DA: O’Malley responds to Peterson ad

Peterson is a weasel.

Sad how O’Malley and his supporters cannot point to one thing in the Peterson ad that is false. It is not a smear campaign when it is true. Why does O’Malley not want anyone to know what he does for a living? All Peterson did was tell the voters what O’Malley’s current occupation is and the people he associates himself with.

Can someone out there who supports O’Malley please tell us one specific thing false about the Peterson ad.

I can tell you quite a few things false about the O’Malley ad:

O’Malley did originally represent the defendant at a single court hearing. However, Dan had NOTHING to do with Roy getting released (and really, neither did Gordon’s subsequent attorney, Tom O’Connor). During the investigation, it turned out that the defendant had some incriminating information about Mike Gressett (the DA who is currently charged with raping another DA – Gressett is also a close friend of Mark Peterson). The information concerned allegations that Gressett was basically getting free “services” from a prostitute in return for dropping some cases against her. Since there was corroborating information from previous cases, the DA’s office decided to make a deal to secure the testimony. This is something every DA, including Peterson, has had to do because people do not want to be cooperating with the DA’s office while in custody for obvious safety reasons. Additionally, the case against Gordon was pretty weak due to witnesses going sideways and problems of proof.
However, when these allegations about Mike Gressett came to light, O’Malley appropriately recused himself from the case citing a conflict of interest as he was already running for DA. His law partner, Tom O’Connor, took over representing the defendant from that point on.
No one likes to hear that these deals are made, but the reality is that they are, not because of “back-room politics” but because sometimes you have to make tough decisions about the greater good. Can you imagine the public uproar if no one investigated allegations that a DA was dropping cases in exchange for free services from a prostitute? The DA’s office and ONLY the DA’s office cut a deal to let Roy Gordon out of custody to find out their information. Coupled with the fact that they could not prove the case, the Assistant Chief Deputy made the call to release him and find out the information. The release was approved by a judge. Again, Dan O’Malley had nothing to do with Roy getting out. Defense attorneys do not get people out anyway – only DA’s and judges can.
Yes, Roy committed a crime when let out, but to blame Dan because he represented him for one day, is completely disingenuous and false. The Peterson campaign knows the truth, but have chosen to completely misrepresent the facts and blame Dan when they know he had nothing to do with Roy getting out of custody. Notice they have never once posted the information that Dan withdrew as his attorney. It is a last ditch effort of the Peterson campaign to try to win with a false smear campaign.

There are also allegations of incompetence with Peterson’s handling of cases. In 2008 Peterson allowed accused child molester Elidio Gonzalez out of custody when he failed to file extradition paperwork on time. As a supervisor in the DA’s office Sexual Assault unit, it was Peterson’s unit that was the center of the huge scandal related to rape charges against Peterson’s friend Mike Gressett. Peterson was demoted from his position for his lack of supervision and lack of proper handling of the criminal investigation (not just because of “office politics” as he likes to say). Additionally, numerous cases in Peterson’s division had been delayed unnecessarily for years – is that any way to treat victims who have already been through a terrible ordeal? If Peterson can’t run his own department properly, how can he be trusted with running the whole office?

The overwhelming majority of DA’s, plus every major law enforcement agency, have endorsed O’Malley –these are the people who actually know the realities of criminal prosecution and feel he is the right person to lead the office.

Peterson is a weasel.

But then, for apparently inexplicable reasons, some people prefer a weasel.

Thank you, Jen B, for telling the truth.

Weasels and their supporters always lie.

“Off limits to career politicians” —

Gimme a break. Since when? The DA job, here and elsewhere, is a political office. That’s why we vote. Otherwise, it would be appointed. The office is political but nonpartisan. That doesn’t mean the job should or will be handled in a politicized manner. And “career politician?” So, anybody who serves long-term on a school board or city council, with little or no pay and nothing but grief from armchair critics is a “career politician?”

O’Malley is the right person for the job.

Breg, nicely said.

Re: #15. Give me a break. Dan O’Malley went to a bottom-tier law school (not even accredited) by the American Bar Association, yet somehow ended up with a plum job in the D.A.’s office (his father, a former D.A., probably made a well-placed phone call). An effective D.A.’s office would make hiring decisions based on merit, not hire people because Daddy was the Former D.A. Furthermore, O’Malley did not become a judge based on merit (a rigorous appointment process) — instead he just won more votes in a judicial election in 2000, again trading on Daddy’s name. Judicial elections often are won based on name recognition, not merit — Daddy’s name probably made the crucial difference. Then, the worst part, O’Malley mysteriously resigned his judgeship and renounced “public service” in the middle of his term. He has offered no explanation as to why he suddenly resigned from the bench. He renounced public service to become a defense lawyer — helping to keep thugs out of prison based on technicalities and other legal gimmicks. He tries to downplay his shady (and arguably sleazy) defense lawyer practices by instead claiming that he is a “victims’ rights” attorney, which is even more outrageous in my eyes. If our victims’ rights program were effective in Contra Costa County, victims would NOT be forced to hire their own attorneys! THE DA’S OFFICE SHOULD BE EFFECTIVELY REPRESENTING VICTIMS’ INTERESTS! In O’Malley’s twisted world (the way he now earns his money), victims are forced to hire people like him to get the D.A.’s office to do the job it should be doing anyway. He claims to be a “victims’ rights” candidate but I doubt he’ll do anything for victims as a D.A. as that would discourage victims from hiring attorneys like he is now. Finally, all this talk about how O’Malley does not want to “politicize” the DA’s office is completely bogus and dishonest. O’Malley is running for a “nonpartisan” office yet he announces over and over again that the Democratic party has endorsed him, that Democratic officeholders have endorsed him, etc. It’s hypocritical for O’Malley to say “I don’t want to politicize the office” and then turn around and plaster the faces of Torlakson, Miller, Garamendi and DeSaulnier and include a Democratic donkey on his ads.

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:

http://www.ibabuzz.com/politics/2010/09/28/da-candidate-to-consult-on-mel-gibson-lawsuit/

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

I voted for Peterson but was really surprised by the large margin of victory — considering all of O’Malley’s endorsements and the fact that neither candidate is a household name to most voters. I’m curious how the vote looks by precinct — guessing that Concord and neighboring areas came in strong for Peterson due to his visibility on the city council and that O’Malley suffered from not having an equivalent built-in base of support.

PollWorker,

I’m not sure what you are saying about Peterson’s “polling” advantage. How did that contribute his success? What “inside information?” I received roughly equal amounts of propaganda from both candidates, none of which influenced my choice. If anything, it seemed that O’Malley had more signs out there, especially early on. So, I don’t see much evidence that financial resources played a role. I still bet that precinct voting patterns tell the story, with Peterson having the advantage of a strong geographic base (i.e., Concord) in the county.