By David M. Greenwald
Executive Editor
Davis, CA – The Davis Enterprise reported late on Sunday that the Yolo County DA has declined to pursue criminal charges that might have linked social media posts to a series of bomb threats against the library and local schools.
“Based on the information submitted by the Davis Police Department, there is insufficient evidence to prove any criminal charge beyond reasonable doubt,” Chief Deputy District Attorney Jonathan Raven told The Enterprise. “If the Davis Police Department receives additional information and submits a supplemental investigative report, we will review the circumstances again,”
He did indicate that could change with additional information.
In September, Chief Darren Pytel forwarded information and social media posts to the DA’s office as potential doxing.
Pytel warned, “Although there is currently no evidence pointing to any involvement between local members and the threats, the correlation between the two cannot be ignored as part of the overall criminal investigations.”
Chief Pytel specifically singled out social media posts that were inflammatory in 
nature.
He warned of “some of the local social media postings affecting the community that may constitute criminal doxing (threats or harassing communication via communications including social media).”
In the meantime, last week brought the filing of a TRO by DJUSD against Bourne—as reported in the Vanguard.
Of particularly concern at that time was her comment on Facebook, “I’ve also included the names of the 900 plus people in this town who believe it’s okay to tell children that their biological reality means nothing.”
She warned, “DJUSD counselors and teachers to be listed tomorrow.”
On October 11, the court notes a proof of service: “Served Beth Bourne in person with exhibit notice of hearing order granting petitioners motion to file documents petition for workplace violence restraining order response to petition for workplace violence restraining order TRO on 10/11/2023.”
The motion was filed under seal, to protect the names of district employees.
The district did not comment on the contents or reason for the restraining order.
The matter will now go before Judge David Rosenberg, on October 25, for an “Order to Show Cause Pre-Disposition.” Rosenberg, a former Mayor and County Supervisor, announced this week he is retiring after more than two decades on the bench.
I told you that Reisig would do nothing since he is a Republican in sheep’s clothing. The Moms for Liberty is a Republican-front organization engaging in a coordinated attack on LOBTQ+ youth and adults. Yesterday I posted evidence regarding the M4L coordination with other right wing organizations.
This doesn’t mean that there are no consequences for Beth’s behavior or that this is some sort of validation of correctness. Remember that the DA decided not to prosecute the Pepper Spray Cop either for much the same reason.
Beth has committed no crime and the DA knows it. Hopefully we haven’t reached the point in this country where one can be tried simply because others don’t agree with their views.
Keith: “Beth has committed no crime and the DA knows it.”
DA: “Based on the information submitted by the Davis Police Department, there is insufficient evidence to prove any criminal charge beyond reasonable doubt”
Not exactly what he said.
That’s the parameters for all crimes, that they have to be proven beyond reasonable doubt. What else would you expect the DA to say?
There is no evidence that a crime was committed.
Well, bottom line is the DA isn’t going to charge.
You can grasp at straws if you choose to.
For now based on current evidence.
Keith O, this part is absolutely not true–the DA only acknowledges that there isn’t yet sufficient evidence to prove a crime has been committed. We often suspect (or even know) a crime was committed by a specific individual but the evidence won’t meet the (appropriate) high standard for conviction. “Not guilty” doesn’t always mean “innocent.”
So there is insufficient evidence to prove any criminal charge beyond reasonable doubt and she is “not guilty”.
Any more straws you all want to grasp at?
It’s kind of the difference between the plays stands as called versus call was confirmed.
A person is innocent until proven guilty.
So you’re arguing that she committed no crime because of lack of proof or because you don’t think her content rises to criminal action? Because if your argument is the latter, that’s fair albeit limited. If it’s the former, then your argument makes little sense.