Pitchess Motion Revealing of Charges and Defense in Bank Blocking Case –
Defense for the 11 students and one professor charged with numerous misdemeanors for their alleged role in blocking the US Bank in UC Davis’ Memorial Union in January and February this year filed a Pitchess motion on Friday.
At a brief hearing they scheduled Judge David Reed to hear motions on August 24, 2012.
While the case of bank blocking, which led to the US Bank closing its UC Davis branch, proceeds slowly through the court system, other matters surrounding the November 18 actions on the Quad have yet to resolve themselves.
This week UC Davis Spokeperson Barry Shiller told the Vanguard that the internal investigation is nearing culmination of appeals and reviews. It is unclear to what extent the public will be informed on the outcome of the internal process.
At the same time, the DA has yet to announce whether there will be criminal charges against Lt. John Pike and other police officers involved in the pepper spraying.
A Pitchess motion is a request made by the defense in a criminal access which requests access to information in the personnel file of an arresting police officer.
Pitchess refers to a Supreme Court decision from 1974 and is now codified into California’s Evidence Code Sections 1043-47.
In the Pitchess decision the court ruled: “Allowing an accused the right to discovery is based on the fundamental proposition that he [or she] is entitled to a fair trial and an intelligent defense in light of all relevant and reasonably accessible information.”
Such requests are routine in cases where the police officer’s actions themselves are in question, under a theory that a defendant is entitled to information relevant to his or her defense.
The agency that holds the records becomes the defending agency against the Pitchess motion rather than the district attorney.
The unusual nature of this case, however, is that there was no arresting officer. Rather, there were a series of policies laid out by the UC Davis administration in conjunction with the police, but the defendants were not arrested. Instead, they were notified via mail from the DA’s office.
A number of police officers, however, wrote reports that are catalogued in the motions written by Attorneys Tony Serra and Alexis Briggs, with a substantial amount of the research performed by Attorney Maria Belyi.
In a footnote in their motion, Attorneys Tony Serra and Alexis Briggs explain, “While Officers Abraham, Thomas, Swartwood, Green, and Davis did not write reports, they were either present on the scene, were reviewing officers, or case officer.”
Mr. Serra and Ms. Briggs write that on January 20, 2012, Officer Sheffield was called to the UC Davis Branch of US Bank because of reports of robbery, however, en route, he was instructed “that there were protesters gathering outside the business door of the bank, that the doors had been locked and no protesters were inside the bank.”
“When a bank employee told the protesters that they needed to leave, the protesters refused. The protesters also told other patrons that the bank was closed,” the attorneys write.
At around 1:05 pm, the bank closed for the day and Officer Sheffield advised the protesters that the employees were leaving. Write the attorneys, “Upon exiting, one of the employees asked the protesters to move their belongings out of the way because he had a heavy rolling bag. The protesters refused, and he rolled his bag through the items “so as not to hit the protesters.” The protesters reportedly yelled at him and called him an “asshole” and a “mother -.”
Officer Sheffield reported that he recognized two of the protesters – Joshua Clover and Nathan Brown from previous contacts, but not the other protesters except that he noted they were in their twenties and a mix of gender and ethnicities.
On February 2, 2012, Officer Sheffield was dispatched to the U.S. Bank because the protesters had allegedly pushed a patron of the bank in order to prevent him from entering.
By February 8, Officer Sheffield noted “that the group of protesters was ‘calm and cooperative,’ that they had signs stating ‘Yes, the bank is closed,’ and ‘We will let people out but nobody can go in.’ However, the protesters let Officer Sheffield into the bank.”
He also noted that the size of the group fluctuated between six and ten.
A week later, he was called back to the bank, witnessing “three patrons being turned away from the bank by the protesters.” The bank employees would leave at 1:26 pm and “Officer Sheffield then approached the protesters and began to hand out Notices of Violations.”
Still later, Officer Sheffield observed, “A bank employee opened the door slightly and asked if the protesters will let the bank open for business. The protesters allegedly stated ‘not now and not ever.’ “
In a report from Police Chief Matt Carmichael, he met with John Wellborn, a Senior Vice President with U.S. Bank who “expressed discontent that protesters were blocking the doors of the bank.” He added that an employee of student affairs and a campus mediator have been meeting with the protesters, but “this attempt at dialogue has been met with very little communication from those blocking the door.”
There were numerous other reports from several other officers as well, depicting similar encounters. The defense also issued forth a number of counterclaims by the protesters.
For example, Deanna Johnson, one of the protesters and defendants issued a counterclaim.
The defense notes that Ms. Johnson argues, “The police contact with the protesters, including herself, began on November 18, 2011 when the students were protesting tuition hikes and participating in Occupy U.C. Davis.”
Ms. Johnson, while sitting down, was pepper sprayed by Officer Pike, who “put his hand on the back of her neck to hold her head down.”
The defense writes, “As a result, Ms. Johnson had physical pain that lasted three days, and continuing anxiety, fear, and mistrust of police, especially the officers on the U.C. Davis campus.”
She reported, “The officers seemed to change their approach and demeanor with the protesters at the U.S. Bank branch at U.C. Davis. Officer Hunter and Officer Sheffield were courteous, and Officer Sheffield clearly made attempts at conversation with the students by uttering statements such as, ‘I bank at a credit union,’ and asking to use Ms. Johnson’s lighter to smoke a cigarette.”
However, other officers she described as “rude” and “aggressive.” “They used angry, hostile, and combative tones, and were often condescending,” she reported.
She counters that one of the alleged assaults was “exaggerated” and that the subject actually hit her repeatedly with the door, and “he seemed ready to extend his aggression on to the protesters.”
The defense argues that “it is important to note that the charged offenses are part of an ongoing protest known as Occupy U.C. Davis. Thus, it is of extreme importance that Officers Arias, Carmichael, Demuri, Henoch, Hunter, Sheffield, Sotelo, and Swartwood were on the roster for the November 18th, 2011, where the officers showed extreme excessive force in their handling and pepper spraying student protesters.”
“These officers violently attacked non-violent protesters on the campus of U.C. Davis,” she said. “It is the defendants’ position that the violent attitude of these officers toward the student protesters, evident and on display in November, did not simply subside in their dealings with the protesters the following semester.”
“Furthermore, the oppressive tactics from November 2011 still greatly affected the protesters. It is evidenced, for example, In the statements of the defendants, as well as in their meek behavior toward the police officers during the protests at the U.S. Bank.”
The November 18, 2011 incident, while not charged in this case, the defense argues to be extremely relevant.
The defense argues that Officer Sheffield falsified his report when he mischaracterized an alleged assault, he also failed to report the battery against one of the protestors by a patron, and he “falsified his reports in his exaggeration of statements and actions by the protesters, and his de-emphasis of insults and physical attacks on the protesters by bank patrons.”
Other officers are alleged to have failed to properly identify themselves as officers as they wore plain clothing, and failed to investigate and pursue battery investigations into conduct by employees of the bank, thus falsifying reports and misclassify incidents.
A Pitchess motion has a relatively low standard for burden of proof.
The defense notes in their motion, “A showing that the defendant cannot readily obtain the information through his or her own efforts will ordinarily entitle the defendant to pretrial knowledge of any unprivileged evidence or information which might lead to the discovery of evidence “if it appears reasonable that such knowledge will assist him in preparing his defense.””
In other words, the defense does not have to make any showing other than to argue that there is a reasonable possibility that such knowledge will assist him or her in preparing his or her defense.
If the Pitchess motion is granted, the defense is not handed over the personnel file, but rather the judge goes to his chambers and reviews the file in camera in the presence of the custodian of the records and determines whether there is disclosable information – and even at that point only turns over names and numbers for relevant parties.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Where did you get all of the information quoted as being from the officers? What additional information could be obtained from them beyond the reports to which you and the public already have access?
All this information needs to be turned over to the defense promptly. This motion seems designed by the defense to generate the same kind of resistance and delay that the police union undertook in the Reynoso investigation, to the detriment of everyone.
“The defense argues, ‘that it is important to note that the charged offenses are part of an ongoing protest known as Occupy U.C. Davis. Thus, it is of extreme importance that Officers Arias, Carmichael, Demuri, Henoch, Hunter, Sheffield, Sotelo, and Swartwood were on the roster for the November 18th, 2011, where the officers showed extreme excessive force in their handling and pepper spraying student protesters.’
‘These officers violently attacked non-violent protesters on the campus of U.C. Davis,” she said. ‘It is the defendants’ position that the violent attitude of these officers toward the student protesters, evident and on display in November, did not simply subside in their dealings with the protesters the following semester’.”
We all should be pleased that the police officers did not get baited into arresting demonstrators at the bank in spite of their language and behavior. This would have required some level of force, of course. Now that the defense has dredged up this “connection,” the decision not to drag them out to “arrest and release” over and over for weeks is looking smarter and smarter.
Why were these officers selected instead of Pike and Lee, the actual pepper sprayers? Does anyone believe that Officers Arias et al. engaged in “pepper spraying student protesters” when we have the Infamous video showing otherwise?
“Officer Sheffield reported that he recognized two of the protesters – Joshua Clover and Nathan Brown….”
Finally, the Vanguard is able to identify the professor/ringleaders. Once the trial(s) determine whether the blockades were law breaking or free speechifying, it’ll be time to fire some folks for misleading these poor students into lives of crime. This helps us know where to start.
“Where did you get all of the information quoted as being from the officers? What additional information could be obtained from them beyond the reports to which you and the public already have access?”
All of that is quoted in the Pitchess Motion. And literally I tried to just highlight a few as examples, there’s about sixty pages of it.
“We all should be pleased that the police officers did not get baited into arresting demonstrators at the bank in spite of their language and behavior. This would have required some level of force, of course. Now that the defense has dredged up this “connection,” the decision not to drag them out to “arrest and release” over and over for weeks is looking smarter and smarter.”
That’s one read.
The interesting thing to me is that Officer Sheffield estimated numbers of 6 to 10 protesters.
“Why were these officers selected instead of Pike and Lee, the actual pepper sprayers? “
Because Pike and lee were suspended and therefore uninvolved in the bank blocking operation.
“Does anyone believe that Officers Arias et al. engaged in “pepper spraying student protesters” when we have the Infamous video showing otherwise? “
They were there. They didn’t stop it. I’m sure that’s the basis of the claim.
“Finally, the Vanguard is able to identify the professor/ringleaders. “
Just because the officer could identify them does not mean they were leaders.
“Once the trial(s) determine whether the blockades were law breaking or free speechifying, it’ll be time to fire some folks for misleading these poor students into lives of crime.”
I would strongly disagree with that characterization of the students as though they were naive students who were mislead. I think that underestimates the commitment of the students to their cause – agree or disagree with the cause itself.
Is there any video footage or pictures of bank protest? I couldn’t find any on the internet. Otherwise it will be the word of the officers and employees and any other witnesses who may have seen what happened versus that of the students…
There is a lot of video footage, but both sides appear to have competing claims about what it means.
[quote]There is a lot of video footage, but both sides appear to have competing claims about what it means.[/quote]
No surprise there. But the video footage is what it is… much as the video footage of the Rodney King case was what it was…
[quote]” I think that underestimates the commitment of the students to their cause – agree or disagree with the cause itself.”[/quote]I have no doubt of the students’ strong commitment to their cause–there’s overwhelming evidence that they believed in the causes for which they were demonstrating.
The students were misguided in believing that breaking laws is the best way to demonstrate, probably because they feel the cause is worthy. Being misled does not require naivety on the part of these young people.
I figure you have very good contacts with the demonstrators, the ALCU and other supporters. This has allowed you to cover these events from an unequaled viewpoint. Therefore, I’m surprised you continue to argue that Professors Clover and Brown didn’t play influential roles in both demonstrations and the followup events.
Given their writings, speeches and other anarchist history, it is unconceivable that their leadership with these students isn’t visible to you. After all, the rest of us can see it in the news coverage of the events.
One of my concerns (in addition to young people starting adulthood with criminal records) is that Clover and Brown appear to be [u]using[/u] the students’ motivation and causes to contribute to their own personal, on-going objectives–the undermining of UCD as an institution.
Regardless of the cause, illegal blockades help advance the Clover/Brown “administration and police off the campus” movement. I suspect the pair will show up whenever and wherever there’s any dissatisfaction that has potential to turn violent or result in publicity or arrests, just as long as they’re on the UCD payroll.
“…it is Inconceivable and unthinkable…,” he meant to write.
Did it ever occur to you that perhaps it is because I have fairly good access that I reach the conclusions that I did? I have never seen any indication that the students were told to things. No one is telling them to do any particular thing except to decide for themselves. And that decision process was lengthy and sometimes passionate with ultimately the protesters reaching some sort of consensus. So the question isn’t whether they took their own counsel — it is whether they were ever counseled otherwise.
[quote]I figure you have very good contacts with the demonstrators, the ALCU and other supporters. This has allowed you to cover these events from an unequaled viewpoint. Therefore, I’m surprised you continue to argue that Professors Clover and Brown didn’t play influential roles in both demonstrations and the followup events.[/quote]
[quote]Given their writings, speeches and other anarchist history, it is unconceivable that their leadership with these students isn’t visible to you. After all, the rest of us can see it in the news coverage of the events. [/quote]
I found these two paragraphs to represent a very curious point of view. If you agree that David may have a unique insight because of his contacts with the demonstrators, ACLU and other supporters, perhaps his insight gives him more credibility than “what all the rest of us can see in the news coverage of the events”
As we all know, news coverage is frequently in error ( Fox and CNN on the Supreme Court decision on
ACA for example), and even when not factually in error can certainly be interpreted in varying ways.
So what makes this more accurate than actual conversations and interactions with the principle players?
Curious, yes. Contradictory, no. My comments aren’t aimed at comparing news source credibility.
The news coverage I’m citing includes, and is supported by, videos taken at the events–including the building takeover before “the walk of shame” and the various rallies during the past months at which Clover and Brown spoke.
For David to keep claiming that the two professors played no role in influencing the students’ actions flies in the face to this evidence, in my opinion. It’s obvious Clover and Brown speak out and write in [u]attempts[/u] to encourage the students’ law breaking.
David may be correct that the students don’t pay attention to the two professors. I find that difficult to believe, given their obvious efforts to influence them and given their spokesman/leadership roles in the events.
The [i]Vanguard[/i]’s access to “The Accused” of Yolo society is admirable, and provides us lots of inside looks that more traditional media might not uncover. However, a credibility problem arises when this close relationship finds the [i]Vanguard[/i] becoming an outspoken advocate for the people and causes being covered.
I figure it’s the price we pay for getting David’s unique brand of coverage. But, I think we should speak up when objectivity and credibility appear to be veering off in favor of [i]Vanguard[/i] advocacy. What if David didn’t notice this potential playing out when he’s actually trying to be objective?
Just Saying: You understand that your comment here twists my words into things I did not say. I never claimed that they had “no role” or that students “didn’t pay attention” to the two professors – what I said was that there was a structure in place whereby actions were discussed and debated and ultimately the students made their decisions on that basis. That is a far cry from what you have attributed to me in your most recent post. I neither believe that the professors were ringleaders nor do I believe they had absolutely no influence.
Ten dollar fines and summery probation. What a waste of everyones time.
[quote]The news coverage I’m citing includes, and is supported by, videos taken at the events–including the building takeover before “the walk of shame” and the various rallies during the past months at which Clover and Brown spoke.
[/quote]
Even with the hours of videos that many of us watched, we still came to very different conclusions about the culpability of the students and the police. So whose view of these actions represents “the truth” ?
[quote]The Vanguard’s access to “The Accused” of Yolo society is admirable, and provides us lots of inside looks that more traditional media might not uncover. However, a credibility problem arises when this close relationship finds the Vanguard becoming an outspoken advocate for the people and causes being covered. [/quote]
[quote]After all, the rest of us can see it in the news coverage of the events.[/quote]
A credibility problem arises when ever one individual believes that their version of events is shared by the majority. I believe that David has a strong set of core beliefs and that these are frequently reflected in his
writings. I feel that the best way to approach this unique ( at least within our community) approach to reporting the news is to appreciate his independence, judge the value of an article on the merits of the facts and opinions expressed, and strongly present ones own ideas when not in agreement. I would question attempts of any contributor, whether David, or any other blog participant to paint their version of reality as “what all the rest of us can see”.
JustSaying raises an interesting point. The problem is that he jumps to conclusions about things that are not accurate. One of the interesting dilemmas I face is the paradox of getting close enough to have access to sources that other reporters don’t have while having enough distance to not be too close and lose objectivity. There is actually a good deal of distance between myself and the protestors and not just physical but also ideological. My commentary I think lays it out but I see this as a critique of police brutality and administrative incompetence rather than necessarily affinity to the occupy movement and it’s ideology and worldview. My concern is the right of the protesters to protest and the danger of police and administrative overreaction and under reaction to such events.
“I believe that David has a strong set of core beliefs and that these are frequently reflected in his writings. I feel that the best way to approach this unique ( at least within our community) approach to reporting the news is to appreciate his independence, judge the value of an article on the merits of the facts and opinions expressed, and strongly present ones own ideas when not in agreement. I would question attempts of any contributor, whether David, or any other blog participant to paint their version of reality as ‘what all the rest of us can see’.
We are in 100% agreement. I’m not, in this case, attempting to “paint my version of reality” when I point out that video of these events and much other evidence make it obvious to even the casual observer that Brown and Clover have been playing a leadership role.
Again, I’m not arguing big-picture stuff about whether news coverage or videos are can mislead or are “the truth.” I’d suggest that we all look at things through lenses, political and otherwise. I just see a definite leadership role for the two professors, a need for it to be acknowledged and for there to be accountability for how professors influence students to break laws unnecessarily in pursuit of expressing opinions.
“i neither believe that the professors were ringleaders nor do I believe they had absolutely no influence. One of the interesting dilemmas I face is the paradox of getting close enough to have access to sources that other reporters don’t have while having enough distance to not be too close and lose objectivity.”
I’d gathered the impression that you’ve been attempting to minimize the two professors’ roles in these events. When one announces, “we are the law here!” that certainly contributes to the impressions of where they fit into the scheme of things. But, if you just see us arguing about different points on a spectrum of actual influence, I may have gained an inaccurate understanding of whether you acknowledge any responsibility on Clover’s and Brown’s parts.
With respect to your interesting dilemms, that’s what I’m talking about. There are times that you slip, in my opinion, and the lack of objectivity shines through. Usually, someone points it out. Usually, you fail to accept the possibility. I think the Vanguard coverage of the bank blockade is one of these times.
I also think that the journalistic professionalism level continues to increase, including in this objectivity aspect, as the Vanguard ages. Having your new standards in place lets the rest of us keep a close eye on your progress. They also beg us for feedback, which I’m sure you more than appreciate.
Time to go read the Sunday commentary to see how the Vanguard is dealing with the interesting dilemma of getting too close to a story it’s covering….
“When one announces, “we are the law here!” that certainly contributes to the impressions of where they fit into the scheme of things. But, if you just see us arguing about different points on a spectrum of actual influence, I may have gained an inaccurate understanding of whether you acknowledge any responsibility on Clover’s and Brown’s parts.”
Even within the Kroll report, I think the point is ambiguous.
They write, “Professor Joshua Clover spoke to the group, warning them about cooperating with the administration, urging them to take matters into their own hands and stating, “right now, we’re the law.””
But the next point is this: “According to Wells, the activists “went back and forth” about what to do next. At approximately 4:45 p.m., the activists used consensus-style decision-making to reach the decision to continue to occupy Mrak Hall after it closed at 5:00
p.m. and to “use bike locks and chains to lock the building doors open.””
The report went on to say that the decision to chain open the doors was not consistent with the expectations of police who thought they would do the opposite, barricade themselves inside by chaining the doors closed.
They went on to report: “there was a lot of discussion about “what are we going to do when the police show up?” according to Wells.146 The students “were having a lot of … peer to peer education about what to do if you’re arrested, what your rights are, what to say, who to call.”147 They were discussing, “Are we going to link arms? Are we going to huddle? … What’s going to be our strategy? And that theme of what to do when the police get here, that was [a] conversation that they had throughout the week.””
I post all of this to make the point, if you take the Clover quote in isolation, you end up concluding as you have that he is the leader. If you take the account as a whole, it is far less clear. Clearly Clover plays a role here. But it is far clear, particularly absent the other details of the rest of the discussion that he was leading this effort or more influential than others.
[quote]I have never seen any indication that the students were told to do things…
I neither believe that the professors were ringleaders nor do I believe they had absolutely no influence…
I see this as a critique of police brutality and administrative incompetence…[/quote]
The Vanguard is objective? The Vanguard clearly concedes a particular viewpoint/bias that many others do not share…
I’m at a loss Elaine to understand how you draw that conclusion based on what you cite.
[quote]I’m at a loss Elaine to understand how you draw that conclusion based on what you cite.[/quote]
I’m not surprised…
It would help if you explained.
[quote]”When one announces, “we are the law here!” that certainly contributes to the impressions of where they fit into the scheme of things. But, if you just see us arguing about different points on a spectrum of actual influence, I may have gained an inaccurate understanding of whether you acknowledge any responsibility on Clover’s and Brown’s parts.” [/quote]
As an experienced protester from “long,long ago and far,far away” I have a different perspective on what
announcing “we are the law here” to a group fluctuating in numbers between a dozen and a half dozen may actually signify. I doubt that any of these protesters are sufficiently naive to believe that a dozen protesters on a single university campus truly represent anything more than that. I certainly do not believe that such an over the top, self congratulatory, rhetorical statement is likely to be a revolutionary rallying cry and certainly do not see it as the mark of “leadership” as some seem to. Now, the individuals behind the silent protest while Katehi walked to her car might be seen to be more capable of leadership and effective use of the numbers of protesters available. While I do see that the professors you site have played a role, and would probably enjoy seeing themselves as revolutionary leaders ( I don’t know either, so can’t say) I think that their role is probably more in line with David’s interpretation than with more grandiose visions of their role whether held by themselves or their detractors.
To medwoman: I will repeat this wisdom of JustSaying:
[quote]I’m not, in this case, attempting to “paint my version of reality” when I point out that video of these events and much other evidence make it obvious to even the casual observer that Brown and Clover have been playing a leadership role.
Again, I’m not arguing big-picture stuff about whether news coverage or videos can mislead or are “the truth.” I’d suggest that we all look at things through lenses, political and otherwise. I just see a definite leadership role for the two professors, a need for it to be acknowledged and for there to be accountability for how professors influence students to break laws unnecessarily in pursuit of expressing opinions. [/quote]
To medwoman: And as to the objectivity or lack thereof of the Vanguard, I would also repeat the wisdom of JustSaying:
[quote]There are times that you slip, in my opinion, and the lack of objectivity shines through. Usually, someone points it out. Usually, you fail to accept the possibility. I think the Vanguard coverage of the bank blockade is one of these times. [/quote]
“I post all of this to make the point, if you take the Clover quote in isolation, you end up concluding as you have that he is the leader.”
Just as you’ve pointed out that you “never claimed that they had ‘no role’,” I’ll point out that I never claimed or concluded that Clover “is the leader.”
JustSaying
[quote]Given their writings, speeches and other anarchist history, it is unconceivable that their leadership with these students isn’t visible to you.[/quote]
It may be that I misinterpreted your point, but it is the above statement that caused me to believe that you were supporting the claim of Clover’s leadership.
Based on everything I’ve seen about the two professors, their views and their involvement in the recent sting of demonstrations, I conclude that they’ve been playing leadership roles. I’ve read and viewed reports here and news outlets, watched video of related events and considered the professors’ writings in getting to this conclusion. It fits in with Clover’s and Brown’s intentions, seems logical given how teachers usually work with students and appears confirmed by videos of them exhorting the demonstrating crowds.
David for months has seemed reluctant to give the two any credit for the demonstrations. I’ve been disappointed that Brown and Clover have encouraged breaking laws to send the messages. David points to his personal observations of the demonstrators’ decision-making process to clear the professors of responsibility and influence.
While I admire the Vanguard’s access, I don’t think reports on how the students decide are sufficient to absolve the professors. The Kroll report noted, that “Clover spoke to the group, warning them about cooperating with the administration, urging them to take matters into their own hands and stating, ‘right now, we’re the law’.” This is the kind of professorial counsel that troubles me.
David saysI’m the Clover quote in isolation, you end up concluding as you have that he is the leader. If you take the account as a whole, it is far less clear.
To continue (hit the Add Comment by mistake):
David says I’m taking “the Clover quote in isolation” and ending up “concluding as you have that he is the leader. If you take the account as a whole, it is far less clear.” I say this documents a “case confirmed” comment that simply is one element of a long string of evidence of his role with the students, just as there’s much evidence of Brown’s influential involvement.
I’m just pleading “not guilty” of taking Clover’s statement in isolation, and I never claimed he “is the leader.” David’s accurate when he suggests our disagreement revolves around whether the two professors are “more influential than others” in the demonstrations. I probably got to a point where I took David’s point to an extreme he hadn’t, just as he did by saying I called Clover “the leader.
As you point out, medwoman, anything is a possibility. However, I think (all evidence considered) they played leadership roles in which they did not serve well their students, their university or their causes.
[quote]However, I think (all evidence considered) they played leadership roles in which they did not serve well their students, their university or their causes.[/quote]
Well put!
JustSaying
I agree that they did not serve their students, their university or their causes well. I would take it further, which in retrospect I don’t think my post made clear. I would hesitate to use the word “leader” in conjunction with the kind of self agrandizing, pompous, and factually erroneous declaration “we are the law here”. To me, this kind of puffery is the antithesis of leadership.