Santa Clara County Judicial Candidates Need to Answer our Relevant Questions

imageHere come’s the judge…….The Weekly pulls the endorsement plug on Steven Pogue…………..Who’s next??image

 

 

(1) What is Sevely’s view on [any] …. issue? I bet she will be non-responsive!!  HAS THE WEEKLY CALLED HER RE HER VIEW or are they –the Weekly not endorsing anyone for this judicial position?

*** I am copying Sevely in on this e-mail. Cindy what is your view on Prop 8? Do you support or oppose gay marriage? Watch her dodge the issue or be non-responsive.

(2) The Weekly’s piece says something to the effect that they were not impressed with Sevely’s judicial temperament –but gave no details re what they meant in this regard.

3) I have always gotten along with Cindy Sevely and have nothing bad to say about her as a public servant and as a DA–unlike many in the criminal justice system–Cindy has always treated me with the utmost respect despite my reputation as being a true believer kind of a public defender.

(4) I bet she would now refuse to answer what her position was on Prop 8–she sure would have at Thursday’s debate–she would –like the rest of the candidates- disingenuously hide behind judicial Canon 5 claiming the Cannon forbids them from answering a question re their personal opinions on the hot button political, legal and social issues of the day….All not true— the U.S. Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision in Republican Party v White

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/01-521.ZS.html.

ruled just the opposite– the candidates have an absolute right under the first amendment the court ruled— to express their views on the issues–the death penalty–gay marriage–Zionism–IPA’s ( Independent Police Auditors) a police crimes unit to prosecute cops in the DA’s office–the war on drugs–the war on African-American men–etc, etc…and equally important we the public have a right to know their views before we enter the voter booth.

But these candidates–play fast and loose with the truth and claim that they can’t not they won’t answer the hard ball questions. Then they all go on to answer–cherry pick –the soft ball questions.

Bottom line: They don’t want to be pinned down on an issues they think they might lose votes on. It is a farce: See my earlier attempt to get judicial candidates to answer relevant questions in the past:

http://www.metroactive.com/papers/metro/10.17.02/public-eye-0242.html

I think the Weekly pulling the endorsement is a weak move–I am hugely opposed to Prop 8–big time gay marriage supporter-but strongly believe Mr. Pogue is entitled to his opinion–and good for him having one he is willing to share–at least the voters know and consider this as one factor in deciding if he would be a good or bad choice for judge. But simply not agreeing with me on that issue doesn’t mean he won’t make a good or great judge.

The operative question is –Mr. Pogue–in light of your personal views on gay marriage will you automatically apply your personal views to a gay rights issue that comes before you as a judge? Or will you recuse yourself–from hearing such matters because of the strong nature of your  personal views?

The Weekly–by pulling their endorsement because of Mr. Pogue’s personal views on one issue –may have the effect of making future candidates even less willing to be forthcoming on the issues–all to the determent of the voters who should be entitled to hear what the judicial candidates have to say–and how they think on these issues.

That’s what I need to know before I vote–not how big your endorsement list is–tells me nothing about how you think on the issues!!!!!

Otherwise these campaigns come down to which candidate can accumulate the longest list of meaningless cop and judge endorsements—essentially an insiders popularity contest–without a real effort to outreach to the public in any meaningful manner. The who has the biggest cop judge endorsement game— truly makes me sick–can’t we have a little more integrity and intellectual honesty than this?

We have a criminal justice system crashing and burning around us–racial genocide in our prison system–wholesale disenfranchisement of a a large percentage of black and brown males ( see: Michelle Alexander’s the New Jim Crow) and you folks running for judge insult all of us by your run for the meaningless endorsements game.

And how dare you–which every candidate suggested this–claims race isn’t an issue in this judicial campaign (SF Daily Journal Friday May 25, 2012 article: Santa Clara judge hopefuls, say race isn’t factor in election)..

They all violated the the voters’ right to know ( first amend right)–at the judicial debates on Thursday –as far as I am concerned–and I let them know–so far not one of them has stepped to the plate and admitted they misrepresented their ability to respond to direct questions.

If you want to see the blatant misrepresentation–the debate/forum was taped for future showing.

They hide behind a  judicial Canon 5–that they all falsely claimed wouldn’t allow then to answer questions like— do you support or oppose Gay Marriage-?

In any event, enough for now–I invite questions–comments from all concerned –re these so critical issues–that deserve better development than this campaign has thus far provided. So far all  5 candidates get a big D -.

” Read Republican Party v White http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/01-521.ZS.html. and then tell me where you stand on answering questions”

2 Replies to “Santa Clara County Judicial Candidates Need to Answer our Relevant Questions”

  1. Aram,

    I believe it to be extremely important to determine where the “Big Five” corporate judicial candidates stand on a wide variety of issues as mentioned.

    If we don’t, then we have no idea if we will be electing the “Bernie Madoff’s”/Judges to an already broken and sometimes scandalous judicial system as illustrated in the following story from the archives.

    If you don’t get any real answers may I suggest you call small claims Commissioner Gregory Saldivar and have them all towed away……

    Tow Truck Driver Gets 14-Years In Prison For Scam

    SAN JOSE, Calif. —
    A tow truck driver was sentenced to 14-years in prison Friday for filing bogus lawsuits against hundreds of people after hauling cars they no longer owned and charging fees for storage and towing.

    A Santa Clara County judge on called 67-year-old Vincent Cardinalli and his family “worse than Bernie Madoff” Friday for a scam the court system failed to catch for years, the San Jose Mercury News reported.

    Cardinalli was convicted after pleading no contest to 99 felony counts of fraud. Over the years, he was awarded more than $1 million by a small claims court commissioner who sided with him in all but two of the fraudulent suits.

    He or a member of his family would tow vehicles from the driveways of private homes or apartment lots, prosecutors alleged. He would wait for storage and tow fees to add up, then sue the former car owner in small claims court, authorities said.

    When the victims challenged Cardinalli in court proceedings, court testimony revealed that small claims Commissioner Gregory Saldivar sided with Cardinalli.

    “Madoff ripped off people who were greedy; they ripped off ordinary folks who were just trying to put food on the table,” said Judge Gilbert T. Brown said at Cardinalli’s sentencing.

    Many of Cardinalli’s victims were low- or middle-income residents who did not have the means to adequately fight the suits. When they did, they found no sympathy from Saldivar.

    The tide turned against Cardinalli in 2005, when he sued State Farm Insurance for fees on cars the firm no longer owned.

    A young attorney fresh out of law school, Greg Adler, worked for the company that sold State Farm the cars, and was immediately suspicious of the number of lawsuits filed by the Cardinallis.

    He called defendants and gathered thousands of documents detailing the abuse, and convinced prosecutors to file charges.

    Cardinalli’s 33-year-old son Paul Greer was also sentenced to eight years after he pleaded no contest to 58 felony counts. Cardinalli’s daughter, Rosemary Ball, 36, was convicted of three felony counts and his son-in-law, one felony count.

    Both must wear an electronic monitoring device.

    Saldivar has been investigated by the court, but is still handling cases.

  2. Glad to see my tow-scam case is causing people in Santa Clara County to carefully consider who gets on the bench.

Comments are closed.