Way back in the day, I used to get together with certain friends and play a strategic board game. It was cut-throat competition, no quarter asked or given. Somewhat to my bemusement, I acquired the sobriquet “Johnny Reb.”
There’s an old adage that sometimes a nick-name is a better reflection of one’s self than a given name is. Years later, I gave it some thought, and finally concluded that a little bit of my heritage was showing its true colors.
According to my family history, my great-great granddaddy was an officer in the Confederate army. His son, my great-grandfather Bill, moved to L.A. around 1900, after running down to Mexico to avoid some “trouble”. Bill married a woman from the Tennessee hill-country and my paternal grandmother was a result of that union.
Some 50-odd years later, my family ended up in Corning. The generations, the years, and the miles had never completely erased our Tennessee/Texas twang. Once we got to Corning, we found that almost everyone talked just like us.
We preserved other remnants of our Southern heritage. I grew up eating pan-fried steak, boiled greens, and green beans cooked with bacon grease. We had guns and I learned how to hunt. And I’m still kinda nuts about cars and driving.
So despite my patina of acquired education and status, I’m still a little bit Southerner. I understand rebellion, especially against authority and government. It’s not always a bad thing, but a little bit goes a long way.
I’ve also seen racism and blind hatred, and I utterly reject them. Hatred is the most destructive of emotions. It is as strong and intense as love, yet it poisons those who harbor it. Racism is the ultimate statement of “us versus them”, and it is a dysfunctional mind-set.
The present District Attorney’s office still operates on the old “us versus them” premise. It is good guys vs. bad guys, the clean and virtuous against the dirt-bags, the men in white hats at war with all the dirty grays. We need a new paradigm for government. In this new millennium, “us” has to include everybody.
You know, I can still talk like a good ol’ boy when I need to, but I just can’t bring myself to be one.
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
politics and dirty money
Wall Street bankers may be rolling in dough once again, but Butte County is still in a recession. There are people here without jobs, some are losing their homes. Meanwhile, the advocates of politics as usual are asking for contributions to their campaigns. “Experts” say it takes about a hundred thousand dollars to win a county-wide race. Forget about the small amounts extorted from the working class. The real action is where fat checks pass from the well-heeled, and into the eager grasp of hungry politicians.
Consider what it means when one person receives money from another. In the real world, he who hands over money wants something back. It matters not whether it goes to a panhandler, a prostitute, a plumber or a politician; some good or service is expected in return, large or small. Things haven’t changed much over the centuries either; consider the Latin phrase, “quid pro quo”, which literally means “something for something.”
What happens to all that campaign money? Well it buys such goodies as yard signs, larger signs along highways, and expensive t.v. commercials. Oh yeah, don’t forget those unsolicited last-minute mailers, jamming up your mail box, too slick and nasty to re-cycle. The only “re-cycling” that occurs is when there is money left over from an election. Politicians rat-hole that money and stash it away for their next campaign.
I am informed that both Mike Ramsey and Lance Daniel are actively seeking campaign donations. Every time you see one of their mass-produced signs, think about the damage to our over-burdened land-fill. Every time you watch one of their studio-produced t.v. commercials, think of the implicit promises that purchased it.
I’m not accepting contributions. When you’re not seeing crap, think of me.
Consider what it means when one person receives money from another. In the real world, he who hands over money wants something back. It matters not whether it goes to a panhandler, a prostitute, a plumber or a politician; some good or service is expected in return, large or small. Things haven’t changed much over the centuries either; consider the Latin phrase, “quid pro quo”, which literally means “something for something.”
What happens to all that campaign money? Well it buys such goodies as yard signs, larger signs along highways, and expensive t.v. commercials. Oh yeah, don’t forget those unsolicited last-minute mailers, jamming up your mail box, too slick and nasty to re-cycle. The only “re-cycling” that occurs is when there is money left over from an election. Politicians rat-hole that money and stash it away for their next campaign.
I am informed that both Mike Ramsey and Lance Daniel are actively seeking campaign donations. Every time you see one of their mass-produced signs, think about the damage to our over-burdened land-fill. Every time you watch one of their studio-produced t.v. commercials, think of the implicit promises that purchased it.
I’m not accepting contributions. When you’re not seeing crap, think of me.
Monday, April 26, 2010
promoting the social contract
As a new and relatively young lawyer back in the early 90’s, I did a number of special appearances for other attorneys. On more than one occasion I found myself in the Glenn County Superior Court, observing Judge Roy McFarland while I waited for my matter to be called. Judge McFarland was everything you would expect a judge to be: He was old school, he had authority, he was folksy. And one other thing, he generally knew everybody in the courtroom, including the criminal defendants before him.
I witnessed scenes similar to this:
The bailiff would usher in a man in his late twenties, shackled and wearing an orange jumpsuit. The parents of the defendant would sit in the wooden pew with stoic resignation, dressed in their best clothes. Judge McFarland would speak to the defendant, fixing him with a stern and piercing look:
“Well, Bobby, I see you’re coming before me again for sentencing---looks like it’s your third violation of felony probation. I see your folks sitting out there in the front row, and you know they’ve always been there for you. This time around you were once again caught with meth, in a probation search. And I do appreciate you being honest with this Court and admitting the violation. But as I told you last time, that was your last chance. So I’m going to have to send you to prison.”
There would typically be no surprise or anger evidenced by the defendant or his family. All of the players knew what to expect and recognized the inherent justice of the sentence.
The point of this fictional, but typical tale is the inter-connection of the community that can be observed in small counties. Part of this connection is an understanding of what the community will tolerate, and what the consequences are when a person engages in conduct that cannot be tolerated. Ideally, there should be a strong correlation between the unwritten rules of society and the codified technicalities of the law.
In small counties, there is an incessant and free flow of information from those with legal knowledge to the general population. Police officers, probation officers, judges, deputy DA’s and public defenders become impromptu teachers to the community. Almost everyone understands what will get them in trouble, and why.
In bigger counties, society gets more stratified and information is not dispersed. The situation is aggravated if the District Attorney’s Office displays an attitude of contempt and arrogance towards those it prosecutes. The result is that there exists no unified community agreement on what is allowed. There is no “social contract.”
In Butte County, the District Attorney’s office has, over the last generation, shown an inability to meaningfully communicate with the citizens of Butte County. A consensus is growing that it is time for Mike Ramsey to step down.
I witnessed scenes similar to this:
The bailiff would usher in a man in his late twenties, shackled and wearing an orange jumpsuit. The parents of the defendant would sit in the wooden pew with stoic resignation, dressed in their best clothes. Judge McFarland would speak to the defendant, fixing him with a stern and piercing look:
“Well, Bobby, I see you’re coming before me again for sentencing---looks like it’s your third violation of felony probation. I see your folks sitting out there in the front row, and you know they’ve always been there for you. This time around you were once again caught with meth, in a probation search. And I do appreciate you being honest with this Court and admitting the violation. But as I told you last time, that was your last chance. So I’m going to have to send you to prison.”
There would typically be no surprise or anger evidenced by the defendant or his family. All of the players knew what to expect and recognized the inherent justice of the sentence.
The point of this fictional, but typical tale is the inter-connection of the community that can be observed in small counties. Part of this connection is an understanding of what the community will tolerate, and what the consequences are when a person engages in conduct that cannot be tolerated. Ideally, there should be a strong correlation between the unwritten rules of society and the codified technicalities of the law.
In small counties, there is an incessant and free flow of information from those with legal knowledge to the general population. Police officers, probation officers, judges, deputy DA’s and public defenders become impromptu teachers to the community. Almost everyone understands what will get them in trouble, and why.
In bigger counties, society gets more stratified and information is not dispersed. The situation is aggravated if the District Attorney’s Office displays an attitude of contempt and arrogance towards those it prosecutes. The result is that there exists no unified community agreement on what is allowed. There is no “social contract.”
In Butte County, the District Attorney’s office has, over the last generation, shown an inability to meaningfully communicate with the citizens of Butte County. A consensus is growing that it is time for Mike Ramsey to step down.
Friday, April 23, 2010
On Gregory Wright
Here’s the sum of my understanding about the Greg Wright case:
He was 17 years old. He came to a high school in Oroville with a gun. He briefly held some students hostage. He fired two shots into a ceiling. It does not appear that he pointed the gun towards any person with the intent to shoot or kill.
The District Attorney charged Wright as an adult. One of the charges was attempted murder. Wright was offered two different plea bargains. One carried a potential sentence of seven years to life. Wright chose the second plea bargain, which had a potential of 22 years. Wright actually received the whole 22-year sentence. The entire case was over in a matter of weeks.
Several questions come to mind:
(1) Did the case seem to be “over-charged” by the DA’s office? Yes.
(2) Did the ultimate sentence seem to be excessive? Yes.
(3) Did it appear that there was a “rush to justice”; that the authorities wanted to get the case dealt with and out of the public eye? Yes.
(4) Did the entire court process constitute a “kangaroo court” that was a sham of Due Process?
No. In a criminal proceeding, the judge may only rule on a case after it is presented to the court by the District Attorney. The Court’s job was to see that the rules were followed. Wright was represented by counsel. When a defendant accepts a plea bargain and assures the court that he understands the nature and consequences of his plea, the Court must accept the defendant’s responses at face value.
__________
The overall flavor of this case is distasteful. There is the appearance that the Butte County District Attorney’s Office slammed Greg Wright hard simply because it had the power to do so, and because he was of lower income and education status.
A key component of justice is a consensus that justice is actually dispensed. That perception is lacking in the Greg Wright case.
He was 17 years old. He came to a high school in Oroville with a gun. He briefly held some students hostage. He fired two shots into a ceiling. It does not appear that he pointed the gun towards any person with the intent to shoot or kill.
The District Attorney charged Wright as an adult. One of the charges was attempted murder. Wright was offered two different plea bargains. One carried a potential sentence of seven years to life. Wright chose the second plea bargain, which had a potential of 22 years. Wright actually received the whole 22-year sentence. The entire case was over in a matter of weeks.
Several questions come to mind:
(1) Did the case seem to be “over-charged” by the DA’s office? Yes.
(2) Did the ultimate sentence seem to be excessive? Yes.
(3) Did it appear that there was a “rush to justice”; that the authorities wanted to get the case dealt with and out of the public eye? Yes.
(4) Did the entire court process constitute a “kangaroo court” that was a sham of Due Process?
No. In a criminal proceeding, the judge may only rule on a case after it is presented to the court by the District Attorney. The Court’s job was to see that the rules were followed. Wright was represented by counsel. When a defendant accepts a plea bargain and assures the court that he understands the nature and consequences of his plea, the Court must accept the defendant’s responses at face value.
__________
The overall flavor of this case is distasteful. There is the appearance that the Butte County District Attorney’s Office slammed Greg Wright hard simply because it had the power to do so, and because he was of lower income and education status.
A key component of justice is a consensus that justice is actually dispensed. That perception is lacking in the Greg Wright case.
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Country Connection
For the last 24 years, I’ve been connected with the law, either going to law school, working as a law clerk, or practicing as an attorney. It is perhaps foreseeable that others might type-cast me as a “suit”, or a member of the liberal intellectual elite. When that occurs, I feel a certain wry irony.
You see, I grew up on 20 acres in Corning that our family called The Ranch. When I was a kid, I raised pigs and goats, calves, ducks and a gazillion chickens. When I graduated from high school, I wanted to go into agriculture. I even qualified for a small cash scholarship offered by the Tehama County Prune Growers. Had to get a haircut, go up on the podium and stumble through a little speech.
That fall, I enrolled in what was then Chico State College, heavily concentrating on the Ag courses. I took Feeds and Feeding, Plant Horticulture, and Ag Mechanics that first semester. More Ag classes followed in the spring. Then reality set in. I came to the realization that modern-day agriculture is a capital-intensive industry, and you need a lot of land to do well.
In the years that followed, my college progress waxed and waned. I learned a lot about agriculture from the bottom end of the ladder, wielding a shovel, throwing around bales of hay. I worked at a prune dehydrator out in Ord Bend. I learned an enormous amount about myself and working with other people. But I always found opportunities to spend time out on The Ranch, and to renew my relationship with the land.
A lot of folks do not realize it, but you can start up Highway 32 from Chico, stay on major roads, and not see a good-sized town until you get to Idaho. The land rolls out unobstructed. empty and free. We are truly blessed to live here in its midst.
Today I live in the suburbs with my wife. We are directing our yard away from the constrictions of lawn and shrub, and seeking to provide friendly environments to wildlife. At night in my back yard, I can only see the very brightest stars. I miss the country and daydream about being back on the land.
You see, I grew up on 20 acres in Corning that our family called The Ranch. When I was a kid, I raised pigs and goats, calves, ducks and a gazillion chickens. When I graduated from high school, I wanted to go into agriculture. I even qualified for a small cash scholarship offered by the Tehama County Prune Growers. Had to get a haircut, go up on the podium and stumble through a little speech.
That fall, I enrolled in what was then Chico State College, heavily concentrating on the Ag courses. I took Feeds and Feeding, Plant Horticulture, and Ag Mechanics that first semester. More Ag classes followed in the spring. Then reality set in. I came to the realization that modern-day agriculture is a capital-intensive industry, and you need a lot of land to do well.
In the years that followed, my college progress waxed and waned. I learned a lot about agriculture from the bottom end of the ladder, wielding a shovel, throwing around bales of hay. I worked at a prune dehydrator out in Ord Bend. I learned an enormous amount about myself and working with other people. But I always found opportunities to spend time out on The Ranch, and to renew my relationship with the land.
A lot of folks do not realize it, but you can start up Highway 32 from Chico, stay on major roads, and not see a good-sized town until you get to Idaho. The land rolls out unobstructed. empty and free. We are truly blessed to live here in its midst.
Today I live in the suburbs with my wife. We are directing our yard away from the constrictions of lawn and shrub, and seeking to provide friendly environments to wildlife. At night in my back yard, I can only see the very brightest stars. I miss the country and daydream about being back on the land.
Sunday, April 11, 2010
Dale's current employment
Since August of 2005, I have been a public defender in the Dependency Court, which is a fancy name for the CPS court. Dependency cases typically start when children are taken (detained) by Children's Services and placed in temporary foster care. At the first court hearing, the children (of one family) are appointed a public defender to reresent their interests. Parents who show up are each appointed a separate public defender.
There are five public defenders in our court. In any given case, each of us may represent a parent or children, depending on the rotation of appointments. At the present time, I represent approximately 150 children, and roughly twice as many parents. Besides myself, Dale Rasmussen, the other public defenders are: Myra Bailey, Christine Zebley, Tamara Solano and Amy King. Jennifer Beck is associated with Tamara Solano and shares her caseload. David Kennedy represents the interests of Children's Services. Our current judge is Tamara Mosbarger.
I feel that we have a very good group of attorneys in our court. Because of the varied nature of our appointments, we may take opposing positions with a certain attorney on one case, but be in complete agreement on the next. We cooperate together and harmonize well as a group. We back each other up and share information. There is a friendly and collegial atmosphere amongst the attorneys, the judge, court personnel and CSD workers.
We see terrible family situations in our court. Simple neglect of children is standard for our court, and it gets worse from there. Typically, the parents may be addicted to drugs or alcohol. Methamphetamine use is common. Sometimes children have been physically or sexually abused. Occasionally, children have been abused to the point of death. No matter what the situation, or the individual culpability of parents, the duty of the public defender is to protect the interests of his or her client.
I feel that the variety and complexity of these dependency cases has provided me with valuable insights. If I am elected as DA of Butte County, I will miss my colleagues in the Dependency Court, but will look forward to new challenges in my career.
There are five public defenders in our court. In any given case, each of us may represent a parent or children, depending on the rotation of appointments. At the present time, I represent approximately 150 children, and roughly twice as many parents. Besides myself, Dale Rasmussen, the other public defenders are: Myra Bailey, Christine Zebley, Tamara Solano and Amy King. Jennifer Beck is associated with Tamara Solano and shares her caseload. David Kennedy represents the interests of Children's Services. Our current judge is Tamara Mosbarger.
I feel that we have a very good group of attorneys in our court. Because of the varied nature of our appointments, we may take opposing positions with a certain attorney on one case, but be in complete agreement on the next. We cooperate together and harmonize well as a group. We back each other up and share information. There is a friendly and collegial atmosphere amongst the attorneys, the judge, court personnel and CSD workers.
We see terrible family situations in our court. Simple neglect of children is standard for our court, and it gets worse from there. Typically, the parents may be addicted to drugs or alcohol. Methamphetamine use is common. Sometimes children have been physically or sexually abused. Occasionally, children have been abused to the point of death. No matter what the situation, or the individual culpability of parents, the duty of the public defender is to protect the interests of his or her client.
I feel that the variety and complexity of these dependency cases has provided me with valuable insights. If I am elected as DA of Butte County, I will miss my colleagues in the Dependency Court, but will look forward to new challenges in my career.
Saturday, April 10, 2010
Why I am I running for DA?
Several months ago, it became known to me that a group of business owners had formed a coalition, aka "CEB", for the stated purpose of electing a new District Attorney for Butte County. Soon thereafter, a spokesperson for the CEB called my office. This person identified himself as an Oroville businessman, I'll call him Mr. X.
Mr. X and myself had a conversation about the need to replace Mike Ramsey as DA, with the emphasis on who the CEB should back as a candidate. Mr. X informed me that the CEB was composed primarily of Butte County business people. Mr. X also implied that the CEB was supported by prominent conservative Republicans. Mr. X was aware of the fact that I had run against Ramsey in the 2002 DA race, and that I had made a decent showing with 40% of the vote. He wanted to know more about me.
I pride myself as being a "tell it like it is" kind of guy. And if there's one thing I'm not, it's a conservative Republican along the lines of Rick Keene or Wally Herger. So I told Mr. X that, based on my political views and personal philosphy, I was probably not the best fit as a CEB candidate for DA. I also invited Mr. X to contact me in the future for further discussions. I never heard from Mr. X again.
A short time thereafter, Lance Daniel announced his candidacy for Butte County DA. Obviously, the CEB had found a candidate more to their liking. As you can imagine, I followed this news with some interest. It turned out that Mr. Daniel was a DUI attorney from Sacramento. A coalition of business interests was bankrolling him. And judging from his Facebook page, Mr. Daniel was reaching out to conservative Respublican voters.
I now need to inject a short squib on the history of Mike Ramsey, DA.
Ramsey attained office by appointment in 1987. He easily crushed an opponent in the 1990 election. No one stepped up to oppose him again until 2002, when I did, unsuccessfully. He ran unopposed in 2006.
So, up until this year, throughout the last two decades, only one person had opposed Ramsey in an election; and that person was yours truly. That would make me the expert, in my opinion. And the announcement of Lance Daniel put me into a quandary.
I truly believe that Mike Ramsey needs to be removed from office, and since he won't step down gracefully, he must be ejected by popular vote. I also believe that public support for Ramsey has continued to erode since the election of 2002. However, the more I pondered the situation, the more I became convinced that Lance Daniel could not defeat Ramsey. And if Ramsey were to be beaten in 2010, it would require me stepping up to the plate.
It needs to be understood that running for county-wide office is not a spur-of-the-moment type of decision. In particular, it takes a certain amount of personal grit and moxie to challenge an embedded public official. In the 2002 race, I learned that I did not like the grubby business of soliciting contributions, nor the distasteful commerce of tv ads and campaign mailers. And I had made a personal promise to myself that I would not thereafter take money from others in a political campaign. That meant that the necessary fees to file for candidacy would have to come out of my own pocket. On March 7th, 2010, my wife (Kristy Cowell Rasmussen) and I jointly decided that we would ante up the fees for both filing and a ballot statement, and that I would run for DA. FYI, those fees were $1748.85 and $829.19, respectively.
This concludes my first blog entry. More to follow.
Mr. X and myself had a conversation about the need to replace Mike Ramsey as DA, with the emphasis on who the CEB should back as a candidate. Mr. X informed me that the CEB was composed primarily of Butte County business people. Mr. X also implied that the CEB was supported by prominent conservative Republicans. Mr. X was aware of the fact that I had run against Ramsey in the 2002 DA race, and that I had made a decent showing with 40% of the vote. He wanted to know more about me.
I pride myself as being a "tell it like it is" kind of guy. And if there's one thing I'm not, it's a conservative Republican along the lines of Rick Keene or Wally Herger. So I told Mr. X that, based on my political views and personal philosphy, I was probably not the best fit as a CEB candidate for DA. I also invited Mr. X to contact me in the future for further discussions. I never heard from Mr. X again.
A short time thereafter, Lance Daniel announced his candidacy for Butte County DA. Obviously, the CEB had found a candidate more to their liking. As you can imagine, I followed this news with some interest. It turned out that Mr. Daniel was a DUI attorney from Sacramento. A coalition of business interests was bankrolling him. And judging from his Facebook page, Mr. Daniel was reaching out to conservative Respublican voters.
I now need to inject a short squib on the history of Mike Ramsey, DA.
Ramsey attained office by appointment in 1987. He easily crushed an opponent in the 1990 election. No one stepped up to oppose him again until 2002, when I did, unsuccessfully. He ran unopposed in 2006.
So, up until this year, throughout the last two decades, only one person had opposed Ramsey in an election; and that person was yours truly. That would make me the expert, in my opinion. And the announcement of Lance Daniel put me into a quandary.
I truly believe that Mike Ramsey needs to be removed from office, and since he won't step down gracefully, he must be ejected by popular vote. I also believe that public support for Ramsey has continued to erode since the election of 2002. However, the more I pondered the situation, the more I became convinced that Lance Daniel could not defeat Ramsey. And if Ramsey were to be beaten in 2010, it would require me stepping up to the plate.
It needs to be understood that running for county-wide office is not a spur-of-the-moment type of decision. In particular, it takes a certain amount of personal grit and moxie to challenge an embedded public official. In the 2002 race, I learned that I did not like the grubby business of soliciting contributions, nor the distasteful commerce of tv ads and campaign mailers. And I had made a personal promise to myself that I would not thereafter take money from others in a political campaign. That meant that the necessary fees to file for candidacy would have to come out of my own pocket. On March 7th, 2010, my wife (Kristy Cowell Rasmussen) and I jointly decided that we would ante up the fees for both filing and a ballot statement, and that I would run for DA. FYI, those fees were $1748.85 and $829.19, respectively.
This concludes my first blog entry. More to follow.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
