Anthony Peyton Porter, in his Chico N&R article of 5/21/10, stated that I showed promise of being “real” and “human”. Thank you, Anthony.
You see, to be human is the antithesis of PAU (Politics As Usual). PAU decrees that a political candidate reduce his essence to a catchy, yet vague slogan. Thereafter he will assault the voters with a veritable barrage of tv ads, mailers, signs and other campaign garbage. PAU mandates that each particle of information be massaged and scrutinized to avoid offense to any potential voter.
All that PAU crap makes me gag. In my blog, I’ve been striving to reveal myself through my writing. Perceptive readers understand that when one openly expresses his or her thoughts, the true person is inevitably exposed.
There are thousands in Butte County who know me on some level. Tuesday and Thursday mornings I walk through the hallways of the main court in Oroville, carrying my plastic box full of CPS files. I’ve eaten at Chico’s La Comida and Italian Cottage restaurants for years. I’ve wandered through Kragen, OSH and Home Depot in my dirty work clothes. I’ve danced many times in the City Plaza in my signature tie-dyed tank tops.
I’m a good choice to replace Ramsey because of the following:
I am real smart. I learn quickly. I am patient and can control my temper. I can interpret the language of law into the common tongue. I am intimately acquainted with criminal law and the Butte County court system. I am accomplished in legal research and the writing of motions, writs and appeals. I understand the human pain that goes hand-in-hand with the legal process.
You see, whatever I am; good, bad or ugly; it’s all visible and can’t be hidden. Ramsey tries to hide his persona, but over time, his essence has been revealed. Suffice it to say that Ramsey repels and alienates many, many people. Finally, we don’t know what Lance Daniel is all about, and we won’t before June 8th. But it’s a moot issue. Daniel is not one of us.
I’ll close with a quote from one of the lesser-recognized philosophers and cartoon heroes.
As Popeye sez: “I yam what I yam.”
Sunday, May 23, 2010
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
At least throw Ramsey out
In my campaign blog, I said that North Korea and Libya are examples of countries where strongmen have ruled for decades, and that such is anathema to the American way. I was making a comparison to Ramsey’s 23-year reign. A reader has asked if I meant this to apply to Jane Dolan’s 32-year tenure. The answer is no.
There’s big differences between being a county supervisor and being head honcho District Attorney. There are five supervisors, therefore no one supervisor can run the show. County supervisors share power with towns, cities, California, and the Federal government. By contrast, the DA shares power with no one, and is only minimally answerable to the Attorney General or the Grand Jury. Short of recall or indictment, the only way to extract a recalcitrant DA is to unelect him.
I was also asked if I endorse Jane Dolan, or anyone, for that matter. Again, no. As an independent (and temporary public figure), I am not seeking or dispensing endorsements. As a private citizen, I will cast my absentee ballot within the privacy of my home in absolute confidentiality. The entire purpose of my campaign is to address issues that I deem germane to the DA’s race. I’m not running for other offices and will not comment upon them.
The rebel part of me whispers “Why don’t they throw everyone out?” The more temperate approach is to urge robust challenges to all incumbents. Those incumbents that survive such challenges are the true choice of the people.
There’s big differences between being a county supervisor and being head honcho District Attorney. There are five supervisors, therefore no one supervisor can run the show. County supervisors share power with towns, cities, California, and the Federal government. By contrast, the DA shares power with no one, and is only minimally answerable to the Attorney General or the Grand Jury. Short of recall or indictment, the only way to extract a recalcitrant DA is to unelect him.
I was also asked if I endorse Jane Dolan, or anyone, for that matter. Again, no. As an independent (and temporary public figure), I am not seeking or dispensing endorsements. As a private citizen, I will cast my absentee ballot within the privacy of my home in absolute confidentiality. The entire purpose of my campaign is to address issues that I deem germane to the DA’s race. I’m not running for other offices and will not comment upon them.
The rebel part of me whispers “Why don’t they throw everyone out?” The more temperate approach is to urge robust challenges to all incumbents. Those incumbents that survive such challenges are the true choice of the people.
Monday, May 17, 2010
Ramsey's specious logic
Perry Reniff, retired Butte County Sheriff, recently wrote a letter to the ER praising Mike Ramsey. In his conclusion, Reniff stated : “The DA’s office, like any other business, must be managed by an experienced professional leader.”
Well, Perry, the DA’s office is not a business. Businesses supply goods or services in exchange for money. That’s not how the DA’s office is supposed to work.
Most small businesses are managed by the owner. Appearances to the contrary, Mike Ramsey does not own the DA’s office.
On a corporate scale, there would be shareholders, directors, and CEO’s. The DA’s office is not a corporation either. Actually, it’s a bureaucracy funded by public money and managed by an elected official.
The key word here is “elected.” In other words, every four years there could be a change of guard. Such change is actually encouraged by the election codes. There are only two legal requirements for DA candidates: (1) They must be California licensed lawyers, (2) who live in Butte County. This means that a very wide range of lawyers could conceivably be elected as District Attorney: Family law practitioners, corporate lawyers, or legislative wonks who have never set foot in court.
With this sort of fluidity built into the law, any district attorney’s office must be organized so that periodic changes of leadership can occur with minimum disruption. It’s not an outlandish idea. All over our great state, there are routine transfers of power every four years or so. Everywhere except the Butte County DA’s office, that is.
According to Ramsey, the DA position cannot be filled by anyone who lacks his long years as head DA, which is 23 and counting. Ramsey seems to forget that he himself was appointed when his predecessor abruptly resigned. If “experience” is essential, then by definition Ramsey was doing a piss-poor job during his first few years as DA.
By his own admission, during the last 23 years Ramsey has apparently tweaked his office into a bastardized creation that “only he can run.” In the brutal world of politics, when the “shareholders” finally rebel, there will be no fat stock options or golden parachutes. It will simply be: “Hit the road, Mike.”
Well, Perry, the DA’s office is not a business. Businesses supply goods or services in exchange for money. That’s not how the DA’s office is supposed to work.
Most small businesses are managed by the owner. Appearances to the contrary, Mike Ramsey does not own the DA’s office.
On a corporate scale, there would be shareholders, directors, and CEO’s. The DA’s office is not a corporation either. Actually, it’s a bureaucracy funded by public money and managed by an elected official.
The key word here is “elected.” In other words, every four years there could be a change of guard. Such change is actually encouraged by the election codes. There are only two legal requirements for DA candidates: (1) They must be California licensed lawyers, (2) who live in Butte County. This means that a very wide range of lawyers could conceivably be elected as District Attorney: Family law practitioners, corporate lawyers, or legislative wonks who have never set foot in court.
With this sort of fluidity built into the law, any district attorney’s office must be organized so that periodic changes of leadership can occur with minimum disruption. It’s not an outlandish idea. All over our great state, there are routine transfers of power every four years or so. Everywhere except the Butte County DA’s office, that is.
According to Ramsey, the DA position cannot be filled by anyone who lacks his long years as head DA, which is 23 and counting. Ramsey seems to forget that he himself was appointed when his predecessor abruptly resigned. If “experience” is essential, then by definition Ramsey was doing a piss-poor job during his first few years as DA.
By his own admission, during the last 23 years Ramsey has apparently tweaked his office into a bastardized creation that “only he can run.” In the brutal world of politics, when the “shareholders” finally rebel, there will be no fat stock options or golden parachutes. It will simply be: “Hit the road, Mike.”
Thursday, May 13, 2010
On political ethics
Some years ago, my wife and I went to see a band at a place called The Palms. During the break, we went outside for some air. This guy walked up and started hassling me about the 2002 DA race. He was shouting: “You screwed up the campaign in 2002. You could have taken Ramsey down. You didn’t go for the jugular!”
I knew the fellow, because I had represented him during criminal proceedings before the 2002 campaign. Ironically, he lacked the capacity to vote because of his prison record. Nonetheless, I knew exactly what he was getting at: I had been aware of certain rumors concerning Ramsey’s family, and I chose not to address or employ those rumors in my 2002 campaign.
I’ll say it again: I’m not doing politics as usual. My own personal book of ethics decrees that there are certain areas that should not be ventured into. You shouldn’t mention a candidate’s race, ethnicity, sexual orientation or skin color. You shouldn’t discuss your opponent’s height, weight, or medical condition. You should avoid all references to bedroom, bathroom and medicine cabinet.
On the other hand, Mike Ramsey has been District Attorney for a generation, which makes him into a public figure. He has transformed the office into a reflection of himself. That means that his narcissistic attraction to the television camera is open to comment, as well as his ghoulish tendency to share gory details of high–profile cases.
But back to ethics: First and foremost, never disparage a candidate’s family.
It has now come to my attention that a certain comment regarding Ramsey’s kin has been posted on the FaceBook page of Lance Daniel.
I am no fan of Mike Ramsey. At the moment, he is my “political enemy.” But I condemn anyone who would smear Ramsey’s family. Only a loser would seek victory with such tactics. We don’t do politics that way in our county.
I knew the fellow, because I had represented him during criminal proceedings before the 2002 campaign. Ironically, he lacked the capacity to vote because of his prison record. Nonetheless, I knew exactly what he was getting at: I had been aware of certain rumors concerning Ramsey’s family, and I chose not to address or employ those rumors in my 2002 campaign.
I’ll say it again: I’m not doing politics as usual. My own personal book of ethics decrees that there are certain areas that should not be ventured into. You shouldn’t mention a candidate’s race, ethnicity, sexual orientation or skin color. You shouldn’t discuss your opponent’s height, weight, or medical condition. You should avoid all references to bedroom, bathroom and medicine cabinet.
On the other hand, Mike Ramsey has been District Attorney for a generation, which makes him into a public figure. He has transformed the office into a reflection of himself. That means that his narcissistic attraction to the television camera is open to comment, as well as his ghoulish tendency to share gory details of high–profile cases.
But back to ethics: First and foremost, never disparage a candidate’s family.
It has now come to my attention that a certain comment regarding Ramsey’s kin has been posted on the FaceBook page of Lance Daniel.
I am no fan of Mike Ramsey. At the moment, he is my “political enemy.” But I condemn anyone who would smear Ramsey’s family. Only a loser would seek victory with such tactics. We don’t do politics that way in our county.
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Lance Daniel, go back to Sacramento
On his “I-5 Live” radio show last night, Tom Gascoyne played taped interviews of the DA candidates. Lance Daniel, in his statement, complained that he had “tried to reach out” to me, and that I had rebuffed him.
Turns out that ol’ Lance tried to call me at my office while I was in court. He phoned three times in an hour-and-a-half, and was told three times by my office assistant, brother Dana, that I was at court and not available. Dana also told him that we handle sensitive juvenile cases and do not allow “drop-ins.”
Now Dana may wear a black cowboy hat and be pure country, but there isn’t much that gets past him. He said he had a feeling that Daniel was not going to just give up. “Sure enough, about 20 minutes after his last call, I saw this nicely dressed dude skulking down the corridors and peering at the windows. When he saw our lettering, he straightened up his shoulders, put a smile on his face, and tried to march right into the office. Didn’t know the door was locked, and bonked his noggin a little.”
In that recorded radio interview, Daniel also discussed me. He used dismissive language, indicating that I worked in the Dependency Court, and that most Dependency clients were “child molesters.”
If his ignorance on this one subject is indicative of his overall knowledge, then Daniel lacks what it takes to be District Attorney. Most parents whose children end up in the CPS court are from the working class. A variety of factors causes the intervention of Children’s Services. Only a small portion of those detentions stem from molestation. The goal of the Dependency Court is to return children to safe homes. Children are not sent home to molesters.
In trying to slam me, Daniel has denigrated an entire class of clients and cast aspersions upon my colleagues. He has disrespected the Dependency Court and my judge. He displays an appalling lack of knowledge. His callous arrogance angers me.
Maybe it’s time he packed up his little wagon and went back home to Sacramento.
Turns out that ol’ Lance tried to call me at my office while I was in court. He phoned three times in an hour-and-a-half, and was told three times by my office assistant, brother Dana, that I was at court and not available. Dana also told him that we handle sensitive juvenile cases and do not allow “drop-ins.”
Now Dana may wear a black cowboy hat and be pure country, but there isn’t much that gets past him. He said he had a feeling that Daniel was not going to just give up. “Sure enough, about 20 minutes after his last call, I saw this nicely dressed dude skulking down the corridors and peering at the windows. When he saw our lettering, he straightened up his shoulders, put a smile on his face, and tried to march right into the office. Didn’t know the door was locked, and bonked his noggin a little.”
In that recorded radio interview, Daniel also discussed me. He used dismissive language, indicating that I worked in the Dependency Court, and that most Dependency clients were “child molesters.”
If his ignorance on this one subject is indicative of his overall knowledge, then Daniel lacks what it takes to be District Attorney. Most parents whose children end up in the CPS court are from the working class. A variety of factors causes the intervention of Children’s Services. Only a small portion of those detentions stem from molestation. The goal of the Dependency Court is to return children to safe homes. Children are not sent home to molesters.
In trying to slam me, Daniel has denigrated an entire class of clients and cast aspersions upon my colleagues. He has disrespected the Dependency Court and my judge. He displays an appalling lack of knowledge. His callous arrogance angers me.
Maybe it’s time he packed up his little wagon and went back home to Sacramento.
Monday, May 10, 2010
Dale answers 6 questions
In a recent blog posting, I explained why I do not believe the DA is “top lawman” of Butte County. In an appended comment, one of the FB friends responded by stating that “the media uses that description…”, implying that the media must always be correct. Said FB friend then unleashed a barrage of questions right out of the old boys’ political handbook, summarized as follows:
How would I manage the department budget?
How would I prioritize case loads?
Would I refuse to prosecute juveniles as adults?
Prosecute corporate business polluters?
How would I improve family court case proceedings?
Would I “back off from” cannabis prosecution?
The aforesaid FB friend asserted that he was a voter, with a right to have his questions answered. In the interests of future time management, I have decided to attempt to address these questions.
----
I can’t answer how I would manage the department budget because I don’t know how much it is, or where it all currently goes. I’ll have to figure it out when I get there.
Ditto for prioritizing case loads.
I would never adopt a blanket policy of refusing to prosecute juveniles as adults. Obviously, such prosecution is an extreme sanction and should be used sparingly.
I absolutely would prosecute corporate polluters. I would do so without resorting to intimidation, trickery, coercion or selective prosecution.
The question about family court case proceedings shows a lack of knowledge of what the DA does. Family court is about divorce, custody and child visitation. The DA plays no direct role.
Marijuana. Currently there are two categories: Prop 215 pot, which is kinda sorta legal, and regular old-fashioned illegal pot. There is a proposition on the November ballot which would legalize some aspects of marijuana. If passed, there would then be 3 categories of pot. I will enforce the law, with the understanding that the courts may struggle to define what that law consists of.
My preferred mode in this campaign is to furnish ample information about myself as a person, and to let the voters decide which person they want to vote for. In his 23-year tenure as DA, Mike Ramsey has supposedly morphed the position into a job that “only Ramsey” can perform. If that’s the actual case, then some things will have to change when I take office.
How would I manage the department budget?
How would I prioritize case loads?
Would I refuse to prosecute juveniles as adults?
Prosecute corporate business polluters?
How would I improve family court case proceedings?
Would I “back off from” cannabis prosecution?
The aforesaid FB friend asserted that he was a voter, with a right to have his questions answered. In the interests of future time management, I have decided to attempt to address these questions.
----
I can’t answer how I would manage the department budget because I don’t know how much it is, or where it all currently goes. I’ll have to figure it out when I get there.
Ditto for prioritizing case loads.
I would never adopt a blanket policy of refusing to prosecute juveniles as adults. Obviously, such prosecution is an extreme sanction and should be used sparingly.
I absolutely would prosecute corporate polluters. I would do so without resorting to intimidation, trickery, coercion or selective prosecution.
The question about family court case proceedings shows a lack of knowledge of what the DA does. Family court is about divorce, custody and child visitation. The DA plays no direct role.
Marijuana. Currently there are two categories: Prop 215 pot, which is kinda sorta legal, and regular old-fashioned illegal pot. There is a proposition on the November ballot which would legalize some aspects of marijuana. If passed, there would then be 3 categories of pot. I will enforce the law, with the understanding that the courts may struggle to define what that law consists of.
My preferred mode in this campaign is to furnish ample information about myself as a person, and to let the voters decide which person they want to vote for. In his 23-year tenure as DA, Mike Ramsey has supposedly morphed the position into a job that “only Ramsey” can perform. If that’s the actual case, then some things will have to change when I take office.
Friday, May 7, 2010
Ramsey is not "top cop"
You see it proclaimed in the newspaper or on t.v.: “Mike Ramsey, top law enforcement official in Butte County…” And the implication is that Ramsey calls the shots for the entire law enforcement community of our county. The real truth is that Ramsey only gets to boss around his small cadre of DA investigators. *FN
You see, there are a number of independent law enforcement agencies in Butte County. The Chico Police Department, the Butte County Sheriff’s Office, and the Oroville Police Department come readily to mind. Each of the afore-mentioned agencies is funded by taxpayer dollars, and has its own separate chain of command and responsibilities. CSU Chico has its own police force. And don’t forget the California Highway Patrol, which is a state-wide agency. It is ludicrous to insinuate that any of these agencies are under Ramsey’s control, or that they must answer to him.
However, law enforcement does have a working relationship with Ramsey’s office. Here’s how it works: An officer investigates a crime, prepares a report, and submits the report to the DA’s office for prosecution. The DA’s office reviews the report(s), etc., and decides what, if any, criminal complaint will be filed. The investigating officer remains available for further consultation or testimony at trial.
There is no chief law enforcement official in Butte County. When I am elected to the office of Butte County District Attorney, don’t call me “top lawman”. I will be merely an elected official running the DA’s office.
*FN. I write from my own knowledge and observations. Any inaccuracies herein originate with myself, and no other person.
You see, there are a number of independent law enforcement agencies in Butte County. The Chico Police Department, the Butte County Sheriff’s Office, and the Oroville Police Department come readily to mind. Each of the afore-mentioned agencies is funded by taxpayer dollars, and has its own separate chain of command and responsibilities. CSU Chico has its own police force. And don’t forget the California Highway Patrol, which is a state-wide agency. It is ludicrous to insinuate that any of these agencies are under Ramsey’s control, or that they must answer to him.
However, law enforcement does have a working relationship with Ramsey’s office. Here’s how it works: An officer investigates a crime, prepares a report, and submits the report to the DA’s office for prosecution. The DA’s office reviews the report(s), etc., and decides what, if any, criminal complaint will be filed. The investigating officer remains available for further consultation or testimony at trial.
There is no chief law enforcement official in Butte County. When I am elected to the office of Butte County District Attorney, don’t call me “top lawman”. I will be merely an elected official running the DA’s office.
*FN. I write from my own knowledge and observations. Any inaccuracies herein originate with myself, and no other person.
Saturday, May 1, 2010
Thanx for your help so far, Lance Daniel
Right after I filed my papers to be a candidate, there was some snarling by the Lance Daniel crowd that I had somehow been co-opted by Mike Ramsey to act as a spoiler. Supposedly my goal was to hand the race to Ramsey. In similar fashion, the rabidly anti-Daniel crowd has suggested that my entering the race will harm Ramsey to the extent that Daniel will prevail.
Okay, first off, Dale does things for his own reasons, and does not consult with Mike Ramsey. I have no direct contact with Ramsey at all. Once in a blue moon I see him in the court corridors, and I say “hi, Mike.” That earns me a stiff little nod, no more, no less.
Now let’s examine the Lance Daniel issue. If it is true, that in a 2-person race, Daniel’s bankroll would have allowed him to get somewhere near 50% of the vote, how then does it follow that my entry into the race helps him? Not to beat the point to death, but I did get a respectable share of the vote when I last ran. If Lance Daniel were to get that 50% in a 2-person race, at least half of his vote would be people holding their noses and simply voting to get Ramsey out. My own opinion is that Lance Daniel has zero chance of winning the primary outright.
Some say I entered the race on behalf of Ramsey to “spoil” it for Daniel. Some say that my quixotic entry will harm Ramsey and allow Daniel to take it. I say that Daniel is my spoiler, and with his lance in Ramsey’s side I might yet be able to take the old bull elephant down.
Okay, first off, Dale does things for his own reasons, and does not consult with Mike Ramsey. I have no direct contact with Ramsey at all. Once in a blue moon I see him in the court corridors, and I say “hi, Mike.” That earns me a stiff little nod, no more, no less.
Now let’s examine the Lance Daniel issue. If it is true, that in a 2-person race, Daniel’s bankroll would have allowed him to get somewhere near 50% of the vote, how then does it follow that my entry into the race helps him? Not to beat the point to death, but I did get a respectable share of the vote when I last ran. If Lance Daniel were to get that 50% in a 2-person race, at least half of his vote would be people holding their noses and simply voting to get Ramsey out. My own opinion is that Lance Daniel has zero chance of winning the primary outright.
Some say I entered the race on behalf of Ramsey to “spoil” it for Daniel. Some say that my quixotic entry will harm Ramsey and allow Daniel to take it. I say that Daniel is my spoiler, and with his lance in Ramsey’s side I might yet be able to take the old bull elephant down.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
