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 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

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

Both the Davis Enterprise and Woodland Daily Democrat have cited the People's Vanguard of Davis in their reporting on the DA's case

Rumors Swirl Following Letter Accusing District Attorney Reisig of Ethical Breaches

When the Vanguard received and published sections of a letter from Senior County Investigator, Rick Gore on Friday afternoon, little did we realize the political firestorm that would develop as a result of the article.

The Yolo County District Attorney's Office has responded by denying the charges, calling them "reckless allegations," and accusing Mr. Gore of acting on behalf of former District Attorney candidate Pat Lenzi, who previously was a Deputy District Attorney in the office.

The District Attorney's response seems calculated to divert attention away from the REAL story: Are these allegations true? What is the proper course for an investigation of this type of allegation? Who is investigating the allegations?

The Woodland Daily Democrat published a prepared statement from District Attorney Jeff Reisig.

"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 of the investigation. Since this is a personnel matter and there is a pending investigation, I cannot comment further."

Accusations tending to divert the course of the investigation, however come from "sources close to the DA's office."

"Sources close to the DA's Office have said, however, that Gore's letter campaign is nothing more than dirty politics engineered behind the scenes by Reisig's former political rival, Patricia Lenzi."

The Woodland Daily Democrat then goes from reporting about the allegations made by Mr. Gore and responded to by Mr. Reisig to another part of their story, much of it based on unidentified sources, rumor and an accusation by Yolo County DA Chief Investigator Pete Martin some of this involving the Vanguard:

"The letter first came to light Friday on a blogsite, The People's Vanguard of Davis, by it's host, David Greenwald.

Greenwald said Gore's letter was sent to him by its author, a 10-year investigator for the Yolo County District Attorney's Office. "

Furthermore, the timing has been linked to the political event my wife, Cecilia Escamilla-Greenwald, a candidate for the Davis City Council had at the home of Pat Lenzi. According to rumors desperately being floated by the "sources close to the DA's office" and lacking any truth whatsoever, the release of the letter was specifically timed to coincide with the event on Saturday. Why anyone would do that, is simply beyond me.

The Woodland Daily Democrat however proceeds to print:

"Lenzi recently hosted a coming-out party for Cecilia Escamilla-Greenwald to announce her candidacy for the Davis City Council.

Escamilla-Greenwald is wife to the same David Greenwald who first made public the letter on his blogsite."

There are two inaccuracies in the Daily Democrat's article.

First, "Gore is presently on paid administrative leave and could not be reached for comment late Monday."

Gore is in fact on medical leave for stress relating to his present job situation.

Second, "DA Chief Investigator Pete Martin also said Lenzi called the DA's office Friday on "behalf" of Gore promoting his cause."

In fact, Pat Lenzi made no such call to the District Attorney's office.

These allegations coming from the District Attorney's office are largely a political smokescreen designed to distract from the grave allegations against Yolo County District Attorney Jeff Reisig contained in a letter written to him last week by his own Investigator Rick Gore.

Rumors linking Gore's letter to Pat Lenzi and a political fundraiser held at her house are irrelevant at best. The rumors include claims that Lenzi wrote the Gore letter and accompanied Rick Gore to the State Attorney General's Office to make his accusations there.

To check the rumors I contacted Ms. Lenzi directly and here's what I learned:

1) Lenzi committed to the political fundraiser in November 2007;
2) the date of March 8 for the fundraiser was chosen the week of January 12;
3) Lenzi secured Assemblymember Dave Jones' commitment as keynote speaker for the event on January 12;
4) Lenzi had surgery February 29 and was in bed up to the day of the political fundraiser for which she made her home available;
5) Rick Gore called Lenzi last week about the letter he had written and she referred him to lawyers qualified to advise him on the matter; and,
6) Lenzi says she did not write the letter nor did she accompany Gore to the State Attorney General's Office.
7) Lenzi never called the DA's office on Friday, March 7.

Rick Gore sent his letter Wednesday, March 5, 2008, to Reisig, the State Attorney General, the California State Bar Association, the Yolo County Human Resources Department, Yolo County Counsel, Yolo County Supervisors, Yolo County Public Defender's Office, and I trust they will all be compelled to investigate Gore's allegations against Reisig.

Rumors, smokescreens, diversions - including questioning authorship - aside...District Attorney Jeff Reisig has some explaining to do and he'll have to respond to investigations of his alleged misconduct.

Attempting to reduce this situation to rumors and gossip and charges of political motivation are a smokescreen for the real story - serious charges of misconduct by an elected Yolo County official.

The logic here seems lacking to begin with. Rick Gore is an employee with a spotless record, he is the senior investigator in the office, he has spent his entire career in law enforcement, he is just two years away from retirement, so why would he risk such consequences for a political vendetta of another individual? That makes no sense.

Furthermore, Rick Gore supported Mr. Reisig in his election with Ms. Lenzi.

My objection to the news media in general and local news in particular is that far too often they are easily diverted from the crux of an issue.

It would be fairly simple for the news media or investigators to verify claims in this letter. Yet they simply take at face value the claims of the District Attorney.

I do not know to the extent that the allegations are true. However, I become suspicious when instead of clean denials, I see political accusations and subterfuge. Hopefully the proper authorities will thoroughly investigate the matter and we can be confident in the veracity of their findings.

I hope that Yolo County will ask an outside and independent source to head up the investigation, so that it will not be tainted by either politics or agency loyalty.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Escamilla-Greenwald Kicks Off Campaign for Council with Assemblyman Dave Jones

by Simon Efrein

Cecilia Escamilla-Greenwald formally announced her candidacy for Davis City Council last night, at a birthday bash in her honor hosted by Former District Attorney Candidate Pat Lenzi and Assemblyman Dave Jones. In a speech in front of many supporters, Cecilia highlighted her desire to serve as a strong voice for the character and citizens that make Davis such a unique and wonderful town.

Assemblyman Dave Jones, introduced Cecilia, by pointing out her record as an advocate for affordable housing and her advocacy against the biolab at UC Davis. He cited work with her going back a decade and strongly endorsed her candidacy. Jones, who has served Sacramento for the last four years as Assemblyman, also sent along well wishes from Senator Darrell Steinberg, who has also endorsed Cecilia.

Over 115 people packed into Lenzi's home. Other attendees included Davis City Councilmember Lamar Heystek, West Sacramento Mayor Christopher Cabaldon, Yolo County Supervisor Mariko Yamada, Former Davis Mayors Julie Partansky and Maynard Skinner, Former Davis City Councilmember Mike Harrington, Former Davis School Board Member Jim Provenza, and Davis Democratic Club President Arun Sen.

Cecilia addressed the audience. "Ever since I attended UC Davis, I have thought of Davis as my home. I have been so proud to be a member of what is really a wonderful and unique community," she said. "I have met many wonderful people here, and have seen such amazing displays of leadership and community involvement and activism. All of you here have inspired me."

“Davis is a very special town, and the qualities that make Davis such a special place need to be protected.” Cecilia said, “As your city councilmember I will work to protect open space and agricultural land. I will strive to maintain a strong level of public safety. I will promote transparency in government. And finally, working in concert with my colleagues I will seek to develop a green city to make Davis a place that will be the environmental standard that the rest of the nation turns to once again.”

Cecilia continued her speech by asserting her commitment to maintaining the quality of life and character of Davis. “I pledge to maintain Davis’ commitment to Measure J by keeping the citizen’s right to determine our city’s future,” she said. “I will work with my colleagues to forge a new path to maintain a strong and vital downtown core while preserving our parks and open space.”

In addition to those in attendance, Cecilia has been endorsed by School Board President Sheila Allen, School Board member Tim Taylor, past Davis Mayors Ken Wagstaff and Bill Kopper; past Davis City Councilmembers Stan Forbes, Jerry Kaneko, and Dick Holdstock; Yolo County Supervisor Matt Rexroad; Yolo County Assessor Joel Butler; UC Davis Police Chief Emeritus Calvin Handy; Woodland City Councilmembers Artemio Pimentel and Jeff Monroe; West Sacramento City Councilmember William Kristoff; Past Yolo County Assessor Dick Fischer and past Yolo County Clerk Tony Bernhardt, among many others.

In attendance as well was Rob Roy who filed his papers on Friday afternoon to run for the Davis City Council, he also endorsed Cecilia early on. Other Davis City Council candidates include Mayor Sue Greenwald, Councilmembers Don Saylor and Stephen Souza, and Sydney Vergis. There are three seats available on the council.

Disclaimer: Cecilia Escamilla-Greenwald is the wife of Doug Paul Davis (aka David Greenwald) who runs the Vanguard. Simon Efrein and others will be covering the Davis City Council Election.

BREAKING NEWS: Senior Investigator For Yolo County District Attorney's Office Accuses Reisig of Ethical Malfeasance And Much More

Concealing Evidence, Deceptions on the Gang Injunction, Questionable Campaign Tactics Highlight the Seven Page Letter Filled with Accusations.

Senior investigator Rick Gore of the Yolo County District Attorney's Office fired off a letter to Jeff Reisig dated March 5, 2008. In that letter, a seven page long memo, he copied the Yolo County Counsel, Yolo County Human Resources, the State Bar of California and the Attorney General of California.

The implications of this letter run deep, if proven to be true. They reach into the controversial gang injunction, the District Attorney Election against Pat Lenzi, efforts to conceal potentially exculpatory evidence, much more.

He writes:

"Since your election as District Attorney of the county, we have had a few major disagreements concerning what I think are ethical and appropriate behavior compared to your beliefs."

Mr. Gore criticized a number of campaign tactics by Jeff Reisig.

"I did not agree with what I perceived as unethical campaign practices during your campaign."

He refused to write a disparaging letter to the editor as some of his colleagues did, and was ostracized in an inappropriate manner by his colleague.

He goes on:

"However, these bullying techniques did work on many and you got many people to write these personal character attacks against her. We had many closed-door discussions about your campaign in your office doing working hours. I remember saying hi to DDA Lenzi in the hallway and you later called me a traitor and told me I was scared of her. You met with our association and secretly forced our support for you, by using the implied coercion that our boss, Dave Henderson, was going to support you, so we had better support you. You told me the first thing you were going to do when elected was to reassign Supervisor Greg Maursin to welfare since he was being a “pussy” and refused to support you. You made good on this threat and reassigned him to welfare fraud investigations as soon as you were elected. On one occasion, in the middle of the workday, I caught Bruce Naliboff searching DDA Lenzi’s locked desk during the election. He told me he was looking for a case file, but we investigators all know attorneys keep case files on their desk, as she did, not in her desk drawers. I thought all of these tactics were inappropriate and told you so."

Rick Gore further outlines efforts to conceal discoverable evidence during a murder trial.

"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."

He continues:

"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."

He then goes on to strongly criticize Jeff Reisig for his conduct with the gang injunction, something that Mr. Gore was initially involved in and in fact supported.

"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."

Finally, he outlines an incident involving the Woodland Police Department. Friends of Reisig were victims of some sort of crime. However, rather than allowing the Woodland Police Department to conduct the investigation and come up with findings, he sent his own investigator and therefore inserted himself into Woodland police department's investigation in a case where he had a personal interest.

"I feel you have sent Bruce Naliboff out on two or more on-going investigations, where your friends have called you and asked for your involvement. Having Bruce Naliboff arriving on scene attempting to direct and influence the investigation, because you have a friend involved appears inappropriate to me and other. I believe you wrote a letter to the Woodland Police Chief stating your authority to do what you wanted. This has the appearance of impropriety appears that you are giving preferential treatment your friends and shows a lack of respect to other law enforcement agencies. I believe this has strained the working relationship between this office and Woodland Police Department."

Mr. Gore also highlights deficiencies in the range training program. DA Reisig has directed the Rangemaster and Firearms Instructors not to document deficiencies and problem seen during range training.

"Since your appointment, you have directed us not to list or document deficiencies or problems that we see during range training."

He continues:

"I think it does the investigators and the public a disservice and puts all Rangemasters and trainers in a difficult and precarious situation. I expressed this disagreement the Chief and the senior Rangemaster, but have followed your directions and have not listed any training deficiencies on any documentation since your directive. To my knowledge, after you took office and gave this directive no training deficiency has been documented. The pattern in our records and emails will support this issue. "

The ramifications of this letter are staggering if this is born out. Efforts to conceal evidence from a murder trial, efforts to lie and deceive the court in the gang injunction case, and other such accusations could spell deep trouble for the District Attorney.

It is clear that the State Attorney General and the California Bar need to do thorough independent investigations into these very serious matters.

The Vanguard will continue to follow this developing story and update you as new information comes to the fore.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

2006: The Year in Davis Review

These last days we will have a countdown of the top 10 stories from Davis in 2006. We continue with our eighth installment, No.6 Yolo County District Attorney's race.

We have spoken at length on this blog about the problems in the Yolo County District Attorney’s Office. In the coming months, we will speak about more of the problems that exist. In 2006, we had a clearly defined battle set up between two Deputy District Attorneys Jeff Reisig and Pat Lenzi.

District Attorney Dave Henderson will retire shortly (in January) after serving as Yolo County District Attorney since 1984 and working in the District Attorney’s office for over 30 years. It was a long tenure marred by serious allegations of corruption and malfeasance. The culture of his office is one of a “good-old boys network.” His handpicked successor was Jeff Reisig. Reisig was only 35 years old at the time of his election. He is a right-wing Republican and he had the support of every law enforcement officer organization in the county and many of the public officials. That included numerous elected Democratic officials such as Davis City Councilmember Don Saylor and Yolo County Sheriff Ed Prieto. These Democratic officials wore “Democrats for Reisig” buttons at the Davis Farmer's Market actively campaigning for him.

Reisig was opposed by fellow Deputy District Attorney Pat Lenzi. Lenzi, a moderate Democrat and mother of a Marine stationed in Iraq, brought to the table a different perspective. She had a strong focus on issues of children and women. Issues that have long been ignored by the current District Attorney. But she also had an excellent record as a tough but fair prosecutor.

As one might imagine, given the large number of endorsements from key officials, Reisig had a strong and sustained advantage. He was able to out raise her and outspend her.

Despite these advantages, in the closing week of the race, it seemed close enough that Resig would pull out a very dirty campaign tactic. In 1999, while working as Deputy DA for Sacramento County, Pat Lenzi was involved in a serious automobile accident (a drunk driver hit her car) that had for a time caused her some memory problems. James Hawes was a sexual predator, who was convicted for committing a string of lewd and lascivious acts with a minor, sexual assault, and several other offense. This was a convicted sex offender who was trying to seize on this issue to get a new trial.

The Woodland Daily Democrat on May 31, 2006—just over one week prior to the election seized on this information printing an extremely slanted version of the story.

The story led of with: “An admission by Deputy District Attorney and candidate for District Attorney Patricia Lenzi of a brain injury affecting her memory - which led to her failing to give defense lawyers a piece of evidence favorable to their client - is raising questions about her competency for the top office.”

Yolo County Deputy District Attorney and Jeff Reisig supporter Tim Wallace then played the role of the subtle hatchet man:

"That disclosure came as quite a shock to me in the extreme because I've never seen any evidence of it… I'm not saying it's not true, but I've never seen any evidence of memory loss… If she has memory losses of the severity that she described under oath, then I don't think she's fit to be District Attorney… This office performs an invaluable service to the community and they need to know the person in our top office is competent."

Notice that he heavily couches his statement but the punchline is that if this is true, she is unfit to serve. Tim Wallace you will remember along with Clinton Parish made a series of irresponsible and outrageous statements about the Buzayan family. They were both strong supporters of Reisig and frequently attacked Lenzi in vicious and juvenile ways.

The article went on to cite 2005 transcripts taken out of context that suggested that, “Sometimes I don't recognize my own house, when I go home. Sometimes I don't know my own street.” Told completely out of context from her statement this was a vicious and devastating blow by a supposedly impartial newspaper.

This story appeared in the Daily Democrat, which had endorsed Reisig. However, most of the county does not read the Daily Democrat. So the Reisig campaign reproduced the article and sent it out to every home in Yolo County to make sure that everyone saw the article.

Despite all of that, the margin of victory by Reisig was fairly slim. Pat Lenzi won in Davis, but lost badly in Woodland for the margin of a 54-46 victory.

Now Reisig will inherit many of the problems of the Henderson office. Moreover he owes his victory to the efforts of Deputy District Attorney’s such as Patricia Fong, Clinton Parish, and Tim Wallace who are under scrutiny for misconduct in their roles in various high-profile cases. In the end, Reisig’s success and failure will rest on his ability to manage his office and in many ways clean house despite the political allegiances he owes some of those deputies. It will be a difficult and unenviable task in the coming months and the People’s Vanguard of Davis will be monitoring this office to see how they respond to what lies ahead.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting