Are “Conscience” Dems Abandoning Doug Chaffee?
Could be. Since July 2011 Recall candidate Doug Chaffee has been the invisible man. No presence at protests, no support of the Recall, no denunciation of the recall, no comment on the Culture of Corruption in the FPD, no defense of the McKinley police regime, either.
Some Democrats who supported Chaffee in 2010 are jumping ship – to independent candidate Matt Rowe. They are claiming that Chaffee is just a mealy-mouthed guy who wants to get elected without saying a damn thing substantive.
Here is a letter from Stephan and Noelle Baxter, and William Zdan sent to our friends at The Fullertonian. It’s a hard-hitting piece, born of the frustration of a politician who is so petrified of saying anything that he says nothing, and evidently stands for nothing.
The choice of Rowe over Doug Chaffee is the proverbial no-brainer. When you check out Chaffee’s supporters you’ll you’ll see the Old Guard Left like Molly McClanahan and Jan Flory who sat on their hands and kept their mouth shut in the wake of the Kelly Thomas murder. Many of his supporters actually oppose the recall and that speaks volumes about what they expect from their boy. He’s even being supported behind the scenes by repuglicans like Dick Ackerman and his sleazy ilk who apparently see in Chaffee their Main Chance.
91 Replies to “Are “Conscience” Dems Abandoning Doug Chaffee?”
Go Matt Rowe!!!
Maybe they’ll vote for Doug Chaffee instead.
Good one. I just fixed that.
He isn’t saying anything about dams? Water is important! As for Jan Flory, she did worse than sit on her hands in the aftermath of the Kelly Thomas killing. She actually presented McKinley with an award for, well, I guess it was just for being him, that way some kids get an award just for, OK I was going to write “trying” but you couldn’t really say that. Maybe the award was for being a sociopathic ill-informed uncurious fixture of the old guard.
Typical attorney speak -confusing BS without meaning -gooble de gook just to end the uncomfortable question(s) that he doesnt want to answer.
He obviously wants to make sure he doesn’t anger anyone.
If he is voted in, expect more of the same of this behavior and no change to anything, as you have several Chaffee-like council members who serve currently.
Levinson for city council
Yes, that’s a superior choce to Chaffee, too.
I’m with you – LEVINSON for City Council!
baxter to Greg Diamond after the latter says Ramos should be acquitted:
ORANGE JUICE BLOGGER AND CHAFFEE APOLOGIST, DOES NOT THINK OFFICER RAMOS DESERVES TO BE CONVICTED
My point was exactly that you would be justified in almost any respond to my telling you to “f the f off” I feel poorly that you denied yourself the opportunity. After your Ramos comment I believe we have very little more to discuss, as I was looking to exchange thoughts with a human. I try not to argue outside of my own species.
Jesus H, he didn’t really say that did he?
Another headline: Chaffee Supporter Declares Ramos Innocent!
I don’t know how this nasty, unethical insect can bloviate about being for human rights and still post his inhumane garbage.
Here’s the article by the way-
Right on Greg Diamond!
The real beauty of a diamond is that you can see right through them.
Yeah, I’m running on a platform of transparency in government.
(The funny thing is that I actually am.)
Your about as transparent as the mud that you sling daily.
The truth doesn’t seem to matter to you, so I won’t try to set you straight. If you want to see negative campaigning, check out your buddies’ comments on this thread.
merijoe, I think that you have a good heart in there somewhere but that you just tend not to think hard enough.
If you don’t want to understand the legal doctrines at issue in this case, that’s up to you. But tell me: do you think that this kind of roust and arrest for resisting arrest are unuusal. I think that the problem may be that many people are just now finding out how sausage is made.
This happens all the time, all over, and I do fight its abuse. What usually doesn’t happen is a Barney Fife-type like Cicinelli swooping in and killing someone.
“merijoe, I think that you have a good heart in there somewhere but that you just tend not to think hard enough.”
Hard enough or like you?
“Hard enough.” I think that she goes with her gut, whether or not she understands the legal principles at hand.
I don’t mind being disagreed with on the merits. I don’t actually get a lot of that here, though.
Yep. I’m not happy about it, but I’m not going to pretend that the law of qualified immunity for police isn’t what it is. In my profession you have to distinguish between what the law is and what you wish the law is.
In mid-2011, the FPD had a lousy, although probably not quite unconstitutional, policy with respect to the homeless. They would tolerate the homeless being in public unless there was a complaint; if there was a complaint, their job was to find any legally plausible basis to take them away. I don’t like the policy and I would have been happy to be part of a court challenge to it (if it still existed.) But I recognize that it was the policy and that so long as it did not clearly violate the constitution (and a few other things), Ramos and Wolfe had qualified immunity for implementing it. I have problems with many applications of the concept of qualified immunity as well — but I am doing no service to anyone by pretending that it doesn’t exist.
Fortunately, qualified immunity had his limits. Even if what Ramos and Wolfe did up until the point that Cicinelli arrived was rotten and unfair and underhanded, it was protected. What Cicinelli did was, in my opinion, outside of the protection of qualified immunity.
Cicinelli was probably, unfortunately, entitled to shock him with a TASER as an exercise of his discretion as a cop. (I hate the abuse of TASERs, but the law allows their overuse. It shouldn’t, but it does.) He was not at all justified in using the butt of the TASER to smash in Kelly’s face. If the other cops told him to do so, they’d also be liable for prosecution, but there’s nothing on the video that suggests to me that his freakout wasn’t a surprise to everyone there.
That’s the state of the law. Yes, it’s not what Rackaukus is saying, but Rackaukus is wrong — I stand with those who think that he appears to be deliberately munging the case. Part of my role as a lawyer is to apply (and in public writing, explain) the law as it exists. If you’d prefer a lawyer who will lie to you and tell you what you want to hear, then next time you need one that’s the kind you can hire.
What gave Ramos or Wolfe the legal right to beat Thomas with their batons?
Besides being a political hack you are also a turd.
Because his actions satisfied the legal definition of resisting arrest, and they were apprehending him.
I don’t like this. I think that “resisting arrest” is routinely and unfairly abused. But that’s the actual answer to your question according to the law as it stands. You can glare at it as much as you want, but that won’t change it. If you think I’m a “turd” for knowing what the law says, so be it. But consider this: knowing what the law says is really useful if you want to change it — as I would. You’d just rather yell.
Well, there you have it. Mr. Occupy strikes again.
Maybe Greg Diamond can volunteer to be Ramos’ defense attorney. It’s not like he’s doing anything else right now. Isn’t he supposed to be running a campaign or something?
I don’t do criminal defense work. Anyway, Ramos’s attorneys already know everything that I’m saying here — and they know that they’re going to get him acquitted. I just want people like you — who are rightfully angry over this but who don’t know the relevant law protecting actions by police like those you see before Cicinelli pounds Kelly’s head — to understand the same principles. If it makes you into effective civil liberties activists, beyond this one case, that’s great.
I’m not campaigning actively in the primary. I’m saving my money for afterwards. That’s for your concern, though.
You need to work to get money. Blogging all day long won’t cut it.
This week I’ve been moving one case towards pre-trial discovery and another towards filing a complaint. Like the song says, “It’s hard out there for a plaintiff’s employment attorney.”
Bob Huff is a vile, worthless sack of shit. And I just voted for him.
So did I.
That’s OK. The stain’s on your soul, not mine.
Explain the concept of qualified immunity, Tony. Or do you not think that it belongs in the discussion?
I think that what Ramos and Wolfe did in rousting Kelly and then going after him for resisting arrest is disgusting — and that the city policy that allowed and encouraged him to do it was disgusting. I also think that, like it or not — and I don’t — it was squarely within qualified immunity, as I explain above. If you disagree — if you’ve even thought about it at all — you can explain why.
Oh, sorry — I forgot that if I actually want to have an intelligent argument with anyone, I have to go back to my home blog. “This room is for Abuse!”
You sure are good at hiding the fact that you don’t have an actual argument to make, Tony! (I was just kidding about “you can explain why” — I know that you can’t.)
Why don’t you explain the concept of pulling your head out of your rectum. Once you learn how, that is.
And the FFFFwads reach their normal level.
I mean, um, great argument, “English Major”!
Argument? Only a damn fool would waste keystrokes arguing with you.
My guess is somebody said when you were young: that boy should be the lawyer! All those words he says!
FFFFwads holding steady at several fathoms below sensible.
It’s funny how rarely most people here engage the content of an argument. I sort of take it as a compliment.
“It’s funny how rarely most people here engage the content of an argument.”
I don’t follow you. Most people? What exactly IS your argument?
His “arguments” are just nonsense terminated with question marks.
The phrase “although probably not quite unconstitutional” says it all to me.
And I would like to point out that from my limited perspective the City of Fullerton has no qualms about making an applying policies which are against the law. Redevelopment was declared unconstitutional but still the Fullerton City Council wanted to keep applying it. The “Water Tax” has also been declared illegal but the City Council of Fullerton (to my current knowledge) is still applying it to the residents of Fullerton. My point it, just because the City of Fullerton creates and supports a particular policy on the homeless DOES NOT mean (to me at least) that it is legal and constitutional. No offense to anyone here but I would really like an official ruling on the policy by an actual Federal judge.
Well, that’s part of the legal standard. If a reasonable person would know that the policy was unconstitutional, the cops would not have the right to enforce it. I wouldn’t say that it “says it all,” but if you want to know if Ramos broke the law, it says a lot.
I think that the “rousting the homeless” policy could have been challenged in court — but that’s different from its being clearly unconstitutional, and that’s what matters re Ramos’s guilt.
I’m not being rude or sarcastic. I am trying to understand your point. Are you asserting that the current law allows for a City entity to be able to create and enforce any policy that is unconstitutional and violates a citizens’ rights as long as it isn’t challenged or until the point that it is challenged in a court of law?
That wasn’t my point — but it is true. A city can do it until it is challenged, but may then end up paying humongous damages by those harmed.
We’re talking about when an officer can be convicted for actions that advance a city’s policy. Generally, the answer is: he or she can’t, due to qualified immunity. The exception is where the policy violates a constitution in statute and it’s fair to conclude that a reasonable person would have known this.
I’ve put up a new post on OJB that I hope is more clear to people: http://www.orangejuiceblog.com/2012/05/what-officer-ramos-did-wrong-and-why-hell-be-acquitted/. I’m happy to discuss it with you there or here — at least until the howling mob here chases me off again for being wordy.
Firstly, you have given me the exception that I needed in order to understand to context and ask you another question. “The exception is where the policy violates a constitution in statute and it’s fair to conclude that a reasonable person would have known this.”
I’m going to pull another quote from one of your comments above concerning FPD policy. “They would tolerate the homeless being in public unless there was a complaint; if there was a complaint, their job was to find any legally plausible basis to take them away.”
Wouldn’t the constitutionality of the policy be in question regarding how they approached Thomas. There was no official complaint or documented “911” call saying hey there’s a homeless guy here get rid of him or move him please. Didn’t the FPD assert they were responding to a call about car burglaries? So, if it were determined that the FPD fabricated a charge in order to arrest a homeless person, doesn’t that violate his or her constitutional rights? I mean, couldn’t a reasonable person assume that it violates a person’s civil rights to fabricate a complaint or charge against them and use that as the pretense to detain and or arrest them?
I think that that’s a great question. The problem eliminating qualified immunity has to clear two hurdles: (1) the policy has to be illegal and (2) it has to be clearly enough illegal that a reasonable person would know that its illegality wasn’t in doubt.
I think that one can make a good case that Fullerton was using pretexts that it knew to be wrong in order to find any legally justified basis to remove homeless people. I’d like to have seen that case brought; given the resources, I’d have like to help bring it. But I would expect a long, expensive, and hard-fought court battle over it — which would mean that even if I cleared the first hurdle as a critic I probably would not clear the second one.
The problem here is that, even though stealing of someone’s mail is not usually a top concern for the police, the cops did find Kelly with mail belonging to a nearby attorney. Kelly’s having the mail was apparently perfectly innocent — I’ve been told (though I don’t know that it’s true) that he had found the letters unopened in the trash and had taken them to return them. Nevertheless, this was probably enough to sustain detaining him, even though not likely pressing charges. If it wasn’t, it would be because they apparently did such a rotten job of questioning him.
The city’s policy, as I construe it (and I expect that the city would disagree), was: “find any legal way to justify him getting him out of there.” I’m guessing that, had they not found the mail, they would have gone with the suspicion of car burglaries — but this was a more solid ground, weak as it was.
If a charge was entirely fabricated — if they had just made up the car burglary complaint and if Kelly had been breaking no other law — then yes, you’d have a point that holding him beyond a “stop and frisk” was beyond their powers. In that case, Kelly would have had a suit against the city for false imprisonment as soon as he tried to leave and couldn’t. But what they’re going to say is that they decided to enforce the “possessing stolen property” charge after coming across the property through means legally available to them. I think that they’ll get away with it.
Look around, though — people object to the verbal abuse, to the threatening, to the blows with the nightstick, to what came after. How many people are saying that they committed a crime almost at the very outset, that Kelly could have won a suit against the city for false arrest if they had singled him out as a target?
I think that maybe that should be the law — but it would be a tough case to win, and I wouldn’t make the officers personally responsible for “finding a way” if doing so was the City’s SOP.
Forget for a moment what came after. The argument
Reading the article/letter in the Fullertonian and hearing of Doug Chaffee’s indifference to the plight of Kelly Thomas, makes me wonder who the stewards (Rusty Kennedy, Darrell MacGowan of the Fullerton Interfaith Emergency Service, or F.I.E.S, are serving besides themselves?
Baxter and Diamond on Chaffee and Rowe on Kelly and Ramos
– May 14, 2012Posted in: “The OC”, Fresh Juice
“I would not be surprised if he agreed with me that the policies were rotten but that Ramos and Wolfe were properly (or at least legitimately) discharging their duties by acting as they did. (I suspect that he and I will agree on Cicinelli.) Maybe he’ll check in and say so.”
I honestly have been trying to understand Greg’s stance, well…on just about everything!
You have to realize what that creep Diamond is all about. He is running misdirection for Sharon Quirk who he believes (rightly) has the stink of the FPD on her. Therefore is is attempting to minimize the murder by making it sound like Fullerton PD just had bad policies and the poor cops were just doing what cops do.
This will backfire, too because Quirky’s job on the FCC is to oversee the cops – something she has obviously failed to do – right alongside the Three Hollow Logs.
I think that Cicinelli should be convicted. I think that under the current state of constitutional law, Ramos won’t be. I think that the policy allowing the roust was ethically wrong, but probably not unconstitutional, and in any event was not so clearly unconstitutional as to defeat qualified immunity.
Your answer to me is all about politics. I see part of my role as a lawyer writing the public as being to educate people about the law. It would be “politically wise” for me not to do so here because people don’t like the result of the doctrine of qualified immunity — but I think that they need to understand it to discuss the case intelligently.
As you’re simply trying to use the case for political ends, I guess that you think that you don’t need to understand it.
You wrote what you wrote.
And you are not trying to educate anybody. You’re a political apologist. And worse still, you aren’t even very good at it.
You’re an idiot — and a political apologist. Luckily, the people who read this but aren’t part of the FFFF hive mind will be able to judge what I’m saying by its merits. Too bad for you.
In all this insanity truth is truly stranger than fiction.
Diamond. Your answers boil down to “Thats what you are but what am I? Are you five years old?
Holy crap! Diamong Greg how can you say so much without saying anything?
That’s his specialty. Verbal diarrhea.
Just tell me what part you didn’t understand. Let’s start with the first sentence. Did you understand “I think that Cicinelli should be convicted”? I can dumb that down for you if need be.
I think you have dumbed it down quite enough.
If you think that I’m not “saying anything,” then apparently I haven’t.
Duh, he’s an attorney.
Apparently the Bar wasn’t set very high back when wheels were square..
Here’s Matt’s statement on the video. He’ll be at council tonight as well.
need i say more?
My guess is that Dougie will show up tonight to:
1) regret the death of Kelly Thomas and “feel” for the family.
2) compliment the fine work that Acting Chief Dan Hughes is doing to promote “community policing.”
3) thank the Homeless Commission and especially Rusty Kennedy for all their arduous work.
4) Explain that while he wanted so much to start speaking last summer he just had to let the justice system unfold.
5) Extol the brilliance of hiring Michael Gennaco to make all things right and help usher in the Golden Age of item 2, above.
Not necessarily in that order.
Citizens of Fullerton:
You need to get written promises from all candidates and hold their feet to the fire.
Otherwise you will end up where you started.
Please, be smart this time around.
We have seen Doug around town over the last year and at the arboretum and he looked just fine. Was there a force field around the Council Chambers for the last 10 months that all of a sudden is no longer there that kept him away? If that is any indication of how responsive he will be as a leader of my city then as for me, my family and my friends -No thanks pal. He needs to keep working the plant sales. He is in his element over there. People that stand for nothing fall for anything. When the Jacarandas bloom, those old reused faded signs can go away for good one can only hope. Fullerton needs brave leaders that will deal with MAJOR problems that we face that are NOT GOING TO GO AWAY EASILY. I commend those that have done an about face. Like I have always said, It is truly truly truly never too late to do the right thing.
Hey lookit. The gas bag finally talked himself out of gas!
Yep. Let’s hope he ran out of steam for good. I’ve never seen so many words used to say so little.
He is a slithy Jabberwock!
Heh. And the whole lot of you together could not make even a halfway vorpal sword.
Concerned Texan and I are having an interesting conversation. Just go somewhere else.
I got a call and when I got back to the screen I forgot that I hadn’t finished composing. Oh well.
oh no he din’t
I just don’t think it’s constitutionally justified to search a person’s back pack just because he’s homeless and the FPD doesn’t like him. He wasn’t near any car or trying to break into any car in question. He was just sitting on a bench. I think any reasonable person knows that.
Here’s the trick. So far as I can tell, at the time that the video begins, he’s not actually under arrest. If he had asked whether he was free to go, they either would have had to let him go or come up with a reason not to. He also didn’t have to let him search his bag. As I commented on OJB, I think that the whole first few minutes was to soften him up so that he’d consent to a search. Then, once they said that they had him for possessing stolen property — and Ramos put on the gloves — he was actually in custody.
I think that you’re right — I think that that’s what they were doing — but they relied on his unwillingness to assert his right to privacy and freedom from unreasonable search. It’s so commonplace that I don’t think that you’d get a court to even allow prosecution for just that, even though to me it is actually worse than anything that comes between the “gloves on” and Cicinelli’s arrival, because it is not dealing with a detained suspect. Mine is the minority view there, though.
Yeah they tricked him into letting them murder him.
No, they tricked him into giving them permission to search his bag. Nobody at the time expected him to end up dead. The notion was probably not yet even a gleam in Jay Cicinelli’s eye.
Wow, so the FPD were able to “trick” a person with schizophrenia. Kudos to them. What if Kelly was not competent to give them permission due to his having schizophrenia? In the video the officers clearly know who he is and provides him with his name before he gives it. If it’s proven that they know he is mentally incompetent can he legally give permission?
And just a note, “The notion was probably not yet even a gleam in Jay Cicinelli’s eye.” is an extremely inappropriate thing to say. Honestly, I think the officers are “personally” responsible for their actions. I believe the committed murder and I believe the DA will prove that. Please be more conscientious of what YOU say (regardless of what others say) or I’m going to go back to rolling my eyes at your posts and ignoring you.
Cops use this sort of trick all the time to get the right to search something, enter one’s house, etc. It takes a tough person to, despite having nothing to hide, says “no” on principle.
As for your question, in the absence of a conservator I think that if Kelly would normally be the one to give permission to look inside his bag, that would do. (The actual legal rule is probably better refined than that.) Schizophrenic does not necessarily mean mentally incompetent; Kelly clearly has his wits about him. You raise a reasonable theoretical concern, but I don’t think it applies.
I’m sorry that you were offended. The phrase “not yet a gleam in his father’s eye” usually refers to someone who has not yet been conceived. In this case, I was referring to the idea that Cicinelli had not yet conceived of a plan to harm (let alone kill) Kelly that day. After I finished writing, I realized that it could be taken as a reference to his glass eye, which I presume is what offended you, but I decided that it was the right phrase regardless so I hit “submit.”
Instead of apologizing for my feelings, take responsibility for your own words. I understood what you said. I am intelligent enough to recognize the pun, however, it was an inappropriate play on words. I’m offended that you would use a play on words to reference Cicinelli’s horrific actions at all, I don’t give a damn about his glass eye. The fact is, if you can write that twisted joke, review it and still non-apologetically click submit, I don’t have anything else to say to you apart from please go back to your own blog.
OK. I don’t really get your criticism, but it’s been nice talking to you so I will take off now and make you a hero here. (In fact, maybe that will be my rule here: “I’ll leave when Concerned Texan tells me to.” Come by OJB whenever you want a substantive conversation.
“Kelly clearly has his wits about him.”
It sounds like you know very little about Schizophrenia.
Again, common place does not equal legal. The court might not prosecute just for that, however, they’re being prosecuted for a lot more. In that context the illegality of the circumstances surrounding Kelly’s murder will be in question.
No matter how well somone explains it to you, you still have your narrow mind…Boy what of waste of time with you.
Their cute little TIME BOMBS’ blew up “Thats ALL”.
Its not really anything about the law or any particular facts.
Any reasonable persons would have the County come and get them.
This is not the first time probably, murder has a different set of rules in society.
Should have read Torture Killing!
Ok the officers should have said, wait lets call mental health on someone that doesnt want to give us his name. Mental health would of laughed their asses off.
“Appearance is paid for and authorized by each candidate”
How much did this cost Travis? Running for Orange City Council? You may want to ask for a refund, but thanks for supporting our police!
Clearly Mr. Diamond has never read the Chinese proverb:
“The less you say, the more people will listen”
As we have seen repeatedly, this guy will “FLAME OUT”, I just hope they develop a 2500 mg. exedrin before then.
Settle down Tiger.
In your case and everyone on this blog is..The more you say, the less we listen.
Doug appearent doesn,t think that the first amendment applies to people with disabilities. Doug had been doing everything that he can to keep me out of Fullerton. I was born at Fullerton hospital 201 e amperage in Fullerton on Saturday February 24, 1951 at 3:20 am. Being born at a small hospital early on a Saturday morning in the middle of the 20th century is probably a risk factor for brain damage at birth. Society confuses brain with mental retardation. As a result my cerebral palsy misdiagnosed as psychological problem. The condition was first diagnosed by Dr. Mark weissig on Sept 6’1988, Just before my father died(sept.27′ 1988). I asked Doug if it news to him that I was diagnosed as having as having cerebral palsy, he responded”I don,t know what that is”. Doug is my oldest brother. My late Paul was the only brother that Came close to understanding me. Paul was a phd psychologist. I think that I,m better qualified to be on the Fullerton city council than Doug. I need a civil rights attorney to deal with my current situation.