DA: Peterson TV ad blisters O’Malley

Contra Costa District Attorney candidate Mark Peterson is airing a sharply negative, 30-second TV ad about his opponent, Dan O’Malley.

Watch it on www.thefactsaboutdan.com or below.

The ad says:

“Roy Gordon… you don’t know him. District Attorney Candidate Dan O’Malley does. Roy Gordon is a six time felon, a meth dealer… imprisoned for molesting a 14-year old girl. When Gordon was released, he bludgeoned a man with a sledgehammer… attorney Dan O’Malley defended him… And it was Dan O’Malley’s law firm who cut a sweetheart deal to let Gordon free. Three months later… Gordon invaded an innocent family’s home… over 30 shots were fired. Dan O’Malley is not qualified to be our next District Attorney.”

The factual content is accurate with one exception, says my colleague, Times reporter John Simerman. Gordon is accused of being involved in the home invasion but that has not been proven.

It’s a scathing ad that goes the heart of Peterson’s campaign theme, that a defense attorney is an inappropriate choice for District Attorney.

O’Malley has tried to compensate for his client list through an emphasis on his nearly six years as a Superior Court judge and his representation of people whose family members were victimized and killed by criminals.

But let’s face it, a defense attorney doesn’t always attract the nicest of people. Some people are innocent, of course, but many are not.

Lisa Vorderbrueggen

  • RR, Uninvited Columnist

    This race is disgraceful, even in the context of the Great Mudslide of ’10. Mark Peterson knows the ethics of defense counsel; he is deliberately playing to ignorance and fear. Unless you accept the premise that the criminal justice system is utterly corrupt, the last person to blame is defense counsel.

  • Elwood

    Peterson should be ashamed.

    But that’s unlikely.

    He obviously has no shame.

  • Truth Hurts

    Elwood- Dano should be ashamed! The facts are clear and the transcripts exist as to his involvement in the Roy Gordon Cluster. The facts the Black’s were victims of a home invasion is incredible.

    Moreover, the fact that Dan allowed a two-bit hooker to gin up a false allegations against Gressett is outrageous and crossed the ethical line.

    As for Dan being a “victims right advocate” is situational at best. In 2008, Dan represented a Drunk Driver who killed a friend in a drunk driving crash.

    Your friend,


  • Truthclubber

    Hellwad — you wouldn’t know the meaning of the word “shame” if it was jammed up your *** the way Richard Gere used to treat gerbils…

    That said, O’Malley didn’t have a gun placed to his “private practice” head — he actively chose (like an adult) to take on cases like that scumbag, Roy Gordon.

    What part of “No, Mr. Gordon, just as Starbuck’s refuses the right to serve anyone coffee, I refuse to serve you a free ticket out of jail” don’t you grok the concept of, Hellwad?

    What O’Malley’s love of billable hours sewed him, now shall he reap…

    Pick your clients (and your personal standards and ethics) well…especially if you would seek to higher office.

  • RR, Uninvited Columnist

    Truthie, your high ethical standards would have amused Willie Brown, to say nothing of Edward Bennett Williams, Alan Dershowitz, most Supreme Court justices and John Adams.

  • John W

    Sleezy ad. All other things being equal, experience as a criminal defense attorney should be a plus, not a disqualification for DA. My problem with the Gordon matter is not the character of the client or the fact that O’Malley’s firm got him out on bail before the home invasion in Pittsburg. It’s the alleged unholy alliance among O’Malley’s firm, people in the DA’s office handling the Gressett matter, the judge handling the Gordon case and Judge Ann O’Malley’s office. Even if I thought O’Malley to be the best-qualified candidate, the potential for conflicts or appearance of conflict between the DA and the courts would be a source of concern. The messy dots in the Gordon and Gressett cases seem to justify that concern.

  • Rick K.

    “A district attorney shall not during his incumbency defend or assist in the defense of, or act as counsel for, any person accused of any crime in any county,” says part #26540 of the Government law of California. Mr. O’Malley now defends criminal defendants, an apparently lucrative practice that he’ll have to give up if he is elected to the office that he seeks. There must be someone out there who would make a better district attorney than these two clowns!

  • RF

    This Willie Horton knock off is a sad sign of Peterson’s moral compass. Talk about doing anything to reach higher office…

    I love how the Peterson Jester’s chime in. I bet Mary Jo Rossi is writing their responses… that woman is a piece of work.

  • Elwood

    Re#3 Toothsucker

    Thank you so much for introducing Richard Gere and gerbils into the discourse.

    It’s about what I would expect of you.

  • Elwood

    Re: #5

       /əˈlɛdʒd, əˈlɛdʒɪd/ Show Spelled[uh-lejd, uh-lej-id] Show IPA
    declared or stated to be as described; asserted: The alleged murderer could not be located for questioning.
    doubtful; suspect; supposed: The alleged cure-all produced no results when it was tested by reputable doctors.

    Kind of like the alleged conspiracy in your post, John W.

  • John W

    Re #9

    It’s not like I made this stuff up. Being a relative newcomer to the area, I was not familiar with all the references that have been made to O’Malley’s cases (or those of his firm). Since I have nothing against defense attorneys becoming DA’s, I tended to disregard them. Then, I decided to check out The E.B Express story that had been mentioned. I’m not in a position to evaluate the quality of the journalism in that story, so I was careful to use the word “alleged.” If the points in the story are untrue, out of context, misleading or whatever, please do enlighten me as to why my concerns are invalid.

  • anon

    John W,

    The Roy Gordon matter is the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the Gressett story. The alleged victim in that case did not go to the police, she instead went directly to O’Malley’s firm, then O’Malley went to the top brass at the DA’s office with the allegations against Gresset. Sequeira, Kochly, Baker and O’Malley sat on the whole thing for four months before police were finally contacted. If the allegations against Gressett are true these four guys placed every female DA and every victim Gressett dealt with in jeopardy for those four months the alleged crime went unreported.

    It is noteworthy that the judge who granted Gordon bail has been on the bench a little over two years and is a former CCDA who was definitely in the “boys club.” Surely O’Malley’s wife, the presiding judge, had a hand in directing the Gordon case to that particular “friendly” courtroom.

    Why was the prostitute that lied about Gressett to get Gordon out on bail only polygraphed once she recanted???? She passed the polygraph by the way. Why is O’Malley making such a spirited effort to fight the subpoena for his phone records regarding the Gressett matter???

  • John W

    Re: #9


    I’m not normally big on conspiracies and stringing together imaginary dots. I have no connection to either of these guys and couldn’t care less who is Dem or Repub for what is supposed to be a nonpartisan job. If my political biases factored into it, I certainly wouldn’t be for Peterson. But I care deeply about integrity in the justice system. So far, I have not seen anybody even try to refute the implications of the E.B. Express story.

  • REW

    No mention in this article who is financing these commercials. In fact, they are being financed by developers and a local garbage company. Developers, and a single garbage company, are the primary backers of the Mark Peterson for District Attorney campaign. Peterson has no grass roots support whatsoever, he has no campaign workers,no campaign donors to speak of (accept developers). Peterson, in fact, is the only candidate ever to bring this sleazy developer and garbage money into a District Attorney’s race. I mean no candidate has ever tried to parlay thier ties to developers and garbage company owners into the DA’s job, or the Sherrifs job either. These are law enforcement job, not jobs for gas bag politicians like Peterson. Barf. I mean when I think about Peterson trying to buy the DA’s job I just want to barf

  • D. Noodle


    I am so tired of hearing about who the developers and the garbage companies being the sole financiers for Peterson’s campaign. Do you know that people are limited to a $1675 donation for the primary and the election? Did you know that Seeno has given O’Malley money?

    Go to contracostatimes.com/campaign-finance, copy and paste the donations with which you have a disagreement!!!! Put the facts out there. Anyone and everyone can see that what you claim is a bunch of crap!!!!!!!

  • D. Noodle


    Match me….

    Directly from the campaign-finance records:

    Dan O’Malley NP CC Co. District Attorney Bob Kochly for DA Martinez CA District Attorney Contra Costa County $1,675

    Dan O’Malley NP CC Co. District Attorney Bob Kochly for DA Martinez CA District Attorney Contra Costa County $1,500

    Dan O’Malley NP CC Co. District Attorney Paul Sequelra Martinez CA Deputy District Attorney Contra Costa County $1,000

    Dan O’Malley NP CC Co. District Attorney Paul Sequeira Martinez CA Deputy District Attorney Contra Costa County $150

    Dan O’Malley NP CC Co. District Attorney Paul Sequeira Martinez CA Deputy District Attorney Contra Costa County $150

    Dan O’Malley NP CC Co. District Attorney Brian Baker Martinez CA Attorney Contra Costa County District Attorney’s Office $975

    Dan O’Malley NP CC Co. District Attorney Brian Baker Martinez CA Attorney Contra Costa County District Attorney’s Office $500

    Dan O’Malley NP CC Co. District Attorney Brian Baker Martinez CA Attorney Contra Costa County District Attorney’s Office $200

    I think we can all agree that the CCDA’s office is a wreck. The top three guys there are shoveling money into Dan’s campaign. Why? Because they know he will maintain the frat house that they have built!!!!!!! Why would you support the guy that is supported by the people who drove the office into the ground?????!!!!!!

  • RF

    I have always wondered why people use more than one question mark or apostrophe to prove a point.

    Mary Jo Rossi has no ethics.

    Mary Jo Rossi has no ethics!!!!!

    seems to say the same thing to me.

  • Djundrcover

    D. Noodle,

    Outstanding work. The fact is O’malley is supported by the good ole boys club and a bunch of defense lawyers who know O’Malley will hook their clients up with sweetheart deals if elected. We just can’t trust a defense attorney, the Peterson TV ad says it all.

    And who cares if Peterson has been given money by developers and the garbage company. Go back and check his many years of service to Concord. There has never once been a conflict of interest.

    Time for O’Malley to fold up shop and conceed this one.

    Elwood, 4 more weeks dude, and pot will be legal. Stay in your parents basement til then…

  • Djundrcover

    Ok RF, i’ll play along.

    Please give specific examples of what Mary Jo has done that is unethical. Specific examples please.

  • D. Noodle


    It is an exclamation point… not an apostrophe. Some people choose to use more than one instance of punctuation for emphasis. If you don’t know the difference between an apostrophe and an exclamation point, you should probably limit your comments to the Sesame Street or Barney boards!!!!!!!! Get it???????

  • Elwood

    Oh, Djundrcover, you such a smart boy!

    Anyone can tell it by your posts!

    And you a policeman too!

    Your mommy and daddy must be very proud!

  • Oscar F

    D Noodle:
    Go back to the campaign finance site and look at WHICH Seeno gave money. Albert (the owner of the construction company) has not given O’Malley any money. Someone with the same last name did. Get your facts straight.

    The senior Deputy DAs have given money to O’Malley because they’re in a position to change things! They have an outgoing DA this is their opportunity to make things work. They will not work under Peterson. They want a DA they can trust, and they couldn’t possibly trust Peterson after his fabulous stint as a supervisor. Never trust a snake. Plus, he’s a small time city councilman with small man complex.

    I heard Mary Jo and Mark are a match made in heaven: predictable, narrow-minded with absolutely no morals. Is it true they’re getting a little hot and heavy???

  • Truth Hurts


    The prostitute did not pass the polygraph examination; however what is more interesting and certainly unreported; this same prostitute was arrested in the Roy Gordon home invasion robbery. She was the female that allegedly knocked on the door. She spent several days in jail, but was never charged.

    DJ is correct, many of O’Malley supporters are criminal defense lawyers, not from the public bar, but from the private bar. Having access to the DA is critical to a private practice. Most criminal cases are flat fee’d so if you can resolve a case in 2 appearances vs 20, or even prevent filing of charges— makes the case more profitable.

    O’Malley campaign treasurer is a criminal defense attorney and a former deputy district attorney.

    The fact that Dan O’Malley participated in the Roy Gordon matter, (Proven beyond a reasonable doubt) clearly demonstrate a critical error in judge, thus suitability to hold the Office of District Attorney.

    And lets not forget, O’Malley was the private attorney who facilitated the accuser in the Gressett matter. He denied any involvement until his August 4th sworn testimony where he admitted involvement.

  • Djundrcover


    In most cases yes, the senior DA’s giving money would be an example of leadership. But not in this case. Baker and Sequiera ‘s hands are so dirty with the Gressett witness tampering case (Roy Gordon and the hooker) that when Peterson win’s, their careers are over. So they have no choice. It’s the ninth inning for these guys and they are way behind.

    Mark will clean up that office and I would imagine he will start with those two guys.

  • D. Noodle

    Oscar F,

    Thomas A. Seeno gave Dan O’Malley Money!!! He is listed as a developer. His middle initial is A. for Albert, his father’s name. Go to fund race and you will see the same Thomas Seeno listed as VP of Seeno Home and Homebuilder-Developer AD Seeno Homes. Oscar, if you are going to question my facts please make sure yours are correct!

    From the campaign-finance records:

    Dan O’Malley NP CC Co. District Attorney Thomas Seeno Walnut Creek CA Developer $1,000

    You state that the senior DA’s are giving money to Dan because they are in a position to change things. If the current administration wanted change, wouldn’t they just change things themselves? They are the ones in charge right now. They are also the ones that have driven the office into the ground. Your argument makes no sense.

  • Rich

    This ad should end with the disclaimer; This slimy commercial, on behalf of slimy career politician Mark Peterson, was paid for by Mark Peterson’s slimy-barfo develper- pal over-lords. Yes, I think that would sum things up nicely. Peterson is geting a lot of money from from developers, You can be sure of that. They are just about the only people backing his slime campaign for District Attorney. Developers, and Concord Disposal. Concord Disposal, in fact, has a long history of providing in-kind campaign support to politicians that they buy – like Mark Peterson – support that doesn’t wind up in campaign statements – such as political polling etc. Everybody knows it, the Contra Costa Times did a big feature on this ten years ago – I recall Dan Borenstein wrote the story. Basically Mark Peterson is a “cheater”, and his big backers in this campaign – garbage and development are also “cheaters”. If Peterson is elected, Contra Costa County will be getting a DA that “cheats”. I mean it’s no accident the entire political leadership and the entire law enforcement community oppose this gasbag Peterson campaign for DA. This job belongs to the people, not to Peterson’s developer pal over-lords.

  • Djundrcover

    Rich, you’re going be even more fun than Elwood. Overlord is one word, but in all fairness, I had to look it up, since I have a life. Thanks for putting down your teenage video game for a second to join the discussion. So from your parent’s basement, you were able to find out that Mark has received campaign funds from local businessmen. And what is your point. Those businessmen have just as much of a right to contribute as Dan’s family and defense attorney friends do. You have no specifics at all, just name calling. Do some real research and then you can sit down with the adults.

    And to use absolutes like “entire law enforcement” and “entire political leadership” is wrong. Mark has plenty of support from law enforcement and local politicians, but that does not make anyone qualified to be DA. Who cares about the endorsements? Mark has been a prosecutor for 25 years and Dan a criminal defense attorney. Mark is a qualified prosecutor who cares about his community and Dan works 40 hours a week trying to keep suspects out of jail.

    And if you had taken the opportunity to read the posts above yours, those developers have given to O’Malley, of course unless you think O’Malley lied on his financial disclosure forms.

    Dan spent over $10,000 on polling, not Mark, so you are wrong again there. And Dan is polling because he was crushed by Mark in the primary.

    Let the marijuana haze settle and then trying doing a little research and come up with some specifics. Then come back to the table with the grown ups.

  • rich

    With this ad I think Mark Peterson will run strong – really strong – at all the trailer courts in Contra Costa County. This ad of Peterson’s is just so slimy you want to barf, I mean only trailer trash would approve an ad like this. No, I take that back, only a “swamp thing” would put out an ad like this. If Peterson win’s in November he will will be forever known as the Swamp-thing-DA that sprung from the trailer courts”. I mean this ad is just so lacking in class it’s unbelievable. Judge Dan O’Malley, is my former criminal law teacher at Los Medanos College. At the time he was working at the DA’s office, and he taught criminal law at night to students who were going to the police academy. Looking back it’s clear to me who did this because he was so passionate about improving the criminal law skills of these young-would be cops, he cared so much to give up his nights to make our community a safer place. Judge O’Malley, if you are reading this, thanjks for the “A”, and don’t worry about losing in November. No way voters will elect a “swamp thing” to be our next DA.

  • Djundrcover


    Please describe for all of us what specifically in inaccurate with the ad. What details or facts are wrong. Here is my take from the ad.

    1. Dan O’Malley is a criminal defense attorney. Undisputed
    2. Dan O’Malley knows Roy Gordon. Undisputed
    3. Dan O’Malley represents Roy Gordon. Undisputed
    4. Dan O’Malley went to his best friends, Brian Baker and Paul Sequeira to work a sweetheart deal for Gordon in exchange for Gressett info. Undisputed

    So what is factually wrong with the ad? Let’s hear is Rich. Make a sensible argument. The problem for you is that it is all correct and you just don’t like your candidates job and past.

  • D. Noodle

    Will somebody please post the donations from the “barfo-slimy-overlords” that are financing Peterson’s campaign. Quit talking and POST THE FACTS!!!!!!!!!! What a bunch of whiny propagandists!!!!!!!!!! Back your #%!@ up people!!!

  • Elwood

    Careful, Rich don’t run afoul of Djundercover, or he’ll accuse you of living in your parents basement and smoking weed, as he did me. It seems to be what he considers a really cute shtick.

    My parents would really be surprised to learn that I’m living in their basement, considering that they’ve been dead for about 30 years.

    I used to smoke a joint every ten years or so, but I’m now about 20 years overdue.

    It is terrifying to think that this fool is a police officer. Hopefully not in any jurisdiction anywhere near me. BART or the college district come to mind. I can’t imagine that any real police force would hire him. Or he could just be lying. living out his fantasy.

  • Rick K.

    In a county with more than 1 million population, with hundreds of presumably competent lawyers, why must we select between these two clowns? Peterson is a University of Denver law graduate (hardly top-tier). O’Malley is a JFK law school graduate (not even accredited by the American Bar Association). Most job applications submitted by most JFK graduates are sent directly to the trash can. I would think that O’Malley is one of the few (if not the only) JFK law graduates in the D.A.’s office. How did O’Malley even get his job in 1987 with the D.A.’s office — did his Daddy (a former D.A.) pull a few strings (a la the George Bushs) and get him in? D.A. offices across California are notorious for their nepotism and cronyism.

  • John W

    Re #32

    DU Law is not top tier like Harvard, Stanford or Boalt. But it is fully accredited with a fine academic reputation and a long history. More like Hastings. There’s night and day difference between DU and JFK. That said, when attorneys have been away from school as long as Peterson and O’Malley, I judge them based on their careers, not their alma mater. There have been attorneys graduated from top tier schools who couldn’t pass the bar and others from lesser schools who aced it the first time. It’s about the individual.

  • REW

    For Mark Peterson to approve an ad like this – targeting Dan O’Malley -a distinquished longtime judge, prosecutor, and community college instructor, who comes from a distinquished legal family, is as low as you can go. I think I’m on target characterizing Mark Peterson as a “Swamp-Thing”, regardless of what these other people are saying.
    In fact, since Peterson’s whole campaign is being financing by developers, I think you can call Mark Peterson, ” The Creature from The Developers Lagoon”….., yes, I like that.
    Dan O’Malley, is my former instructor at Los Medanos College. as I said earlier. After working hard all day at the DA’s office – he was a DA then – he used to go over to LMC at night to teach criminal law to future cop’s attending the police academy. He did this for many years. He didn’t do it for the money, or because he didn’t have something better to do, he taught at LMC because he wanted to help future cops develops criminal law skills, because he wanted to help young people, and because he wanted to make the community a safer place.
    I am proud to be supporting Dan O’Malley for District Attorney. This Mark Peterson fellow – and his campaign consultants – seem to think this ad is a “game changer” but I don’t think so. Dan O’Malley is just an oustanding guy, people know it, and in the end they will vote for him in November.

  • Hypocritical

    What bothers me is Peterson circumventing the sign laws in pleasant hill by cutting his illegal signs at 4×6 in half a few inches apart. If such a upstanding DA candidate looks for legal loop holes in sign ordinances….what will he do for criminals if he becomes DA?

  • Djundrcover


    Check your facts, here is a website for the recent campaign finance contributions. Yes, the Seeno’s are on there, but check out the others, most of them have nothing to do with development. http://www.contracostatimes.com/campaign-finance

    As for the commercial, this is politics, why are you surprised by this. Name one thing in the ad that is wrong or inaccurate. You can’t, because it is all fact based. Nothing of what the commercial says is wrong. I think the O’Malley camp doesn’t like it because it is true and there is nothing they can say to rebuke it. But if you can come up with evidence something on the commerical is wrong, bring it forward.

    I agree with you, Dan is a nice guy. He taught at my academy, was involved with local law enforcement..etc. No one else i’d rather sit around and have a beer with. But this campaign is not about who the nicest guy is, it is about who is more qualified. And Mark wins that one.

    And Mark doesn’t need a game chaging ad, check out the primary results, 47% Peterson. Do some research on who is funding the candidates. Seeno has given money to O’Malley as well.

  • Elwood

    Peterson is a weasel.

    If you don’t believe me, just look at him.

  • Don’t revictimize victims

    Re: 35.

    Excellent point.

    People who are proud of how they can find a loophole in the letter of the law, but rape the spirit of the law, are not to be trusted…ever.

  • Vote for Dan O’Malley! This letter is lengthy because it contains specific information that some would not write about in a public forum, but it is worth your time to read. My name is Jack Harris and I retired from law enforcement after 24 years, having been a Sergeant in Pittsburg PD, an Inspector in the Contra Costa County DA’s Office, and having gained work experience from a multitude of different law enforcement positions. I have now been a private investigator and criminal defense investigator for 18 years. I have also been a police association president during some of the most politically charged times possible for police officers, and know first hand that police associations, like many employee groups, don’t always speak for the majority.

    These are reasons and encouragement for everyone to take the time to vote, and to vote for Dan O’Malley. These are examples of why ethical and criminal corruption, and cronyism, are real in Contra Costa County. This is also my response to the CPOA letter this month by Sgt. Jeff Krieger and their endorsement of Mark Peterson.

    It is significant that the Concord Police Officers Association (CPOA) is the only police association in the county to have endorsed Peterson, and that Peterson is a Concord City Councilman. Politics often has a bearing on which Police Associations endorse which candidates, but Peterson’s inability to have more than one of the County’s estimated 19 Police Associations (CCCDSA included) endorse him, is unusual and probably very significant. It is emphasized that all of the other Police Associations endorsed O’Malley.

    The CPOA letter is unprofessional, lacks common sense, and does not logically seem representative of most of the officers in Concord PD, nor in any law enforcement agency. The letter ridiculously and blatantly relies on O’Malley being a criminal defense attorney as a reason not to vote for him.

    The letter says nothing of importance! It merely reiterates the belief among a few that prosecutors, their investigators, and the police are the good guys, and that defense attorneys and their investigators are the bad guys. In actuality, some of the best defense attorneys have made the best prosecutors and DA’s, and some of the best prosecutors have made the best defense attorneys. I also know with certainty that some of my retired law enforcement friends have become excellent criminal defense investigators, some of which have returned to law enforcement and done equally well.

    The term, “Attorney at Law”, has an inherent, easily understandable, and obvious meaning, the emphasis being on the words “at Law”. All lawyers, whether prosecutors, defense attorneys, or otherwise, are expected to be honest, competent, professional, and to always represent their clients, whether the State of CA or private parties, in a manner consistent with advocating the complete truth. This is extremely important in criminal law, because peoples freedoms are at stake. If a person is so prejudice or naive to believe that law enforcement is either always right, or always wrong, then they are dangerously wrong, and need to never be a juror. Some people never understand this until they or someone close to them gets charged with a crime, and this can happen to the best of us. Criminals are not comprised solely of street and gang thugs, they exist in every walk of life and profession, and at all levels.

    The fact the CPOA “takes serious exception” in reference to O’Malley’s comments about police and prosecutors understanding domestic violence victims and perpetrators, indicates that the CPOA believes that the police are the only authority on the subject, and that how dare a non law enforcement type have any opinion regarding this issue. However, because O’Malley’s actual stated opinions regarding domestic violence are based on his legal experience as a Superior Court Judge, Deputy District Attorney, and criminal defense attorney, which is far more experience then that of Peterson, and because his opinions regarding domestic violence are shared by most law enforcement administrators, who consistently mandate training in this area for their personnel, and from my own experience have done so since at least the early 1970s, it is obvious that the CPOA picked an ineffective topic for their letter.

    O’Malley’s actual statements: “When (Horowitz) called me, I said I would help out because many law enforcement officers and seasoned prosecutors don’t understand the subtleties of the larger issue,” O’Malley said. “As a society, we often blame the victims rather than focus on the crime. We say she shouldn’t have had a drink. We say she shouldn’t have been out at midnight. We say she should not have worn provocative clothing. But we should be teaching the batterers not to batter. We should not blame the victim.”

    Don’t tell me that the excuses stated above by O’Malley have not been told to victims of domestic violence by police officers, because I know this has occurred from both my experience as a police officer and as a private investigator. And also don’t tell me that teaching batterers not to batter is not a priority in law enforcement, the courts, and in the organizations that do exactly that, teach batterers not to batter.

    CPOA version of O’Malley’s statements: [M]any law enforcement officers and seasoned prosecutors don’t understand the subtleties of the larger issue [of violence upon women] “… [W]e should be teaching the batterers not to batter. We should not blame the victim.”

    The CPOA distorted the context by leaving out the rest of what O’Malley said, which was: “As a society, we often blame the victims rather than focus on the crime. We say she shouldn’t have had a drink. We say she shouldn’t have been out at midnight. We say she should not have worn provocative clothing.”

    You can read the full story regarding these statements at:


    Based on cases I have worked as a private investigator, domestic violence victims, and victims of other crimes, are sometimes also told by the police that there is nothing the police can do to help them, with or without an explanation, or that the police have to witness an assault in order to arrest the suspect.

    The CPOA’s obvious attempt to slander O’Malley because he and his partners “vigorously” defend people charged with crimes, including domestic violence defendants, is nonsense. All attorneys, whether working for the prosecution, defense, civil or otherwise, should work as vigorously as possible for us, and are typically paid very well to do so.

    CPOA Letter: “If you have been arrested or charged with domestic violence or spousal abuse “… [t]he attorney’s at O’Connor, Runckel and O’Malley “… will vigorously defend you to make sure your rights are protected.”

    The CPOA letter reflects poorly on the CPOA , Concord PD, the City of Concord, and on City Councilman Mark Peterson, regarding the mind set and training of their police officers, and in the case of Peterson, the DA’s Office. People are still innocent until proven guilty, and it is the jury, not the CPOA or Peterson, that makes such a determination. Peterson knows better than this, and if not then he should not be an attorney, let alone the DA.

    The last pertinent sentence in the CPOA letter is: “Victims’ rights enjoy a top priority in every one of our criminal investigations”.

    No one can honestly say that every victim’s rights in a criminal investigation are given top priority. Even with the best of intentions, this is not consistently possible. Add to this that some police officers will “kiss off” cases in order to avoid the time required for a thorough investigation and report, and it is a certainty that the rights of all victims are not given priority. I was a street sergeant for several years, I knew several other supervisors and watch commanders, and most would probably agree that one of their most important functions regarding cases reported was making certain that investigations were properly conducted and reports were properly written, particularly when supervising certain officers who had displayed a pattern to the contrary. They would probably also agree that the term, “Kiss Off”, is a common term used when a police officer intentionally fails to take appropriate action.

    O’Malley has significant experience as a prosecutor, judge, and defense attorney, and such diversified experience relative to being the DA far surpasses that of Peterson. Peterson has obviously tried to win votes by portraying O’Malley as a weak candidate because O’Malley has defended people charged with crimes. The Peterson Camp though escalates and distorts the truth here by using the term, “Dan O’Malley Defends Criminals”, apparently not caring that those charged with a crime are innocent until proven guilty, and that these comments portray Peterson himself as a right wing extremist who would make a better dictator than DA.

    A small percentage of law enforcement and the public will always strike out at criminal defense attorneys and investigators, as if they were immoral and unethical liars and cheats who would do anything to win their cases. I have found the exact opposite to exist in Contra Costa County, not among the majority, but definitely among enough to make these remarks. I believe that the vast majority of law enforcement personnel are honest, professional, ethical and hard working. I also believe though that the there remains significantly less honest, professional, ethical and hard working law enforcement personnel, who have climbed the latter and are now in control of the actions of others.

    Example: Consider the history of the Pittsburg Police Department, and how the a police administration patterned itself after a Mafia Godfather and his lieutenants and soldiers, having held meetings where the Godfather and his servants exchanged kisses, and then laid out plans for achieving and retaining power by ruthlessly assassinating the characters of those who opposed them. Consider the allegations of search warrant tips offs in drug cases and other cases, some having been reasonably proven. Consider that persons suspected of organized and other sophisticated crime, were ignored, inclusive of organized crime groups like the Hells Angels. Consider that if you worked narcotics and in some way indicated an interest in such activities, that you might find yourself assigned to meaningless surveillance in downtown Pittsburg for the purpose of arresting people for drinking alcohol in public, or working in the downtown substation with orders not to leave. Consider that in order for an administration like this to survive, that it had to be comprised of easily manipulated people, and that the best way to do this was to hire misfits. Consider that some of us believed that such an evil police administration would eventually lead to more serious misfeasance and crimes, even murder, being committed by Pittsburg Police Officers. Now research the murder of Cynthia Kemp by former Pittsburg Police Officers Eric Bergen and George Elsie, who along with two civilians also committed a number of armed robberies.

    Of extreme importance, understand that the Contra Costa County DA’s Office had an opportunity to put an end to this Police Administration, by prosecuting the Chief of Police for lying to their Office during the DA’s investigation of the Police Department in 1982, which most certainly would have resulted in the Police Chief’s firing, and eventually the rest of his group. The DA did not prosecute, dirty politics reigned, and Cynthia Kemp wound up dead in an execution manner, her body mutilated with multiple gunshots, because all four of the responsibles agreed to take part.

    We need a DA who will take immediate and thorough action when informed of suspected illegal and or grossly unacceptable behavior by law enforcement, or among anyone else who might otherwise enjoy protection and immunity because of their political and or financial stature. Additionally, particularly in cases involving public servants, we need such cases publicized for two reasons: first, so the public will be informed and then be able to provide whatever information they have related to the investigation being conducted, and second, so that the public will be informed of the outcome of the case. The latter helps clear the investigated person(s) names (s) when no further action is to be taken, but it also alerts the public to further criminal and or civil actions to be taken. In cases where responsible person(s) are criminally convicted and or civilly held liable, public dissemination of this information is absolutely necessary because it serves as a deterrent for other public servants who are prone to violate the law. Politicians have taken significant steps in the last 25 plus years to conceal their dirty laundry from the public. This is wrong because the public has every right to be informed of the dirty laundry that emanates from government agencies. When I attended the police academy, which was 40 years ago, we were taught that law enforcement personnel stood on a pedestal. We were taught the reason for this was that if you fell of the pedestal, it was intended for you and your agency to suffer public humiliation, thus creating a strong example for other law enforcement personnel to solemnly and wholeheartedly abide by their Sworn Oath and the Law Enforcement Code of Ethics.

    I support O’Malley for DA because the cronyism and lack of professionalism in the DA’s Office is appalling and an insult to the public. Cronyism and corruption have been rampant in the DA’s Office, and throughout County and Local Departments, particularly in certain law enforcement agencies, for many years. If O’Malley is elected and ends this problem in the DA’s Office, other administrators in the County will be forced to do the same or risk the DA’s Office doing it for them.

    Although O’Malley’s broad experience base would be an asset to him serving as DA, his personality would be an equally important asset. He is open minded, and I don’t see this in Peterson. As a civilian, I’ve had the unfortunate experience of trying to get information regarding unsolved homicides investigated by the DA’s Office, and because this information indicated a probable investigative disregard of this information by a local police department, I was met with some of the most disrespectful, antagonistic and insulting behavior that I have ever encountered from a prosecutor. I won’t vote for Peterson when I believe that he probably would not have the courage to take on law enforcement when appropriate, or for that matter something deemed politically incorrect.

    Considering the obvious existence of “The Good Ole Boy Network”, O’Malley was a Deputy DA for 12 years, and Peterson has been a Deputy DA for 25 years, including promotion to Assistant DA, and significant supervisory responsibilities. What has Peterson been doing about “The Good Ole Boy Club” for the last 25 years? He hasn’t run for DA until now, and the problem is still there! O’Malley has significantly less exposure to the problem of cronyism in the DA’s Office then does Peterson, and therefore hasn’t yet had an opportunity to deal with it.

    Don’t assume that because O’Malley’s father, Bill O’Malley, was the DA during the previously described investigation of Pittsburg PD, that this should have a bearing on my support of O’Malley. Based on having later worked as a DA Inspector, I found that the DA Inspector responsible for the Pittsburg PD investigation was ethically corrupt, and therefore I can’t overlook the strong possibility that he distorted the truth on behalf of Pittsburg PD during his investigation. I know that he did so when I reported illegal conduct in the DA’s Office to him as a DA Inspector.

    The use of the term “cronyism” is sometimes a light hearted and cowardly way of saying corruption. Corruption has existed and been ignored in this County for many years, and the DA is responsible for putting a stop to it. My employment as an Inspector in the DA’s Office was ended by firing me in order to protect the cronyism and corruption that existed. I had reported to the Chief Inspector, who was also responsible for the DA’s investigation of Pittsburg PD, that a Senior Inspector had illegally seized a large amount of money while serving a search warrant, and then lied about the grounds for the seizure in his report. It made no difference that this incident, a crime, and serious civil rights violation, was witnessed by two Inspectors. It made no difference that I had worked at a good level of performance for 362 days of my year long probationary period, and may have been promoted to Senior Inspector in the next few days. It did make a difference that my actions jeopardized “The Good Ole Boy Network” and their interests, and I was therefore discharged within 24 hours of being interviewed by the Chief, with there being no legitimate investigation conducted.

    From the standpoint of expense to the taxpayers, it also made no a difference when the County paid $375,000 to settle my wrongful termination lawsuit, along with probably at least the same amount for their legal defense fees. Because I speak from experience regarding cronyism and corrupt politics in this County, I add that it also made no difference when the City of Pittsburg paid $675,000 to settle my wrongful termination against them, along with paying over a million dollars in legal fees. My point here is that cronyism and corrupt politics needlessly costs the taxpayers allot of money.

    I was diversified in law enforcement, and remain so as a private investigator, having been a criminal defense investigator in many cases, and also having investigated cases for the purpose of criminal prosecution in cases that were ignored by law enforcement. Don’t take the word “ignored” as a personal attack on law enforcement, because such ignorance, which is often based on dishonesty and or incompetence, exists in all legal professions, ie., among private investigators, law enforcement officers, defense attorneys, prosecuting attorneys, judges, in the White house, and even in God’s House. My point here is that there is no “Holier Than Thou” Profession.

    Peterson portrays a prosecutor who will be hard on crime, but Peterson is also a politician by his own professional choice. Prosecutors who throw everything on the wall and file charges for the sake of good publicity, are extremely costly to the taxpayers. An extremely important measure of a good DA is not in all the charges he files, but in the convictions obtained. The remarkable number of dismissals and not guilty verdicts in the County are evidence that the Prosecutors responsible for filing the charges in these cases had ulterior motivations for doing so. We should ethically not tolerate such conduct, and we definitely can’t continue to afford to have our taxes pay for such conduct.

    Dan O’Malley’s broad base of experience as a judge, prosecutor and private attorney makes him by far the most qualified candidate for DA.

    Thank you, Jack Harris