Barry Melton was immediately replaced by Hayes Gable III of Sacramento and Tom Purtell of Woodland. The defendant is in excellent hands with two lawyers experienced in capital murder cases.
However, Barry Melton’s departure from this case leaves more questions than answers. Both of which are hinted at by an excellent article in the Woodland Daily Democrat on Friday morning.
In it, it chronicles the relationship between Barry Melton, Sheriff Ed Prieto and Judge Dave Rosenberg.
According to the article by Daily Democrat Staff Reporter Luke Gianni:
“Topete’s wife, Angelique Topete, told the Democrat Thursday she witnessed an argument between [Deputy Public Defender Dean] Johansson and Melton last week at their office in Woodland days after Melton filed his motion.
She said Johansson was concerned over the political connections Melton shared between Yolo County Sheriff Ed Prieto and Rosenberg.”
The article goes on to quote Mrs. Topete:
“In the process of Dean doing his investigation, he dug up a lot of stuff between Melton, Prieto and Rosenberg and that pissed Melton off.”
The bottom line here is that the Daily Democrat dug up–what many of us have known for a long time–the fact that there is a strong relationship between Barry Melton, Ed Prieto, and Dave Rosenberg all of whom hang in the same Davis political circles and all of whom have contributed money to each other’s campaign.
The Democrat continues:
“According to county election records obtained by the Democrat, all three men have contributed funds to each other over the last 10 years as their political careers have progressed.
Ed Prieto’s political action committee “Citizens for Ed Prieto,” received monetary contributions totaling around $600 from Rosenberg’s political fund starting in 1998 when he ran for Sheriff up and until his last contribution in 2003.
Records also show Melton contributed a little more than $300 to Prieto’s fund from 2000 to 2003.
As for Rosenberg, his “Friends of David Rosenberg” fund has received more than $150,000 in political contributions over the last decade before morphing into the “Judge David Rosenberg Committee,” which was formed in 2003 during his run for a judicial seat.
From 1999 to 2003, Melton had contribute[d] more than $900 to this fund, records show.
The monetary ties between the judge, the attorney and the organization that employed the man her husband allegedly killed, has Angelique concerned over his chances at a fair trial.”
The Democrat then brings in Judicial ethics expert Carol Langford, an adjunct professor at UC Hastings Law School. She told the Democrat that the political contributions did not mandate withdrawal from the case, but she also suggested a “voluntary step down to assure the public the case is being handled fairly.”
“What I would say is you probably want to give that case to one of your panel people. You want to make sure that everyone is doing a good job and that there’s the appearance that everything is fair and just. It’s important that people think they’re getting a fair shake especially in a small town.”
So is this the reason that Barry Melton is recusing himself from the case? If so, there are more serious problems on the horizon. If he must remove himself from this case, does he then have to remove himself from every case involving Judge Dave Rosenberg? Does he have to then remove himself from every case involving the Sheriff’s Department? Right there, that’s a lot of cases? Did he also support Judge Tim Fall in his reelection bid this past June? Would he have to remove himself from any cases involving Judge Fall as well, if he did support his reelection?
But that is just the tip of the iceberg. The real kicker is that the Democrat did not complete the circle here. Back in 2006, there was a rather heated battle for District Attorney between fellow deputies Jeff Reisig and Pat Lenzi. Jeff Reisig eventually won that race by a rather narrow margin. Barry Melton did not formally endorse Jeff Reisig but behind the scenes he was a powerful advocate for Reisig and frequently attacked Pat Lenzi.
There’s of course more to this than just that. Barry Melton did not himself donate to Jeff Reisig’s campaign, but his wife, Barbara Langer did. The Democrat probably did not know to look for contributions to Jeff Reisig from Barry Melton’s wife, but the support from Melton to Reisig is well known.
If indeed the reason that Barry Melton withdrew from this case had to do with the close political relationships here, then it calls into question Barry Melton’s entire position as public defender. As such a political animal to begin with, perhaps Barry Melton is not the person best suited for this position.
This is all unfortunate for the family of the slain Sherrif’s Deputy but also the Topete family that is entitled to a fair trial. Last week, members of Topete’s family wanted Dean Johanson, whom Marco Topete trusts, to stay on the case. Now it appears that Barry Melton’s entire office will drop out of the case.
The good news from Topete and for Yolo County is that he is in very capable hands. He was assigned first class defense.
But as this entire saga has shown, there are serious cracks in the Yolo County Justice System’s foundation. The public defender as many have known for some time, seems to be right in the middle of the problem.
—Doug Paul Davis reporting
Nice work on the last 2 posts DPD.
However, on this one, I’m more concerned about Rosenberg. The political cronyism may not be technically illegal or unethical as I believe that the yearly dollar amounts contributed by Rosenberg don’t violate the code of ethics. But, one could argue that it sure does lend to an appearance of impropriety and lack of independence of the judiciary.
Nice work on the last 2 posts DPD.
However, on this one, I’m more concerned about Rosenberg. The political cronyism may not be technically illegal or unethical as I believe that the yearly dollar amounts contributed by Rosenberg don’t violate the code of ethics. But, one could argue that it sure does lend to an appearance of impropriety and lack of independence of the judiciary.
Nice work on the last 2 posts DPD.
However, on this one, I’m more concerned about Rosenberg. The political cronyism may not be technically illegal or unethical as I believe that the yearly dollar amounts contributed by Rosenberg don’t violate the code of ethics. But, one could argue that it sure does lend to an appearance of impropriety and lack of independence of the judiciary.
Nice work on the last 2 posts DPD.
However, on this one, I’m more concerned about Rosenberg. The political cronyism may not be technically illegal or unethical as I believe that the yearly dollar amounts contributed by Rosenberg don’t violate the code of ethics. But, one could argue that it sure does lend to an appearance of impropriety and lack of independence of the judiciary.
That’s a good point. I’ll give you an example, I know other judges in the area do not allow their spouses to be active in politics, but if you look at Rosenberg’s wife, you’ll see she is extremely active in a number of races. Again not necessarily illegal, but it has the appearance of impropriety.
That’s a good point. I’ll give you an example, I know other judges in the area do not allow their spouses to be active in politics, but if you look at Rosenberg’s wife, you’ll see she is extremely active in a number of races. Again not necessarily illegal, but it has the appearance of impropriety.
That’s a good point. I’ll give you an example, I know other judges in the area do not allow their spouses to be active in politics, but if you look at Rosenberg’s wife, you’ll see she is extremely active in a number of races. Again not necessarily illegal, but it has the appearance of impropriety.
That’s a good point. I’ll give you an example, I know other judges in the area do not allow their spouses to be active in politics, but if you look at Rosenberg’s wife, you’ll see she is extremely active in a number of races. Again not necessarily illegal, but it has the appearance of impropriety.
Rosenberg is still very involved in politics through his wife Lea Rosenberg. It may not be illegal but it looks unethical and it’s disturbing.
Rosenberg is still very involved in politics through his wife Lea Rosenberg. It may not be illegal but it looks unethical and it’s disturbing.
Rosenberg is still very involved in politics through his wife Lea Rosenberg. It may not be illegal but it looks unethical and it’s disturbing.
Rosenberg is still very involved in politics through his wife Lea Rosenberg. It may not be illegal but it looks unethical and it’s disturbing.
This isn’t a scandal in any way. The relationships and support are legal and pretty standard for anyone in an elected position. You want to find examples of scandal, look into how every 5th district supervisor is from Farm Bureau leadership, and how their votes and various District 5 projects benefit Farm Bureau leadership. Want your road paved or a new bridge at public expense? Want a vote against regulation that could impact your farm profits? You get the idea. The ‘scandal’ you are looking for here requires huge leaps of imagination, but there are other examples of electeds (District 5) who are directly giving preferential treatment to their friends. That’s a scandal. That’s a story of rich landowners buying their candidate and reaping the public largess.
This isn’t a scandal in any way. The relationships and support are legal and pretty standard for anyone in an elected position. You want to find examples of scandal, look into how every 5th district supervisor is from Farm Bureau leadership, and how their votes and various District 5 projects benefit Farm Bureau leadership. Want your road paved or a new bridge at public expense? Want a vote against regulation that could impact your farm profits? You get the idea. The ‘scandal’ you are looking for here requires huge leaps of imagination, but there are other examples of electeds (District 5) who are directly giving preferential treatment to their friends. That’s a scandal. That’s a story of rich landowners buying their candidate and reaping the public largess.
This isn’t a scandal in any way. The relationships and support are legal and pretty standard for anyone in an elected position. You want to find examples of scandal, look into how every 5th district supervisor is from Farm Bureau leadership, and how their votes and various District 5 projects benefit Farm Bureau leadership. Want your road paved or a new bridge at public expense? Want a vote against regulation that could impact your farm profits? You get the idea. The ‘scandal’ you are looking for here requires huge leaps of imagination, but there are other examples of electeds (District 5) who are directly giving preferential treatment to their friends. That’s a scandal. That’s a story of rich landowners buying their candidate and reaping the public largess.
This isn’t a scandal in any way. The relationships and support are legal and pretty standard for anyone in an elected position. You want to find examples of scandal, look into how every 5th district supervisor is from Farm Bureau leadership, and how their votes and various District 5 projects benefit Farm Bureau leadership. Want your road paved or a new bridge at public expense? Want a vote against regulation that could impact your farm profits? You get the idea. The ‘scandal’ you are looking for here requires huge leaps of imagination, but there are other examples of electeds (District 5) who are directly giving preferential treatment to their friends. That’s a scandal. That’s a story of rich landowners buying their candidate and reaping the public largess.
“before morphing into the “Judge David Rosenberg Committee,” which was formed in 2003 during his RUN for a judicial seat.”
….I thought that Rosenberg was a “payment for services rendered” judicial appointment from departing Governor Gray Davis. As such, there would be no need for a fund to run for this appointed seat on the Bench.
“before morphing into the “Judge David Rosenberg Committee,” which was formed in 2003 during his RUN for a judicial seat.”
….I thought that Rosenberg was a “payment for services rendered” judicial appointment from departing Governor Gray Davis. As such, there would be no need for a fund to run for this appointed seat on the Bench.
“before morphing into the “Judge David Rosenberg Committee,” which was formed in 2003 during his RUN for a judicial seat.”
….I thought that Rosenberg was a “payment for services rendered” judicial appointment from departing Governor Gray Davis. As such, there would be no need for a fund to run for this appointed seat on the Bench.
“before morphing into the “Judge David Rosenberg Committee,” which was formed in 2003 during his RUN for a judicial seat.”
….I thought that Rosenberg was a “payment for services rendered” judicial appointment from departing Governor Gray Davis. As such, there would be no need for a fund to run for this appointed seat on the Bench.
find a real scandal:
Tell that to the Woodland Daily Democrat. DPD was just closing the loop. A lot of us agree with him–these political ties are unsavory and speak to the old boyz network that is Yolo County.
find a real scandal:
Tell that to the Woodland Daily Democrat. DPD was just closing the loop. A lot of us agree with him–these political ties are unsavory and speak to the old boyz network that is Yolo County.
find a real scandal:
Tell that to the Woodland Daily Democrat. DPD was just closing the loop. A lot of us agree with him–these political ties are unsavory and speak to the old boyz network that is Yolo County.
find a real scandal:
Tell that to the Woodland Daily Democrat. DPD was just closing the loop. A lot of us agree with him–these political ties are unsavory and speak to the old boyz network that is Yolo County.
If this is not a real scandal why is Melton recusing himself from the case????
If this is not a real scandal why is Melton recusing himself from the case????
If this is not a real scandal why is Melton recusing himself from the case????
If this is not a real scandal why is Melton recusing himself from the case????
I view Barry Melton’s decision to conflict out as ethical. I agree with Professor Langford on this one.
This is not the first time that the Public Defender and/or the Public Defender’s Office has conflicted out of a case. This one is simply highly publicized.
Melton’s direct and/or indirect political ties and social circles are of no surprise. The Yolo County Legal Community seems to be unbelievably enmeshed. Many reside in the small county where they practice, specifically in the City of Davis. We’ve a well known Judge with a spouse in the DA’s Office; We’ve had a local reporter with a spouse in the DA’s Office; we’ve public defenders with aspirations of working at the DA’s Office and politically active spouses of public officials. Is it possible that any of these relationships have impacted prosecution; defense; media reporting; and/or legal decisions?
Its a very frightening question, especially if you are the accused.
I view Barry Melton’s decision to conflict out as ethical. I agree with Professor Langford on this one.
This is not the first time that the Public Defender and/or the Public Defender’s Office has conflicted out of a case. This one is simply highly publicized.
Melton’s direct and/or indirect political ties and social circles are of no surprise. The Yolo County Legal Community seems to be unbelievably enmeshed. Many reside in the small county where they practice, specifically in the City of Davis. We’ve a well known Judge with a spouse in the DA’s Office; We’ve had a local reporter with a spouse in the DA’s Office; we’ve public defenders with aspirations of working at the DA’s Office and politically active spouses of public officials. Is it possible that any of these relationships have impacted prosecution; defense; media reporting; and/or legal decisions?
Its a very frightening question, especially if you are the accused.
I view Barry Melton’s decision to conflict out as ethical. I agree with Professor Langford on this one.
This is not the first time that the Public Defender and/or the Public Defender’s Office has conflicted out of a case. This one is simply highly publicized.
Melton’s direct and/or indirect political ties and social circles are of no surprise. The Yolo County Legal Community seems to be unbelievably enmeshed. Many reside in the small county where they practice, specifically in the City of Davis. We’ve a well known Judge with a spouse in the DA’s Office; We’ve had a local reporter with a spouse in the DA’s Office; we’ve public defenders with aspirations of working at the DA’s Office and politically active spouses of public officials. Is it possible that any of these relationships have impacted prosecution; defense; media reporting; and/or legal decisions?
Its a very frightening question, especially if you are the accused.
I view Barry Melton’s decision to conflict out as ethical. I agree with Professor Langford on this one.
This is not the first time that the Public Defender and/or the Public Defender’s Office has conflicted out of a case. This one is simply highly publicized.
Melton’s direct and/or indirect political ties and social circles are of no surprise. The Yolo County Legal Community seems to be unbelievably enmeshed. Many reside in the small county where they practice, specifically in the City of Davis. We’ve a well known Judge with a spouse in the DA’s Office; We’ve had a local reporter with a spouse in the DA’s Office; we’ve public defenders with aspirations of working at the DA’s Office and politically active spouses of public officials. Is it possible that any of these relationships have impacted prosecution; defense; media reporting; and/or legal decisions?
Its a very frightening question, especially if you are the accused.
“do not allow their spouses”
What a quaint anachronism. I think Lea is her own person.
“do not allow their spouses”
What a quaint anachronism. I think Lea is her own person.
“do not allow their spouses”
What a quaint anachronism. I think Lea is her own person.
“do not allow their spouses”
What a quaint anachronism. I think Lea is her own person.
Not near as quaint as you suggest–some of the most notorious judges are women.
Not near as quaint as you suggest–some of the most notorious judges are women.
Not near as quaint as you suggest–some of the most notorious judges are women.
Not near as quaint as you suggest–some of the most notorious judges are women.
The point is not to be offensive to the spouse, the point is that if it is inappropriate for a judge to contribute, why is it okay for his wife or her husband to do so from the same shared resources?
The point is not to be offensive to the spouse, the point is that if it is inappropriate for a judge to contribute, why is it okay for his wife or her husband to do so from the same shared resources?
The point is not to be offensive to the spouse, the point is that if it is inappropriate for a judge to contribute, why is it okay for his wife or her husband to do so from the same shared resources?
The point is not to be offensive to the spouse, the point is that if it is inappropriate for a judge to contribute, why is it okay for his wife or her husband to do so from the same shared resources?
The Judicial Code of Ethics does address family members. It includes information and advice regarding the influence and conduct of family members. One particular instance pertains to Canon 5:
A JUDGE OR JUDICIAL CANDIDATE SHALL REFRAIN FROM INAPPROPRIATE POLITICAL ACTIVITY
This is an excerpt from the Advisory Committee Commentary:
“Although members of the judge’s family are not subject to the provisions of this Code, a judge shall not avoid compliance with this Code by making contributions through a spouse or registered domestic partner or other family
member.”
The Judicial Code of Ethics does address family members. It includes information and advice regarding the influence and conduct of family members. One particular instance pertains to Canon 5:
A JUDGE OR JUDICIAL CANDIDATE SHALL REFRAIN FROM INAPPROPRIATE POLITICAL ACTIVITY
This is an excerpt from the Advisory Committee Commentary:
“Although members of the judge’s family are not subject to the provisions of this Code, a judge shall not avoid compliance with this Code by making contributions through a spouse or registered domestic partner or other family
member.”
The Judicial Code of Ethics does address family members. It includes information and advice regarding the influence and conduct of family members. One particular instance pertains to Canon 5:
A JUDGE OR JUDICIAL CANDIDATE SHALL REFRAIN FROM INAPPROPRIATE POLITICAL ACTIVITY
This is an excerpt from the Advisory Committee Commentary:
“Although members of the judge’s family are not subject to the provisions of this Code, a judge shall not avoid compliance with this Code by making contributions through a spouse or registered domestic partner or other family
member.”
The Judicial Code of Ethics does address family members. It includes information and advice regarding the influence and conduct of family members. One particular instance pertains to Canon 5:
A JUDGE OR JUDICIAL CANDIDATE SHALL REFRAIN FROM INAPPROPRIATE POLITICAL ACTIVITY
This is an excerpt from the Advisory Committee Commentary:
“Although members of the judge’s family are not subject to the provisions of this Code, a judge shall not avoid compliance with this Code by making contributions through a spouse or registered domestic partner or other family
member.”
“According to county election records obtained by the Democrat, all three men have contributed funds to each other over the last 10 years as their political careers have progressed.”
Melton never ran for office, so he didn’t receive money from the others, of course.
Nonetheless, this is all the more reason why in my opinion we should not be electing judges or electing our sheriff. Having to raise money is often (if not always) corrupting.*
We would be better served to have our sheriff selected (and potentially fired) the way the police chief is. With judges, I’m fine with how they are appointed. What I don’t understand is why they have to then run for re-election periodically. I think it would be better that they were appointed for a long term — say 15 years — and they should keep their judge for that period, unless for reasons of malfeasance in office they need to be impeached and removed.
* Alabama, where all judges are elected, including their supreme court, is infamous for its judicial corruption. Trial lawyers in civil lawsuits from all over the country give millions of dollars to fund the campaigns of Alabama judges, knowing that it is in those courthouses where they can get the biggest damage claims for their clients.
“According to county election records obtained by the Democrat, all three men have contributed funds to each other over the last 10 years as their political careers have progressed.”
Melton never ran for office, so he didn’t receive money from the others, of course.
Nonetheless, this is all the more reason why in my opinion we should not be electing judges or electing our sheriff. Having to raise money is often (if not always) corrupting.*
We would be better served to have our sheriff selected (and potentially fired) the way the police chief is. With judges, I’m fine with how they are appointed. What I don’t understand is why they have to then run for re-election periodically. I think it would be better that they were appointed for a long term — say 15 years — and they should keep their judge for that period, unless for reasons of malfeasance in office they need to be impeached and removed.
* Alabama, where all judges are elected, including their supreme court, is infamous for its judicial corruption. Trial lawyers in civil lawsuits from all over the country give millions of dollars to fund the campaigns of Alabama judges, knowing that it is in those courthouses where they can get the biggest damage claims for their clients.
“According to county election records obtained by the Democrat, all three men have contributed funds to each other over the last 10 years as their political careers have progressed.”
Melton never ran for office, so he didn’t receive money from the others, of course.
Nonetheless, this is all the more reason why in my opinion we should not be electing judges or electing our sheriff. Having to raise money is often (if not always) corrupting.*
We would be better served to have our sheriff selected (and potentially fired) the way the police chief is. With judges, I’m fine with how they are appointed. What I don’t understand is why they have to then run for re-election periodically. I think it would be better that they were appointed for a long term — say 15 years — and they should keep their judge for that period, unless for reasons of malfeasance in office they need to be impeached and removed.
* Alabama, where all judges are elected, including their supreme court, is infamous for its judicial corruption. Trial lawyers in civil lawsuits from all over the country give millions of dollars to fund the campaigns of Alabama judges, knowing that it is in those courthouses where they can get the biggest damage claims for their clients.
“According to county election records obtained by the Democrat, all three men have contributed funds to each other over the last 10 years as their political careers have progressed.”
Melton never ran for office, so he didn’t receive money from the others, of course.
Nonetheless, this is all the more reason why in my opinion we should not be electing judges or electing our sheriff. Having to raise money is often (if not always) corrupting.*
We would be better served to have our sheriff selected (and potentially fired) the way the police chief is. With judges, I’m fine with how they are appointed. What I don’t understand is why they have to then run for re-election periodically. I think it would be better that they were appointed for a long term — say 15 years — and they should keep their judge for that period, unless for reasons of malfeasance in office they need to be impeached and removed.
* Alabama, where all judges are elected, including their supreme court, is infamous for its judicial corruption. Trial lawyers in civil lawsuits from all over the country give millions of dollars to fund the campaigns of Alabama judges, knowing that it is in those courthouses where they can get the biggest damage claims for their clients.
Although Barry Melton has not publicly stated what his conflict is, the most likely explanation is that he knew the victim, Tony Diaz, who served as a bailiff in the courtroom where Melton often serves. Removing himself from the case was the appropriate thing to do.
I doubt it has anything to do with political friendships with Rosenberg or Prieto and therefore will not result in future conflicts. The Daily Democrat article is totally a tempest in a teapot.
Although Barry Melton has not publicly stated what his conflict is, the most likely explanation is that he knew the victim, Tony Diaz, who served as a bailiff in the courtroom where Melton often serves. Removing himself from the case was the appropriate thing to do.
I doubt it has anything to do with political friendships with Rosenberg or Prieto and therefore will not result in future conflicts. The Daily Democrat article is totally a tempest in a teapot.
Although Barry Melton has not publicly stated what his conflict is, the most likely explanation is that he knew the victim, Tony Diaz, who served as a bailiff in the courtroom where Melton often serves. Removing himself from the case was the appropriate thing to do.
I doubt it has anything to do with political friendships with Rosenberg or Prieto and therefore will not result in future conflicts. The Daily Democrat article is totally a tempest in a teapot.
Although Barry Melton has not publicly stated what his conflict is, the most likely explanation is that he knew the victim, Tony Diaz, who served as a bailiff in the courtroom where Melton often serves. Removing himself from the case was the appropriate thing to do.
I doubt it has anything to do with political friendships with Rosenberg or Prieto and therefore will not result in future conflicts. The Daily Democrat article is totally a tempest in a teapot.
If that’s true it contradicts not only the Democrat story but other things I have heard.
If that’s true it contradicts not only the Democrat story but other things I have heard.
If that’s true it contradicts not only the Democrat story but other things I have heard.
If that’s true it contradicts not only the Democrat story but other things I have heard.
I agree with Rich. I don’t see why we have to vote for a judge or a sheriff. When they raise money, that’s asking for trouble.
I agree with Rich. I don’t see why we have to vote for a judge or a sheriff. When they raise money, that’s asking for trouble.
I agree with Rich. I don’t see why we have to vote for a judge or a sheriff. When they raise money, that’s asking for trouble.
I agree with Rich. I don’t see why we have to vote for a judge or a sheriff. When they raise money, that’s asking for trouble.
DPD said: “If that’s true it contradicts not only the Democrat story BUT OTHER THINGS I HAVE HEARD.”
Is this a “news” blog or a “gossip” blog? Attribution, please? To refer to “other things” without being specific, and without attribution, is simply gossip, worse than useless, and a complete waste of time. DPD, you do a great job sometimes, but here innuendo is a very miserable substitute for facts.
DPD said: “If that’s true it contradicts not only the Democrat story BUT OTHER THINGS I HAVE HEARD.”
Is this a “news” blog or a “gossip” blog? Attribution, please? To refer to “other things” without being specific, and without attribution, is simply gossip, worse than useless, and a complete waste of time. DPD, you do a great job sometimes, but here innuendo is a very miserable substitute for facts.
DPD said: “If that’s true it contradicts not only the Democrat story BUT OTHER THINGS I HAVE HEARD.”
Is this a “news” blog or a “gossip” blog? Attribution, please? To refer to “other things” without being specific, and without attribution, is simply gossip, worse than useless, and a complete waste of time. DPD, you do a great job sometimes, but here innuendo is a very miserable substitute for facts.
DPD said: “If that’s true it contradicts not only the Democrat story BUT OTHER THINGS I HAVE HEARD.”
Is this a “news” blog or a “gossip” blog? Attribution, please? To refer to “other things” without being specific, and without attribution, is simply gossip, worse than useless, and a complete waste of time. DPD, you do a great job sometimes, but here innuendo is a very miserable substitute for facts.
Off-the-record information is not gossip. That’s how news reporting works.
Off-the-record information is not gossip. That’s how news reporting works.
Off-the-record information is not gossip. That’s how news reporting works.
Off-the-record information is not gossip. That’s how news reporting works.
Off-the-record information is fine – the key word being “information”. Such as in: “An unnamed source stated: (insert information here). The phrase “other things I have heard” is, by definition, innuendo, not information.
Off-the-record information is fine – the key word being “information”. Such as in: “An unnamed source stated: (insert information here). The phrase “other things I have heard” is, by definition, innuendo, not information.
Off-the-record information is fine – the key word being “information”. Such as in: “An unnamed source stated: (insert information here). The phrase “other things I have heard” is, by definition, innuendo, not information.
Off-the-record information is fine – the key word being “information”. Such as in: “An unnamed source stated: (insert information here). The phrase “other things I have heard” is, by definition, innuendo, not information.
DPD: you might want to call the Anderson Valley Advertiser and track down Bruce Anderson (he may be back there as publisher), this is EXACTLY the kind of thing that got him into trouble in Mendocino County, and Bruce can tell you all about it
–Richard Estes
DPD: you might want to call the Anderson Valley Advertiser and track down Bruce Anderson (he may be back there as publisher), this is EXACTLY the kind of thing that got him into trouble in Mendocino County, and Bruce can tell you all about it
–Richard Estes
DPD: you might want to call the Anderson Valley Advertiser and track down Bruce Anderson (he may be back there as publisher), this is EXACTLY the kind of thing that got him into trouble in Mendocino County, and Bruce can tell you all about it
–Richard Estes
DPD: you might want to call the Anderson Valley Advertiser and track down Bruce Anderson (he may be back there as publisher), this is EXACTLY the kind of thing that got him into trouble in Mendocino County, and Bruce can tell you all about it
–Richard Estes
It’s all well and good to discuss having judges appointed. That may be a partial answer. But, will it eliminate cronyism or prevent undue influence? I doubt it. Appointments can be payback for political favors and not always made in the spirit of finding the right person for the job.
Judges are (and should be) held to a very high standard regarding ethics. You don’t get to be a judge without seeking to be one. And, if you want to be a judge or are one, you should make sure that your ethical conduct is above reproach and meets the full spirit and intent of the ethical requirements. That includes letting family members know that you are held to a higher standard and if you or they can’t accept that – don’t apply.
It’s all well and good to discuss having judges appointed. That may be a partial answer. But, will it eliminate cronyism or prevent undue influence? I doubt it. Appointments can be payback for political favors and not always made in the spirit of finding the right person for the job.
Judges are (and should be) held to a very high standard regarding ethics. You don’t get to be a judge without seeking to be one. And, if you want to be a judge or are one, you should make sure that your ethical conduct is above reproach and meets the full spirit and intent of the ethical requirements. That includes letting family members know that you are held to a higher standard and if you or they can’t accept that – don’t apply.
It’s all well and good to discuss having judges appointed. That may be a partial answer. But, will it eliminate cronyism or prevent undue influence? I doubt it. Appointments can be payback for political favors and not always made in the spirit of finding the right person for the job.
Judges are (and should be) held to a very high standard regarding ethics. You don’t get to be a judge without seeking to be one. And, if you want to be a judge or are one, you should make sure that your ethical conduct is above reproach and meets the full spirit and intent of the ethical requirements. That includes letting family members know that you are held to a higher standard and if you or they can’t accept that – don’t apply.
It’s all well and good to discuss having judges appointed. That may be a partial answer. But, will it eliminate cronyism or prevent undue influence? I doubt it. Appointments can be payback for political favors and not always made in the spirit of finding the right person for the job.
Judges are (and should be) held to a very high standard regarding ethics. You don’t get to be a judge without seeking to be one. And, if you want to be a judge or are one, you should make sure that your ethical conduct is above reproach and meets the full spirit and intent of the ethical requirements. That includes letting family members know that you are held to a higher standard and if you or they can’t accept that – don’t apply.
“Although members of the judge’s family are not subject to the provisions of this Code, a judge shall not avoid compliance with this Code by making contributions through a spouse or registered domestic partner or other family
member.”
I think this is a crucial point. This is a small town. In the case of the Rosenberg’s, I don’t think that Leah has ever had a political life that was particularly independent from her husband and his career. I think most people in town assume that an endorsement or contribution from Leah signals support by Dave Rosenberg. Hence, I think it is legitimate to question whether Judge Rosenberg is being overly political, and skirting the spirit of judicial ethics.
“Although members of the judge’s family are not subject to the provisions of this Code, a judge shall not avoid compliance with this Code by making contributions through a spouse or registered domestic partner or other family
member.”
I think this is a crucial point. This is a small town. In the case of the Rosenberg’s, I don’t think that Leah has ever had a political life that was particularly independent from her husband and his career. I think most people in town assume that an endorsement or contribution from Leah signals support by Dave Rosenberg. Hence, I think it is legitimate to question whether Judge Rosenberg is being overly political, and skirting the spirit of judicial ethics.
“Although members of the judge’s family are not subject to the provisions of this Code, a judge shall not avoid compliance with this Code by making contributions through a spouse or registered domestic partner or other family
member.”
I think this is a crucial point. This is a small town. In the case of the Rosenberg’s, I don’t think that Leah has ever had a political life that was particularly independent from her husband and his career. I think most people in town assume that an endorsement or contribution from Leah signals support by Dave Rosenberg. Hence, I think it is legitimate to question whether Judge Rosenberg is being overly political, and skirting the spirit of judicial ethics.
“Although members of the judge’s family are not subject to the provisions of this Code, a judge shall not avoid compliance with this Code by making contributions through a spouse or registered domestic partner or other family
member.”
I think this is a crucial point. This is a small town. In the case of the Rosenberg’s, I don’t think that Leah has ever had a political life that was particularly independent from her husband and his career. I think most people in town assume that an endorsement or contribution from Leah signals support by Dave Rosenberg. Hence, I think it is legitimate to question whether Judge Rosenberg is being overly political, and skirting the spirit of judicial ethics.
Richard Estes – Bruce Anderson’s situation is different. For you to even compare the two is absurd.
It’s a fact that Melton has removed himself because of a conflict of interest. There are concerns raised by many about Rosenberg, Prieto, Melton, and even Reisig’s ability to be neutral due to their “political friendships” with one another.
I believe that DPD is simply asking for transparency.
I know many, including myself are. Yolo County and Davis, for that matter are notorious, for not being transparent.
Richard Estes – Bruce Anderson’s situation is different. For you to even compare the two is absurd.
It’s a fact that Melton has removed himself because of a conflict of interest. There are concerns raised by many about Rosenberg, Prieto, Melton, and even Reisig’s ability to be neutral due to their “political friendships” with one another.
I believe that DPD is simply asking for transparency.
I know many, including myself are. Yolo County and Davis, for that matter are notorious, for not being transparent.
Richard Estes – Bruce Anderson’s situation is different. For you to even compare the two is absurd.
It’s a fact that Melton has removed himself because of a conflict of interest. There are concerns raised by many about Rosenberg, Prieto, Melton, and even Reisig’s ability to be neutral due to their “political friendships” with one another.
I believe that DPD is simply asking for transparency.
I know many, including myself are. Yolo County and Davis, for that matter are notorious, for not being transparent.
Richard Estes – Bruce Anderson’s situation is different. For you to even compare the two is absurd.
It’s a fact that Melton has removed himself because of a conflict of interest. There are concerns raised by many about Rosenberg, Prieto, Melton, and even Reisig’s ability to be neutral due to their “political friendships” with one another.
I believe that DPD is simply asking for transparency.
I know many, including myself are. Yolo County and Davis, for that matter are notorious, for not being transparent.
Anyone who knows Dave and Lea know that she would not give an endorsement without his approval. She can barely breathe without his approval. The man is a control freak. No, I am not name calling. I am simply calling it as we all see it. Those of us who know him.
It’s good to see that the Daily Democrat and you DPD covered this story.
As someone posted earlier, more transparency in Yolo (and Davis) is needed.
Anyone who knows Dave and Lea know that she would not give an endorsement without his approval. She can barely breathe without his approval. The man is a control freak. No, I am not name calling. I am simply calling it as we all see it. Those of us who know him.
It’s good to see that the Daily Democrat and you DPD covered this story.
As someone posted earlier, more transparency in Yolo (and Davis) is needed.
Anyone who knows Dave and Lea know that she would not give an endorsement without his approval. She can barely breathe without his approval. The man is a control freak. No, I am not name calling. I am simply calling it as we all see it. Those of us who know him.
It’s good to see that the Daily Democrat and you DPD covered this story.
As someone posted earlier, more transparency in Yolo (and Davis) is needed.
Anyone who knows Dave and Lea know that she would not give an endorsement without his approval. She can barely breathe without his approval. The man is a control freak. No, I am not name calling. I am simply calling it as we all see it. Those of us who know him.
It’s good to see that the Daily Democrat and you DPD covered this story.
As someone posted earlier, more transparency in Yolo (and Davis) is needed.
To say or think that Lea does not have a mind of her own is complete hogwash. It just may be that Lea and Dave see eye to eye on things. Married people often do have similar political leanings.
Don’t assume that married women are merely pawns of their husbands. I find this idea more than just a quaint anachronism. I find this an insult to all women in this town who are active in politics!
Would you also say that Samantha McCarthy’s political activities are controlled and directed by Don Mooney? Or claim that DPD is in charge of and directs Cecilia Escamilla-Greenwald’s political activities and viewpoints? Is Lyn Lofland under the thumb of John? How about Rachel Livingston? Would you say that Rachel consults Dick Livingston and gets his permission before she gives political endorsements and participates in political campaigns?
Watch it, boys, you have no idea of the dangerous path you are headed down.
To say or think that Lea does not have a mind of her own is complete hogwash. It just may be that Lea and Dave see eye to eye on things. Married people often do have similar political leanings.
Don’t assume that married women are merely pawns of their husbands. I find this idea more than just a quaint anachronism. I find this an insult to all women in this town who are active in politics!
Would you also say that Samantha McCarthy’s political activities are controlled and directed by Don Mooney? Or claim that DPD is in charge of and directs Cecilia Escamilla-Greenwald’s political activities and viewpoints? Is Lyn Lofland under the thumb of John? How about Rachel Livingston? Would you say that Rachel consults Dick Livingston and gets his permission before she gives political endorsements and participates in political campaigns?
Watch it, boys, you have no idea of the dangerous path you are headed down.
To say or think that Lea does not have a mind of her own is complete hogwash. It just may be that Lea and Dave see eye to eye on things. Married people often do have similar political leanings.
Don’t assume that married women are merely pawns of their husbands. I find this idea more than just a quaint anachronism. I find this an insult to all women in this town who are active in politics!
Would you also say that Samantha McCarthy’s political activities are controlled and directed by Don Mooney? Or claim that DPD is in charge of and directs Cecilia Escamilla-Greenwald’s political activities and viewpoints? Is Lyn Lofland under the thumb of John? How about Rachel Livingston? Would you say that Rachel consults Dick Livingston and gets his permission before she gives political endorsements and participates in political campaigns?
Watch it, boys, you have no idea of the dangerous path you are headed down.
To say or think that Lea does not have a mind of her own is complete hogwash. It just may be that Lea and Dave see eye to eye on things. Married people often do have similar political leanings.
Don’t assume that married women are merely pawns of their husbands. I find this idea more than just a quaint anachronism. I find this an insult to all women in this town who are active in politics!
Would you also say that Samantha McCarthy’s political activities are controlled and directed by Don Mooney? Or claim that DPD is in charge of and directs Cecilia Escamilla-Greenwald’s political activities and viewpoints? Is Lyn Lofland under the thumb of John? How about Rachel Livingston? Would you say that Rachel consults Dick Livingston and gets his permission before she gives political endorsements and participates in political campaigns?
Watch it, boys, you have no idea of the dangerous path you are headed down.
To: A Woman with a Mind,
Well Put. And you know ole dpd won’t admit he’s wrong, again. Thank You.
To: A Woman with a Mind,
Well Put. And you know ole dpd won’t admit he’s wrong, again. Thank You.
To: A Woman with a Mind,
Well Put. And you know ole dpd won’t admit he’s wrong, again. Thank You.
To: A Woman with a Mind,
Well Put. And you know ole dpd won’t admit he’s wrong, again. Thank You.
I missed something here, what am I wrong about?
I missed something here, what am I wrong about?
I missed something here, what am I wrong about?
I missed something here, what am I wrong about?
Doug Paul Davis said…
“That’s a good point. I’ll give you an example, I know other judges in the area do not allow their spouses to be active in politics, but if you look at Rosenberg’s wife, you’ll see she is extremely active in a number of races. Again not necessarily illegal, but it has the appearance of impropriety.”
Doug Paul Davis said…
“That’s a good point. I’ll give you an example, I know other judges in the area do not allow their spouses to be active in politics, but if you look at Rosenberg’s wife, you’ll see she is extremely active in a number of races. Again not necessarily illegal, but it has the appearance of impropriety.”
Doug Paul Davis said…
“That’s a good point. I’ll give you an example, I know other judges in the area do not allow their spouses to be active in politics, but if you look at Rosenberg’s wife, you’ll see she is extremely active in a number of races. Again not necessarily illegal, but it has the appearance of impropriety.”
Doug Paul Davis said…
“That’s a good point. I’ll give you an example, I know other judges in the area do not allow their spouses to be active in politics, but if you look at Rosenberg’s wife, you’ll see she is extremely active in a number of races. Again not necessarily illegal, but it has the appearance of impropriety.”
And what’s wrong about that statement especially in light of the standards laid out in the handbook?
And what’s wrong about that statement especially in light of the standards laid out in the handbook?
And what’s wrong about that statement especially in light of the standards laid out in the handbook?
And what’s wrong about that statement especially in light of the standards laid out in the handbook?
The “do not allow” part.
I thought that we were past this, but the male chauvinist pig is alive and well.
The “do not allow” part.
I thought that we were past this, but the male chauvinist pig is alive and well.
The “do not allow” part.
I thought that we were past this, but the male chauvinist pig is alive and well.
The “do not allow” part.
I thought that we were past this, but the male chauvinist pig is alive and well.
Most of the judges I am referring to are actually women not men. It has nothing to do with gender or chauvinism.
Most of the judges I am referring to are actually women not men. It has nothing to do with gender or chauvinism.
Most of the judges I am referring to are actually women not men. It has nothing to do with gender or chauvinism.
Most of the judges I am referring to are actually women not men. It has nothing to do with gender or chauvinism.
You imply that a male judge should “not allow” his wife to do something, that her political activities should somehow be controlled by her husband, and Dave not effectively controlling his wife MUST mean that he is directing her in her activities.
(Leave it be, David. You, as a man, are not equipped to win these kinds of contests.)
You imply that a male judge should “not allow” his wife to do something, that her political activities should somehow be controlled by her husband, and Dave not effectively controlling his wife MUST mean that he is directing her in her activities.
(Leave it be, David. You, as a man, are not equipped to win these kinds of contests.)
You imply that a male judge should “not allow” his wife to do something, that her political activities should somehow be controlled by her husband, and Dave not effectively controlling his wife MUST mean that he is directing her in her activities.
(Leave it be, David. You, as a man, are not equipped to win these kinds of contests.)
You imply that a male judge should “not allow” his wife to do something, that her political activities should somehow be controlled by her husband, and Dave not effectively controlling his wife MUST mean that he is directing her in her activities.
(Leave it be, David. You, as a man, are not equipped to win these kinds of contests.)
Your twisting my words, I neither said nor implied any such thing. Have you met Cecilia???
A judge’s spouse should not be making political contributions for precisely the reason that has come to light with the entanglement of the public defender with Rosenberg and Prieto.
Your twisting my words, I neither said nor implied any such thing. Have you met Cecilia???
A judge’s spouse should not be making political contributions for precisely the reason that has come to light with the entanglement of the public defender with Rosenberg and Prieto.
Your twisting my words, I neither said nor implied any such thing. Have you met Cecilia???
A judge’s spouse should not be making political contributions for precisely the reason that has come to light with the entanglement of the public defender with Rosenberg and Prieto.
Your twisting my words, I neither said nor implied any such thing. Have you met Cecilia???
A judge’s spouse should not be making political contributions for precisely the reason that has come to light with the entanglement of the public defender with Rosenberg and Prieto.
To: A Woman with A Mind,
That was great! Although a real man would not insult women as he did.
To: A Woman with A Mind,
That was great! Although a real man would not insult women as he did.
To: A Woman with A Mind,
That was great! Although a real man would not insult women as he did.
To: A Woman with A Mind,
That was great! Although a real man would not insult women as he did.
I don’t care much about this issue at all, but these last comments sound quite SEXIST to me. For one, I am a male..and I would be offended if I was a woman reading this. Forget the other judges, you are talking about this one and his situation. Even in today’s society women still struggle in their pursuit of political careers. Now we are going to enact the “wife of a judge” standard.
So it is automatically assumed that Rosenberg’s wife is so incredibly influenced by him that she has no mind of her own and should not carry on with her own political desires?
Obviously when two people marry they may share similar ideologies (ie the Clintons) Are you saying that since Rosenberg is in a high office, she then needs give up her political aspirations? If there is any evidence she did something wrong, illegal and unethical thats one thing. Saying she needs to refrain from pursuing her political passions is just messed up.
That does not sound very…well..progressive to me.Maybe we can make it illegal for her to vote as well??
I don’t care much about this issue at all, but these last comments sound quite SEXIST to me. For one, I am a male..and I would be offended if I was a woman reading this. Forget the other judges, you are talking about this one and his situation. Even in today’s society women still struggle in their pursuit of political careers. Now we are going to enact the “wife of a judge” standard.
So it is automatically assumed that Rosenberg’s wife is so incredibly influenced by him that she has no mind of her own and should not carry on with her own political desires?
Obviously when two people marry they may share similar ideologies (ie the Clintons) Are you saying that since Rosenberg is in a high office, she then needs give up her political aspirations? If there is any evidence she did something wrong, illegal and unethical thats one thing. Saying she needs to refrain from pursuing her political passions is just messed up.
That does not sound very…well..progressive to me.Maybe we can make it illegal for her to vote as well??
I don’t care much about this issue at all, but these last comments sound quite SEXIST to me. For one, I am a male..and I would be offended if I was a woman reading this. Forget the other judges, you are talking about this one and his situation. Even in today’s society women still struggle in their pursuit of political careers. Now we are going to enact the “wife of a judge” standard.
So it is automatically assumed that Rosenberg’s wife is so incredibly influenced by him that she has no mind of her own and should not carry on with her own political desires?
Obviously when two people marry they may share similar ideologies (ie the Clintons) Are you saying that since Rosenberg is in a high office, she then needs give up her political aspirations? If there is any evidence she did something wrong, illegal and unethical thats one thing. Saying she needs to refrain from pursuing her political passions is just messed up.
That does not sound very…well..progressive to me.Maybe we can make it illegal for her to vote as well??
I don’t care much about this issue at all, but these last comments sound quite SEXIST to me. For one, I am a male..and I would be offended if I was a woman reading this. Forget the other judges, you are talking about this one and his situation. Even in today’s society women still struggle in their pursuit of political careers. Now we are going to enact the “wife of a judge” standard.
So it is automatically assumed that Rosenberg’s wife is so incredibly influenced by him that she has no mind of her own and should not carry on with her own political desires?
Obviously when two people marry they may share similar ideologies (ie the Clintons) Are you saying that since Rosenberg is in a high office, she then needs give up her political aspirations? If there is any evidence she did something wrong, illegal and unethical thats one thing. Saying she needs to refrain from pursuing her political passions is just messed up.
That does not sound very…well..progressive to me.Maybe we can make it illegal for her to vote as well??
The comments are not a bad reference to Lea, but rather her husband, the judge, by the name of David Rosenberg, who knows better than to meddle in politics if he is a sitting judge.
I don’t give any credit to the posts from supposed women. For all we know it is probably a post from some man.
If you don’t like it then don’t read it and don’t comment.
The comments are not a bad reference to Lea, but rather her husband, the judge, by the name of David Rosenberg, who knows better than to meddle in politics if he is a sitting judge.
I don’t give any credit to the posts from supposed women. For all we know it is probably a post from some man.
If you don’t like it then don’t read it and don’t comment.
The comments are not a bad reference to Lea, but rather her husband, the judge, by the name of David Rosenberg, who knows better than to meddle in politics if he is a sitting judge.
I don’t give any credit to the posts from supposed women. For all we know it is probably a post from some man.
If you don’t like it then don’t read it and don’t comment.
The comments are not a bad reference to Lea, but rather her husband, the judge, by the name of David Rosenberg, who knows better than to meddle in politics if he is a sitting judge.
I don’t give any credit to the posts from supposed women. For all we know it is probably a post from some man.
If you don’t like it then don’t read it and don’t comment.
Anonymous 4:56: I deleted your comments twice now because it off topic and potentially libelous
Anonymous 5:00: The issue at hand here is conflict of interest. There are good reasons that judges are advised not to participate in political activity–for one the appearance of impartiality is crucial. However, the question is whether or not that should extent to a spouse of a judge. The handbook leaves that an open question. I don’t think the discussion of it has anything at all to do with sexism and to me has everything to do with propriety.
Anonymous 4:56: I deleted your comments twice now because it off topic and potentially libelous
Anonymous 5:00: The issue at hand here is conflict of interest. There are good reasons that judges are advised not to participate in political activity–for one the appearance of impartiality is crucial. However, the question is whether or not that should extent to a spouse of a judge. The handbook leaves that an open question. I don’t think the discussion of it has anything at all to do with sexism and to me has everything to do with propriety.
Anonymous 4:56: I deleted your comments twice now because it off topic and potentially libelous
Anonymous 5:00: The issue at hand here is conflict of interest. There are good reasons that judges are advised not to participate in political activity–for one the appearance of impartiality is crucial. However, the question is whether or not that should extent to a spouse of a judge. The handbook leaves that an open question. I don’t think the discussion of it has anything at all to do with sexism and to me has everything to do with propriety.
Anonymous 4:56: I deleted your comments twice now because it off topic and potentially libelous
Anonymous 5:00: The issue at hand here is conflict of interest. There are good reasons that judges are advised not to participate in political activity–for one the appearance of impartiality is crucial. However, the question is whether or not that should extent to a spouse of a judge. The handbook leaves that an open question. I don’t think the discussion of it has anything at all to do with sexism and to me has everything to do with propriety.
Back to the issue at hand. For those of you into conspiracy theory go create your own blog.
The Public Defender has a very important role in ensuring that people receive a fair trial. Barry is a reasonable guy. I have not always agreed with him, but I do think he is reasonable. You raise some good questions DPD.
Perhaps Barry Melton should let the public know whey there was a conflict of interest. I don’t think that this would hurt him. As a matter of fact it would add to his credibility.
Transparency is always a good thing.
By the way, to one of the previous people who posted:
Samantha McCarthy
Rachel Livingston
Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald
These are all women who are independent minded and have a strong voice. They can think for themselves. I don’t think DPD was being sexist. That is a FAR stretch.
The difference between them and Lea??? They are not wives of a sitting judge!!! ANY QUESTIONS????
Thank you for covering this story DPD.
By the way…Lea is a good person and you never alluded anything differently. I personally admire her for her patience to be married to Dave!!!
Back to the issue at hand. For those of you into conspiracy theory go create your own blog.
The Public Defender has a very important role in ensuring that people receive a fair trial. Barry is a reasonable guy. I have not always agreed with him, but I do think he is reasonable. You raise some good questions DPD.
Perhaps Barry Melton should let the public know whey there was a conflict of interest. I don’t think that this would hurt him. As a matter of fact it would add to his credibility.
Transparency is always a good thing.
By the way, to one of the previous people who posted:
Samantha McCarthy
Rachel Livingston
Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald
These are all women who are independent minded and have a strong voice. They can think for themselves. I don’t think DPD was being sexist. That is a FAR stretch.
The difference between them and Lea??? They are not wives of a sitting judge!!! ANY QUESTIONS????
Thank you for covering this story DPD.
By the way…Lea is a good person and you never alluded anything differently. I personally admire her for her patience to be married to Dave!!!
Back to the issue at hand. For those of you into conspiracy theory go create your own blog.
The Public Defender has a very important role in ensuring that people receive a fair trial. Barry is a reasonable guy. I have not always agreed with him, but I do think he is reasonable. You raise some good questions DPD.
Perhaps Barry Melton should let the public know whey there was a conflict of interest. I don’t think that this would hurt him. As a matter of fact it would add to his credibility.
Transparency is always a good thing.
By the way, to one of the previous people who posted:
Samantha McCarthy
Rachel Livingston
Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald
These are all women who are independent minded and have a strong voice. They can think for themselves. I don’t think DPD was being sexist. That is a FAR stretch.
The difference between them and Lea??? They are not wives of a sitting judge!!! ANY QUESTIONS????
Thank you for covering this story DPD.
By the way…Lea is a good person and you never alluded anything differently. I personally admire her for her patience to be married to Dave!!!
Back to the issue at hand. For those of you into conspiracy theory go create your own blog.
The Public Defender has a very important role in ensuring that people receive a fair trial. Barry is a reasonable guy. I have not always agreed with him, but I do think he is reasonable. You raise some good questions DPD.
Perhaps Barry Melton should let the public know whey there was a conflict of interest. I don’t think that this would hurt him. As a matter of fact it would add to his credibility.
Transparency is always a good thing.
By the way, to one of the previous people who posted:
Samantha McCarthy
Rachel Livingston
Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald
These are all women who are independent minded and have a strong voice. They can think for themselves. I don’t think DPD was being sexist. That is a FAR stretch.
The difference between them and Lea??? They are not wives of a sitting judge!!! ANY QUESTIONS????
Thank you for covering this story DPD.
By the way…Lea is a good person and you never alluded anything differently. I personally admire her for her patience to be married to Dave!!!
Typo. I mean to write, “…why there was a conflict of interest.”
Typo. I mean to write, “…why there was a conflict of interest.”
Typo. I mean to write, “…why there was a conflict of interest.”
Typo. I mean to write, “…why there was a conflict of interest.”
So the Public Defender decides (for whatever reason) that his office is in conflict and should not provide a defense for this defendant.
The Public Defender then files a motion to obtain a conflict attorney. Mind you, a competent attorney with experience in such trials. He is not throwing the client out on the street.
I am thinking…the Public Defender did the right and ethical thing. Regardless what the issues were between him and one of his employees, he felt the defendant would be more objectively served by another lawyer.
So the Public Defender decides (for whatever reason) that his office is in conflict and should not provide a defense for this defendant.
The Public Defender then files a motion to obtain a conflict attorney. Mind you, a competent attorney with experience in such trials. He is not throwing the client out on the street.
I am thinking…the Public Defender did the right and ethical thing. Regardless what the issues were between him and one of his employees, he felt the defendant would be more objectively served by another lawyer.
So the Public Defender decides (for whatever reason) that his office is in conflict and should not provide a defense for this defendant.
The Public Defender then files a motion to obtain a conflict attorney. Mind you, a competent attorney with experience in such trials. He is not throwing the client out on the street.
I am thinking…the Public Defender did the right and ethical thing. Regardless what the issues were between him and one of his employees, he felt the defendant would be more objectively served by another lawyer.
So the Public Defender decides (for whatever reason) that his office is in conflict and should not provide a defense for this defendant.
The Public Defender then files a motion to obtain a conflict attorney. Mind you, a competent attorney with experience in such trials. He is not throwing the client out on the street.
I am thinking…the Public Defender did the right and ethical thing. Regardless what the issues were between him and one of his employees, he felt the defendant would be more objectively served by another lawyer.
I think you underestimate the strength of Lea’s own voice in Davis politics. I believe that she has a mind of her own as well and wishes to remain active in the Davis community. Dave would never try to interfere with that, just as DPD would never try to interfere with his wife Cecilia’s participation.
You are still assuming that Lea’s participation in the lively political activities of Davis and Yolo County means that Dave cannot be a fair judge for a trial involving a man killing a deputy sheriff on a lonely road north of Woodland.
The Woodland Courthouse is a small tight-knit community. Don’t you see that the everyone would get to know and like or dislike one another. It has nothing to do what the wife of a judge or her long-time involvement in charitable causes and political campaigns and issues in Davis. Everyone who has been in court knows that it is carefully scripted so that natural bias is tempered so that decisions are made based on law and evidence as much as possible. But it is still a human experience and not perfect.
I think you underestimate the strength of Lea’s own voice in Davis politics. I believe that she has a mind of her own as well and wishes to remain active in the Davis community. Dave would never try to interfere with that, just as DPD would never try to interfere with his wife Cecilia’s participation.
You are still assuming that Lea’s participation in the lively political activities of Davis and Yolo County means that Dave cannot be a fair judge for a trial involving a man killing a deputy sheriff on a lonely road north of Woodland.
The Woodland Courthouse is a small tight-knit community. Don’t you see that the everyone would get to know and like or dislike one another. It has nothing to do what the wife of a judge or her long-time involvement in charitable causes and political campaigns and issues in Davis. Everyone who has been in court knows that it is carefully scripted so that natural bias is tempered so that decisions are made based on law and evidence as much as possible. But it is still a human experience and not perfect.
I think you underestimate the strength of Lea’s own voice in Davis politics. I believe that she has a mind of her own as well and wishes to remain active in the Davis community. Dave would never try to interfere with that, just as DPD would never try to interfere with his wife Cecilia’s participation.
You are still assuming that Lea’s participation in the lively political activities of Davis and Yolo County means that Dave cannot be a fair judge for a trial involving a man killing a deputy sheriff on a lonely road north of Woodland.
The Woodland Courthouse is a small tight-knit community. Don’t you see that the everyone would get to know and like or dislike one another. It has nothing to do what the wife of a judge or her long-time involvement in charitable causes and political campaigns and issues in Davis. Everyone who has been in court knows that it is carefully scripted so that natural bias is tempered so that decisions are made based on law and evidence as much as possible. But it is still a human experience and not perfect.
I think you underestimate the strength of Lea’s own voice in Davis politics. I believe that she has a mind of her own as well and wishes to remain active in the Davis community. Dave would never try to interfere with that, just as DPD would never try to interfere with his wife Cecilia’s participation.
You are still assuming that Lea’s participation in the lively political activities of Davis and Yolo County means that Dave cannot be a fair judge for a trial involving a man killing a deputy sheriff on a lonely road north of Woodland.
The Woodland Courthouse is a small tight-knit community. Don’t you see that the everyone would get to know and like or dislike one another. It has nothing to do what the wife of a judge or her long-time involvement in charitable causes and political campaigns and issues in Davis. Everyone who has been in court knows that it is carefully scripted so that natural bias is tempered so that decisions are made based on law and evidence as much as possible. But it is still a human experience and not perfect.
vanguardian, I am a woman. Regardless, my argument still stands.
vanguardian, I am a woman. Regardless, my argument still stands.
vanguardian, I am a woman. Regardless, my argument still stands.
vanguardian, I am a woman. Regardless, my argument still stands.
The same would hold true for the spouse of a female judge. In order to refrain from any conflict of interest a spouse or significant other of a female judge would/should refrain from political involvement.
Judges, Public Defenders, DAs and Sheriffs deal with public safety and must adhere to the code of ethics.
As previously stated, Canon 5:
A JUDGE OR JUDICIAL CANDIDATE SHALL REFRAIN FROM INAPPROPRIATE POLITICAL ACTIVITY
This is an excerpt from the Advisory Committee Commentary:
“Although members of the judge’s family are not subject to the provisions of this Code, a judge shall not avoid compliance with this Code by making contributions through a spouse or registered domestic partner or other family
member.”
Don’t mix apples and oranges.
The same would hold true for the spouse of a female judge. In order to refrain from any conflict of interest a spouse or significant other of a female judge would/should refrain from political involvement.
Judges, Public Defenders, DAs and Sheriffs deal with public safety and must adhere to the code of ethics.
As previously stated, Canon 5:
A JUDGE OR JUDICIAL CANDIDATE SHALL REFRAIN FROM INAPPROPRIATE POLITICAL ACTIVITY
This is an excerpt from the Advisory Committee Commentary:
“Although members of the judge’s family are not subject to the provisions of this Code, a judge shall not avoid compliance with this Code by making contributions through a spouse or registered domestic partner or other family
member.”
Don’t mix apples and oranges.
The same would hold true for the spouse of a female judge. In order to refrain from any conflict of interest a spouse or significant other of a female judge would/should refrain from political involvement.
Judges, Public Defenders, DAs and Sheriffs deal with public safety and must adhere to the code of ethics.
As previously stated, Canon 5:
A JUDGE OR JUDICIAL CANDIDATE SHALL REFRAIN FROM INAPPROPRIATE POLITICAL ACTIVITY
This is an excerpt from the Advisory Committee Commentary:
“Although members of the judge’s family are not subject to the provisions of this Code, a judge shall not avoid compliance with this Code by making contributions through a spouse or registered domestic partner or other family
member.”
Don’t mix apples and oranges.
The same would hold true for the spouse of a female judge. In order to refrain from any conflict of interest a spouse or significant other of a female judge would/should refrain from political involvement.
Judges, Public Defenders, DAs and Sheriffs deal with public safety and must adhere to the code of ethics.
As previously stated, Canon 5:
A JUDGE OR JUDICIAL CANDIDATE SHALL REFRAIN FROM INAPPROPRIATE POLITICAL ACTIVITY
This is an excerpt from the Advisory Committee Commentary:
“Although members of the judge’s family are not subject to the provisions of this Code, a judge shall not avoid compliance with this Code by making contributions through a spouse or registered domestic partner or other family
member.”
Don’t mix apples and oranges.
The article that DPD wrote today is about Melton and not Rosenberg. Who cares about Dave Rosenberg? He’s been a caricature in Davis politics for a long time.
You make some good points in today’s article DPD. It appears that there is room for improvement in the Yolo County Courthouse. The only way to provide this would either be a change in law (political contributions) or a change in the public defender and district attorney and sheriff and a change in some judges that sit on the bench too.
The article that DPD wrote today is about Melton and not Rosenberg. Who cares about Dave Rosenberg? He’s been a caricature in Davis politics for a long time.
You make some good points in today’s article DPD. It appears that there is room for improvement in the Yolo County Courthouse. The only way to provide this would either be a change in law (political contributions) or a change in the public defender and district attorney and sheriff and a change in some judges that sit on the bench too.
The article that DPD wrote today is about Melton and not Rosenberg. Who cares about Dave Rosenberg? He’s been a caricature in Davis politics for a long time.
You make some good points in today’s article DPD. It appears that there is room for improvement in the Yolo County Courthouse. The only way to provide this would either be a change in law (political contributions) or a change in the public defender and district attorney and sheriff and a change in some judges that sit on the bench too.
The article that DPD wrote today is about Melton and not Rosenberg. Who cares about Dave Rosenberg? He’s been a caricature in Davis politics for a long time.
You make some good points in today’s article DPD. It appears that there is room for improvement in the Yolo County Courthouse. The only way to provide this would either be a change in law (political contributions) or a change in the public defender and district attorney and sheriff and a change in some judges that sit on the bench too.
“A JUDGE OR JUDICIAL CANDIDATE SHALL REFRAIN FROM INAPPROPRIATE POLITICAL ACTIVITY
This is an excerpt from the Advisory Committee Commentary:
“Although members of the judge’s family are not subject to the provisions of this Code, a judge shall not avoid compliance with this Code by making contributions through a spouse or registered domestic partner or other family
member.”
Ok…was there any evidence that he was involved in “inappropriate” political activity or that he made contributions THROUGH his spouse? As opposed to her having her own political opinions and making contributions based on her beliefs? Or are we prematurely assuming quite a bit here?
I have never voted for Rosenberg, The Sheriff, or Melton….but c’mon fair is fair. Before we throw out accusatory speculations should not there be some proof?
“A JUDGE OR JUDICIAL CANDIDATE SHALL REFRAIN FROM INAPPROPRIATE POLITICAL ACTIVITY
This is an excerpt from the Advisory Committee Commentary:
“Although members of the judge’s family are not subject to the provisions of this Code, a judge shall not avoid compliance with this Code by making contributions through a spouse or registered domestic partner or other family
member.”
Ok…was there any evidence that he was involved in “inappropriate” political activity or that he made contributions THROUGH his spouse? As opposed to her having her own political opinions and making contributions based on her beliefs? Or are we prematurely assuming quite a bit here?
I have never voted for Rosenberg, The Sheriff, or Melton….but c’mon fair is fair. Before we throw out accusatory speculations should not there be some proof?
“A JUDGE OR JUDICIAL CANDIDATE SHALL REFRAIN FROM INAPPROPRIATE POLITICAL ACTIVITY
This is an excerpt from the Advisory Committee Commentary:
“Although members of the judge’s family are not subject to the provisions of this Code, a judge shall not avoid compliance with this Code by making contributions through a spouse or registered domestic partner or other family
member.”
Ok…was there any evidence that he was involved in “inappropriate” political activity or that he made contributions THROUGH his spouse? As opposed to her having her own political opinions and making contributions based on her beliefs? Or are we prematurely assuming quite a bit here?
I have never voted for Rosenberg, The Sheriff, or Melton….but c’mon fair is fair. Before we throw out accusatory speculations should not there be some proof?
“A JUDGE OR JUDICIAL CANDIDATE SHALL REFRAIN FROM INAPPROPRIATE POLITICAL ACTIVITY
This is an excerpt from the Advisory Committee Commentary:
“Although members of the judge’s family are not subject to the provisions of this Code, a judge shall not avoid compliance with this Code by making contributions through a spouse or registered domestic partner or other family
member.”
Ok…was there any evidence that he was involved in “inappropriate” political activity or that he made contributions THROUGH his spouse? As opposed to her having her own political opinions and making contributions based on her beliefs? Or are we prematurely assuming quite a bit here?
I have never voted for Rosenberg, The Sheriff, or Melton….but c’mon fair is fair. Before we throw out accusatory speculations should not there be some proof?
rich –
i think the re-election of judges comes out of the old hiram johnson era progressive reforms of the california constitution (other examples would be the 2/3 requirement for passing a budget, the recall process and the initiative process), that was initially conceived as being was in which regular people could serve as a sort of check on powerful interests controlling the state government.
in the case of judges, the logic goes that if a judge, appointed by some crony governor, manages to alienate the voters in his jurisdiction bad enough, they can throw him out of the courthouse, reversing the appointment.
like much of the progressive reforms, it can be used by the same powerful interests that it was intended to hold in check, once they got good at manipulating the new system.
rich –
i think the re-election of judges comes out of the old hiram johnson era progressive reforms of the california constitution (other examples would be the 2/3 requirement for passing a budget, the recall process and the initiative process), that was initially conceived as being was in which regular people could serve as a sort of check on powerful interests controlling the state government.
in the case of judges, the logic goes that if a judge, appointed by some crony governor, manages to alienate the voters in his jurisdiction bad enough, they can throw him out of the courthouse, reversing the appointment.
like much of the progressive reforms, it can be used by the same powerful interests that it was intended to hold in check, once they got good at manipulating the new system.
rich –
i think the re-election of judges comes out of the old hiram johnson era progressive reforms of the california constitution (other examples would be the 2/3 requirement for passing a budget, the recall process and the initiative process), that was initially conceived as being was in which regular people could serve as a sort of check on powerful interests controlling the state government.
in the case of judges, the logic goes that if a judge, appointed by some crony governor, manages to alienate the voters in his jurisdiction bad enough, they can throw him out of the courthouse, reversing the appointment.
like much of the progressive reforms, it can be used by the same powerful interests that it was intended to hold in check, once they got good at manipulating the new system.
rich –
i think the re-election of judges comes out of the old hiram johnson era progressive reforms of the california constitution (other examples would be the 2/3 requirement for passing a budget, the recall process and the initiative process), that was initially conceived as being was in which regular people could serve as a sort of check on powerful interests controlling the state government.
in the case of judges, the logic goes that if a judge, appointed by some crony governor, manages to alienate the voters in his jurisdiction bad enough, they can throw him out of the courthouse, reversing the appointment.
like much of the progressive reforms, it can be used by the same powerful interests that it was intended to hold in check, once they got good at manipulating the new system.
as for judicial spouses, it seems to me that the whole idea of an apolitical judiciary is somewhat at odds with a system of electing judges. but if the law says spouses are OK to be politically involved, then i don’t think lea’s activism can really be considered an impropriety.
i’m agnostic over whether an apolitical judiciary is even a worthwhile ideal, FWIW.
many spouses have different politics from one another, BTW. there are more than a few ticket-splitting households out there, and even if they’re both in the same party, that doesn’t mean a couple sees political issues in the same manner at all.
as for judicial spouses, it seems to me that the whole idea of an apolitical judiciary is somewhat at odds with a system of electing judges. but if the law says spouses are OK to be politically involved, then i don’t think lea’s activism can really be considered an impropriety.
i’m agnostic over whether an apolitical judiciary is even a worthwhile ideal, FWIW.
many spouses have different politics from one another, BTW. there are more than a few ticket-splitting households out there, and even if they’re both in the same party, that doesn’t mean a couple sees political issues in the same manner at all.
as for judicial spouses, it seems to me that the whole idea of an apolitical judiciary is somewhat at odds with a system of electing judges. but if the law says spouses are OK to be politically involved, then i don’t think lea’s activism can really be considered an impropriety.
i’m agnostic over whether an apolitical judiciary is even a worthwhile ideal, FWIW.
many spouses have different politics from one another, BTW. there are more than a few ticket-splitting households out there, and even if they’re both in the same party, that doesn’t mean a couple sees political issues in the same manner at all.
as for judicial spouses, it seems to me that the whole idea of an apolitical judiciary is somewhat at odds with a system of electing judges. but if the law says spouses are OK to be politically involved, then i don’t think lea’s activism can really be considered an impropriety.
i’m agnostic over whether an apolitical judiciary is even a worthwhile ideal, FWIW.
many spouses have different politics from one another, BTW. there are more than a few ticket-splitting households out there, and even if they’re both in the same party, that doesn’t mean a couple sees political issues in the same manner at all.
I think the issue here is that Rosenberg spent most of his career as an elected official, and Lea was his political spouse. Together, they had a well-defined political faction, and worked for years as a political team.
Because of this, people in Davis are in the habit of looking on them as a political team, and assume that, if Dave were not a judge, that he would still be a political player.
Thus, when Lea makes a political contribution or endorsement, it is much more likely to signal a major political statement by Dave than if the spouse of an apolitical judge were to do so.
I think that this is precisely the type of situation that was being addressed in the judicial code of conduct.
I think the issue here is that Rosenberg spent most of his career as an elected official, and Lea was his political spouse. Together, they had a well-defined political faction, and worked for years as a political team.
Because of this, people in Davis are in the habit of looking on them as a political team, and assume that, if Dave were not a judge, that he would still be a political player.
Thus, when Lea makes a political contribution or endorsement, it is much more likely to signal a major political statement by Dave than if the spouse of an apolitical judge were to do so.
I think that this is precisely the type of situation that was being addressed in the judicial code of conduct.
I think the issue here is that Rosenberg spent most of his career as an elected official, and Lea was his political spouse. Together, they had a well-defined political faction, and worked for years as a political team.
Because of this, people in Davis are in the habit of looking on them as a political team, and assume that, if Dave were not a judge, that he would still be a political player.
Thus, when Lea makes a political contribution or endorsement, it is much more likely to signal a major political statement by Dave than if the spouse of an apolitical judge were to do so.
I think that this is precisely the type of situation that was being addressed in the judicial code of conduct.
I think the issue here is that Rosenberg spent most of his career as an elected official, and Lea was his political spouse. Together, they had a well-defined political faction, and worked for years as a political team.
Because of this, people in Davis are in the habit of looking on them as a political team, and assume that, if Dave were not a judge, that he would still be a political player.
Thus, when Lea makes a political contribution or endorsement, it is much more likely to signal a major political statement by Dave than if the spouse of an apolitical judge were to do so.
I think that this is precisely the type of situation that was being addressed in the judicial code of conduct.
DPD – Good article. It would be interesting to see what other counties do to avoid this conflict. I’m sure Yolo is not the only place where this has happened.
DPD – Good article. It would be interesting to see what other counties do to avoid this conflict. I’m sure Yolo is not the only place where this has happened.
DPD – Good article. It would be interesting to see what other counties do to avoid this conflict. I’m sure Yolo is not the only place where this has happened.
DPD – Good article. It would be interesting to see what other counties do to avoid this conflict. I’m sure Yolo is not the only place where this has happened.
DPD:
First, this is not that big of a deal.
Second, in counties the size of Yolo you are going to have this kind of thing.
Third, the spouse thing is crazy. I don’t know Lea Rosenberg but I have to believe that she has her own views on things. She certainly should not have to avoid political activity due to the occupation of her husband. How un-Davis.
Finally, from my point of view Barry Melton goes out of his way to behave in a manner that is honest and in the best interests of his clients.
Matt Rexroad
662-5184
DPD:
First, this is not that big of a deal.
Second, in counties the size of Yolo you are going to have this kind of thing.
Third, the spouse thing is crazy. I don’t know Lea Rosenberg but I have to believe that she has her own views on things. She certainly should not have to avoid political activity due to the occupation of her husband. How un-Davis.
Finally, from my point of view Barry Melton goes out of his way to behave in a manner that is honest and in the best interests of his clients.
Matt Rexroad
662-5184
DPD:
First, this is not that big of a deal.
Second, in counties the size of Yolo you are going to have this kind of thing.
Third, the spouse thing is crazy. I don’t know Lea Rosenberg but I have to believe that she has her own views on things. She certainly should not have to avoid political activity due to the occupation of her husband. How un-Davis.
Finally, from my point of view Barry Melton goes out of his way to behave in a manner that is honest and in the best interests of his clients.
Matt Rexroad
662-5184
DPD:
First, this is not that big of a deal.
Second, in counties the size of Yolo you are going to have this kind of thing.
Third, the spouse thing is crazy. I don’t know Lea Rosenberg but I have to believe that she has her own views on things. She certainly should not have to avoid political activity due to the occupation of her husband. How un-Davis.
Finally, from my point of view Barry Melton goes out of his way to behave in a manner that is honest and in the best interests of his clients.
Matt Rexroad
662-5184
Matt:
It’s only a big deal if that’s the reason he recused himself.
Second I don’t understand the own person argument here, there are actions that a spouse undertakes that are proscribed due to the profession or position of the other spouse. We see that all the time, so I am not exactly sure why the “own person” argument negates a potential conflict of interest.
Matt:
It’s only a big deal if that’s the reason he recused himself.
Second I don’t understand the own person argument here, there are actions that a spouse undertakes that are proscribed due to the profession or position of the other spouse. We see that all the time, so I am not exactly sure why the “own person” argument negates a potential conflict of interest.
Matt:
It’s only a big deal if that’s the reason he recused himself.
Second I don’t understand the own person argument here, there are actions that a spouse undertakes that are proscribed due to the profession or position of the other spouse. We see that all the time, so I am not exactly sure why the “own person” argument negates a potential conflict of interest.
Matt:
It’s only a big deal if that’s the reason he recused himself.
Second I don’t understand the own person argument here, there are actions that a spouse undertakes that are proscribed due to the profession or position of the other spouse. We see that all the time, so I am not exactly sure why the “own person” argument negates a potential conflict of interest.
“Second I don’t understand the own person argument here, there are actions that a spouse undertakes that are proscribed due to the profession or position of the other spouse. We see that all the time, so I am not exactly sure why the “own person” argument negates a potential conflict of interest.”
It’s obvious you don’t understand the whole “own person” concept.
“Second I don’t understand the own person argument here, there are actions that a spouse undertakes that are proscribed due to the profession or position of the other spouse. We see that all the time, so I am not exactly sure why the “own person” argument negates a potential conflict of interest.”
It’s obvious you don’t understand the whole “own person” concept.
“Second I don’t understand the own person argument here, there are actions that a spouse undertakes that are proscribed due to the profession or position of the other spouse. We see that all the time, so I am not exactly sure why the “own person” argument negates a potential conflict of interest.”
It’s obvious you don’t understand the whole “own person” concept.
“Second I don’t understand the own person argument here, there are actions that a spouse undertakes that are proscribed due to the profession or position of the other spouse. We see that all the time, so I am not exactly sure why the “own person” argument negates a potential conflict of interest.”
It’s obvious you don’t understand the whole “own person” concept.
“It’s obvious you don’t understand the whole “own person” concept. “
And you’ve done nothing to facilitate to that or advance the argument.
“It’s obvious you don’t understand the whole “own person” concept. “
And you’ve done nothing to facilitate to that or advance the argument.
“It’s obvious you don’t understand the whole “own person” concept. “
And you’ve done nothing to facilitate to that or advance the argument.
“It’s obvious you don’t understand the whole “own person” concept. “
And you’ve done nothing to facilitate to that or advance the argument.