Clinton Parish’s candidacy for judge effectively ended the moment that he made unchecked and unsupportable charges against his opponent, Judge Dan Maguire. The fact that they were so quickly and easily brushed aside shows either a level of desperation or just plain amateurism by the candidate.
Mr. Parish wants the voters to believe that he is a good attorney who exercised some indiscretions as a political candidate. The truth is that Mr. Parish is in fact the person that we saw this week. That is the view that everyone in the courthouse got, that is why Public Defender Tracie Olson, normally cautious, early on signaled that her office would simply not trust him to preside over their cases.
Mr. Parish is dead as a judicial candidate and on life support in his current job. If he lasts through the end of the year, we will be stunned.
The problem for District Attorney Jeff Reisig is what we saw was not the exception but rather a window into the operations of his office. You see, Mr. Parish is not the most vicious employee at the District Attorney’s office; he’s simply the most bombastic and transparent.
Mr. Reisig’s moves this week, and his words, show the conflict. At first his reaction was simply that he did not approve of the means or manner of attack, but he was not inclined to pull his endorsement.
That was before he recognized that this was a potential liability on him. When the Bee‘s scrutiny landed on Mr. Reisig too, it was enough.
The Bee editorial, entitled, “Parish Shows He’s Unfit to Be a Judge,” properly linked the employer to the conduct of the employee: “District Attorney Jeff Reisig criticized the mailer but unfortunately stuck by his endorsement of Parish. By continuing to lend his support to Parish, Reisig displays a lack of insight into how such a mailer can politicize the judiciary. Yolo County voters should consider Reisig’s embrace of Parish if Reisig appears on the ballot again.”
That was enough for Mr. Reisig to pull his endorsement, realizing that the judgeship race was a lost cause and throwing Mr. Parish under the bus could save his proverbial skin.
Later he would tell the Enterprise, “It’s not only the type of piece, but what appears to be an absolute failure to confirm what was in the piece. I can’t endorse that kind of candidate.”
He would add: “I endorsed (Parish) early on. He’s a good lawyer, and I thought he’d make a good judge. But this mail piece was a major blunder politically. A candidacy that doesn’t fact-check is counter to everything the DA stands for, and that’s pursuing the truth.”
The problem for Mr. Reisig is that the mailer hits a lot closer to him than he’s comfortable thinking. While he argues that fact-checking is everything the DA stands for in his “pursuit of truth,” in point of fact this DA’s office often shoots first and asks questions later, and they have made truth secondary to getting the win – everything that Mr. Parish did in approving this mailer.
Mr. Reisig wants to distance himself now from Mr. Parish, but the Vanguard learned that week that he should not have been so surprised. Mr. Parish, with the approval of Jeff Reisig, was removed from his position as Major Narcotic Vendor Prosecutor (MNVP) for falsifying reports.
Despite this indiscretion, Mr. Reisig thought that Mr. Parish would make a good judge?
Of course, the worst part of this is the blatant hypocrisy of Mr. Reisig. At the end of a bitterly-fought campaign against then-colleague, Patricia Lenzi, Mr. Reisig unleashed a vicious attack mailer against his opponent.
In that attack piece, he raised issues that a convicted child molester was attempting to use Ms. Lenzi to have his case overturned, alleging that her memory issues from a 1999 traffic accident made his opponent unfit for office.
The attack piece was followed up by a seemingly confirmatory news story from the Daily Democrat in which every person interviewed except Ms. Lenzi herself was a supporter of Mr. Reisig.
In response, Ms. Lenzi in a letter to the editor wrote, “The voters of this county are entitled to know whether I am physically and mentally up to the job. I am. Presumably, if this temporary disability had affected my job performance in any other way these past seven years there would be some evidence of it. There isn’t.”
She added: “In 2001, I was promoted in Sacramento DA’s office before choosing to come to work in Yolo County later that year. In 2003, Yolo County District Attorney David Henderson praised the quality of my work, calling me ‘one of Yolo County’s finest’ in a letter, saying that I am ‘quite effective in developing cutting edge expertise on legal issues….possess[ing] extraordinary determination.’ “
“It’s hard for anyone to argue that I could have received that type of praise had I been unable to function at a very high level. My dedicated work and effectiveness in prosecuting child molesters and other predators in Yolo County speaks for itself.”
The truth is that Mr. Reisig was angry at Judge Maguire for ruling against him in their office and the county’s attempts to deny former employee Rick Gore his retired peace officer card.
It was Rick Gore’s 2008 letter, first published in the Vanguard, that implicated the DA for, among other things, burying evidence in the 2005 Halloween Homicide case and also for the use of dirty campaign tricks against Ms. Lenzi.
He wrote, “I did not agree with what I perceived as unethical campaign practices during your campaign.”
He refused to write a disparaging letter to the editor as some of his colleagues did, and was ostracized in an inappropriate manner by his colleagues.
“On one occasion, in the middle of the workday, I caught [now Chief Investigator] Bruce Naliboff searching DDA Lenzi’s locked desk during the election. He told me he was looking for a case file, but we investigators all know attorneys keep case files on their desk, as she did, not in her desk drawers,” Mr. Gore wrote. “I thought all of these tactics were inappropriate and told you so.”
Mr. Gore eventually was terminated and has been involved in a lengthy battle against the county. As we noted earlier this week, Judge Maguire, following the law, ruled in Mr. Gore’s favor and that seems to have set Mr. Reisig off as confirmed by a number of sources both in and out of that office.
What the voters need to remember is that what we have seen from Clinton Parish in this campaign,is not just a reflection of a bad politician gone wrong, but rather the reflection of the entire mentality of the office in which he works.
The only reason that Mr. Reisig abandoned Mr. Parish is that he proved to be a liability to him. The public got a rare window into the inner workings of the DA’s office on a regular basis.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
[quote]realizing that the Judge race was a lost cause and throwing Mr. Parish over the bus could save his proverbial skin[/quote]
David, no real need to bring DA Reisig’s impressive fitness level into this piece by changing the metaphor from [i]under[/i] to [i]over[/i].
Okay, it’s been a long week. Thanks for humoring me.
“That was enough for Mr. Reisig to pull his endorsement, realizing that the judgeship race was a lost cause and throwing Mr. Parish under the bus could save his proverbial skin.”
My impression has always been that the phrase “throwing someone under the bus” referred to a somewhat cowardly act of allowing someone else to take the blame that should rightfully be extended to the thrower.I have seen no evidence put forward to suggest that DA Resig had any hand in drafting or approving the mailer. In this particular case, my faulting of DA Reisig is not for having disavowed his previous support of Mr. Parish, but rather for not having done so until severely criticized in the media. Elaine’s repeated point about Mr.Reisig
finding himself in a difficult situation is in fact true. My response is that it is not the easy situations, but rather the most difficult ones that define and illustrate one’s character. In my opinion, this incident did notching to speak for the good character or courage of DA Reisig.
Joe: Thank you for catching the typo.
Medwoman: I completely agree and that’s what I was attempting to say.
“Public Gets a Rare View into Real DA’s Office: The problem for District Attorney Jeff Reisig is what we saw was not the exception but rather a window in the operations of his office. You see, Mr. Parish is not the most vicious employee at the District Attorney’s office, he’s simply the most bombastic and transparent….What the voters need to remember is that what we have seen from Clinton Parish in this campaign, is not just a reflection of a bad politician gone wrong, but rather the reflection of the entire mentality of the office in which he works.”
So, here we go with a yet second story in a couple days that tries to say that Reisig is Parish and visa versa without any basis in fact.
First, believing that Reisig was involved in development of the offensive mailer, the Vanguard writes that Reisig had “his hands and fingerprints all over it” while providing not a speck of evidence (then suggests that readers misread the obvious intended meaning).
Today’s story just as weak as the earlier one in attempting guilt by association. How did we get to claiming the Parish mailer somehow provides insight into the “real” DA’s office?
Why it’s the same “inside evidence” we got before about the DA’s finger involvement in the mailer, unnamed sources providing the not-surprising insight that Reisig got pissed about a Maguire ruling in the Gore controversy. (Even worse, the judge was “following the law” this time!)
Just what do we see with the “rare view” you think “the public gets into the real DA’s office” from the desperate (or amateurish) Parish campaign and its poor mailer? Apparently, simply a not-so-rare opportunity for the Vanguard to express its hate for the district attorney and rehash 2008 campaign charges and the Gore case.
Joe, i was proofing as you were reading, just hadn’t clicked save yet
Joe and highbeam,
Whether you go over, or under, there is nothing like a little levity with which to start your Sunday morning !
JustSaying
While I agree with you that this article is repetitive, so is your criticism of David’s coverage of the DA’s office.
What is not clear to me is your views on the substantive issues.
1) Do you believe that Mr. Parish’s approval of this flier reflects on his eligibility as a judge ? Positively or negatively, and why?
2) If negatively, do you believe that Mr. Reisig, as his supervisor did or should have had knowledge of this aspect of Mr.Parish’s character?
3) If so, do you believe that he had an obligation to withdraw his support earlier than he did?
Elaine and I seem to disagree on this last point and have each posted our reasons on the previous thread.. I would be interested to hear your take on this situation.
“First, believing that Reisig was involved in development of the offensive mailer, the Vanguard writes that Reisig had “his hands and fingerprints all over it” while providing not a speck of evidence (then suggests that readers misread the obvious intended meaning).”
You are inaccurate. We never wrote that Reisig was involved in the development of the mailer nor did we attempt to imply it.
The title of the article: “Reisig Pulls Endorsement of Parish, Distances Himself, But His Fingerprints are All Over This One”
So the main subject was that Reisig pulled his endorsement of Parish.
The second part was that he was distances himself from Mr. Parish. I believe here you assume distances himself referred to the mailer while in actuality I meant from Parish.
And finally the finger prints comments was that he could not distance himself from Parish because he was behind Mr. Parish running in the first place.
You suggest: “then suggests that readers misread the obvious intended meaning”
You are reading the headline, so the story should be decisive in determining who is correct. And I think the story itself never mentions or implies that Reisig was behind the mailer and only reports that he was behind the candidacy.
“A candidacy that doesn’t fact-check is counter to everything the DA stands for, and that’s pursuing the truth.”
I haven’t seen this side of the DA’s office. DA Reisig doesn’t seem to care for the truth. He cares about winning. That’s why he pulled his endorsement, he didn’t want to be seen on a losing team.
I agree that the DA has no fingerprints on the mailer but the Bee had him back pedaling so he threw Parish in front of the bus even though Parish had already froze like a deer in headlights.
The question for me is why do these guys in the DA’s office keep running for judge against incumbents? A quest that, unless there is some obvious problem, is almost never successful.
When the last guy ran against Judge Fall, a jurist that has a good grasp of the law and runs a tight ship, the reason for such a challenge from someone in the DA’s office was a mystery to me.
Now, the notion that Parish, whose law degree is from McGeorge, would mount a winning campaign against the Harvard Law educated Maguire, seems a fools errand. This does call into question if a climate of hubris exists in the DA’s office so great that they think that they can actually unseat a competent judge.
Regular readers know that I have long supported the DA on cases where David has been critical of him, particularly in gang cases where I have personal knowledge of the defendants. I will continue to do so. Still I don’t understand why these election challenges to sitting judges keep coming out of employees of the DA’s office. If there is some behind the scene prodding by the DA himself is unknowable (although we do know that the current DA was encouraged to run by his predecessor possibly setting a model in the mind of current DA). If there is such encouragement from the DA himself I hope he now sees such meddling as a liability to his continued success.
Mr. Toad: In previous articles some insiders gave some insight. Mr. Reisig it would appear is trying to send a message that anyone that crosses him will pay a price. The odd thing is, why Mr. Parish? Other than he was willing, it does seem like he was the best they could do.
1.) Yes, negatively, because it was bad form and not true. As I’ve mentioned before, we don’t expect or want highly political campaigns for judges–I’d rather there were [u]no[/u] campaigns–but this flier would reflect badly on a candidate for [u]any[/u] office, judicial or not.
2.) I don’t think Reisig (or anyone) can make a character or suitability judgment anticipating some future, poorly researched campaign mailer. That would more difficult than what’s going on now, the claim that we all should find in this flier a fatal flaw in “this aspect of of Mr. Parish’s character.”
3.) Embedded in this question (“If so…” is your assertion that Reisig had (or should have had) some special insight about some special flaw in Parish’s character. In any case, of course Reisig had no obligation whatever to withdraw his support at all; what’s significant is that he did.
I’m sure you can think of several possible reasons for two days to pass even though David came up with only one. Perhaps, in fairness, you might ask Reisig himself for his reasoning.
Maybe you’d still be critical that it took two days for him to make his announcement, but he didn’t violate some oath of office by his timing. I put it in the “much ado…” category myself.[quote]“While I agree with you that this article is repetitive, so is your criticism of David’s coverage of the DA’s office.”[/quote]I feel David’s irrational, repetitive rants about the district attorney work against his purpose in establishing the [i]Vanguard[/i]. Every article that makes baseless charges further discredits the Vanguard and reduces its impact when legitimate findings are reported.
Here we have David’s deep-seated dislike of Reisig combined with yet-another assistant DA running for office and putting out a bad mailer. Without the slightest proof, he’s convinced that the DA was somehow involved in these shenanigans.
Instead of confirming his suspicions first, he just “reports” them–first in the “hands all over it” article, now in the “rare glimpse into the DA’s office” story. Neither has any substance to back up the charges.
I keep pointing out these instances when they happen because I want the [i]Vanguard[/i] to be successful. Credibility and journalistic professionalism need to take front seat over the understandable desire to keep taking unsubstantiated pokes at the DA.
[quote]“You are inaccurate. We never wrote that Reisig was involved in the development of the mailer nor did we attempt to imply it.”[/quote]
[quote][u]Thomas[/u]: “David – do you really believe for one minute that Reisig did not review and approve of that mailer before it went out? ”
David: “I don’t doubt it, I just don’t have any evidence to prove it.”[/quote]
Parse all you want,
…Parse all you want, I think it’s clear that you believe what you told Thomas. I’m just saying I think this specific bias comes through in your writing about tying Parish’s campaign and his bad mailer to Reisig.
The DA endorsed Parish; based on the mailer incident, he announced he was withdrawing his support. It’s difficult to make much of this, but you have. Trouble is, it’s all innuendo and unrelated, old news.
JustSaying
Fair enough, and I thank you for taking the time for the thoughtful response.
It appears that like with Elaine, I remain in disagreement about the significance of the meaning of the time lag in withdrawal of support.
For reasons I have already stated, I feel the this is ” much ado about ….” something. And that something for me is substantive. I do however understand your point, and that of Elaine, even though as a supervisor, I disagree.
“In previous articles some insiders gave some insight. Mr. Reisig it would appear is trying to send a message that anyone that crosses him will pay a price. The odd thing is, why Mr. Parish? Other than he was willing, it does seem like he was the best they could do.”
David, you ask why clinton parish, but you paritally answer your own question: he was willing. Add that to clinotn parish’s demeanor, known to Riesig, to be arrogant, bombastic, and dishonorable, and you have the perfect stooge to challenge a sitting judge to whom you want to “send the message.”
This was never about clinotn parish winning the election – this was about making life very uncomfortable for Judge Maguire, so that the next time a case comes before him that means something to Reisig, Judge Maguire will think twice before ruling against him. This was also about sending the same message to the rest of the bench, that “you could be next.”
Jim Walker and clinton parish were expendable. The question is, which DA working for Reisig will be next?
Thomas, assuming that is your real name, what’s your background? You seem to know a lot about what’s going on inside the DA’s office.
Probably I should know your credentials since you’re using a real name and you are so outspoken about these folks. Take no offense that I don’t, please.
How did you come to these conclusions? Did you or do you work with any of the players here? Thanks.
I think we will get a huge glimpse into Reisig’s office when we see how Reisig handles Clinton Parish from this point on.
If Clinton Parish puts forth false claims in court to a jury without investigating them as easily as he did in this election, then false convictions could result. Juries want to believe that the DA’s office has fully investigated the accusations and wouldn’t continue prosecuting unless there was just cause.
Unfortunately, I have seen this type of behavior from another Deputy District Attorney in the DA’s office, and it did lead to a false conviction.
If Reisig believes that a DA stands for truth and should check out his accusations before making them public, then he should have been appalled as soon as it became apparent that these accusations were false. His next step should be to curtail any court assignments for Parish. Let’s see if he is just “mouthing” the words he thinks the public wants to hear, or if he will act on them.
[quote]“… so that the next time a case comes before him that means something to Reisig, Judge Maguire will think twice before ruling against him.”[/quote]Regardless of from where your knowledge comes, this doesn’t make sense. It’s counter-intuitive, at least.
One assumes (as David has pointed out) that Judge Maguire decides cases by “following the law.” If he decides to forego his oath because Reisig makes “life very uncomfortable” for him by supporting the candidacy of an apparent doofus, why would the judge react by ruling favorably rather than “getting even” with the DA?
JustSaying – you are right, it doesn’t make sense, and is indeed counter-intuitive. Understand, however, that we’re talking about Riesig’s subjective point of view here. Reisig’s intent is to send a message to the bench that he “calls the shots” in this county.
Juvenile? You bet. A plot out of a really bad cable TV show regarding law enforcement shenanigans? Strikingly similar. Effective? Probably not.
[quote]Mr. Reisig it would appear is trying to send a message that anyone that crosses him will pay a price.[/quote]
Proof?
[quote]“Strikingly similar. Effective? Probably no.”[/quote]If it doesn’t make sense, what makes you think it’s true? That’s my question. Do you have some special insight or actual experience here that makes the counter-intuitive a reasonable view?
I’m glad this piece was labeled as commentary. I am concerned some might mistake it as reporting.
Some people here seem totally naive — of course the DA is sending a
message. That’s how it works. The Yolo DA didn’t invent this tactic on his own, it happens in many counties.
Whether it’s the DA’s office or law enforcement, ethics aren’t what they used to be. Times have changed, unfortunately.
Anyone believing that DA Reisig is not 100 percent involved in this Judgeship campaign is really fooling themselves. DA Reisig runs that office like any dictator, you either agree or you get fired, you either support him or you black-balled, he has 100 percent power in that office and used it to intimidate and control, to fire, to re-assign, to promote, to demote, you either do what he tells you are you reap the consequences.
Anyone paying attention since Reisig took office he is a take no prisoner type guy that is very savvy and knows how to cover his dirty tracks. He should be called Teflon man since he has unique way of making sure nothing sticks to him.
His scandals are numerous and all show his lack of ethics and untrustworthy nature. From misleading the courts, to hiding evidence, to allowing officers to give false testimony, to cutting deals with anyone that will say what he wants to get a conviction, his behavior is appalling, yet after numerous investigations, inquires and compelling allegations, he always manages to slip slide away.
This just normal operating procedure for Reisig, play both sides, stay just non-committal enough so when the tide turns you can claim stupidity or no knowledge and then switch sides and make it seem like you are the most uninformed department head that ever served. If I had a dollar every time Reisig said “I have no knowledge of that” I would be wealthy.
Same old tune from Reisig, I can predict that next 4 years of press releases from him.
I am here for the people, I had no knowledge, my office is in search of the truth, I am investigating the matter to get to the bottom, I fully support law enforcement, my office has the highest record of convictions, I just got this grant approved, same song, same misleading falsehoods.
What you won’t see from Reisig is, it was my fault, I failed to stay on top of this, I am more worried about keeping my job than doing my job, when my lips are moving you know I am lying.
Look Mr. Parish, Reisig may have told you he supports you, since he thought he could use you as a judge, now that you can’t help him, you better watch your back and look for a job, my prediction is your days are numbered.
People that always want to jump on the proof wagon know the lawyer game.
The problem with making people think that without proof something is not true is great for promoting the lie? The flip side is Lawyers know what is required for proof so they know how to prevent something from being proven. Why do you think CA has a law that you can’t record someone without their knowledge? That would be proof and Politicians don’t want proof.
Having worked with Mr. Reisig for many years, he will not take questions in public, he will not give orders in public or in writing and is very aware of keeping things one on one so there are no witnesses so PROOF cannot be part of the equation. Al Capone could not be Proven guilty, guess that means he was innocent too? OJ was not proven guilty, guess he was innocent too?
Those who have nothing to hide, hide nothing. Reisig is the King of deception and hidden secrecy. Proof? There used to be a time of common sense that where there is smoke there is fire.
Let the Proof people keep spreading their mantra – those with a brain know that if a duck has feathers, a bill, webbed feet and goes quack, you don’t need a DNA test to prove it is a duck.
Making claims and making no effort to offer any proof can mean one of at least two things: 1.) It’s true and, as you say, Reisig is so smart and deceptive that no amount of searching can turn it up, or, 2.) It’s not true.
Based on the multi-year history of the Vanguard and others trying to pin something on Reisig and, after all these years, being unable to provide proof of any serious wrong-doing (proof that would result in a perp walk for the DA), I’m afraid I have to view him as innocent until proven guilty no matter how much I might disagree with him politically.
That’s a strange comment JS I have cited over the years numerous occasions where perps have walked because of either malfeasance or incompetence by the DA and that doesn’t include a number of cases that the Innocence Project is currently investigating or otherwise are going through appeals
To Just Saying,
[quote]I keep pointing out these instances when they happen because I want the Vanguard to be successful. Credibility and journalistic professionalism need to take front seat over the understandable desire to keep taking unsubstantiated pokes at the DA. [/quote]
The problem is that you assume that you and David share the same goal and I would argue that isn’t the case at all.
“If it doesn’t make sense, what makes you think it’s true? That’s my question. Do you have some special insight or actual experience here that makes the counter-intuitive a reasonable view?”
JS – you are right, it DOESN’T make sense, and it certainly doesn’t make it reasonable. It’s Reisig’s subjective intent. I know Reisig personally and professionally, as well as the other players involved. You have to know Reisig – he is only about Reisig. He only cares about the people who work for him as long as they serve a purpose. Why else would Reisig “encourage” one of his DDA’s to run against a sitting judge, especially exzperienced and qualified jurists such as Judges Fall and Maguire? Why would he select expendable cronies such as Jim Walker and (even worse) clinton parish to run, when neither had any hope of success?
You should view the information about Reisig with reservation – I can’t blame you for that, JS. You don’t know him. I can say that Reisig is indeed that smart and deceptive that he just hasn’t been caught. He’s done an excellent job of insulating himself from direct controversy, using others (such as his Chief Deputy DAs or other cronies) to do his dirty work act for him. The few good people without agendas who have come forward (such as Rick Gore and Randy Skaggs) have been run out of office and seen their reputations and careers destroyed.
[quote]‘…I have cited over the years numerous occasions where perps have walked because of either malfeasance or incompetence by the DA.”[/quote]That you have. And, there’s the rub. Because you toss every failing into this same category, you overstate Reisig’s record of proven deviousness.
When describe lost cases as “incompetence” and describe incompetent lawyering as criminal activity and charge the DA’s endorsement of Parish as some “look inside the (evil) DA’s office.” you take criticism beyond reasonableness.
When you list ongoing Innocence Project investigations as evidence of some guilt, you don’t give Reisig the basic “innocent until proven guilty” consideration.
Please list the cases you’ve reported “where perps have walked” because of Reisig’s malfeasance in office and any convictions against him for such illegal activity.
(Actually, my original question what about what proof has been uncovered that resulted in Reisig taking a perp walk himself, not what alleged perps might have walked because his illegal activities.)
[quote]The few good people without agendas who have come forward (such as Rick Gore and Randy Skaggs) have been run out of office and seen their reputations and careers destroyed. [/quote]
Both of them got settlements and were paid off by the county to protect Reisig and the county from future exposure and lawsuits.
Others have been paid off as well. And some were asked to bend to rules, like fudging stats to get or keep grant money. That is Reisig’s favorite play. He gets attorney’s to doctor stats to save the grant for the office, then he owns that attorney. When Reisig is done with that Attorney, he threatens to file criminal charges or start an investigation and report it to the Bar, then he bullies the Attorney into resigned with an agreement not to ever talk against him (Reisig). Since the Attorney knows his Bar Lic would be in jeopardy if Reisig accuses them, they fade away with their tail between their legs. It really is a brilliant way to control people, even thou it is very sleazy and unethical. An area Reisig is willing to go very easy.
So all those Proof people, get the AG to offer immunity and to speak out against Reisig and the flood gates would open.
The problem is NO one wants it to be proven that Reisig is crooked and doing all these unethical and illegal acts, since when that comes out the appeal gates open and the courts and the system could not handle all the over-turned cases. So the system protects the system.
As for the guy wanting proof, Reisig has had cases over-turned more than once for hiding evidence and misleading the court and jury. One time should be enough to show his willingness to do anything to win and keep his power.
[quote]People that always want to jump on the proof wagon know the lawyer game.
The problem with making people think that without proof something is not true is great for promoting the lie? The flip side is Lawyers know what is required for proof so they know how to prevent something from being proven. [/quote]
The flip side is accusations without proof = guilty until proven innocent, something you seem to be against when it comes to defendants. You cannot have it both ways…
Elaine, you are right, you can’t have it both ways. However, Reisig has made it very difficult to tie him directly to anything nefarious. Give him credit, he has been very good at distancing himself from any of the negative activities that come from his office. Some examples include using co-counsel to accuse a defense attorney of misconduct in the middle of a trial (to throw them off and make them less effective), using his Chief Deputies to enforce his policies and ensure that everyone within the office expresses agreement (whether such accord has to do with a policy or with whom to support in an election), using other ladder-climbing cronies to report on the behavior of other DAs (which promotes an atmosphere of paranoia where everyone is looking over their shoulder), and using his criminal investigators to hide evidence (which didn’t always work, especially when you have ethical people like Gore and Skaggs).
He has no issue with destroying the reputations and careers of those who whom he sees as a threat, those who refused to give their complete and unquestioned loyalty or who dared to question his ethics.
“…DA’s office often shoots first and asks questions later, and they have made truth secondary to getting the win”
Well stated David!
[quote]Elaine, you are right, you can’t have it both ways. However, Reisig has made it very difficult to tie him directly to anything nefarious. Give him credit, he has been very good at distancing himself from any of the negative activities that come from his office. Some examples include using co-counsel to accuse a defense attorney of misconduct in the middle of a trial (to throw them off and make them less effective), using his Chief Deputies to enforce his policies and ensure that everyone within the office expresses agreement (whether such accord has to do with a policy or with whom to support in an election), using other ladder-climbing cronies to report on the behavior of other DAs (which promotes an atmosphere of paranoia where everyone is looking over their shoulder), and using his criminal investigators to hide evidence (which didn’t always work, especially when you have ethical people like Gore and Skaggs). [/quote]
Proof?
Proof? You mean like clandestine surveilance tapes? Swabs of DNA left on manilla envelopes used in late-night darkened parking-lot exchanges with the smoking man? The word “REDRUM” written in blood on the bathroom mirror? Or maybe the kind of cool stuff that you see in CSI?
(Sorry, Elaine, but I couldn’t resist……)
As you know, there is physical evidence and then there is testimonial evidence. Reisig is smart enough to ensure that there is no physical evidence linking him to anything sordid. As for “testimonial” evidence, you have plenty of current and former employees to tell you how things are run in the office, but the problem is that because of the way Reisig plays the game, none of those individuals will ever go public: just look at what happened to Rick Gore and Randy Skaggs.
If you want evidence, you have to put it together circumstantially. Talk to people who work for him now and those who used to work in the DA’s office but have moved on. Add what they tell you to what you observe coming out of the office. Ask yourself if the combination of what they say and what you see is reasonable.