Attorneys For Brenda Cedarblade File Letter of Complaint with District Attorney, Yolo County Sheriff, and Woodland Chief of Police

Complaint Alleges "Non-Responsiveness" to Series of Violent Threats, Acts of Violence and an Overall Pattern of Harassment

On December 17, 2008, attorney Matt Gonzalez from the San Francisco based law firm of Gonzalez and Leigh, fired off a complaint addressed to Yolo County District Attorney Jeff Reisig, Sheriff Ed Prieto, and Woodland Police Chief Carey Sullivan.

The complaint "expresses concern" with:

"the Yolo County Sheriff Department's and the Woodland Police Department's seeming non-responsiveness to a series of violent threats, acts of violence, burglaries, criminal trespasses, and an overall pattern of harassment (some of which are described below) directed at my clients, and all of which were reported to both the Yolo Sheriff's Department and the Woodland Police Department."

The letter lays out four instances including shots fired onto property on May 25, 2008, multiple incidents of burglary and criminal trespass dating to April and May of 2008, threats, and the publication of private and confidential information on a web site.

Mr. Gonzalez writes:

On May 25, 2008 my clients reported three shots fired from a field North of their property at 41070 County Road 18C, Woodland, 95695. The shots were fired from a high powered rifle onto their property while Ted Wilson and several of his employees were working. Two of the bullets sailed over Mr. Wilson's head and hit the roof of the horse arena on my clients' property. After hearing the shots fired and the bullets land, Mr. Wilson located a white pick-up truck and four men in a field northwest of his property. Ms. Cedarblade immediately called the Yolo County Sheriff's Department for assistance.

Upon arriving, the Deputy Sheriff confronted four men in the same white pick-up truck located by Mr. Wilson. As relayed to my clients' from the deputy, the men possessed a high-powered long-range rifle, methamphetamine, and were all residing illegally in the United States. The men told the deputy they were using the gun to "shoot squirrels".

According to the complaint, the shooting constitutes several crimes including "assault with deadly weapon" and "discharge of firearm at occupied building."

However, authorities did not follow up on these complaints and made no arrest.

"Following the shooting Mr. Wilson and Ms. Cedarblade unequivocally told the deputy they wished to press all charges against the shooters. However, Mr. Wilson and Ms. Cedarblade understand that the Sheriff's Department made no arrest of the shooters, and conducted no further investigation..."

Mr. Gonzalez writes:

"Given the shooters' purported explanation, and the clear commission of several crimes, the failure to investigate or file charges raises serious questions about the Yolo County Sheriff Department's policies and procedures for investigating crimes, and their apparent disregard of serious violent conduct directed at my clients."

The next incident allegedly occurred in April of 2008.

"Ms. Cedarblade and Mr. Wilson arrived at home to find that unknown persons had entered their home, as well as the historic ranch on their property. The trespassers left green cards, $2000 in cash, drugs and drug paraphernalia. Ms. Cedarblade also discovered old family photos of her family scattered around her bedroom, as well as childhood drawings and report cards, all things that were not previously in her possession. They also found rat poison spread over their bed and kitchen counter. After notifying the Sheriff's Department, the deputy declined to conduct any investigation or collect any evidence, and told my clients to keep the green cards and the $2000 cash.

On May 22, 2208, my clients discovered photos and documents related to the former occupation of Ms. Cedarblade's father, a former navy defense contractor who worked on classified missile systems, inside their home. The photos and documents - which mayor may not be classified - were not previously in the possession of my clients, and appeared to be part of the personnel file of Ms. Cedarblade's father, including his security clearance."

According to Mr. Gonzalez, though this burglary was reported, no investigation was conducted by law enforcement.

The third incident involved a threatening phone call claiming that there was a hit out for Ms. Cedarblade who then reported this to the Sheriff's department.

"The Deputy told Ms. Cedarblade that a "hit" could mean a hit on a government records search, and did no further investigation - this despite providing the deputy with the name of the caller."

Furthermore private information was allegedly posted on a web site, however, there was never any investigation into this matter by the Woodland Police or the Sheriff's department.

Mr. Gonzalez concludes:

"My clients turned over all information concerning the above incidents, as well as other instances of harassment, to both the Yolo County Sheriff's Department and the Woodland Police Department. But, to their knowledge, neither Department conducted any serious investigation into any of the above incidents, or any other of the reported incidents, despite clear evidence of criminal activity. In fact, my clients expressly requested a criminal investigation to the Sheriff's Department and were told, through their previous attorney, that the District Attorney's office was too busy to do any investigation."

The Vanguard will be following up on this story in the coming days and will report upon any further development.

---David M. Greenwald reporting

Would the Gang Injuction Serve Us Well In the Case of the Amtrak Beating?

I post this letter to the editor that appeared a few days ago in the Woodland Daily Democrat. I am not certain I agree with all of the letter. But there has always been something about the case described above that has not sit well with me.

Five of the youths were charged for crimes. Four of them were found guilty. That's of course the headline. It is interesting that while a lot of the news accounts covered the guilty verdicts, a few of them did not note that they were acquitted of the most serious charge--attempted murder.

In fact, from what I see, only the Sacramento Bee reported that they were acquitted of the attempted murder charges.

They were convicted of various assault charges, attempted manslaughter, and of course being members of the Broderick Boys street gang.

But as Mr. McKinnon points out, this case arose about the time the original gang injunction was thrown out. It was sited as why we need the gang injunction. What Mr. Reisig never explained to us is how the gang injunction would have prevented this incident.



The rhetoric was heightened was the beginning, with Mr. Reisig referring to the suspects as "domestic terrorists."



What does not sit well and Mr. McKinnon notes in his letter was the actions of the engineer who was attacked. Why would he get out of the train and confront them rather than call the police? Did his confrontation and punching one of the young men on the tracks six or more times, escalate the incident from simple mayhem and mischief to violence?



I am not trying to minimize the incident, but again, the media descriptions of the incident have never sat well with me. They are too neat. The incident seemed too well-timed to prove a point on the gang injunction.

Does labeling them as gang members help us in some way? Would the gang injunction have prevented this incident? Are we safer with such laws? I have often wondered.



On a personal level I believe that even gang members are covered by the constitution and are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. I will point out the obvious here as well, the legal system isn't exactly stacked in their favor as it is. Law enforcement feels hamstrung in fighting this kinds of crime, and yet we see large numbers of young minority males in jail. There is a disconnect here, and yet I never hear people on the other side question if maybe we ought not take a little different approach to law enforcement. To acknowledge that the heavy-handed, sometimes almost militaristic mindset just isn't an effective means by which to fight crime.

None of this unfortunately answers the questions I still have about this case, even after the convictions. I didn't attend the trial, I wasn't there, perhaps the case was simple and clear cut. But I still find it interesting that most news accounts never bothered to report that they were acquitted of the most serious charge.

The question here to me is not whether these individuals deserve jail time, whether they deserved to be acquitted, a court of law ruled that they did, but the question to me is whether the DA overreached in the case with some of the charges and the overall efficacy of the gang injunction as a crime fighting tool. Some of the asserted facts are bitterly disputed by residents in the affected areas.

---David M. Greenwald reporting

Arnold Stumps for McCain and Reisig Opposes Prop 5

At the risk of trying to tie some otherwise disparate pieces of information together into a single blog entry, I will start by arguing that I find it curious the decisions made both by Jeff Reisig in the manner in which he chose to attack Proposition 5 in the Davis Enterprise and the fact that McCain would have decided to use California's Governor for stump help, not in California of course, but in the perhaps pivotal battleground of Ohio.

Let us start with the local angle first. It is no surprise that Jeff Reisig would oppose Proposition 5, just about all of law enforcement and prosecutors have. I know it's not a perfect law but the situation with non-violent drug offenders in prisons is fundamentally unsustainable and the dam will break. And when it does, prosecutors and law enforcement will likely wind up with a far more reactionary and broader law. This would have been a chance to let some of the air out from the pressure building on the system.

This is from the bi-partisan Little Hoover Commission report on California's prisons:

"California’s correctional system is in a tailspin that threatens public safety and raises the risk of fiscal disaster. The failing correctional system is the largest and most immediate crisis facing policy-makers. For decades, governors and lawmakers fearful of appearing soft on crime have failed to muster the political will to address the looming crisis. And now their time has run out."

The real interesting point of focus is that Jeff Reisig, the Yolo County District Attorney, sent the same letter to Davis as he did to Woodland. Why would he do that?

Tying in another loose thread here, the Davis Enterprise reported yesterday an interesting little factoid on local fundraising and the Presidential Election.

Barack Obama has raised $353,258 from Yolo County residents compared with $113,950 for McCain.

The city of Davis raised 85 percent of that--$298,672--compared to just $37,531 for McCain. That's an 8 to 1 advantage.

One other little tidbit is that Woodland raised more than half of McCain's countywide total.

Neither of these facts are particularly surprising. But they do suggest that maybe the good DA might want to re-think sending the same letter to Enterprise as he did to the Daily Democrat.

He writes:

"The first thing voters should know is that the proponents of this so-called 'Non-Violent Offender Rehabilitation Act' include billionaire George Soros and the New York-based Drug Policy Alliance..."

Ah the George Soros boogie man. Now, Mr. Reisig, that might work in say Woodland, but my guess is that most of Davis does not view George Soros as nearly the anti-Christ that the right wingers up in Woodland do. I am not saying everyone is in line with George Soros, but I am guessing to most Davisites, he is not a pariah and to many, they are appreciative of his efforts to remove President Bush in the 2004 election.

The lesson here is target your message. Someone is going to point out to me that he said a lot more than just that in his letter, but see, his decision to attack George Soros distracted me from his ultimate message. That just proves my point.

But for good measure, our district attorney gives us another little strawman argument:

"Prop. 5 is not limited to simple drug possession offenses. Virtually any criminal who claims to have a drug problem would be permitted a 'get-out-of-jail-free' card. "

This is of course completely untrue. The only people eligible for Proposition 5 diversion are for those who are ONLY charged with non-violent drug possession offenses. The law specifically defines “non-violent drug possession offense” as “the unlawful, personal use, possession for personal use, or transportation for personal use or being under the influence of any controlled substance…”

So it appears that District Attorney Reisig was inaccurate on this charge which is a pretty standard distortion thrown out by the law enforcement agencies against this proposition. And he certainly should have used better discretion than to submit the same letter to both the Enterprise and the Daily Democrat, given the differences in the likely responses. But at least I'll give him this: he did appear to write the letter himself, unlike our Sheriff with regards to the pro-Proposition 6 letter.

Arnold Stumps for McCain

That leads me to the Governor of California's appearance in Ohio for John McCain foundering campaign.

And this is more of a mixed view. As commentators point out, the Governor inspired larger than usual crowds for a McCain rally. He clearly excited the crowds in ways that John McCain is just not capable of doing.

But Arnold is a double-edged sword. In California, Arnold has an approval rating not much better than President Bush's nationally. Last month it registered at just 35%. And he is coming off a very bloody period with the budget showdown.

The question is really whether Barack Obama really needs to make an issue of all of this. It may just be that Obama will go about his business knowing that McCain is running out of time and Arnold's appearance will do very little for him.

But there is more. First of all, Arnold decided to poke fun at the physique of Obama.

Then he launched into the tax issue.

As the Sacramento Bee reports:

During his speech, the governor recognized the awkward position of having to tailor his speech to McCain's anti-tax message while having proposed raising taxes this week in his own state to offset an estimated $10 billion revenue shortfall.

"Now just because you want to raise a tax certainly doesn't make you a socialist because in California I have proposed a temporary sales tax increase to address our massive deficit," he said. "But Sen. Obama wants to raise the taxes because of ideology. He wants to raise all kinds of taxes. He wants to raise the taxes on capital gains and dividends."

The phrase "flimsy excuse" comes to mind. For Arnold tax increases are okay because they deal with the deficit, for Obama they are not because it is part of his ideology, rather than looking to fix the tax and revenue system that was put out of whack by Bush's tax policies from the early 90s that led to huge growths in deficits.

Not to mention, McCain's message gets stepped on because he has argued that the last thing we need is a tax increase during these economic times, and yet that is exactly now what Arnold is proposing--and a sales tax puts the burden on the middle class while Obama's proposal shifts the burden to those who can most afford to pay a bit more.

It all seems like mental gymnastics to me and it would be easy enough for Obama to make a big deal out of it, but he probably will not, because he does not need to.

We are now just a few days away from finally ending this never ending campaign. It seems like we have been at this non-stop for two years. Oh, that is because we have.

---David M. Greenwald reporting

100K Club of Yolo County

Two weeks ago, we had our listing of the 100K Club of Davis. In it were the 61 employees of the city of Davis who earned $100,000 or more in 2007. Of those 61, 48 were in public safety and 38 of those were firefighters. Now we have compiled through another public records act request the 100K Club of Yolo County. There were 64 Yolo County employees who earned $100,000 or more in 2007.

• CLICK HERE For the full list of 64 Yolo County Employees

The top employee of Yolo County in terms of salary not surprisingly is Sharon Jensen, who is the County Administrator (CAO), a position comparable to a city manager. She is followed by Sheriff Prieto. County Council Robyn Drivon is fourth. District Attorney Jeff Reisig is perhaps somewhat surprisingly only 9th. There are also three members of the Psychiatrist-Board in the top 10.

We have also broken down the elected officials who made the 100K list.



For the sake of comparison, we threw Public Defender Barry Melton on this list even though he is appointed rather than elected. Notably not on the list is the County Superintendent of Schools. Also as people are aware, Yolo County Supervisors make considerably less than $100,000. Also, the Public Guardian does not make the list either.

Breakdown by Department: District Attorney's Office Dominates



There is no department in the county, that is comparable to the firefighters in the city of Davis which had 38 of the top 61 salaries for 2007. However, the District Attorney's office did have 15 of the top 64 salaries, three times that of the next highest departments--County Administrator and Planning and Public Works. Child Support Services, Mental Health, the Public Defender's Office, and the Sheriff's Office all had four employees each in the 100K club of Yolo County.

City of Davis Compared to County and Woodland

One of our Woodland Counterparts, the Woodland Journal just ran their 100K Club of Woodland this past Sunday. They found 18 employees who will make $100,000 or more this year and just 10 employees last year.

To put these numbers into perspective, the city of Davis had 61 employees reach the 100K Club in 2007 out of a total of 422 total employees. That's roughly 14.4% of the employees in Davis. Yolo County by contrast has between 1300 and 1500 total employees of which 64 make 100K or more. That translates at the high end to just under 5% of the employees of Yolo County making 100K or more. We do not have the exact numbers in Woodland, but we imagine the total number of employees is comparable to Davis. That would put them in the range of Yolo County for percentages this year even lower than that last year.

Why is the salary structure in Davis so different from that of Woodland and Yolo County? One really has to look no further than the influence of the public employees unions in local politics and really we are talking about one public employees union--the firefighters. As we noted, 38 of the top 61 salaries in Davis are firefighters.

The Woodland Journal notes:

"Common to both cities is the relative earnings by those who accrue overtime. An examination of the public records provided by the city reveal that 30 Woodland employees made over $10,000 in overtime pay during 07-08. Of those 30, only one employee did not work in the police or fire departments.

...

86 employees made over $5,000 in overtime. Three of those did not work in the police or fire departments."

This shows that the same phenomena is at work in Woodland, but not nearly as severe as it is in the city of Davis. The County of course does not have a Fire Department. It has a large contingent of workers who provide crucial county services to residents, but most of them are not making the huge salaries with the huge overtimes that the city public safety workers earn.

Tomorrow we will attempt to complete the circle by presenting data on campaign contributions by public safety employees in the city of Davis.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Public Defender Melton is Off The Topete Case, Should He Be Out as Public Defender?

Public Defender Barry Melton officially removed himself yesterday from the case of accused Sheriff's Deputy killer, Marco Topete. Officially it appears we do not know the nature of the conflict of interest.

Barry Melton was immediately replaced by Hayes Gable III of Sacramento and Tom Purtell of Woodland. The defendant is in excellent hands with two lawyers experienced in capital murder cases.

However, Barry Melton's departure from this case leaves more questions than answers. Both of which are hinted at by an excellent article in the Woodland Daily Democrat on Friday morning.

In it, it chronicles the relationship between Barry Melton, Sheriff Ed Prieto and Judge Dave Rosenberg.

According to the article by Daily Democrat Staff Reporter Luke Gianni:

"Topete's wife, Angelique Topete, told the Democrat Thursday she witnessed an argument between [Deputy Public Defender Dean] Johansson and Melton last week at their office in Woodland days after Melton filed his motion.

She said Johansson was concerned over the political connections Melton shared between Yolo County Sheriff Ed Prieto and Rosenberg."

The article goes on to quote Mrs. Topete:

"In the process of Dean doing his investigation, he dug up a lot of stuff between Melton, Prieto and Rosenberg and that pissed Melton off."

The bottom line here is that the Daily Democrat dug up--what many of us have known for a long time--the fact that there is a strong relationship between Barry Melton, Ed Prieto, and Dave Rosenberg all of whom hang in the same Davis political circles and all of whom have contributed money to each other's campaign.

The Democrat continues:

"According to county election records obtained by the Democrat, all three men have contributed funds to each other over the last 10 years as their political careers have progressed.

Ed Prieto's political action committee "Citizens for Ed Prieto," received monetary contributions totaling around $600 from Rosenberg's political fund starting in 1998 when he ran for Sheriff up and until his last contribution in 2003.

Records also show Melton contributed a little more than $300 to Prieto's fund from 2000 to 2003.

As for Rosenberg, his "Friends of David Rosenberg" fund has received more than $150,000 in political contributions over the last decade before morphing into the "Judge David Rosenberg Committee," which was formed in 2003 during his run for a judicial seat.

From 1999 to 2003, Melton had contribute[d] more than $900 to this fund, records show.

The monetary ties between the judge, the attorney and the organization that employed the man her husband allegedly killed, has Angelique concerned over his chances at a fair trial."

The Democrat then brings in Judicial ethics expert Carol Langford, an adjunct professor at UC Hastings Law School. She told the Democrat that the political contributions did not mandate withdrawal from the case, but she also suggested a "voluntary step down to assure the public the case is being handled fairly."

"What I would say is you probably want to give that case to one of your panel people. You want to make sure that everyone is doing a good job and that there's the appearance that everything is fair and just. It's important that people think they're getting a fair shake especially in a small town."

So is this the reason that Barry Melton is recusing himself from the case? If so, there are more serious problems on the horizon. If he must remove himself from this case, does he then have to remove himself from every case involving Judge Dave Rosenberg? Does he have to then remove himself from every case involving the Sheriff's Department? Right there, that's a lot of cases? Did he also support Judge Tim Fall in his reelection bid this past June? Would he have to remove himself from any cases involving Judge Fall as well, if he did support his reelection?

But that is just the tip of the iceberg. The real kicker is that the Democrat did not complete the circle here. Back in 2006, there was a rather heated battle for District Attorney between fellow deputies Jeff Reisig and Pat Lenzi. Jeff Reisig eventually won that race by a rather narrow margin. Barry Melton did not formally endorse Jeff Reisig but behind the scenes he was a powerful advocate for Reisig and frequently attacked Pat Lenzi.

There's of course more to this than just that. Barry Melton did not himself donate to Jeff Reisig's campaign, but his wife, Barbara Langer did. The Democrat probably did not know to look for contributions to Jeff Reisig from Barry Melton's wife, but the support from Melton to Reisig is well known.

If indeed the reason that Barry Melton withdrew from this case had to do with the close political relationships here, then it calls into question Barry Melton's entire position as public defender. As such a political animal to begin with, perhaps Barry Melton is not the person best suited for this position.

This is all unfortunate for the family of the slain Sherrif's Deputy but also the Topete family that is entitled to a fair trial. Last week, members of Topete's family wanted Dean Johanson, whom Marco Topete trusts, to stay on the case. Now it appears that Barry Melton's entire office will drop out of the case.

The good news from Topete and for Yolo County is that he is in very capable hands. He was assigned first class defense.

But as this entire saga has shown, there are serious cracks in the Yolo County Justice System's foundation. The public defender as many have known for some time, seems to be right in the middle of the problem.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Commentary: Defense Charges Yolo Courthouse Collusion

Just when we thought things would slowly return to some semblance of normal, Assistant Public Defender Dean Johansson makes a surprising motion.

Johansson called for Rosenberg and every other judge in Yolo County to remove themselves from hearing the Topete case because they could not be fair and impartial. The lack of a public hearing has raised concerns about the constitutionality of the process and the bias of the court.

More shocking was his charge of judicial collusion in which the Assistant Public Defender Dean Johansson told the court that other judges had their courtrooms for half an hour in order to allow deputies to fill up this courtroom. To substantiate this allegation, the public defender's office has subpoenaed the surveillance videos from each courtroom.

As a result of this motion, Judge Rosenberg has asked the District Attorney Jeff Reisig to respond to this motion at a hearing set for July 3, 2008.

Unfortunately, there is a judicial gag order on this case, thus we cannot talk to Mr. Johansson (who as a point of full disclosure is a personal friend).

A few thoughts on this other than the single word, "wow."

The Sacramento Bee and even the Davis Enterprise has questioned whether Topete could get a fair trial in Yolo County. I agree with that sentiment, I don't think he can get a fair trial in Yolo County.

Can he prove judicial collusion? I suppose if he gets a hold of those surveillance videos from every courtroom and they show that they did indeed shut their courtrooms to allow the deputies to fill the department, he might have a point. But that probably also falls short of collusion to keep the public out which I think has to be the core of the charge. I think they would have to show intent to keep the public out rather than a move that was as a courtesy to allow deputies to attend a hearing regarding their fallen colleague.

Second point I think is a change of venue simply makes more sense. Even if you got a visiting judge to hear the case in Yolo County, you would still get courtroom security from the Yolo County Sheriff's Department. Obviously the defense believes that an out of area judge would have more scrutiny over the sheriff's in their court, but why risk that? Put the trial in another county and start anew.

As the Sacramento Bee article says this morning:

"Legal experts interviewed Friday agreed that the defense would have a tough time winning its motion. But they said recent events in the case leave little doubt that it should be moved out of Yolo County voluntarily to avoid the appearance of impropriety.

Robert Weisberg, who teaches criminal law at Stanford Law School, said he doubted the public defender's office could win its effort to have every judge in Yolo removed from the case. The legal standard for removing judges is too high, he said.

"You would have a huge burden to show prejudice," Weisberg said.

However, the judge and lawyers could agree to relocate Topete's case.

"That's obviously the sensible thing to do," he said. "It should really get done and done quickly."

A move to a neighboring county could avoid future litigation and prevent any conviction from being overturned because of apparent bias, he said."

Where does this leave the case? Unfortunately in flux until next week just before the July 4 holiday.

Meanwhile Yolo County Sheriff's Deputy Jose Diaz was laid to rest on Friday with 1500 people, many of the law-enforcement officers from Northern California. Sheriff Ed Prieto posthumously award Deputy Diaz with the department's Medal of Valor for his actions which perhaps saved the life of an infant who had been abandoned in the suspect's vehicle.

From the start of this event, the most regretful aspect has been the courthouse drama overshadowing the horrific personal tragedy that occurred still less than two weeks ago. We need to have a fair and open trial if for no other reason than to honor and respect the life of Deputy Diaz who was by all accounts good and dedicated law enforcement officer and father.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Preliminary Gang Injunction Granted

The Sacramento Bee reports this morning that Judge Kathleen White has allowed the preliminary gang injunction to go forward.

"In her six-page ruling, White said prosecutors had shown "by clear and convincing evidence" that they probably would prevail at trial on whether broad and long-lasting restrictions were needed to combat gang crime in the Broderick and Bryte neighborhoods.

The potential harm to the defendants – including two dozen alleged gang members named by prosecutors and up to 400 unnamed individuals – was outweighed by the harm to the community if the injunction had not been issued, White wrote."

On the other hand there were some limitations to the injunction:

"But White also said the criteria proposed by prosecutors for identifying gang members were overly broad and "would likely result in the curtailment of the rights" of residents who had little or no connection with gangs.

She limited the injunction to active gang members, including those who admitted to being Broderick Boys or were named by reliable informants as gang members.

Included under the judge's order are those who have tattoos associated with the Broderick Boys."

Civil rights attorney Joshua Kaizuka believes that the police still have very broad discretion in identifying who a Broderick Boy is and to curtail their civil rights.

Now that the preliminary injunction is in place, there will be a trial to determine if a permanent court order should be issued.

Commentary:

I remain concerned as Mr. Kaizuka does, that the police have very broad discretion in identifying who a Broderick Boy is. There have been numerous complaints by citizens that this injunction has led to the curtailment of the rights of residents who are not affiliated with gangs. This is reinforced by comments made by the Judge here.

The criteria put forward by the Judge remain overly broad. Those who admit to being Broderick Boys--does that mean under some formalized process or could they simply be compelled to sign a waiver as a condition of release from prison on a minor charge? This has been an accusation put forward by opponents of the injunction. Those named by "reliable" informants seems even more broad and more subject to problems.

Is there some kind of procedure where a person affected by the injunction can appeal that? Since this is a civil penalty, they are not entitled to court appointed representation. As a result, top caliber lawyers such as Mark Merin, Joshua Kaizuka and others have volunteered their time. Future defendants likely would not have access to top notch representation if at all.

My final problem remains with the process--it turns the justice system on its head by removing the due process of law requirement for loss of liberty while at the same time making it a civil procedure rather than a criminal one, meaning there is no right to an attorney.

I simply cannot get passed these waiving of cherished constitutional principles. People have repeatedly in response to these arguments suggested that gang members are bad people and questioned whether I have witnessed their wrath first hand. I have no doubt in the world that some of these gang members are bad people, but I believe even really bad people are entitled to due process. I also believe as Judge White seems to that this net will catch not only really bad people but people who really are not bad at all. That troubles me greatly. I would think there could be procedures put in place to allow the bad people to be prevented from associating with gangs while at the same time give the good people a chance not to get caught up in the net. It is hard to believe that this is a radical notion, but for some it seems to be.

Judge White spoke repeatedly about trying to avoid allowing the political to get into the courtroom--an admirable stance. However, at the end of the day, it is the legal and the constitutional aspects of this that remain most troubling to this non-lawyer.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Gore and Lenzi Respond to District Attorney's Office

Earlier this week, the human resource officials investigating the complaints by the District Attorney's Senior Investigator Rick Gore, dismissed all charges for lack of evidence.

"Every material allegation made by Rick Gore was not substantiated. It was not substantiated that Jeff Reisig was or is engaging in unethical practices. There is no indication that Rick Gore was subjected to a hostile work environment, that he was retaliated against for exercising his rights, and/or that he was discriminated against on the basis of a legally protected category."

In response District Attorney Jeff Reisig issued a lengthy statement claiming vindication.

"I am grateful that this matter is now closed and that all of the individuals who were wrongfully targeted have been vindicated and now afforded an opportunity to respond... I am looking forward to getting back to work for the citizens of Yolo County."

At the same time, both Reisig and his employees continued to make allegations against former Deputy DA Pat Lenzi.

As reported in the Woodland Daily Democrat on Wednesday:

"In that same statement, officials at the DA's Office reiterated their belief that Gore's public accusations were in part orchestrated by former deputy DA Patricia Lenzi.

Lenzi ran an unsuccessful and, at times, bitterly worded campaign against Reisig in 2004.

DA investigator Peter Martin said in a prepared statement that Lenzi called him the evening before the allegations were made public to "discuss" Gore's letter, which he characterized as an effort to "undermine" and "embarrass" the District Attorney's Office, which employs nearly 120 people and handles around 8,000 cases annually.

"I was quite shocked to discover that Pat Lenzi was actively involved with Mr. Gore in pursuing these accusations," Martin said in the statement. "I thought she had moved on with her life after losing the election and resigning from the District Attorney's Office in 2006."

The Daily Democrat reported as well, "Neither Gore or Lenzi could be reached for comment as of Tuesday evening."

In fact it became clear that the Daily Democrat did not have current contact information for either.

Both Lenzi and Gore have now issued responses to report and to the DA's office response. These responses are reprinted here in full and without editorial comment.

Response by Rick Gore

I received a copy of the same report provided to the media that was prepared by Yolo County. I am disappointed with their report, lack of findings and continue to stand by my letter. It is not surprising that a Yolo County directed and controlled investigation would not find any allegations against their Department Head substantiated. After all, if they admitted to wrongdoings of Mr. Reisig, they would be accepting and admitting liability for his actions. Financially and legally, that would not be prudent. From my first dealings with County Counsel on this matter, it has been clear that they were adversarial with me about my letter. I would describe County Counsel has being as helpful as a rattlesnake in a dark room, on this matter. To put this investigation in perspective, if I were allowed to hire an attorney to conduct this same investigation, keep my investigation secret and then get the media to release my report of my findings, does anyone have any doubt that my report would be very different from the county’s report.

As for Mr. Reisig’s comments about his staff being accused only displays his unique way of deflecting my letter by trying to make it about other employees and politics with a former Deputy District Attorney. My letter was about Mr. Reisig and is consistent efforts to undermine checks and balances of the system, to grab more power from other law enforcement agencies and to enhance his political career, by whatever bully means he deems necessary. He makes it difficult for anyone to stand up for what they think is right or anything against his political agenda.

The comments posted by some employees are very “company line” responses, which I am sure, were reviewed and approved by Mr. Reisig. Since a few of these people are “at will” employees and serve at the behest of Mr. Reisig, I would not expect them to say anything negative about the person who could release them from their job without cause. Which is exactly the reason that Mr. Reisig had many positions changed to “at will” shortly after his taking over the office.

It is unfortunate that so many other people have had to have their names mentioned and dragged into this. This has never been about accusing other employees of anything, this is about Jeff Reisig. I am confident that anyone that was mentioned in my original letter or may done things that were questionable, were acting on direction or orders from Mr. Reisig. Although Mr. Reisig is a good young lawyer and an exceptional politician, I have never accused him of being unwise. The only complaints that the county substantiated were the ones where I had copies of emails from Mr. Reisig, so it would be hard for them to deny those. Mr. Reisig is smart enough to know that in order to survive his unethical practices he must not put things in writing, limit his witnesses to his behavior and he has to keep himself isolated with others so he can claim “plausible deniability” or “have someone else to blame.” Since most of my complaints happened between Mr. Reisig and me with no other witnesses, it is easy for him to say it never happened. So, many of the “not substantiated” findings were because these things happened between Mr. Reisig and me in a private setting. I might add that these private meetings were by Mr. Reisig’s design and not by accident. The angst of all these issues are with Mr. Reisig not anyone else.

I do wish the media would give a more balanced view of this investigation. I think it should be noted that no one in this investigation was questioned under oath, asked to sign a statement under penalty of perjury or sworn under penalty of perjury. I was the only one required to talk about my letter, under oath in open court. For me to testify under oath that I was ordered by Mr. Reisig, via DDA Linden, and then for the county to make a grand finding, in this extended and complete investigation, that this was “not substantiated” seems suspiciously odd. For the people out there that want to critically think and evaluate this, Mr. Linden nor Mr. Reisig took the stand and challenged my testimony. We call this a clue in law enforcement.

The County also found that Mr. Reisig did not order or direct me to only serve one person in the first Gang Injunction. If anyone would care to pull the record of Mr. Reisig’s testimony, in front of the California Appellant Court, I am sure they would find that Mr. Reisig told the court that he did in fact only serve one person since that is all he was required to do by law. The court disagreed and overturned his injunction. I am sure this is just another small oversight of the county’s complete investigation. Another shameful finding of the county is that Dave Henderson did in fact have to order Mr. Reisig to discover the gun flash test during the Halloween Homicide trial. Then the county made the finding that the test was not discovered because of my objections. In all my years, I have never had to go to the District Attorney because a Deputy DA was trying to withhold evidence from the court and the defense. The fact that this incident had to be elevated to the District Attorney, Dave Henderson, and he had to order Mr. Reisig to turn it over, is pretty good proof that this evidence was being concealed and was not going to be discovered without my objections. This appears to be another missed opportunity in the county’s investigation. I could go on with each of the county’s findings, but as the county said, it would moot, they found what they wanted to find.

Another fact about press releases that most people are not aware of is that all press releases from the DA’s office are written and or approved by Mr. Reisig. Therefore, everyone who reads the Jeff Reisig prepared press releases should analyze those articles as a political tool for Mr. Reisig to get “his” message out, the way he wants it perceived. I would again ask the people of Yolo County to critically evaluate press releases and understand they were written by Mr. Reisig and simply reprinted by the local news media. I would challenge anyone out there to find an article about the DA’s Office where Mr. Reisig admitted a mistake or accepted some responsibility for doing something wrong. You will not find it since it would not be in Mr. Reisig’s political interest to release one of those and the media normally only prints what Mr. Reisig gives them.

Lastly, the finding about Mr. Reisig’s speech did not impact the investigation seems minor and probably unclear to most. So people understand what this was about and what kind of man Mr. Reisig is, I would like to explain it a bit. When the county’s investigation started, I was ordered not to discuss the investigation and was told everyone else would be ordered not to discuss it. After I received this notice, the next day, Mr. Reisig had a mandatory meeting with every DA employee. In this meeting, he called me ignorant and made other disparaging comments about me to every employee in the office. In these comments, he accused me of interfering with and impacting the CHP murder trial and tried to connect me to the grief of the wife of the slain officer. Anyone could see that this was a warning and a message that if anyone else spoke out against Mr. Reisig, this is what they could expect. I contacted county counsel and HR and expressed what a cowardly and despicable act I thought this was by Mr. Reisig. People want to talk about dirty politics; it does not get much lower than that. The county’s response to me was Mr. Reisig has the right to do what he did. Of course, the county did not see this "public bashing" as retaliation for my letter. Since I know the county’s position on this matter, I would like to ask the people that elected Mr. Reisig to ask themselves a question. You have read, in the recent press releases from Mr. Reisig, all the grand accolades about Mr. Reisig and his ethics. For a man to use his position and power to compel his entire staff to a mandatory meeting, in a county building, where county employees are compelled to be there and then use this meeting to publicly make disparaging comments about me and my letter and infer that I am to blame for the grief of a slain CHP officer and doing this while knowing that an investigation is about to be initiated appears disgraceful at best. His actions to use a death of an officer and the grief of his spouse, for his political benefit shows a real lack of character. I ask the voter’s is this behavior really the actions of a honorable man, who is ethical, trustworthy and who has nothing to hide? I think not, but I would ask everyone to make his or her own conclusion.

My advice to anyone else who sees or knows of inappropriate conduct in Yolo County is to embrace the conduct, support it and be a good “team player”. If anyone expects honest support from Yolo County, I believe they will be sadly mistaken. This would explain the sudden loss of many senior people that have left the office since Mr. Reisig took office.

Response from Former Deputy District Attorney Pat Lenzi

Dear Mr. Reisig:

You have recently issued press releases, and you and your staff have given statements to the press regarding Rick Gore that have included false allegations about me. These pronouncements by you and your office have been published by several local media outlets including, but not limited to, the Davis Enterprise, Woodland Daily Democrat, and the Sacramento Bee.

I requested that you immediately issue a retraction of the false allegations against me that you, your office and/or staff have issued in the matter pertaining to Rick Gore. I demand that you cease and desist from any further attempts to defame me and malign my character.

In order to provide you with accurate information such that you may base your retraction on facts, I offer the following:

- I did not write Gore's letter.

- I did not call the D.A.'s office regarding Gore or his letter

- I did not speak to Pete Martin regarding Gore or his letter. In fact, I have not spoken to Investigator Martin since shortly before I left the D.A's office nearly two years ago.

- I did not call anyone at, or associated with, the Yolo County D.A.'s office to "plead Gore's case."

- I did not go to the Attorney General's office with Rick Gore, or on his behalf.

Furthermore, I have no record of any calls or any contact of any sort from any reporters prior to the most recent news stories in the paper surrounding Rick Gore. I find statements to that effect objectionable.

Finally, I am not a candidate for office. I am a private citizen now. Those who continue to force my name into press releases and publications, using false statements about me that are libelous and are defamatory to me show a reckless disregard for the truth. This must cease immediately.

In addition to you issuing a retraction, I would appreciate an apology as well.

Signed,

Pat Lenzi

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Rick Gore completes Testimony on Gang Injunction

It was likely not the kind of testimony that those seeking to avoid a temporary gang injunction were looking for. Under very strict guidance from Judge Kathy White, Rick Gore completed his testimony yesterday about an affidavit he signed in support of the gang injunction.

The gist of what we learned from this is that in late 2004 Rick Gore was working in conjunction with West Sacramento Detective Villanueva. While he was not working specifically on the anti-gang unit, as there was no such unit until Jeff Reisig became District Attorney in 2007, he nevertheless was familiar with the situation in West Sacramento and worked on a number of gang cases.

In late 2004 until sometime prior to 2007 he worked on this and sent forth an affidavit in 2004 attesting to his support for the gang injunction. Last year the gang injunction was thrown out. In May of 2007, he was asked to sign the same gang affidavit that he signed in 2004, but he refused citing the fact that he did not believe in it. He told them that he would not sign it again until ordered. He was given the order by District Attorney Jeff Reisig through Deputy District Attorney Linden to sign it.

He had language removed from the affidavit that he did not agree with before signing the document under the penalty of perjury. By the time he signed the document it was simply a statement of some facts from prior to 2004, there was no opinion expressed on support for the gang injunction.

Throughout the entire hearing, there was a question as to whether or not this was relevant to their proceedings. Rick Gore testified that everything that he signed in the original affidavit was accurate as was everything he eventually signed in 2007.

In his letter from March 5, 2008 which was discussed but not entered into evidence during the course of this hearing, Gore stated:

"I think this injunction is being used for your political benefit and not for what it was intended. It is no longer a tool for law enforcement and public safety."

When asked about whether he believed this as of May 2007 when he signed the affidavit, Rick Gore said repeatedly he was unsure of what he thought at that time. His reason for not wanting to sign it was that he was not involved in the process and did not therefore have direct knowledge of the situation.

He had two reasons for not wanting to sign it, the first was that he was no longer involved in the process. The second was based on his experience with the first gang injunction, he felt that Jeff Reisig had turned it into a political benchmark. And his dealings with DA Jeff Reisig over the past year led him to be skeptical about the process. He therefore did not want to be involved in signing anything unless ordered to do so by DA Jeff Reisig.

He also described this as an unusual request. Deputy District Attorney Ann Hurd went to great lengths to show that signing documents under the penalty of perjury was part of his job descriptions, but under cross examination, Rick Gore suggested that this was really not part of his job descriptions. The process of being asked to sign an affidavit in support of a policy was neither usual nor part of his job description.

At the end of the day, it is not clear that any of this matters for the gang injunction. As the Deputy DA Hurd demonstrated, the actual affidavit is devoid of personal opinion, it is not clear that Gore had opposition to the Gang Injunction back in May of 2007 and even if he did, it was based largely on his opinion rather than his expertise.

From a political standpoint, the testimony is a bit more interesting, however, because of the narrow parameters laid out by Judge White--intentionally to avoid the political aspect that transcends the courtroom--very little of this came out.

Rick Gore wrote in his letter:

"As for the current and past Gang Injunction, when gathering intelligence, contacting active members and working with Detective Villanueva, I fully supported these efforts. However, after seeing this become your political benchmark, I have watched this injunction grow into something I did not want to be associated with or a part of, since I felt it had lost its original intent and purpose. As a Peace Officer and a public servant, I feel I should be doing the right thing and standing up against dishonest behavior. You make this very difficult."

What became clear yesterday is that this is an opinion that has evolved over time and was not necessary one that was held in 2007. Moreover, as Gore suggested in his own testimony, he had not intended the letter to be a legal document.

In the end, the county investigators will have to tease apart what did and did not happen. From the standpoint of the political system outside of the courtroom, it was interesting because Gore did put under oath some of what was written in the letter.

The most interesting facet of the letter remains the intent to conceal discoverable evidence about a material witness in the Halloween Homicide case.

As an aside, there was an interesting piece of information that came out of the proceedings is that there was no gang unit prior to Jeff Reisig becoming District Attorney. At which time, Reisig got a grant for gang money which carries with it enough money to hire individual investigators who are specifically assigned to prosecuting gangs. How much money is it? Enough to hire additional people and also for law enforcement in local jurisdictions as well. There are few avenues for additional money going to a prosecutor's office and gangs are one of them. It would seem in their best interest to have a concerted effort to crack down on gangs and to make it look like there is a bigger gang problem perhaps than actually exists.

The Vanguard will continue to follow this matter and report on any updates.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Rick Gore Appears in Court in Gang Injunction Challenge

On Tuesday, we learned in the local media that attorneys opposing the implementation of the second gang injunction including Mark Merin were seeking to call Senior Investigators for the Yolo County District Attorney's, Rick Gore as a material witness.

At issue is an affidavit signed by Rick Gore attesting to his support for the gang injunction.

In his letter to the District Attorney, Jeff Reisig on March 5, 2008, he argues that he no longer agrees with the current gang injunction nor does he think it is needed. However, he was compelled to sign "an affidavit in support of the injunction under penalty of perjury. I did not want to sign it as written since it was not prepared by me and I thought portions of my affidavit were untrue." He signed an affidavit of support for the second gang injunction that is currently in the process of being challenged.

He continues:

"I was called in by DDA Linden a few days later, and was told [Reisig] had ordered me to sign this injunction and I had no choice. Knowing I could be fired for not following this order, I signed it after changing some of the language."

The fact that Deputy District Attorney Linden was named in the letter forced him to disqualify himself from conducting the cross-examination of Rick Gore who was called by the defense as a hostile witness. This postponed the hearing until the afternoon when Deputy District Attorney Ann Hurd would be available.

Judge Kathleen White once again warned both sides that this was a hearing about law, she understands that there are outside politics in play on this issue, but she was only interested in Mr. Gore's testimony as far as the law went.

From our standpoint however, Mr. Gore got up and under oath and penalty of perjury he told the court yesterday that he was compelled to sign an affidavit that he did not believe. In other words, he confirmed under oath what he had said in that portion of the letter.

However, at the point in which he was directly questioned about the letter he sent off, he asked to consult his attorney and was granted a recess for him to make a call to his attorney who was not present. Upon return, he expressed a desire not to address the issue of the letter until court returns on April 8, 2008.

The attorney's for the defense and the District Attorney's office disagree over whether his expertise on the matter of the gang injunction is relevant. DDA Hurd argued that he was no longer working on the gang injunction and therefore he was not an expert on the matter. However, the defense argued that he only stopped working on the gang injunction a month prior to sending the letter and therefore he knew as much as anyone. This is a disputed issue that will be taken up on April 8, 2008.

It is interesting to note that there was a good deal of dispute between the two sides as to whether Rick Gore could even testify. It was pointed out by the defense that he was a listed witness for the people by virtue of the fact that his declaration was on file. And if they chose to pull his declaration, this could all end.

However, the District Attorney's office declined to do so. So Rick Gore was able to speak on the record.

The defense obviously sees Mr. Gore as a key material witness corroborating their claims that the gang injunction is not needed. But in terms of an overall impact on the case itself, the bigger intrigue was having Rick Gore basically confirm aspects of the letter under oath.

If we look at this objectively--when the letter came out, the District Attorney's office claimed that Rick Gore wrote his letter at the behest of Former Deputy District Attorney and Candidate for DA Pat Lenzi. Mr. Gore responded questioning why he would put his career in grave jeopardy for someone else's agenda. And we can now extend that further--why would he make claims under penalty of oath to help Pat Lenzi.

From that standpoint he testimony in court yesterday and any future testimony he offers flies in the face of that logic.

It seems to me however, that in terms of the impact on the gang injunction, this will be minimal unless at the April 8, 2008 hearing he offers very compelling evidence to suggest that the gang injunction is not needed.

Overall Rick Gore seemed to be an impressive and compelling witness. Perhaps a straight shooter to a fault. There was one exchange with Judge White right after he reported on his conversation with his attorney where the Judge was trying to clarify Mr. Gore's remarks, Mr. Gore said he did not say that, and the Judge laughed and commented on how straight he was shooting.

In terms of the overall gang injunction, while I see the approach the defense is trying to take, and from a political standpoint it may be a good approach. From a legal standpoint it would seem better to go after this case on constitutional grounds--the notion of due process of law still applies here. While it can be argued certainly that the District Attorney's office made a greater effort to notice the affected community than on the first gang injunction, it still seems rather lacking.

On this point, I think Gore's letter is actually far more compelling because it gives us insight into the motivation of Jeff Reisig to really stack the deck against those who would be impacted by the injunction and to prevent them from being able to challenge it.

The Vanguard will continue covering and following the injunction and future court appearances by Rick Gore very closely.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

West Sacramento Community Members Rally Against Gang Injunction

Yesterday afternoon at the courtyard in front of the Yolo County Courthouse in Woodland there was a rally of approximately 20 homeowners and community members from West Sacramento.

The defense was set to submit around 100 affidavits from various residents of West Sacramento that there is no need for the gang injunction. The District Attorney would counter that these affidavits have no bearing on the legal case.

The protesters were there to show their opposition to the police injunction that Yolo County District Attorney Jeff Reisig wants to impose upon the citizens of Broderick and Bryte. Community activists had gathered over 100 declarations from those areas that was due to be presented as part of their evidence for their hearing. They were hoping the injunction will not go further and that testimony from those individuals would allowed.

One of the organizers Julian Perez of the group Citizens Empowering Citizens told the crowd and gathered media:

"Now these gentlemen that have been placed in this action so far, they have their right to due process. However, the District Attorney has named up to four hundred John and Jane Doe's. Subsequent to this action if someone is placed on the gang injunction after it is imposed, they do not get a day in court."

Phil Barrows, retired law enforcement officer responded to a question from Davis Enterprise reporter Lauren Keene on the impact of the gang injunction on the community as a whole:

"Many of the family members, guys who are associated with people identified as gang members can't have their loved ones come over to the house because there may be one or two who are identified as gang members. Consequently if they're together, they violate the gang ordinance which then puts them in jeopardy of being arrested, which in fact they can be arrested at that time."

However, Mr. Barrows argued that the gang injunction really went beyond family impact to the impact on the community and the neighborhoods.

"The other type of impact on the community is what you see on the sign, gentrification. What's happening with West Sacramento, it's not only about a gang injunction. The way we see it, it's about development."

He goes on to argue that the gang injunction and fear of gang violence is used by some to seize land and declare eminent domain.

They have been fighting this gang injunction for three years.

"The reason we are fighting [the gang injunction] is that number one, the District Attorney came out and said that there was so much crime going on in West Sacramento and that because of the injunction that they have control of the crime. Crime was going down."

However as Mr. Barrows points out, crime had been going down three years ago nationally as well as locally. So it is not clear that the gang injunction was the cause of the decrease in crime in West Sacramento.

"In 2006, with this gang injunction still in place, crime went up in West Sacramento. Their not talking about that. What we've been telling them for days now is that the injunction will not have any effect on crime one way or another. It never has in all of the injunctions through out the state."

Mr. Barrows also addressed the issue of the 400 plus John and Jane Does.

"We don't know who those people are and neither does the District Attorney. For three years now they've only been able to serve 23 individuals. So that's a far cry from 400. Because there aren't 400."

One the issues that has been raised repeatedly by those against the gang injunction is that there is no Broderick Boys gang. Phil Barrows explained that at the rally yesterday.

"As a law enforcement officer, I'm hear to tell you that there isn't a Broderick Boys gang. That's not to say that there isn't gang members in West Sacramento, Woodland. The gang they're really looking at is the Norteno Gang, and now they're using the term Norteno. But there's never been a Broderick Boys Gang. That's what we're trying to prove, that there isn't, and because there isn't, and because this injunction has no effect on crime, then we don't need to have an injunction."

While the law is indeed independent of public opinion for the most part, it would be very interesting to get a true gauge of public opinion in West Sacramento about the gang injunction. Both sides assert that they have public support for their positions.

Many who oppose the gang injunction have argued in essence that the police have used it as a tool to harass Latinos in the area regardless of gang affiliation.

On the other hand, proponents have argued that the gang injunction is a valuable tool needed by law enforcement to counter gang activity.

Personally I have always been suspicious of measures that seek to prevent the normal activities that people are allowed to engage in without the due process of law.

The first gang injunction noticed one individual and at least according to Rick Gore, it was intentional by the District Attorney as a means to impose the gang injunction without the ability of those accused of gang members to challenge it.

This was a little better, but still you have 400 John and Jane Doe's who have no change to challenge the injunction once it gets implemented. Furthermore they are using civil law to deprive individuals of liberty.

From a constitutional and a civil liberty standpoint this is simply intolerable regardless of one's position of the merits of a gang injunction in general.

We understand that gang members do very bad things in a community and we wish to punish criminal activity, but we wish to do so within the confines of due process and actual proof in a court of law that individuals have engaged in unlawful gang activities.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

News and Commentary: Major Hearing of the Gang Injunction Slated For Monday

In a press release issued on Friday, it was announced that on Monday in Woodland, lawyers representing defendants in the controversial West Sacramento "gang injunction" case will argue the court should not allow a Preliminary Injunction in the case as requested by the District Attorney.

A rally will occur among homeowners and community members from West Sacramento at the Yolo County Courthouse on Monday at 1 pm prior to a 1:30 PM hearing where the defense team will attempt to submit more than "100 affidavits from residents of West Sacramento claiming there is no need for the so-called "gang injunction," but the DA is arguing that residents should not be allowed to speak."

The defense will also question the veracity of statements issued by police officers.

"Residents of Broderick, many of them Latino, say the injunction is targeting innocent victims. They have outlined abuses by police, including charges that their families are photographed at picnics in the park, and that their children, while riding home on their bicycles, have been harassed by police."

This will be the first major hearing since a letter from a Senior Investigator from the District Attorney's Office disclosed that the District Attorney Jeff Reisig was dishonest with the court in the first go round of the Gang Injunction and its subsequent court challenges. He also admitted that he was pressured to sign an affidavit in support of the gang injunction this time round.

"As for the current and past Gang Injunction, when gathering intelligence, contacting active members and working with Detective Villanueva, I fully supported these efforts. However, after seeing this become your political benchmark, I have watched this injunction grow into something I did not want to be associated with or a part of, since I felt it had lost its original intent and purpose."

He admits efforts to mislead the appellate court with regard to initial efforts at noticing a single individual who was not high up in the Broderick Boys organization.

"I also feel you misled the appellate court when you argued, as an officer of the court, that serving only one person during the initial injunction was intended to result in the word getting out to the rest of the Broderick Boys. You and I know that the opposite was true and Wolfington was not high up in the organization and was not expected to pass the word to the others."

He also reveals reasons why they selected Mr. Wolfington to notice.

"I remember you telling me that you specifically selected Mr. Wolfington for being a less than “smart person”, you said he was “too stupid” to show up for court, he lived out of the area (in Sacramento) and he would likely not tell anyone."

Rick Gore no longer agrees with the current gang injunction nor does he think it is needed. However, "an affidavit in support of the injunction under penalty of perjury. I did not want to sign it as written since it was not prepared by me and I thought portions of my affidavit were untrue." He signed an affidavit of support for the second gang injunction that is currently in the process of being challenged.

He continues:

"I was called in by DDA Linden a few days later, and was told [Reisig] had ordered me to sign this injunction and I had no choice. Knowing I could be fired for not following this order, I signed it after changing some of the language."

Investigator Gore's acknowledgments call into question the veracity of the gang injunction.

Moreover, the District Attorney's office has always maintained that they have full backing of the public in West Sacramento. Recently those claims at the very least have to be called into question as hundreds of residents have put up signs and walked precincts against the gang injunction. From the start they have claimed that the police department has used the gang injunction to target and harass members of the Latino Community, most of whom have little to do with the Broderick Street Boys street gang.

The District Attorney and other supports have pointed to a fall in crime as a result of the gang injunction. Those are difficult claims to maintain at best, however, it would be interesting to see all evidence laid bare for the public to see. Is there evidence that suggests that the gang injunction works beyond anecdotal rhetoric? Is there evidence that the public in the Broderick Street area--non-gang members--support the gang injunction? Let us see that evidence. I do not mean to suggest that we law enforce by public opinion, however, I have simply grown weary of certain claims made by the District Attorney's office--I simply do not find them credible anymore.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Rick Gore Responds to District Attorney Jeff Reisig's Statement

On Friday, March 7, 2008, the Vanguard received a letter from Senior Investigator Rick Gore of the Yolo County District Attorney's Office. In that letter, Rick Gore accused the District Attorney, Jeff Reisig, of unethical practices relating to several incidents and cases.

Two of the more serious charges includes lying to the Judge during hearings on the gang injunction, and the failure to disclose the results of a gun test during the Halloween Homicide Case.

Jeff Reisig responded by calling the charges "reckless allegations," issuing a full denial, and suggesting that former Deputy District Attorney and candidate for DA in 2006, Pat Lenzi had been responsible for these charges.

"On March 6, 2008, the Yolo County District Attorney's office received notice that former candidate for the office of District Attorney, Patricia Lenzi, and current District Attorney Investigator, Rick Gore, have accused several currently employed prosecutors and investigators, including the District Attorney, of committing unethical acts.

'On behalf of the entire office, including the prosecutors and investigators targeted by these accusations, I deny these false and reckless allegations. I have requested an independent investigation, will be fully cooperative and look forward to the results."

Yesterday for the first time, the Vanguard along with the Davis Enterprise, Woodland Daily Democrat, and Sacramento Bee, has received a statement from Rick Gore.

He writes:

"It is not surprising to me that Mr. Reisig would not admit any wrongdoing. We all see this every day from every politician in a scandal. The rule is “Admit nothing”, “Deny everything”, and “Demand Proof”. After that, the common response is to claim it is politically motivated."

He goes on to argue that it is implausible that he would throw away his longtime law enforcement career based on the grievances of another individual.

"For someone to suggest, that I would throw my law enforcement career away, change my life as I know it and put myself in financial hardship, for someone else’s motivations is ludicrous."

The decision to write a letter was a very difficult one according to Mr. Gore.

"The decision to send this letter was deeply challenging, extremely stressful and one of the most difficult decisions I have made in my life. I made this decision, knowing full well what Mr. Reisig and the people in his inner circle, were capable of doing. I expected to be attacked and to be made the bad guy in this. I did not expect him to blame someone else and use this as an opportunity to take a cheap shot."

He then patently and emphatically denies any involvement of Pat Lenzi.

"For the record, Former DA Lenzi did not write this letter, did not encourage me to send this letter and was in no way responsible for this letter. The decision was mine and mine alone."

He then suggests that the media and investigators ought to look into these charges and then they can determine whether they are really that "reckless."

"I would hope the news media would keep their eye on the ball. This letter is to bring attention to the ethics of DA Reisig. The people of Yolo County need to know who they elected, how he is spending their money and how he is using and or abusing the power they gave him. It is my belief that the DA should be acting in the best interest of the people, not his own best interest.

I find it interesting that Mr. Reisig called my entire letter “reckless allegations”. Being an investigator, I have to think that a worthy reporter would try to confirm one or two facts in the letter. Perhaps a call to Woodland Police to see if a letter was sent by Mr. Reisig stating his authority to send his investigators where he pleased. Or maybe asking the county how many employees have left or been asked to leave since Mr. Reisig’s election."

The Vanguard also spoke with former Deputy District Attorney Pat Lenzi.

"Rick Gore is as honest a man as you will ever meet," she told the Vanguard. "I hope the investigation into Rick's allegations is thorough and professional."

Following Mr. Gore, she also suggested that authorities and the media examine the questions that were raised rather than motivations.

"It is more important to look at the questions Rick has raised and ascertain the level of merit they have than it is to chase after the DAs red herrings. That will only lead you to lose sight of the importance of Rick's actions."

She concludes:

"Rick is willing to put himself out there at risk to his career to do what he firmly believes is the right thing. We can all learn from and maybe even be inspired by his example."

The Pat Lenzi angle never made a lot of sense. Rick Gore was a career law enforcement officer who was two years from retirement. Pat Lenzi was no longer in the chain of command at the Yolo County District Attorney's Office. What benefit was there to Rick Gore to make things up in order to carry the water of an individual who was not in a position to help him? If he was going to act in an unethical manner, why would he not simply carry out the orders of the District Attorney who could give him career advancement?

At the end of the day, I agree with all that we need to let this process play out. We need to have an honest and thorough investigation into the allegations. Stay tuned for the Vanguard as this situation continues to develop.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

News and Commentary: Justice Prevails Finally in the David Serena Case

In July of 2006, Yolo County headlines in both the Davis Enterprise and Woodland Daily Democratic, in big bold letters depicted the arrest of David Serena, head of the Yolo County Housing Authority until just a month before, on 19 felony counts, all stemming from medical benefits received for the children of Serena's girlfriend, now his wife.

Now 20 months and tens of thousands in legal expenses later, all charges have been dismissed. Judge Richard Kossow--a visiting judge since all Yolo County judges had to recuse themselves due to the Grand Jury lawsuit--issued the order that according to preliminary hearing evidence, it was unlikely that there was sufficient evidence of criminal wrongdoing to convict David Serena.

The Vanguard spoke with an elated Mr. Serena yesterday. "I feel a ton of bricks is off my back."

It is the opinion of many, that the criminal charges were simply a witch-hunt by the Yolo County District Attorney's Office seeking to find some criminal act to charge the former Housing Authority Director. After several grand jury investigations into Mr. Serena's activities at the Yolo County Housing Authority this was the only criminal act they felt they could charge him with felony or other counts. And indeed there were problems under Mr. Serena at YCHA--no one denies that. However, those were handled administratively by the County and the Board of Supervisors. Were criminal charges in this case really in the interest of justice or protecting the public?

For all of their investigations into David Serena, the only evidence that they could find to support criminal charges had to do with his receipt of health and dental benefits for his girlfriend and her two children.

According to Mr. Serena and his attorneys, he had filled out the papers accurately himself but a clerical error occurred and Mr. Serena never knew that the papers had been filed incorrectly by his clerk. According to court papers, it was his clerk who executed policy changes after Mr. Serena had requested his girlfriend and kids be added to the policy without knowing that they were ineligible.

David Serena told me the key testimony actually came from the prosecution's witnesses. They asked both the insurance agents for the health insurance and the dental insurance how often people filed erroneous claims or make other errors when they fill out their insurance papers. They said about 5% of the time. They were then asked what sort of remedy the insurance company ordinarily sought for such errors--whether they sought to correct the error and recoup the money or if they normally forwarded it to the District Attorney. According to Mr. Serena, they said that they never would forward such a matter to the District Attorney.

However, based on this scant evidence of criminal activity, the District Attorney's Office charged David Serena with one felony count of grand theft for each month the housing agency paid for increased insurance premiums by covering David Serena's ineligible family members.

In all, 19 felony counts were filed against David Serena. The District Attorney's Office was seeking to put him away for much of the rest of his life for receiving ineligible medical benefits.

The District Attorney's Office now had to decide whether or not to refile the charges.

The Woodland Daily Democrat quotes Jeff Reisig as weighing their options at this point.

"Our options are to re-evaluate the evidence, to see if there's something we left out... We'll step back and take a look at it. Basically, this is how the system works."

However, our sources tell the Vanguard that it is unlikely that the DA will re-file the charges.

The charges as well as the YCHA were front page news in 2006. However, reading the Woodland Daily Democrat from yesterday you would think that Mr. Serena got off on a technicality.

The headline read: "Ex-housing chief off the hook." My response was yes he got off on a technicality, the technicality being that they did not have evidence that a crime was actually committed.

For all of the investigations against David Serena, this was the only thing they could find that they could file criminal charges against him on. This is a grave misuse of government power in my view. This is malicious prosecution at its worst and it illustrates the attitude of the District Attorney's Office both under David Henderson and now under Jeff Reisig.

David Serena now gets a chance to put his life back together. He did so at tremendous expense. He was able to afford to hire top notch defense attorneys in the form of San Francisco Law Firm Gonzales-Leigh. But as we have learned in the last few years, many others are not so lucky and have their lives literally destroyed for very small offenses with often meager evidence. Is this really in the interest of justice?

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

County Vows Full and Thorough Investigation

REISIG HAS A PRIOR CASE WHERE HE FAILED TO DISCLOSE EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE

The Vanguard spoke briefly yesterday with both Yolo County Supervisor Helen Thomson and Yolo County Supervisor Matt Rexroad regarding Senior Investigator to the District Attorney Rick Gore's letter. Neither could speak about this matter as it is a personnel matter. However, I was able to confirm that there would be a thorough independent investigation into the accusations of wrongdoing leveled at District Attorney Jeff Reisig. Supervisor Rexroad would only state that they will "fully and completely investigate it."

The news coverage of this has so far focused on charges and counter-charges. The District Attorney and his office has tossed aside these allegations and spun them onto former candidate for DA and former Deputy DA Pat Lenzi.

District Attorney Jeff Reisig in his statement to the Davis Enterprise called the allegations "false and reckless." He also vowed to be fully cooperative.

"On March 6, 2008, the Yolo County District Attorney's office received notice that former candidate for the office of District Attorney, Patricia Lenzi, and current District Attorney Investigator, Rick Gore, have accused several currently employed prosecutors and investigators, including the District Attorney, of committing unethical acts.

'On behalf of the entire office, including the prosecutors and investigators targeted by these accusations, I deny these false and reckless allegations. I have requested an independent investigation, will be fully cooperative and look forward to the results."

There has been very little talk about the substance of these allegations. Of particular note is history that suggests at least the plausibility of at least one of the charges.

Rick Gore in his letter, accused the District Attorney of attempting to "hide and conceal discoverable evidence about a material witness."

He writes:

"One major disagreement you and I had was when you tried to hide and conceal discoverable evidence about a material witness and refused to discover evidence during an on-going murder trial.

...

Bruce Naliboff told me, in front of you, to "put a muzzle" on Randy Skaggs for talking about this discovery issue. You and I had extensive email discussion about this. Lt. Skaggs was in the office when Dave Henderson had to order you to comply with the law and therefore discover the evidence. I am sure the date of the gun test and the date of discovery of the report will show the long delay in providing this evidence, shooting and gun test, to the defense."

While District Attorney Reisig denies these allegations as "reckless" and "false," he has had a conviction reversed in part previously for failure to turn over exculpatory evidence.

In early 2007, the Vanguard received court documents about a 1999 case where Reisig had a verdict overturned for failure to disclose exculpatory evidence.

The following is excerpted from the January 17, 2007 Vanguard article:

In 1999, a jury found a Woodland man guilty of using a firearm in the commission of an a threat to commit great bodily harm. The man was sentenced to five years in prison but had that sentence suspended and was placed on probation under a variety of conditions including that he serve 250 days in the county jail.

However, the defendant challenged that sentence on the basis that the prosecution knowingly withheld material exculpatory evidence. Mr. Reisig's defense was that this was inadvertent.

The basic problem was that in this case, the victim never saw a gun when the defendant threatened to shoot her and yet the prosecutors sought a firearm enhancement charge. The jury during the court proceedings twice sent notes to the court concerning the question as to whether the object was actually a firearm (a necessary conditions of this enhancement is that the object actually be a firearm).

One of the key questions that arose after the trial by the jury was whether or not a vehicle had been searched for the gun in question. This only surfaced after the trial in an inadvertent conversation between a juror and Mr Reisig. The juror asked him if the car had ever been searched and Mr. Reisig said that he believed so. The defense attorney came out about the same time and heard that the car had been searched and no gun had been found.

It turns out that the vehicle had indeed been searched and that no gun was found. This information never made it to the jury during the trial. Nor was it given to the defense.

Based on this new evidence, the defense requested a new trial on the grounds of newly discovered evidence and prosecutorial misconduct--the withholding of exculpatory evidence. The trial judge denied this motion arguing that there was no probability that the jury would have come to a different result "even if this additional information had been presented."

This decision was appealed and the appellate court overturned the ruling and the conviction.

According to the law, the prosecution must disclose evidence favorable to the accused regardless of whether or not the defendant specially requests the evidence.

Moreover, the evidence must specifically be material to case--in the sense that its suppression potentially changes the outcome of the trial. In this case, the victim never saw a gun but only an object and at least one of the jurors questioned whether even the current evidence was sufficient to prove to prove that the defendant actually possessed a gun (a necessary condition for the enhancement).

The judge ruled that "the duty to disclose this evidence was the exclusive responsibility of the prosecution..., whose failure to do so violated defendant's right to due process of law."

"In sum, the prosecutor violated defendant's right to due process by failing to disclose to the defense the existence of material exculpatory evidence pertaining to the issue of whether defendant used a firearm while threatening to shoot the victim."

The judge ordered that the firearm enhancement was to be reversed and a new trial. The prosecution then dropped the firearm charge at the subsequent trial and the defendant was given probation.

This case also came up in a May 31, 2006 Davis Enterprise article following accusations against Pat Lenzi:

"Woodland attorney Larry Cobb described Lenzi as "up front and candid." He said that was not his experience with Reisig several years ago, during a trial in which the defendant was accused of threatening a nightclub bouncer while holding a gun.

According to Cobb, the jury began its deliberations believing police had not searched the defendant's car for gun. The jury convicted the defendant, and while speaking with the jury afterward, Cobb said he overheard Reisig tell jurors there was a vehicle search during which no gun was found. Cobb says he believes Reisig knew that information, potentially favorable toward his client, before the jury received the case.

The case went before the 3rd District Court of Appeal, which Cobb said ordered a new trial on the gun enhancement. The charge was never refiled.

Reisig disputes Cobb's version of events, calling it "outrageous." He said the jury never received information about a vehicle search, though a police officer mentioned while the jury was deliberating the case that police had searched a car and the area around it, but found no weapon.

The appellate court ruling, Reisig said, reflected the court's opinion that the jury was entitled to hear information about the car search in case it would have affected the verdict. He added that there was no finding of intentional misconduct or hiding of evidence, and he declined to refile the gun charge because the defendant was performing well on probation.

"It wasn't the best use of resources to proceed with a new trial for the use of the gun," he said."

While this prior case does not prove that Reisig acted wrongly in the incident referenced in Rick Gore's letter, it does suggest that we need to further scrutinize these allegations because Mr. Reisig does have a history here.

Again, it is our hope that this is investigated fairly and equitably.

In the meantime, Rick Gore would seemingly be protected by California's Whistleblower Protection Laws.

The pertinent California Labor Code Section is 1102.5 where the employer cannot make rules preventing the disclosure of information nor can they retaliate against an employee for disclosing such information.

Section 1103 of the code states, "Any employer who violates this chapter is guilty of a misdemeanor ..." Furthermore, Mr. Reisig would be the responsible party here. "The employer is responsible for the acts of his managers, officers, agents, and employees" (Section 1104). Finally, Section 1106 extends the definition of employee to include among other things, county employees.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting