The Yolo County District Attorney’s Office on Tuesday released a statement claiming that former Investigator Rick Gore, has resigned, apologized, and retracted a letter that was leaked to the Vanguard in March of 2008.
“In March 2008, The People’s Vanguard of Davis blog published Mr. Gore’s March 5, 2008 letter in which Mr. Gore made allegations of unethical legal practices and the creation of a hostile work environment for employees.”
On March 7, 2008, the Vanguard published the article “Senior Investigator For Yolo County District Attorney’s Office Accuses Reisig of Ethical Malfeasance And Much More.”
According to the District Attorney’s Office, on May 21, 2008, Yolo County publicly released a summary of findings of an independent legal investigation into this matter. The findings determined that all of the allegations in the letter were unsubstantiated.
Mr. Reisig said at the time:
“Every material allegation made by Rick Gore was not substantiated. It was not substantiated that Jeff Reisig was or is engaging in unethical practices. There is no indication that Rick Gore was subjected to a hostile work environment, that he was retaliated against for exercising his rights, and/or that he was discriminated against on the basis of a legally protected category.”
The newest letter purportedly comes after a settlement agreement between the county and Mr. Gore. Neither Mr. Gore nor his attorney was willing to speak to the Vanguard on the record on Tuesday specifically regarding the letter by District Attorney Reisig. However, Dan McNamara, a Sacramento-based attorney representing Mr. Gore told the Vanguard that they “reached agreement” and that “all the parties are happy with the arrangement.”
According to the release from the District Attorney, in his retraction letter Mr. Gore apologizes to
“Yolo County District Attorney Jeff Reisig, Deputy District Attorney Garrett Hamilton, District Attorney’s Lieutenant Investigator Bruce Naliboff and the entire staff of the Yolo County District Attorney’s Office for the misrepresentations concerning them contained in my letter dated 5 March 2008.”
Mr. Gore then lists, and ultimately retracts, substantive allegations from his March 5, 2008 letter which he now states were “unfounded.”
“I am pleased that Mr. Gore has retracted his unfounded accusations against this office and the dedicated people working here. I believe this retraction, along with the findings of the county’s independent investigation released last year, have vindicated those in the District Attorney’s Office affected by Mr. Gore’s allegations. These fine attorneys and investigators are committed to professionally and ethically serving the citizens of Yolo County.”
Mr. Reisig went on to state in his release:
“The Yolo County District Attorney’s Office maintains the highest standards of ethics and professionalism. The personal and professional integrity of the attorneys and investigators in the office is critical to the job we do protecting public safety. An effective and fair administration of the criminal justice system in Yolo County is of the upmost priority to the District Attorney’s Office.”
Vanguard Disputes Accuracy of this Retraction
It should be noted that this most recent letter by Gore is not signed under oath or under penalty of perjury. One of the key unanswered questions is why the District Attorney’s office is able to speak about this and put out a press release but not Mr. Gore. Nevertheless, the Vanguard can verify that Mr. Gore in fact does stand behind most of the key allegations and that these allegations have merit to them.
The DA’s press release claims the newest letter states, in part,
“I was never ordered by DA Jeff Reisig to sign an untrue affidavit in support of a gang injunction. The allegation is unfounded and I retract it.”
In his March letter Mr. Gore wrote:
“I was called in by DDA Linden a few days later, and was told [Reisig] had ordered me to sign this injunction and I had no choice. Knowing I could be fired for not following this order, I signed it after changing some of the language.”
In fact, last year at the Gang Injunction preliminary hearings, Mr. Gore testified under oath that he had been so ordered. So should we believe Mr. Gore’s retraction letter, again not signed under oath or the penalty of perjury or his on the record testimony? If the District Attorney’s Office believes that Mr. Gore testified falsely at the hearing last year, do you believe they would go on to charge him with perjury?
Mr. Reisig’s office recently received negative press when former investigator Randy Skaggs filed a lawsuit which alleged retaliation for whistle blowing in reference to failure to turn over exculpatory evidence in the Halloween Homicide case–a charge that is featured prominently in the letter by Mr. Gore.
Mr. Gore wrote at the time:
“One major disagreement you and I had was when you tried to hide and conceal discoverable evidence about a material witness and refused to discover evidence during an on-going murder trial.”
He continues:
“Bruce Naliboff told me, in front of you, to “put a muzzle” on Randy Skaggs for talking about this discovery issue. You and I had extensive email discussion about this. Lt. Skaggs was in the office when Dave Henderson had to order you to comply with the law and therefore discover the evidence. I am sure the date of the gun test and the date of discovery of the report will show the long delay in providing this evidence, shooting and gun test, to the defense.”
In his retraction letter, he writes:
“My allegation that DA Reisig tried to hide or conceal evidence during a murder trial was completely unfounded, and I retract it… My allegation that DA Reisig refused to discover evidence during the same trial until I pushed him to do so, and until ordered to do so by former DA Henderson, is completely unfounded and I retract it.”
The problem with that retraction is that we have Mr. Skaggs’ lawsuit against the District Attorney for what? In part for retaliation for Mr. Skaggs blowing the whistle on Mr. Reisig’s alleged failure to turn over exculpatory evidence.
Writes attorneys for Randy Skaggs:
“The Defendant have initiated retaliatory and frivolous administrative proceedings and actions against the Plaintiff, because he brought to the attention of the DA OFFICE, including the District Attorney, exculpatory evidence relating to other criminal investigations and prosecutions, and that thereafter the DA was forced to turn over evidence to defense counsel.”
According to the claim,
“Following these actions by the Plaintiff, the DA OFFICE began treating him selectively, placing him on administrative leave, proposing to terminate him from the department and initiating various administrative proceedings against him. These actions pretextual, wrongful and in violation of the public policies of the Untied States of America, and were in fact done to retaliate against Plaintiff, and in violation of his constitutional rights under 42 USC § 1983 II (Fourteenth Amendment) and other constitutional rights.”
These allegations corroborate Mr. Gore’s March 5, 2008 letter and conflict with this newest letter that was created as part of a settlement. Indeed, in my on the record conversations with Mr. Gore earlier this year, he told me that he stands by the March 5, 2008 letter, that he has offered to take a lie detector test, and that he plans to testify in court under oath to that effect. If Mr. Skaggs’ allegations are proven correct, Gore’s settlement letter will become little more than a PR move by Mr. Reisig to try to control his damaged public image.
While Mr. Gore will not go on the record at this time given the nature of this agreement, I think it is clear that this was a settlement agreement and the public should weigh that factor heavily when deciding at the time what is truth and what is a prevarication. The truth will ultimately come out in many of these matters as Mr. Gore will undoubtedly be asked to testify in the the Skaggs’ lawsuit in public and under oath and probably in the gang injunction case, again, in public and under oath. It is my belief based on previous conversations with Mr. Gore that he will testify that what he wrote in that letter on March 5, 2008 is accurate and he will stand by what he has said.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
[i]It is my belief based on previous conversations with Mr. Gore that he will testify that what he wrote in that letter on March 5, 2008 is accurate and he will stand by what he has said.[/i]
In other words, you think that Gore has betrayed Reisig with a toothless settlement agreement that will crumble under oath?
The other day you said that newspapers often present a biased picture by taking press releases at face value. That’s a fair point, in general, but it cuts both ways. Skaggs’ press release to you said that there is a “baseless” administrative and criminal investigation against him. Criminal investigation for what?
A good illustrator of Monday’s article is today’s Daily Democrat article. If I had not sent them a statement, this would have been a completely one-sided article.
[url]http://www.dailydemocrat.com/news/ci_13251898[/url]
Thanks for giving us “the rest of the story”. I hope people see that you give facts and critical evaluation of news and not just reprints.
Keep up the good work.
A PR move by the Reisig? How about the obvious PR move by Gore? Aren’t you at least a little bit annoyed that the Vanguard was used by Gore to gain an advantage in his battle to get a satisfactory settlement?
I just don’t care about office politics in the DA’s office anymore.
It is clear you have your mind made up. Despite no evidence, an independent investigation, and apology and retraction from the accuser, you still don’t care. It is not about anything else other than the fact you do not like Jeff and you wish Pat Lenzi had won. You would keep this going for another 10 independent investigations even if they came out the same way. All you have is an opinion, with no facts, no evidence, in fact you have evidence to contrary and you refuse to swallow it.
Maybe his settlement was that he got caught in a lie and agreed to retract so he would not be procsecuted? You are so one sided about the DA you make the Enterprise seem objective.
Your bias is beyond reason.
An independent investigation? The sum total of an independent investigation was that Reisig claimed one thing, Gore claimed something else and the investigator couldn’t substantiate the claims.
“Maybe his settlement was that he got caught in a lie and agreed to retract so he would not be procsecuted?”
And so he stood by it a few months ago but not now and he intends to testify to it at the Skaggs trial. It’s pretty clear he took the deal he could get and will tell the truth when on the stand.
“I just don’t care about office politics in the DA’s office anymore. “
How so? I mean when it creaps into policy matters, it is clearly not about office politics. Clearly David chose to focus on the public policy matters rather than internal stuff. David can’t win by you, when he does his own research, you whine just as much.
This is not about the 2006 DA’s election this is about a corrupt politician/ prosecutor imperilling the Yolo County judicial system and then retaliating against whistle blowers such as Gore and Skaggs amongst others.
He probably agreed to a ‘settlement’ which smears him instead of the DA’s office in order to preserve his eligibility for his pension, his ability to return to the workforce without letters of poor performance getting in his way, and to get this behind him. Sounds like the DA plays hardball.
Exactly correct.
The two words that come to mind for me is shameful and pathetic. It’s shameful to me that Mr. Gore had to choose his family and future employability over his ethics and integrity to justice. And, it’s pathetic to me that Reisig’s desperation to sustain his reputation, forced Gore to retract what he knew to be the truth. Unless Mr. Skaggs has a secure future and trust in a Higher Power greater then himself, I’m sure we will see another form letter retraction.
Compare the Enterprise article just out to the Daily Democrat article. Daily Democrat quotes from Greenwald which gives the story balance. The Enterprise does not and thus has a completely one-sided story from the DA’s perspective. Yes folks the DE has sunk below the DD.
The Enterprise is so biased that David looks biased the other way by comparison. I read the article in the Enterprise online and it only had the DA’s point of view. Even the Democrat was better. David gave the DA’s side and then his own view–what’s wrong with that?
Nice try to make Reisig look good. A civil settlement does not deal away criminal charges. Another Reisig goon trying to cloud the issue to protect Reisig and his power.
[quote]The Yolo County District Attorney’s Office on Tuesday released a statement [u]claiming[/u] that former Investigator Rick Gore, has resigned, apologized, and retracted a letter that was leaked to the Vanguard in March of 2008.[/quote] Claiming? That’s not only the wrong word, it is (intentionally) misleading. Rick Gore signed his retraction as a sworn affidavit of the truth. If reporting what actually happened is your intent, you need to replace “claiming” with “announcing.” The statement is not Mr. Reisig’s, it is Mr. Gore’s. [quote]Mr. Gore, who was the chief investigator for the gang injunction in West Sacramento, accused Mr. Reisig of failure to disclosure potentially exculpatory evidence, forcing false signatures in support of the West Sacramento Gang Injunction, attempts to mislead the court by noticing a single individual on the Gang Injunction, and improper invasion of privacy into District Attorney Candidate Pat Lenzi’s desk in the District Attorney’s office.
[/quote]Mr. Gore has subsequently said, with this retraction, that his earlier charges were falsehoods. It’s possible he is lying now. However, one way or the other, it is impossible not to judge Mr. Gore as a liar in this case.
These are Mr. Gore’s exact words: [i]”1. I was never ordered by DA Jeff Reisig to sign an untrue affidavit in support of a gang injunction. This allegation was unfounded and I retract it.”[/i]
He also says he was lying about Bruce Naliboff:
[i]”2. My allegation that Lt. Bruce Naliboff searched DDA Lenzi’s locked desk during the 2006 election period was unfounded and I retract it. I had no direct knowledge of why Lt. Naliboff was present in Ms. Lenzi’s office when I saw him there, whether or not he was looking for a file in the course of his duties, or whether or not Ms. Lenzi’s desk was locked at the time.”[/i]
He lied about Greg Marusin, as well:
[i]”3. My allegation that DA Reisig transferred Greg Marusin to the Welfare Fraud unit because Marusin refused to support him in the election was unfounded and I retract it.”[/i]
He lied about concealing evidence. He says his charge was “completely unfounded”:
[i]”4. My allegation that DA Reisig tried to hid or conceal evidence during a murder trial was completely unfounded, and I retract it.”[/i]
Equally, his charge about discovery was untrue:
[i]”5. My allegation that DA Reisig refused to discover evidence during the same trial until I pushed him to do so, and until ordered to do so by former DA Henderson, is completely unfounded, and I retract it.”[/i]
David Greenwald’s [i]bête noire[/i], The Broderick Boys’ injunction, was the subject of another of Mr. Gore’s lies, according to Mr. Gore:
[i]”6. My allegation that DA Reisig ‘misled’ the appeals court in litigation over the Broderick Boys gang injunction is unfounded, and I retract it.”[/i]
[b]Note: There appears to be no No. 7 among his falsehoods.”[/b]
Gore now says he lied twice about deputy DA Hamilton, as well:
[i]”8. My allegation that DDA Hamilton settled a case on unfavorable terms to the People because DA Reisig did not want it discovered that Deputy DAs were involved in making arrests was completely unfounded, and I retract it.”[/i]
[i]”9. My allegation that DDA Hamilton failed to discover a supplemental arrest report to the defense in the same case is unfounded, and I retract it.”[/i]
Gore retracts his lie about the DA’s “trends”:
[i]”10. My allegation that DA Reisig engaged in a ‘constant trend … of hiding and redirecting the concealment of evidence’ was unfounded, and I retract it.”[/i]
He lied again about Naliboff:
[i]”11. My allegation that DA Reisig dispatched Lt. Naliboff to intervene in Woodland PD investigations at the request of friends was unfounded, and I retract it.”[/i]
In his final retraction, unless it was a typo, Gore says his allegation was “founded,” but he retracts it anyhow:
[i]”12. My allegation that DA Reisig delayed and planned to deny me a pay increase in retaliation for protected activities was founded, and I retract it.”[/i] [quote]How accurate is the letter and retraction or can we simply attribute it to an agreement between an employee and his employer settling a dispute? Notwithstanding the most recent letter, many of these allegations have been at least partially independently corroborated by work done by the Vanguard in conjunction with an investigation into the gang injunction, in court records, and in the newest lawsuit filed by Randy Skaggs.[/quote] I have no idea if what the Vanguard says is true or not. However, it is impossible to read Mr. Gore’s words and find him credible at this point. If one thinks he was truthful formerly and is now lying, he’s still a liar. If one accepts his retractions as true, then obviously he was lying up to this point. My sense is that the Vanguard is in the former camp largely because it fits the Vanguard’s ideological position, opposing Mr. Reisig.
“Rick Gore signed his retraction as a sworn affidavit of the truth.”
According everyone involved this is not an accurate statement. It is not a sworn statement, it was not done under penalty of perjury, and it was not done under any sort of oath.
Nice piece, the letter does not say that it was prepared by gore,it does not say that he lied in his first letter, it does not say his first letter was untrue, it does not say it was written by gore, it was not signed under oath, it does not say it was made freely without incentive, it does not say it was done as part of any agreement, it was not sworn to be true and accurate. In fact it looks like a form letter with a signature and date. I think what the letter does not say speaks louder than what it says. Why didn’t Reisig say this letter was obtained in a settlement/agreement, why was this fact not mentioned in Reisig’s press release, why isn’t gore or his attorney talking, why isn’t the county releasing a press release stating no deal was cut and gore got no money….lots of whys, but you seem to want to live and die by this letter. Do you have something vested in this?
Wonder why this is. Why has Gregg M not done a press release saying he was not reassigned as Gore said? Has anyone talked to him? I have never seen anything from him. I work in the DA office and he is the only Lt. that gets to take him county car home out of county, makes you wonder why?
In the middle of the report from the independent investigation, there is a little bit of comedy:
Stated Complaint: Jeff Reisig was not supportive of the 3@50 retirement plan.
Finding: It is not substantiated that Jeff Reisig was not supportive of the 3%@50 retirement plan.
What a relief. If Reisig didn’t support 3@50, that would be really heartless!
I’m also not sure he has any say over that matter.
BTW, be careful using the “at” symbol, the software thinks it’s an email address and sometimes goes bonkers.
The democrat is protecting Reisig again. It appears they have pulled his press release since it now shows that he tried to cover up the deal and pass the letter off as clearing him. Now that the horse is out of the barn, Reisig’s narrow and misleading press release (along with the 150 mostly neg comments on Reisig) is now removed from the Democrat site.
I hope you have a copy of Reisig Press release where he tried to pull a fast one on the people of the county?
I smell a rat and some collusion between Reisig and the Democrat…
This means he was not fired – which is what Reisig most likely tried to do. Remember- it was quite public knowledge that Gore was placed on “administrative leave” pending an investigation and never went back in the office to work. That attempt to fire him perpetrated by the County and DA did not stick it would seem. My guess – Gore must have gotten something out of the deal. This smacks of “settlement” to me. I would quit too if they tried to fire me and it did not stick and got my job back after a publicly disclosed “private personnel matter” and they offered me money to not come back. I hope he made out!
I agree ,take the money and run with it. Nice try jeff, you’ll still need to get yourself out office ,the people still dont trust you and wont ever,just leave woodland we dont want you here,you need to relocate your klan to the southern states.
Read this carefully. Mr. Gore did not say his letter was untrue or not accurate, it said “unfounded”. That means he could prove it. This is double talk. Mr. Gore agreed to take a polygraph on his first letter? Did not see this on the new letter. Funny how Mr. Gore just won his job back and now, almost two years later, after hearings, suddenly this letter appears and Mr. Gore resigns. How much money did the tax payers pay for this letter?
What about all the other stuff leveled at the DA?
Just because Gore decided he didn’t want to deal with it does not wipe away all the tyranny and bad management, possible prosecutorial misconduct, etc. going on in the DA’s office under the leadership of Mr. Reisig. Me thinks Mr. Reisig must be voted out of office for the good of Yolo County and the integrity of the Office of the District Attorney of Yolo County. The public must have confidence that the DA’s office is above board and fair when it comes to accusing people and sending them off to prison. In my mind, Reisig remains an egomaniac in spite of whether or not Gore retracted what was probably a legitimate and well deserved accusation against Reisig.
Gore does his letter is fired, fights for his job, wins his job back and then does this letter and does not say the letter was false or that he lied but uses words like “unfounded” and “retract”, sounds like lawyer language. Why did Mr. Gore get his job back? Why did Mr. Gore win his job and then resign? Was he paid anything not to come back to work? Did the tax payers pay for this letter?
Reisig still smells and there is a lot of scandal that always seem to surround him.
This is an example of the power Reisig has. He gets to fire career civil servants, they win their job back and then he does so much backdoor and unethical stuff that people get tired of fighting him and just take a pay-off and leave. Why didn’t this article say why Mr. Gore resigned or why he did the retraction? Was this voluntary or part of a deal?
Reisig thinks people are too unintelligent to figure this out. I wish the Democrat would ask some questions and not just print Reisig’s propaganda.
How many settlements have been given for Reisig? The county has to know these numbers and figures, why can’t they report them to the public? I know of at least three and how many more were there. Tax payers will never know since the county makes or gets confidentiality agreements.
I think the Board of Supervisors know but they are not talking. Maybe they are scared of Reisig too.
[quote]It is not a sworn statement, it was not done under penalty of perjury, and it was not done under any sort of oath.[/quote] Rick Gore’s signature is on the statement. Are you suggesting that someone was holding a gun to his head (figuratively or otherwise) when he signed his statement of retractions? That rings totally false.
Also, this idea that Gore has retracted his earlier claims in order to further his career pursuits — [i]”He probably agreed to a ‘settlement’ which smears him instead of the DA’s office in order to preserve his eligibility for his pension, his ability [u]to return to the workforce[/u] without letters of poor performance getting in his way, and to get this behind him”[/i] — is even harder to swallow. It seems plain to me that his retraction is a declaration that Gore lied about his boss in a very serious and damaging way. (Either that or his retraction, which he signed his name to, itself is a lie.) Does branding himself a liar make him more employable?
I don’t know what motivated Gore in the first place to make his charges; I don’t know what motivated Gore to retract them and sign his name to that retraction. However, on the face of it, it appears that yes, “Reisig was playing hardball,” that he threatened to sue Mr. Gore for libel (or slander) and that Mr. Gore, regardless of what he really believes, felt he was going to lose that lawsuit and be ruined by it. So he cut his losses and now says his earlier statements were uniformly unfounded or untrue. None of this puts Mr. Gore in a good light. However, his signed retraction (unless you are predisposed to endlessly find fault with Jeff Reisig) makes the DA and the other people Gore lied about look quite good in comparison. They vehemently denied his charges; and now he is vehemently retracting them.
Where is the so called “independent legal investigation”. Who asked for it, who conducted it, and where is it published?
Rick Gore is a stand up guy and will testify truthfully in any hearing for Mr. Skaggs or any hearing. I have talked to them both and they know the truth, know what is going on and will testify truthfully in any court. Don’t believe everything you read, especially if comes from Mr. Reisig.
How can a guy that was fired by Reisig over a year ago suddenly resign? Sounds like Reisig could not fire him so he made it worth his while to resign.
People are right when they say Gore won. He got a settlement and got the hell out of Yolo County. Do you blame him? He didn’t abandon Skaggs; he is setting it up for him to win, too.
Go get Reisig, guys!!!! I’m proud of you!!!
Gore’s letter and the results of the independent investigation is published on the Daily Democrat website (pdf).
Go to http://www.dailydemocrat.com/ci_13251898
[quote]Read this carefully. Mr. Gore did not say his letter was untrue or not accurate, it said “unfounded”. That means he could prove it. This is double talk.[/quote]I am confounded by the inanity of this post. Either you are some kind of apparatchik incapable of taking your ideological blinders off, or you are not capable of reasoned argument.
This is a direct quote from Gore: [i]”I was never ordered by DA Jeff Reisig to sign an untrue affidavit in support of a gang injunction.”[/i]
That says that his earlier statement, in which he said flatly tht Reisig ordered him to sign a false affidavit, was a lie. It does not mean he could not prove that. Time after time, his retractions are indictments against his own veracity — either now or then, depending upon what is actually true. Yet shockingly, a number of Reisig-haters, almost all anonymous, continue to praise Gore’s honesty. That is quite bizarre to me, having no dog in this fight one way or the other. (I have no strong feelings good or bad about Mr. Reisig. However, the almost cult-like pathos in the attacks against him make me sense that his critics are the ones more deserving of rebuke.)
Note: I may have misunderstood the implication of “Retraction.” If he was saying that Gore was using “double talk” — I am not sure he was; I think Gore was instead conceding that he had lied egregiously in his attacks on Reisig — then I have no complaint with that post. I thought the post implied that “Mr. Gore could prove his charges.” But if the poster meant “Gore could not prove his charges,” I apologize for the misread.
Mr. Rifkin needs to be educated on the difference between a “lie” and a “retraction” for settlement purposes.
In law enforcement speak is just “can’t prove it.” It does not mean “untrue.”
[quote]Mr. Rifkin needs to be educated on the difference between a “lie” and a “retraction” for settlement purposes. [/quote] In this case, it’s patently obvious if Mr. Gore said something like, “Reisig ordered me to sign an affidavit,” and then he signs a statement saying, “Reisig never ordered me to sign that statement,” he either lied originally or lied in his second statement.
Madam needs to stop pretending she knows what an education is.
I’d say 90% of the people on this blog are tired of Rifkin and his self-important postings.
Look, Reisig played hard ball with this in order to get a retraction. Bottom line is he will eventually go down. Bullies like him can only bend the law so long before people rise up. He’ll end up lifting weights in prison soon.
OK all you liberal cop haters, DA haters and all around rebels without a clue: Why hasn’t Rick Gore called a press conference? Why hasn’t the Vanguard, who has been in bed with Gore and Lenzi for the past three years simply placed a phone call to Rick to get his explanation? You all took Rick Gore’s letter as gospel in March of 2008, and now that the curtain has been pulled back, and you now see the truth, you refuse to acknowledge that you were duped. Keep praising Rick to the world, because your desperation and disappointment brings the majority of our commmunity much happiness.
What happened to Gore? Was he fired? If not, did he go back to work? Or did he resign?
If Gore said such and such, then turned around and retracted everything he said, then he doesn’t seem to have the courage of his convictions. Am I missing something here?
Because Gore has contradicted himself, I have to discount anything he says, and so will a jury. Therefore the ball is in Skaggs court. Gore can’t help Skaggs, bc Gore’s credibility is shot to hell. A juror is going to have to wonder which time was Gore telling the truth, when Gore first made allegations, or when Gore retracted them all?
If Gore truly was a whistle blower, he never, ever should have agreed to retract everything. That just should not have been part of the deal. There are just some things you do not do for love nor money.
“Why hasn’t the Vanguard, who has been in bed with Gore and Lenzi for the past three years simply placed a phone call to Rick to get his explanation?”
I did. He was ordered by his lawyer not to answer.
In yesterday’s paper there was an announcement of 3 plea bargains in the case of a kid getting shot in the back walking away from Pioneer High School in a gang related drive by shooting. One kid got 24 to life, another got 19 years and the third got something like 10 or more. I forget exactly how many the third one got. All this inside the DA’s office is too much inside baseball for most people to follow. The DA’s race will be won or lost on crime fighting and whether the people feel that the DA is providing justice for crime victims. You just keep barking up the wrong tree.
“The DA’s race will be won or lost on crime fighting and whether the people feel that the DA is providing justice for crime victims.”
Probably true. It matters little if there is justice for the people overcharged by the DA and any abuses of power as long as the people feel safe in their homes. It’s great that there was an announcement in the paper yesterday, we know that they only get the positive news releases, not the stories about abuse of power, failure to convict, etc. How can you believe anything the DA tells you?
I talked to Debbie Davis, Editor of the Enterprise today via email, she didn’t even know this case involved a settlement agreement for an arbitration case and yet she still ran a very positive article in the paper today.
Sure hang your hat on whatever you hang your hat on, but if you believe you are getting the truth from the DA’s office, I have a few bridges to sell.
Lisa Reisig looks like a bay area street walker
To Steve
So I guess you find her attractive and are jealous but really its inapporpriate for you to be so public about your fantasies. Oh, isn’t she a doctor.
Lisa Reisig is very nice person and has nothing to do with Reisig’s lies and misdeeds. Which is probably why she left him. And I have never known her to go by Reisig and many believe, as do I, that she was never married to Reisig, another lie Reisig spread to get elected so the voters would think he is a “family” guy. When will people learn that nothing Reisig says is the truth.
You seem very passionate so I like that, but you also don’t seem to see the real story here. Gore has never said his original letter was not true. In fact according to the Vanguard just the opposite, he stated he would take a lie detector to prove his letter was true, in fact he testified over a year ago under oath that his letter was true and this new letter appears to be bought and paid for, so I believe the first one. Since Gore testified under oath and was not charged (and let’s not forget convicted) with perjury, it goes to show his first letter is even more credible. These comments about dealing away perjury or criminal is just Reisig misinformation to try and help his misleading press release. He tried to pull a fast one and got caught, now he has his people doing damage control. (not saying you are one)
There is a pretty easy way to find what Gore has to say (since it’s funny now he is not talking), put him on the stand under oath AGAIN. Since we already have one under oath statement confirming his letter and then this settlement letter, that Reisig tried to pawn off as clearing him and was obtained with a payoff, my money is on the letter Gore testified to under oath and publicly defended and is supported by Lt. Skaggs/his lawsuit and shows a continuous trend by Mr. Reisig.
Read the “retraction” letter carefully. It is a form/block letter and does not look like a letter a cop would write. And legally both letters can be true. The facts in Gore’s first letter could only be proven if the people he accused ‘Reisig’ told the truth, since that is not common for Reisig, then how could Gore prove what he said? Very difficult.
So if he could not prove this in a civil hearings, just like the so called independent investigation (paid for by the county), the proper ‘legal’ term in unfounded. So if You saw someone hit someone the face and you gave a statement to that. Then that went to civil trial and both the person who got hit and the person who hit changed their story and denied that an assault ever happened, THAT WOULD NOT MAKE YOU A LIAR. The case would be settled and called unfounded. And then if sued the parties and they agreed to pay you off to drop the suit and you go money, part of the agreement would be that you ‘retract’ you statement. Your statement might say, I am sorry to both parties and what I said was unfounded and I retract my statement. This would not change what you saw and would not make you a liar. I hope that helps.
Reisig is not credible and is dishonest and that is what all this is really about.
Stever Miller’s remark is exactly why I always use a pseudonym.
I actually agree with Rich Rifkin and El Capitan on this one. People are going to have to find someone else to be their hero. Rick Gore has retracted his allegations and won’t even explain himself to his friends.
Rick wasn’t interested in anything else than self-preservation. I can’t blame him for that, but we were all used.
[quote]I’d say 90% of the people on this blog are tired of Rifkin and his self-important postings. [/quote] If you believed that were true, you would sign your name to your post, Madam.
[quote]Gore has never said his original letter was not true. [/quote] Easy, did you read his signed retraction? I’m not talking about the DA’s press release. I’m talking about the letter which Rick Gore signed, retracting every bit of his original letter. In some cases, yes, his retractions were not necessarily negations of his original charges — they were agreements that the charges themselves were unfounded or that he had no proof of what he had said. Yet in other cases, Easy, he completely reversed himself, saying explicitly that what he had originally charged to have happened in fact never happened. Thus, for you to write that “Gore has never said his original letter was not true” is itself a torturing of the truth.
[quote]this new letter appears to be bought and paid for[/quote] It sounds like you know Mr. Gore personally. I have never met him nor do I know what he looks like. I have said (above) I don’t know what caused him to change his story. (My guess is that it was money — that he was going to lose a huge libel/slander lawsuit.) But if it is what you say, that “he was bought and paid for,” then you are condemning Gore’s credibility in the most severe fashion possible.
Rich:
“My guess is that it was money — that he was going to lose a huge libel/slander lawsuit.”
No offense, but why are you guessing? As much as I understand it in vague terms it is simple since neither he nor his lawyer were forthcoming with exact details and all the county will do is confirm that there is a settlement between the county and Mr. Gore. It was less costly for him to settle and take settlement money from the county than to pursue a court battle and the costs involved. That was one of the conditions of the settlement apparently.
Rich: Also remember that Gore was fired and now he has resigned with no apparent explanation from the DA’s office about how he suddenly got “unfired”
[i]Rich: Also remember that Gore was fired and now he has resigned with no apparent explanation from the DA’s office about how he suddenly got “unfired”[/i]
The explanation should begin with a clear account of when and in what sense Gore was fired. There is a bare mention of this in the Enterprise, and in the comments in previous posts here. Otherwise it is an underdocumented point.
I also haven’t seen that Gore did take any settlement money. Apparently there is a settlement, but that by itself does not mean a paid settlement.
There is money involved, Gore will receive a check.
“The explanation should begin with a clear account of when and in what sense Gore was fired.”
Clear is a fleeting word in this entire exchange. I believe there was a story about him being fired.
I found a short description in the Sacramento News & Review that says that Gore was fired, but could be reinstated pending arbitration. The article is a little behind the news cycle because it doesn’t mention the settlement. In any case, it is possible to resign in the middle of arbitration.
Okay, maybe Gore will get a check from the DA. Apparently, the DA’s end of the settlement is, “We will pay you to go away if you apologize in public and admit that you were wrong.” That is as close as any employer can get to turning the other cheek. It’s more common for a settlement to have no admission of wrongdoing by either side.
The alternative at this point is to say that Gore lied for money.
SN&R also asked what Skaggs is under investigation for. Skaggs’ lawyer refused to explain it, but he did say, “It’s something that would not traditionally get anywhere near termination.” I do not know how that squares with the claim that leaking the investigation makes Skaggs unemployable, or that it is a criminal investigation as well as an administrative one. How can you be under criminal investigation, and yet say that the thing that they think you did wrong wouldn’t be enough to fire you?
[quote]Stever Miller’s remark is exactly why I always use a pseudonym.
[/quote]Those comments are a terrible reflection on the Vanguard. I notice that David failed to remove them, despite the fact that they are in very poor taste at best and appear to violate this blog’s supposed TOS.
[quote]These comments about dealing away perjury or criminal is just Reisig misinformation to try and help his misleading press release. He tried to pull a fast one and got caught, now he has his people doing damage control. (not saying you are one) [/quote] I am going to accuse you of something terrible, here. I would not do so if you would post under your own name, because I could at least ask you what your motivation is in making these seemingly absurd conclusions that Rick Gore did not lie (either previously, when he explicitly said he was ordered by DA Jeff Reisig to sign an untrue affidavit in support of a gang injunction, or presently, when he now says he was never ordered by DA Jeff Reisig to sign an untrue affidavit in support of a gang injunction). Here is what I am accusing you of: you’re a dishonest partisan, and perhaps part of some sort of underhanded political campaign behind Pat Lenzi or some other political aspirant for the job of DA in Yolo County or perhaps you are a disgruntled lawyer who dislikes Reisig for some unsaid other reasons. What you and virtually all of these anonymous posters who are attacking Reisig are not is honest.
I don’t think David Greenwald, who is never fair when it comes to Reisig, is giving his honest views on this. And virtually all of the others in this thread who have supported Gore or slammed Reisig are being forthright or fully honest. I get the feeling that at the back of these nonsensical posts is some political campaign, probably tied to people who supported Pat Lenzi and maybe tied to the various individuals upset with the Dev case or the gang injunction, etc.
As an outsider who has no ties whatsoever to any political camp, I find this thread interesting, yet disturbing. And because I am pointing out the obvious, anonymous posters (like “Look”) try to dismiss my comments as “self-important postings.”
[i]I notice that David failed to remove them, despite the fact that they are in very poor taste at best and appear to violate this blog’s supposed TOS.[/i]
You can’t tap your foot and expect David to go fetch every time this happens. The man has a life. That said, I agree that it is not constructive to compare an innocent relative to a prostitute. The one thing I would say is that it’s less cowardly if Steve Miller used his real name. (If indeed he did use his real name. There is at least one Steve Miller in Davis and two in Woodland, but it could be a reference to the old pop band.) It works better as an argument against posting anonymously than for it.
Unfortunately I cannot delete stuff from my phone, but I can read and post. It wasn’t the worst thing that’s been posted on here, I figure most people would shrug when they saw it.
[b]”My guess is that it was money — that he was going to lose a huge libel/slander lawsuit.” [/b]
[i]”No offense, but why are you guessing?”[/i]
Fair question. I know that some time ago Mr. Gore made a series of very serious charges of ethical and legal misconduct by Mr. Reisig and others around Mr. Reisig. I also know that Mr. Gore, in his signed letter, has retracted every one of those charges, and in so doing has implicitly said that he lied in his original statements. (You have to be bass ackwards to not understand that one way or the other he is saying he lied by retracting a number of those charges.) Thus, I think it is perfectly reasonable to assume Mr. Gore had an incentive to flip 180 degrees on all of these matters. Given that his earlier charges, if untrue, were cause for a slander/libel suit, it does not seem unreasonable to guess that he retracted them to avoid going to civil court over this matter.
[i]”… there is a settlement between the county and Mr. Gore. It was less costly for him to settle and take settlement money from the county than to pursue a court battle and the costs involved. That was one of the conditions of the settlement apparently.”[/i]
That does not contradict my guess. It simply adds to it. Rick Gore, by writing his statement of 12 retractions, has explicitly said that his attacks on the DA and others were untrue or unfounded. If he still believes they are true or founded, it speaks ill of his character. If he was lying all along and has now found it in his best interests to retract those lies, that too speaks ill of his character.
Finally, David, I think you need to fess up on these questions with regard to Mr. Reisig. You have some very strong ties to attorneys who have done battle with Reisig. You are being less than forthright if you don’t make that very clear when you write your articles attacking him. I think your associations with Ms. Lenzi and various other lawyers, like Gonzalez and Leigh, have clouded your judgment in every case in which you discuss matters involving the DA.
Its why I post under pseudonym to protect my family.
[quote]That does not contradict my guess. It simply adds to it. Rick Gore, by writing his statement of 12 retractions, has explicitly said that his attacks on the DA and others were untrue or unfounded. If he still believes they are true or founded, it[/quote]
No where does the letter say unture, false or the first letter was a lie.
[quote]So if he could not prove this in a civil hearings, just like the so called independent investigation (paid for by the county), the proper ‘legal’ term in unfounded. So if You saw someone hit someone the face and you gave a statement to that. Then that went to civil trial and both the person who got hit and the person who hit changed their story and denied that an assault ever happened, THAT WOULD NOT MAKE YOU A LIAR. The case would be settled and called unfounded. And then if sued the parties and they agreed to pay you off to drop the suit and you go money, part of the agreement would be that you ‘retract’ you statement. Your statement might say, I am sorry to both parties and what I said was unfounded and I retract my statement. This would not change what you saw and would not make you a liar. I hope that helps.[/quote]
You keeping singing the same song. Let’s get Gore and Reisig on the Stand under oath. It seems Gore is the only one that has taken the stand on his letter??? why hasn’t Reisig? Reisig gets to release press releases freely without questions and say things not under oath and without fear of perjury, Gore took the stand and testified to his letter. This second letter will not hold water since it was coerced in a deal and something was given for something, it was not signed under penalty of perjury and was not an under oath statement. Pay attention, unfounded and retract, in the legal world, does not mean Untrue or False.
Anyone Paying Attention: apparently you are not.[quote]You keeping singing the same song. [/quote] Very true. As are you. And you are completely and anonymously wrong.
Wow, good articulate come back. With all those intelligent facts, I think you convinced me.
From lawyer dot com, [b]Coercion:[/b] [i]”the use of express or implied threats of violence or reprisal (as discharge from employment) or other intimidating behavior that puts a person in immediate fear of the consequences in order to compel that person to act against his or her will”[/i] [quote]This second letter will not hold water since [u]it was coerced[/u] in a deal and something was given for something[/quote] It was coerced? The phony excuses of the anti-Reisig crowd are getting stranger and stranger and weaker and weaker. Apparently, the CBA does not have high standards for its membership.
Anyone else think if you color the picture of Reisig green he will look like the incredible hulk. Opps, the steroid thing is a secret…shhhhhhhhh
After reading his column in yesterday’s Enterprise its obvious why Rich Rifkin wants to defend Jeff Reisig, its because they both love the death penalty so much.
I could hardly stand to read the retraction by Gore. It is so obvious that he was forced to say these things to protect his retirement and ability to get work! When are you people going to wake up to the fact that our DA is corrupt? This Naliboff guy is just a stooge for the DA. Can’t trust him either. I would vote for a dog before voting for Reisig.
Dear Disgusted – why not be disgusted at Gore for not sticking to his guns, pardon the pun? If Gore was going to make such charges against Reisig, he should have thought things through more carefully about how to play things. My guess is, and it is only a guess, Gore in a fit of pique, blurted out anything and everything, not bothering to figure out what he could back up and what he could not substantiate. Reisig, who is a bit smarter and controlled, knew exactly how to handle Gore – and did. I would argue Reisig has not been that damaged by Gore’s letter/accusations. Let’s see if Skaggs does any better.
Mr. Greenwald: The fact that you have left the awful comments on this blog about Reisig’s wife show the true cowardly colors of your like minded bloggers. They are annonymous pussies who have stooped so low as to disparage a woman, all from the comfort and secrecy of their annonymous existences. As for your explanation that Rick and his lawyers won’t comment, why not ask “why not?” Rick was your hero. Now he’s your zero. The DA’s office commented about the retraction, why won’t Rick. If it is a settlement, meaning it is over, and Rick doesn’t work for the DA anymore, free speech allows Rick to comment on anything about his former workplace. So, I ask again, where’s Ricky? More importantly, where’s Ricky’s explanation for his retraction? Come on Vanguard, do you want the truth? Go get it. You know where Ricky is. Ask him.
Maybe Gore did stick to his guns and that is why this letter does not say, he lied or he did not tell the truth or that he made up his letter or that his letter was untrue. A settlement was paid and this letter was very carefully draft, with very specific words like unfounded and retracted (not lies, don’t believe, did not tell the truth,etc). This letter is a prefect PR piece for Reisig and will fool most people who are not paying attention.
This letter is perfectly worded without Gore admitting or saying his original letter was false, untrue or not believed. So Gore gets to stick by his first letter in court and Reisig gets to pass off this new letter as clearing him. How can you say Gore was absolutely telling the truth in this new letter, yet somehow argue that he made up his first letter. I don’t get that at all, but if some do, then Reisig accomplished his goal.
People keep wanting to forget that Gore testified under oath to his first letter. Gore agreed to take a polygraph to prove his first letter. Reisig has never made an under oath statement about any of this. Reisig has never signed anything denying this. And suddenly a letter signed by Gore, from a settlement, very carefully worded, and Gore is suddenly not talking and only Reisig is yelling he is cleared.
Smell the coffee and stop drinking the cool aide. Until Reisig signs “something” denying or until he testifies under oath, my money is on Gore’s first letter and Reisig is dirty. Also remember not only Gore is saying this about Reisig. The high court in CA said it when they overturned his gang injunction for hiding it (only serving one person), the low court said it when they overturned Reisig for hiding a gun from the jury, Skaggs said it when he backed up Gore’s letter. How many times does it have to demonstrated before someone believes that Reisig is dirty!