask Kirby Wells about this apparent discrepancy, we did not receive a response to our email.
Meanwhile, Mr. Parish, who has not responded to Vanguard requests for an interview, backed off the entire charge when he spoke to the Davis Enterprise, which paraphrased him saying “that the ads don’t claim that Maguire played a part in the reduced sentence.”
“The point is that he worked for the legal team that made that and other bad decisions,” he said. “It really goes to show, you are a product of the offices you work for. Right or wrong, it’s the truth, and people judge me based on what I and my office have done.”
The Enterprise article goes on report that the video in question was taken from an annual fundraising dinner held in Yolo County by two different Republican organizations, and it was an event where both Mr. Parish and Judge Maguire were in attendance.
Reports the Enterprise, “During the Republican Association’s portion of the program, the Santoses were invited to speak and, according to several people who were in the audience, made comments accusing Maguire of engaging in ‘back-room deals’ – and implying a role in the Nuñez case – while he was a member of Schwarzenegger’s legal team.”
Mark Pruner, the Yolo County Republican Central Committee chair, was uncomfortable with the event and is now considering a meeting to pull their endorsement of Mr. Parish.
“It went well beyond what was appropriate for that setting,” said Mr. Pruner, who has since apologized to Judge Maguire for the incident. “There are human explanations for that – these are people feeling a lot of pain – but it was not the right forum.”
Presiding Judge Dave Rosenberg was quick to respond as well, sending a robocall out to many voters “to set the record straight” of what he called, “a nasty political hit piece” which “contains flat out lies and deceptions about a highly respected Judge here in Yolo County, Judge Dan Maguire.”
“These shameful and dirty campaign tactics from Parish don’t belong in a Yolo County judicial campaign,” the former Davis Mayor and County Supervisor said. “We should reject these claims for what they are – Desperate and False.”
He added, “Every Yolo County judge, numerous Law enforcement organizations, crime victims groups, and every major newspaper trust Judge Maguire and you should too.”
“Frankly, I’m saddened to see a hit piece like this in a non-partisan judicial race,” Judge Rosenberg told the Vanguard. “The mailer by Mr. Parish is full of falsehoods and distortions. It doesn’t deal with any issue of relevance to the judicial race.”
He said, “It’s just phlegm aimed at a decent, hard-working and honorable man – Judge Dan Maguire. This is disturbing conduct by someone who wants to be a Judge.”
Judge Maguire’s colleagues jumped to his aid as well. Judge Dave Reed and Judge Sam McAdam noted, “Parish and his supporters have been critical of Judge Maguire for a controversial commuted sentence of a convicted murderer by the governor during the last days of his administration. Judge Maguire had been a deputy in the governor’s legal affairs office.”
They added, “Judge Maguire was a sitting judge in Yolo County when that commutation occurred and had no role or input in the decision. Sadly, Mr. Parish knows this but chooses to disparage a good man nonetheless. This attack is from a candidate who promises to be fair.”
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Kudos to Sheriff Prieto for doing the honorable thing and withdrawing his endorsement. Clinton Parish has shown who he really is – dishonest, untrustworthy, unethical, all qualities more befitting of a snake-oil salesman than a judge.
[quote]”It really goes to show, you are a product of the offices you work for.[/quote]
In Parish’s case, this would seem to be true.
Clinton tries to justify his false allegations that Maguire shares some measure of culpability in decisions that were made by others, saying:
“It really goes to show, you are a product of the offices you work for. Right or wrong, it’s the truth, and people judge me based on what I and my office have done.”
Indeed, clinton parish is a product of the office he works for. In today’s Bee, Reisig reaffirmed his support for clinton parish, while offering that he doesn’t agree with the “negative mail piece.” What? Let me see if I get this straight – clinton parish has shown himself to be unethical, dishonest, and dishonorable, yet Reisig still supports him? Clinton parish launches an attack (characterized by the presiding judge in Yolo county as “phlegm”) against an honorable man, a flier comprised of false innuendo and outright fabrications, which Reisig characterizes as a mere “negative mail piece?” This mailer is right out of Reisig’s playbook, and make no mistake, it would not have gone out without Reisig’s blessing.
Perhaps clinton parish is serving Reisig’s purpose of sending a message to the Yolo Bench, that the judges have to “get with the program” or they will be challenged come election time, criticized publicly, and destroyed politically. Say this for Reisig: he’s loyal to his cronies as long as they serve a purpose. Watch how far he punts clinton parish once the election is over.
I would not vote for anyone supported by Reisig our DA. When are we going to find someone to run against him?
If you know that the DA’s Office is operating in an illegal way, report it to the grand jury.
If the choice is to pick the lesser of two evils to vote for, then better candidates must be encouraged to run. It is sad that the majority of judges are not selected by the voters and when they come up for re-election, no one runs against them, so it becomes a rubber stamp vote of nothing. That is why judges don’t fear the voters.
It was inappropriate and perhaps a violation of judicial rules for a candidate’s boss, also a government employee, to engage in a robocall message.
If you know a judge is acting in an illegal way, report it to the grand jury.
If the choice is to pick the lesser of two evils to vote for, then better candidates must be encouraged to run.
What? Are you suggesting that there is something evil about Judge Maguire? Do you know him? Have you ever spoken to him? Have you met his family? Have you even seen him in court? Even worse, have you bought into the phlegm that clinton parish has been putting out there?
I know both Judge Maguire and clinton parish personally and professionally. Judge Maguire is smart, ethical, and honorable, all traits that his opponent does not possess. Quite simply, Judge Maguire has judicial temperment, clinton parish does not.
In our system, a judge can be appointed to the bench or can run for the position. Before one can be appointed, a prospective judge has to submit an application to the Commission on Judicial Nominees Evaluation, where a thorough background investigation is completed on each applicant, an investigation which includes peer review by those who work with and against the applicant. If one seeks election to the bench, there is no background investigation or peer review, only the smiling face, family photos, and political slogans (like “I’m running for political office to get politics off the bench!”) that the candidate wants us to see.
I think it’s more of a shame that noone has run against Reisig, effectively giving him a rubber-stamp in the last election. That is why Reisig doesn’t fear the voters, and why he feels perfectly comfortable throwing his cronies (like Jim Walker and clinton parish) into the meat grinder of a judical election in order to send a message.
Linnruth, are you suggesting that Judges should “fear the voters” when it comes time to rule in a case, testing whether or not “the voters” will like their decision, rather than applying the law in a fair and ethical manner? Thank goodness the judges in Brown vs. Board of Education didn’t fear the voters……
[quote]”I don’t support that kind of campaigning,” Sheriff Prieto told the Davis Enterprise on Tuesday. “You have to run a campaign on your merit and your skills, not by tearing down your opponent. I do not want to be a part of that.”[/quote]
Well said!
This is just another example of the hazards of selecting our judges using the same process as we use for the other hoodlums we elect to important office. Nothing is beneath candidates when they get desperate during political campaigns, including those running for judgeships.
Time to reconsider appointments to such positions. It doesn’t guarantee perfect judges, but at least we won’t end up with folks who get into the positions by convincing voters the way Mr. Parrish is attempting to.
“If you know that the DA’s Office is operating in an illegal way, report it to the grand jury. “
This is not accurate advice. The DA’s office supervises the Grand Jury, not the other way around. If you believe that the DA’s office is operating in an illegal way, you ought to report it to the Attorney General. That is the appropriate body. That said, I don’t believe that is the issue here.
“It is sad that the majority of judges are not selected by the voters and when they come up for re-election, no one runs against them, so it becomes a rubber stamp vote of nothing. That is why judges don’t fear the voters. “
I honestly don’t want judges to “fear the voters.” I want judges to have the independence to make sound judgments based on the current state of the law.
In fact, I think most people do not know much about judges and therefore it is subjective and largely inappropriate to have voters on judges. That said, we have the system we do.
“It was inappropriate and perhaps a violation of judicial rules for a candidate’s boss, also a government employee, to engage in a robocall message. “
This is untrue. Judges are ordinarily not allowed to engage in the political process. The one exception is judges races. As long as he did not call from the courthouse, which he did not, he is within his rights.
[url]http://www.sacbee.com/2012/05/16/4495043/yolo-candidate-takes-responsibility.html[/url]
The Bee is now reporting that Clinton Parish didn’t check his facts.
[quote]Yolo Superior Court candidate Clint Parish said he did not confirm claims in an attack mailer that alleged his campaign rival Judge Dan Maguire was involved in corporate fraud and bribery while working at a Colorado law firm in the mid-1990s.
“The connection was not as close as I was led to believe. I thought it was fully vetted and it was not,” Parish said Wednesday. “It was my responsibility as a candidate.”
[/quote]
Basically what happened is that Kirby Wells has been spewing this stuff for a few months, but no one was taking it seriously because it was not coming from the candidate’s mouth. If you look at the charges, it’s obvious that they didn’t do the research.
I’m sorry but just because a body that Maguire had been on made a decision two months after he left, doesn’t mean he was involved or should be held accountable for it.
It’s very clear that Arnold himself made the call on Nunez. The charge doesn’t give Maguire the opportunity to have talked them out of a very bad idea or resign in protest. Instead he’s saddled with it.
The rest was very easily explainable by Maguire.
I was very impressed with Dan McGuire’s short speech at the Vanguard Candidate Forum on 5/5. He said he had often been asked what was his agenda?
He said he had no agenda, felt judges should not have an agenda, etc.
That plus his resume, endorsements and family impressed me. We are lucky to have someone of his caliber in Yolo County.
Are you sure about the Grand Jury, David?
When my husband was on it several years ago, my understanding is that they were loosely ‘supervised’-bad word by one of the sitting judges.
If as a candidate clinton parish failed to look closely enough at the information that he sent out in his mailer, you have to wonder how closely he would look at the relevant law and evidence in court cases that could come before him as a judge. “Sorry I sentenced your loved one to death – the caselaw wasn’t on point as my research attorneys led me to believe. I thought the evidence was fully vetted, but I guess not……”
I’m not sure what’s worse, whether he knowingly made this “phlegm” up out of whole cloth, or whether he allowed it to go out through his own negligence. Either way, clinton parish just demonstrated that is he not qualified to be judge; he is not even qualified to be a prosecutor. Both professions require honesty, integrity, intelligence, and accountability, none of which clinton parish has demonstrated through his career in the DA’s office or during this campaign.
Do everyone a favor, clinton parish. DON’T drop out of the race. Keep bumbling forward so we can see more of just what kind of person you really are.
Judge Maguire responds:”I’m pleased Clint Parish has decided to take responsibility for the false attack against me in a recent campaign mail piece. It was the right thing to do. However, he has yet to take responsibility for all the other untrue statements in the mailer.”
“My reputation as a Judge is important to me, and I would like all of the mistruths in the mailer retracted,” he adds
David,the DA has no control over the Grand Jury and does not supervise their activities. Even when the DA presents a proposed indictment to the Grand Jury it is the Grand Jury that is in charge.
In normal practice Grand Juries just follow the lead of the DA but they can investigate what they want and however they want. They can also investigate the DA with some restrictions.
The Grand Jury works with the Court, with a judge picked/assigned by the court that reviews the reports that the Grand Jury writes and can give advice to the Grand Jury.
“It was inappropriate and perhaps a violation of judicial rules for a candidate’s boss, also a government employee, to engage in a robocall message. ”
“This is untrue. Judges are ordinarily not allowed to engage in the political process. The one exception is judges races. As long as he did not call from the courthouse, which he did not, he is within his rights.”
No real good can come from a presiding judge taking sides in judicial elections. Whoever wins will have a relationship with the presiding judge that can’t help but being affected by what happened during the election if the winner has to deal with a PJ who campaigned against him or if he owes the PJ for his strong support. Legal or not, we don’t need Dave Rosenberg telling us how to vote for another judgeship in his court.
“Legal or not, we don’t need Dave Rosenberg telling us how to vote for another judgeship in[i] his [/i]court.”
JustSaying – maybe you are right. But then again, do we need Reisig telling us that we should vote for one of his cronies? Think about what kind of quid-pro-quo Reisig could look forward to if in the EXTREMELY UNLIKELY EVENT that clinton parish duped the voters of Yolo County to think that he would make a good judge and got himself elected to the bench. Frightening. I say plenty of good can come from Rosenburg taking sides as long as it keeps the likes of clinton parish from unseating Judge Maguire.
From Judge Rosenburg’s position, if Judge Maguire is retained he will continue to serve the best interests of the People of Yolo County in a fair, ethical, and honorable fashion. Having clinton parish on the bench would be so offensive (not just to the entire Yolo County bench, but to everyone who really knows clinton parish beyond his campaign face) that I simply can’t blame Rosenburg for speaking out.
Actually, my concern is not about Rosenburg, but about the concept. We know that Reisig is just another politician and we give his endorsement the appropriate consideration (none). On the other hand, we don’t expect our judges to get caught up in in the nastiness of a nasty political campaign.
Anyway, Judge Maguire will do just fine without help from the bench.
JustSaying – I agree with the concept as well. Judges, particularly the presiding judge, should stay out of politics except under the most extreme circumstances. I do know both Judge Maguire and clinton parish, personally and professionally, as does Rosenberg, and as does the rest of the Yolo County bench. I completely understand why, specifically under these circumstances with clinton parish as a candidate, it is necessary for the bench to take a stand.
If there is a problem with the DA’s Office, you are required to first report it to the Grand Jury before requesting the Attorney General review your complaint.
Judges have been disciplined for engaging in questionable campaigning. For the “boss” of a candidate, a government employee, to engage in a robocall message is inappropriate. Period.
Judges have a supervisor, a boss and that is the presiding judge. It is the presiding judge that sets the tone of the court. No need to challenge me on that statement, check it out.
A judge that thinks he is above the law is guilty of misconduct and does several of the following: engaged in conduct of bias and partiality; assumes an adversarial role; involved in ex parte communications; fails to ensure the rights of a victim.
If you have had to dealt with either one of them and found that they are not ethical, you have a right to speak up and tell the whole world about it.